Kerry & Santorum Co-Sponsor "Workplace Religious Freedom Act"

[Danmel]

Kerry actually co-sponsored a "conscience clause" bill with old Man on Dog to allow pharmacists to refuse to fill "objectionable" scrips! I am speechless.

To the Editor:

"Moralists at the Pharmacy" (editorial, April 3) addressed "scattered reports" of pharmacists refusing to dispense certain medications that conflict with their personal moral or religious beliefs and women seeking to have these prescriptions filled. We believe that there is a solution that accommodates the needs of both parties.

Recently, we introduced the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which clarifies current law to say a person's religious beliefs should be recognized and accommodated in the workplace as long as this does not adversely affect the employer's business or customers.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/12/opinion/l12kerry.html?
Why sponsor with Santorum, of all people? Why not just insist pharmacists do their jobs and not judge?

[rurallib]

1. "John Kerry - you got some 'splaining to do"

Here's an idea - everyone in America can do their jobs as they please. This should be a major boon.
Let's say the cashier at the grocery can decide whether or not to scan those potato chips, the beer and the sugar-loaded cereal. You'll have to go to another store for those. And how about the auto-parts guy who refuses to sell those cool stripes you've always wanted. I am sure we could go on but you get the drift ......

[woodsprite]

3. Did it have something in there

that said as long as someone else is available to fill the script? That part about "as long as it's not" detrimental to the employer or business. Seems to me that lack of a sale would be detrimental to doing business. And there definitely should be something in there that the moralist pharmacists can't hold your script hostage. I've heard at some places, they won't give you the script back.

[TheFarseer]

2. This should not be

if you have a prescription, you should be able to get your meds. If you don't need a prescription, the doctor should tell you that, not the pharmacist. Doesn't this open the door to, say some drug company paying pharmacists to "object to" prescriptions to the competing drug and only fill prescriptions for their drug?

[Dr Ron]

8. Unlikely to be a problem

A drug company making such payoffs would not be acting within this act based upon a pharmacist's religilous beliefs. Both the pay off aspect and the lack of objections iwht a religious background would result in this not falling under the act.

A person could have a religious objection to a class of medications, such as morning after pills, but it would be hard to explain being opposed to moring after pill from Company A while not objecting to dispensing pill from Company B.

[woodsprite]

10. Now that I'm 40+, I was prescribed birth control

for heavy bleeding - heavy enough that my iron was compromised and I was a quarter of a point away from needing a transfusion to bring it back up, 3 points away from where you're heart will stop.

I *WOULD NOT* want a pharmacist telling me he wouldn't fill my script for BC.

I took the surgical route, but my fundie SIL with 5 kids took the BC route. Hmmmmm - wonder what she would say if her dear Walmart pharmacist told her he wouldn't fill her script? I wouldn't want to be near her on a bad hormonal day if she had her firearms within reach.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. Again, you read it wrong.

It says that an employee CANNOT do anything that would be harmful to either the business or its customers based on religious beliefs.

[demnan]

4. Well I feel a "Kerry bashing" coming on

but I'll try to restrain myself. Just don't run this guy again, please.

[Chescher]

5. Gheeesh

What the hell are we coming to?

I mean, really?!

Even my Mom (a good Christian woman) can't understand what the hell is going on with the holier than thou crowd and their need to "morally" govern the rest of us.

C'mon John Kerry?! What the hell???

[Patiod]

6. WTF?

Our company works with Big Pharma. If all of a sudden I decide that Big Pharma's policies conflict with my Quaker values (I don't think they do, by the way, but that's another thread) can I tell my boss "I won't do any work for Big Pharma, it's against my religion?" without getting fired?

Yeah, that will happen.

This "conscience clause" is an attack on women and on sexuality, plain and simple.

As others have pointed out, ad nauseum, vegetarians selling meat and Mormons working at Starbucks won't be protected by this. Only fundies who feel threatened by women's sexuality.

[DulceDecorum]

15. "It is against my conscience

to fill out any request for those who are not of my race.
And I don't want them sitting at my lunch counter either,
but I suppose it is OK for them to ride at the back of the bus
and drink from their own water fountains. Until now, I dared not speak out. Thank you Senator Kerry. May God bless you, Senator Santorum,"
said The Moran.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. You read it wrong.

as long as this does not adversely affect the employer's business or customers.

This is an explicit legislation to proect AGAINST everything you just stated. You read the bill entirely wrong.

[DulceDecorum]

27. I disagree.

http://camelphotos.com/tales_nose.html

[Demeter]

36. It Doesn't Matter How The BIll Reads

It is a BAD BILL. It is FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG AND UNAMERICAN. It is a clear violation of the entire Constitution, not to mention the Bill of Rights. It is a construct that goes against the laws of economics, politics, sociology, psychology, and every other fact-based form of learning that exists. It is an historical non-starter.

KILL THE BILL! KILL THE BILL!

And don't get me mad like this all the time.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

38. What the fuck are you talking about?

No, it's NOT wrong OR unamerican. Did you read the damn thing AT ALL? It's about protecting EVERYONE'S rights and freedoms. Employees get to practice their religion. Consumers get the protections they need to ensure they're not going to be screwed over.

Instead of just getting pissed off, can you please point out EXACTLY why this bill is "unamerican" or a "violation of the entire Constitution"? And please, I insist that you cite the specific parts of the bill you feel are wrong because I don't think you've taken even a second to read the damn thing. There is nothing in your post to support the claim that you have.

[Demeter]

43. The Only Rights Abridged Here Are Everyone's Except

the self-righteous pharmacists. There is no compelling public interest in subverting 1) the right of a person to obtain the properly prescribed healthcare SHE PAID FOR and NEEDS 2) the rights and responsibilities of the medical profession to FIRST DO NO HARM for which they are paying with time, money and insurance, 3) the rights of the general public in commerce that there will be no discrimination for any reason,

JUST TO APPEASE THE UNAPPEASABLE BIGOTS WHO HAD BETTER KEEP THEIR HANDS AND MINDS OF ME AND MINE.

They can always find a job more suited to their judgmental bigotted minds--in this country (alas) or any number of less enlightened ones around the world. Or they can starve to death, because they are in for a boycott that will never end.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

45. Please cite EXACTLY where the bill subverts the public interest

Yes, I demand specific examples, because I don't think you've read the bill. I have, I've cited the text elsewhere here. Your turn.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dhalgren]

7. Is the bill available anywhere yet?

This report seems to say that the purpose of the bill is to protect the pharmacist who wants to let his/her personal decisions out weigh the customer's. If there are certain inanimate objects that you feel are immoral for you to touch, then you should work in a place where those objects are not present. If you are a devout Muslim, you probably don't want to work on a hog farm or slaughter house. If certain drugs are "immoral" for a person to touch or dispense, then that person should seek employment elsewhere...

[ET Awful]

19. No, but devout muslims have been fired from their jobs for taking a break

for evening prayer, a requirement of their faith. It seems pretty obvious that situations like that are Kerry's motive.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. Yeah, but it's obviously easier to jump to conclusions.

You know, rather than actually read the text of the bill. This is a much bigger pull to the left for Santorum than it is to the right for Kerry.

[ET Awful]

25. Agreed. It requires there to be a pharmacist available that WILL

fill the prescription, so even if there is one that won't, the customer will still be required to be served, by law.

It also puts a burden on employers to accommodate the religious practices of others, such as those who need the 5 minutes for evening prayer, etc.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. Yeah, so far as any good progressive is concerned, this is a good bill.

Defends your right to practice religion in the workplace? Yep.
Defends your right as a consumer to not have someone else's religion mess up your life? Yep.

So what's the problem here?

[cap]

9. actually it does force pharmacists to do their job....

or the employer must have another pharmacist on staff...,

Hmmm... I wonder how this applies when the pharmacist owns the drug store? I think the small chains only want one pharmacist on duty at a time and now they must have two.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. Read the bill before you bash.

You obviously haven't.

[davidwhite0570]

28. ignorance is bliss isn't it

[Dr Ron]

12. Appears fair compromise

The key line is:

"If the bill becomes law, a pharmacist who does not wish to dispense certain medications would not have to do so long as another pharmacist is on duty and would dispense the medications."

As long as the bill makes sure that a prescription could only be refused if another pharmacist is actulaly on duty ot dispense the medication, no harm is done. It is preferable to the current situation where a pharmacist could refuse to fill a prescription and leave the patient without somone to fill it. This could leave us open to a situation in which the religious right could put pressure on all local pharmacies to refuse to dispense birht control pills, effectivley preventing them from being sold.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. I think everyone missed this line:

"Recently, we introduced the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which clarifies current law to say a person's religious beliefs should be recognized and accommodated in the workplace as long as this does not adversely affect the employer's business or customers."

Sounds more like protection to me than it is an attack. And it sounds more like Santorum trying to be a moderate than Kerry trying to be a fundy.

[rurallib]

20. Sounds like it could be interpretted two different ways.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. No, it really can't.

It's pretty explicit. I'll break it down for you.

Part 1: Your rights to practice religious freedoms are protected.
Part 2: Except when it interferes with the business you work for or the customers of said business.

Care to give me exactly where you see a different interpretation?

[Norquist Nemesis]

30. I guess I need clarification on the standard

for "adversely affect". I can imagine the Center for Law and Justice presenting a defense for a fundamental extremist with a boss/supervisor of like mind putting forth an argument. Something like...The employee is wholly supported by his employer that his actions in refusing to dispense the contraceptive prescription, Your Honor. In fact, we would submit that his actions benefitted the employer's business by displaying the high moral ethics the business holds. Further, he saved the unborn and has protected this woman from becoming a murderer.

I'm just not seeing the moderation. Santorum is moderate in nothing he does; especially when it comes to actions furthering control over women's life choices.

JMHO.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. That argument wouldn't hold water, except maybe with Scalia.

The woman's doctor unquestionably get the nod as to who is best serving the woman's interests.

I may have become a little more cynical in these times, but I'm not so cynical to believe your scenario would actually work.

[Norquist Nemesis]

34. Not saying it would work

but that I can imagine them trying it. And I agree that it probably wouldn't win them the case. But it's still more fodder for the fundamental extremists to go rabid and screech "judicial tyranny" for five months on the cable news.

As I said, I'm just not seeing the moderation as you are. Rather, the standard for adversely affects is unclear and it could be fought on both sides.

[paulk]

37. Santorum knows the Dems are coming for him in 2006

in a state that Kerry won...

This is definately a move to the center for Santorum.

[The White Tree]

16. I too was shocked when I saw this today

It's like dogs and cats sleeping together :sarcasm:

Actually, For the "most liberal senator" in the history of the world and the biggest horses ass in the senate, this seems like a reasonable compromise.

I suspect this will fail because it actually puts what will be viewed as an unfair burden on the buisness to make sure this condition is met at all times.

[Dr Ron]

17. Burden on business?

Whether its a burden on the business depneds upon how you feel about a pharmacist sometimes being able to refuse to dispense. From my persepective it is not really a burden. If there is only one pharmacist on duty (or only pharmacists who oppose certain medications) it is no burden as the pharmacists would be then be required to dispense the medication regardless of their beliefs.

However, I could see Republicans viewing this differently. If you think that a pharmacist should never have to dispense a drug in violation of their religious beliefs, then from that perspective it would require that two pharmacists be on duty (with at least one not having such views) and would be a burden on the business.

With two such different ways to look at this, I'm not sure yet how the Republicans will react to this bill.

[ET Awful]

18. Ummm, odds are that Kerry did this to bring companies into line

that were terminating Muslim employees for taking a break for evening prayers.

[Larkspur]

29. And what if a reichwing pharmacist refuses to fill a birth control

prescription if another pharmacist is not on duty?

If the bill becomes law, a pharmacist who does not wish to dispense certain medications would not have to do so long as another pharmacist is on duty and would dispense the medications.

They will cite their religious values trump the customers hedonism and the customer will lose. Even if the customer sues, it will take a long time for the customer to get justice, but meanwhile the Reichwingers will bully the customer and those who side wither her.

[Dr Ron]

31. The law would be on the customer's side

Currently there is no legal protection for the customer in many states. This would make it a violation of the law if the customer leaves without the prescribed medication.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. Exactly.

Why can't the others here see that?

[da_chimperor]

40. I see it too, you're not alone.

:hi:

[Larkspur]

35. This law sets up a perfect revenge scenario

A Xtian Dominionist pharmacist, who wants to screw his boss or the pharmacy chain, can setup or take advantage of a situation where he/she will be the only pharmacist on duty and use Religious Freedom to deny a customer birth control. Being the only pharmacist on duty could be easy, depending upon turnover and hiring rates at pharmacies. I've only seen one pharmacist on duty at my local grocery stores.

The customer could sue the pharmacy and the Xtian Dominionist could also sue the pharmacy, if it fires him/her, with a religious persecution claim. The pharmacy would be the big loser.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

41. No, because the Dominionist would lose his/her suit.

It's very explicit that one is not allowed to harm either the business or its customers with their actions, even if a religious claim is involved. Since the pharmacy's actions would be taken in compliance with the law, the Dominionist's suit would be without legal merit.

[Dr Ron]

42. Agreed

While law suits are always possible from either side, this law tips the balance heavily in favor of a customer who is not given a prescribed medication, and in favor of the pharmacy should they require the pharmacist to dispense the medication.

[da_chimperor]

39. The bill numbers are: HR 1445 IH, and S 677. The text is included.

Both are on Thomas and the text is identical. Here it is.

S 677 IS

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 677

To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to establish provisions with respect to religious accommodation in employment, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 17, 2005

Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. KERRY, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. SMITH, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. TALENT, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. COBURN, and Mr. HATCH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

A BILL

To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to establish provisions with respect to religious accommodation in employment, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

(a) Definitions- Section 701(j) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(j)) is amended--

(1) by inserting `(1)' after `(j)';

(2) by inserting `, after initiating and engaging in an affirmative and bona fide effort,' after `unable';

(3) by striking `an employee's' and all that follows through `religious' and inserting `an employee's religious'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(2)(A) In this subsection, the term `employee' includes an employee (as defined in subsection (f)), or a prospective employee, who, with or without reasonable accommodation, is qualified to perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.

`(B) In this paragraph, the term `perform the essential functions' includes carrying out the core requirements of an employment position and does not include carrying out practices relating to clothing, practices relating to taking time off, or other practices that may have a temporary or tangential impact on the ability to perform job functions, if any of the practices described in this subparagraph restrict the ability to wear religious clothing, to take time off for a holy day, or to participate in a religious observance or practice.

`(3) In this subsection, the term `undue hardship' means an accommodation requiring significant difficulty or expense. For purposes of determining whether an accommodation requires significant difficulty or expense, factors to be considered in making the determination shall include--

`(A) the identifiable cost of the accommodation, including the costs of loss of productivity and of retraining or hiring employees or transferring employees from 1 facility to another;

`(B) the overall financial resources and size of the employer involved, relative to the number of its employees; and

`(C) for an employer with multiple facilities, the geographic separateness or administrative or fiscal relationship of the facilities.'.

(b) Employment Practices- Section 703 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(o)(1) In this subsection:

`(A) The term `employee' has the meaning given the term in section 701(j)(2).

`(B) The term `leave of general usage' means leave provided under the policy or program of an employer, under which--

`(i) an employee may take leave by adjusting or altering the work schedule or assignment of the employee according to criteria determined by the employer; and

`(ii) the employee may determine the purpose for which the leave is to be utilized.

`(2) For purposes of determining whether an employer has committed an unlawful employment practice under this title by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to the religious observance or practice of an employee, for an accommodation to be considered to be reasonable, the accommodation shall remove the conflict between employment requirements and the religious observance or practice of the employee.

`(3) An employer shall be considered to commit such a practice by failing to provide such a reasonable accommodation for an employee if the employer refuses to permit the employee to utilize leave of general usage to remove such a conflict solely because the leave will be used to accommodate the religious observance or practice of the employee.'.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

(a) Effective Date- Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act and the amendments made by section 2 take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

(b) Application of Amendments- The amendments made by section 2 do not apply with respect to conduct occurring before the date of enactment of this Act.

END


The text isn't very useful on it's own. On the whole, it looks to be a fair compromise . . . I guess. :shrug:

Someone who doesn't want to dispense birth control medication won't be required to do so as long as someone else who doesn't object is there to do it. If no-one else is available, a refusal by the pharmacist to dispense such medication would be seen as causing an adverse effect on the customer and would therefore be illegal. Right now I'm very, very cautiously optimistic, but much depends on how the bill changes and whether or not it's passed. I'm keeping my eye on this one.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

46. The only thing that surprises me

about this bill is how long it seems to have taken to arrive at. It's such an obvious compromise that I can't really see what all the fuss is about.

I suppose if you believe strongly enough that no-one should ever be forced to dispence birth control, you might dissaprove, but other than that it seems like the kind of measure a ten-year-old could come up with as fair in ten minutes.