Fundies: States targeting "religious believer" pharmacists re: the Morning After pill

[marmar]

from the American Family Association's OneNewsNow:



Is state regulation targeting religious believers?
Jeff Johnson - OneNewsNow - 7/16/2008 10:30:00 AM


Pro-life pharmacists in Washington are continuing their fight against a state regulation that would force them to provide medication that could kill an unborn child.

The Washington Board of Pharmacy passed a regulation in 2005 requiring pharmacists to stock and dispense Plan B, commonly referred to as the "morning-after" pill. But Erik Stanley, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, says the regulation is morally and constitutionally wrong. He argues that the regulation trumps a pharmacist's right to conscientiously object what he or she believes is the taking of a human life.

"The right to conscientiously object to the taking of human life is deeply rooted in our nation's history and laws -- and the 'morning-after' pill...can unnaturally and deliberately kill innocent human life," Stanley contends.

The attorney argued against the regulations last week before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He believes those who authored the rules were targeting religious believers who oppose abortion. ........(more)

The complete (and totally objective!!!) story is at: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=179056 .....and if it gets Rick-rolled, as AFA links from DU are known to do, go to the AFA's homepage at www.afa.net and scroll down to the One News Now area.

[dsc]

1. I agree with part of the regulation but not all

I agree that pharmacists, just like anyone else, should have to do what their bosses say in regards to their jobs. But I don't think business owners should have to stock products they don't wish to stock. I think that is over reaching.

[kegler14]

2. Agreed.

I think it's ridiculous to tell the pharmacy owner he or she HAS to stock this. But if it is stocked and you want to work there, you have to dispense it.

[DearAbby]

4. If this be the case...

There should also be a notice in the window, they do not carry this item...So people who need this item will know not to waste their time.

I also agree the Pharmacy owner should not be forced to stock any item they deem to be morally wrong, but with the above notice.

[dsc]

5. I agree with that

[defendandprotect]

28. This would then become a question of corporate control over reproduction . . ?

If you run a pharmacy - especially if you are a large corporation like Wal-Mart/Target --

you should provide pharmaceuticals not religion.

[tyedyeto]

12. I totally disagree with the first part of your statement.

If I am given a prescription for ANY drug, I expect that the pharmacy I go to has the item and will dispense that item. I don't give a fuck what that item is, but if I have a valid prescription, ANY PHARMACY I go to should be ready and able to fill said prescription.

Why should I have to drive for minutes or hours to find a pharmacist who will dispense a legal prescription?

[defendandprotect]

29. Absolutely . . !!

[tanyev]

3. Yeah, all the phundie pharmacists need to do is set up their own independent shops.

That way they could stock only Jesus-approved drugs and consumables. I think they realize the free market would not be their friend in such an endeavor.

[atommom]

36. And they are! I'm hoping the free market defeats them.

“The lack of contraception isn't killing any woman. Sexual promiscuity, on the other hand, is. We commend these drugstores for creating a safe environment for employees and consumers of moral and religious conviction,” the FRC added.

Pro-life pharmacies, the FRC stressed, would be identical to any other pharmacy, except for the absence of contraceptives and drugs that could be used for an abortion like the so-called “morning after” pill.

“Although some decry the pharmacies as discriminatory, it is well within the proprietors' rights to adhere to a higher moral code than political correctness. If customers don't like it, they are free to take their business elsewhere,” the FRC said.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080617/new-pro-life-pharmacies-defend-religious-moral-objections.htm

Free to take their business elsewhere.... as long as there's a pharmacy within the customers' reach that will dispense the medications they need. What an odd coincidence that these policies target only women. :eyes:

[progdonkey]

6. what if it's the only pharmacy within a hundred miles?

If the woman lives in a rural area and the only local pharmacy is owned by some fundie jackass who refuses to stock a given medication their imaginary friend doesn't like it, should the woman be forced to drive a hundred miles to the next nearest pharmacy (which itself may or may not be owned by another fundie jackass) in order to get her prescription filled?

If dispensing certain medications conflicts with your religious beliefs, don't work in that field. Don't open a pharmacy if you're not going to stock basic medications because they happen to conflict with your stupid religious beliefs.

When a patient comes in with a prescription for something from his/her doctor, you dispense it, and if you don't have it in stock, you order it for them. If any of that conflicts with your oh-so-fragile religion... tough. The patient's health and well-being are far more important than protecting someone's idiotic religious beliefs.

What if it's not concerning Plan B, but something like anti-psychotics? A scientologist could open a pharmacy and refuse to fill prescriptions for anti-psychotic medications, because it conflicts with their "religious beliefs"; if theirs is the only pharmacy around, isn't it a public safety issue if you now have a diagnosed schizophrenic running around with no medication because the only local pharmacy didn't feel like giving him his meds?

This isn't like a Kosher deli refusing to stock pork sausage. This is about a person's personal health and well-being--sometimes the Public's, too.

[awoke_in_2003]

9. Thank you for saying

what I was gonna say. Only difference is I was have been far less diplomatic- when it comes to religion, I can be quite abrupt.

[dsc]

11. Two things

One that is ludricrious. I doubt there is any place with only one pharmacy for 100 miles. Two, say there is. Then the government should dispense the drug. We get drugs by mail, drugs at doctors, at grocery stores, at WalMart, at Target, and a host of other places. I live in a smallish city and we have over a dozen drug stores. Both AIDS and cancer patients face drug stores who won't stock their drugs (largely for financial (AIDS) and security (cancer) reasons) with nary a word of complaint by government agencies.

[tyedyeto]

13. I lived 47 miles to the nearest pharmacy for many years.

No, it wasn't 100 miles but it was close to that for a round trip.

Which government is going to dispense a drug that you need today or tomorrow and when are you going to be receiving it? Let's say you a potent antibiotic and you need to start taking it now. How is that any different from needing any other drug that you can't wait for the 'government' to send to you?

[dsc]

15. the same government that runs city and state hospitals

patrols roads 24/7, and manages to guard prisoners 24/7. Somehow I think they could have a pharmacist sit in a store front and give out pills.

[tyedyeto]

24. The same local gov't that closed the doors to the only gov't hospital

a couple of years after I left the area? Before they closed the county run hospital, it was still almost 50 miles from where I lived.

Good luck to those who needed those services. Now, the only hospital and physician services are 'privately' run but by a religion (Seventh Day Adventist).

Do you honestly think any local type government is going to open up a storefront pharmacy for a population of 2,500-3,000? Dream on!

[dsc]

38. they would be more likely to than a private company

I would think an on call kind of thing would be more likely.

[JerseygirlCT]

20. And needing it NOW would be precisely the case with plan B

Of course, that's the intention of those opposed - stall the prevention methods, stall the availability of abortions, and force every fertilized egg to be born.

Then forget about them.

[kevinbgoode]

51. If the pharmacists don't want to take the "morning after" pill,

then no one is forcing them to take it themselves. Otherwise I'm not interested in their arrogant assertion that they, rather than ME, have been appointed the one in charge of whatever "morality" some wingnut dominionist organization wants to cook up. No one has elected or appointed the Alliance Dominionist Fund in charge of national morality or, for that matter, a constitution which doesn't recognize their "religion" as official.

I don't need some fundie big brother making decisions about morality - or anything else - for me. I will not be subjected to their "religious" bullshit. If they don't want to fill prescriptions, then their asses need to go work for an Alliance Dominionist Fund pharmacy of their own.

I'd like to see some Christian Scientists start protesting the existence of ANY pharmacies as a violation of their "religious" beliefs - and evidence of state endorsement of some other religious cult.

[progdonkey]

14. then you need to actually visit the United States some time...

How long would the turn-around time be for getting Plan B by mail? If a woman has to wait--let's say a week--for a prescription to be processed and for it to be mailed out to her, it would kind of ruin the whole point of the "morning after" pill, wouldn't it?

And why should taxpayer money pay for government agencies to dispense medication that some religious nutjob refuses to dispense, when it's his fucking job to dispense medication? And where would this hypothetical (though not really, unfortunately) woman get her prescription filled? At the local/state government office in Bumfuck, Alabama? You think Jimbo is going to dispense Plan B to her? Or will she have to drive a few hours to get to the city in order to go to a federal office (unless she wants to wait for it to come through the mail, of course)? How is that not different from making her drive a few hours to visit another pharmacy, period? And let's not forget the social aspect of this, where everyone in her town will know she had to drive into the city--because it's a big deal to go so far--and they'll assume (or be told) that it was to get the morning after pill, and they'll know she's a baby-killing whore and they'll make sure she knows that. But we musn't infringe upon the sacred rights of the religious fanatic.

And financial and security reasons are legitimate reasons not to stock a given drug (i.e. "they would if they could"). Because the medication insults the personal religious fantasies of the pharmacist is not legitimate in any way, shape, or form.

Also, fine, say there's three or even thirty pharmacies in a given town. Who's to say they won't all be owned and operated by religious freaks? How is the patient in any better circumstances because there are more religious nutjobs refusing to do their job for her? Why should innocent people who just want their prescribed medications have to go through extra hoops to placate the idiotic sensibilities of nutjobs?

You have a complete "let them eat cake" mentality. You can't imagine the actual difficulties these women have to face, so you naively wonder, "Why can't they just go to another pharmacy? There's a bunch in my city." It's not that easy in the first place, and women certainly don't need some holier-than-thou religious jackasses to make it even more difficult.

[dsc]

16. I have asked dozens of times for just one example of a woman

who didn't get her drugs due to this without having her script taken (which I agree should never happen). So far no one has produced that example. Not a single, solitary person anywhere at anytime, has had the problem you are alledging occurs.

[atommom]

17. I don't think that's the case. I know of one blogger who wasn't allowed to

fill her morning after prescription because of the religious beliefs of the pharmacy, and didn't get the drug until it was too late. She wound up pregnant despite taking the pill (because she took it too late), and got an abortion. Unfortunately, when she blogged about all of this, it unleashed a shitstorm that resulted in her taking her blog down.

Seriously, I don't see why it's so hard to believe that women will be denied prescribed medication like this. Keep in mind that those affected will likely be lower-income, and they're not likely to get (or seek) media attention.

[dsc]

18. I have no problem believing that some pharmacists will deny the scripts

I think in the case you are mentioning the pharmicist also took the script which is why she was delayed. My problem is this. I don't like result oriented law making. Giving the government the power to require bc be stocked gives them the power to forbid bc be stocked. Care to guess how a state like Alabama or Mississippi would behave. This is a power ripe for abuse. We should grant it only if there is literally no other choice. Here I am not even sure there is a problem and there is certainly a much better solution.

[atommom]

34. There is a problem here. These are products necessary for the

reproductive health of a large segment of the population. A quick Google search will show that women are being denied bc and the morning after pill (though the MSM hasn't paid the issue much attention).

I'm also not convinced that requiring an already regulated industry to carry and dispense medications will open the door for states to outlaw those medications. The government could indeed reinvent the wheel and step in to make sure women get bc when they need it. But this is bound to be a much more costly and inefficient process than requiring pharmacies to do their job. We as taxpayers would be paying for services that should have been provided by the pharmacies in the first place, all in the name of respecting their religious beliefs. That doesn't sit well with me.

[dsc]

37. we pay for that service for the poor and elderly now

If you don't think governments in places like Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina would use this power to ban bc, you are terribly nieve. There is no, not an iota, of principled difference between the government requiring the stocking of bc and forbidding the stocking of bc. An argument made all the time, it should be noted, in the abortion debate (a government that has the power to forbid abortion also has a power to require it). I see no way to give the government the power to force pharmacies to carry bc without giving governments at the same level the power to forbid it. Thus what Illinois and Washington giveth, Alabama and South Carolina can taketh away.

[atommom]

54. The government already has the power to ban bc if it chooses.

I'm sure there are some DUers here who can remember when bc wasn't legal. If the state governments aren't already trying to outlaw bc outright, it's most likely because they know they'll lose the support of the voting public if they do. Allowing the religious exemption for pharmacies is an attempt to lesson the availability of bc without taking the politically dangerous step of banning it altogether. IMO, we need to put a stop to policies like this. Letting the right wing have its way is never good for the rest of us.

[defendandprotect]

45. Our problems aren't with a "people's government" . . . our problems are with

corrupt government which is influenced by religious lobbies ---

The government already had the power to FORBID birth control from being sold ---

that was the period when they were heavily influenced by the Roman Catholic Church.

We can only hope that time is ended ---

Again -- if you want to run a pharmacy --- you have to serve ALL customers ---

and not discriminate against women and homosexuals whose sex lives you may not like.


We should also end the nonsense of "faith-based" birth control and "faith-based" sex

education --- such stupidity endangers the lives of youth.

[Firespirit]

25. The blogger's handle was Biting Beaver

She also authored the "rape checklist." As regards the abortion, I believe she posted a PayPal thing for people who wanted to help her pay for it. The psychopathic, violently misogynistic 4chan crowd got wind of the checklist and the abortion saga and harassed her until she closed her blog. It's a disgusting story. But, yes, it did indeed happen.

[progdonkey]

22. complete red herring...

Maybe they don't give you any examples because they recognize how completely irrelevant that is to the issue, which is whether a pharmacist should be permitted to refuse to dispense medication because it conflicts with his or her personal religious beliefs. Whether it's happened yet or not is irrelevant to whether it should be allowed to happen.

Getting away from the pharmaceutical sphere, how about warrantless wire-tapping of American citizens? Can you give me an example of one person who's been wrongfully wiretapped? No? Then why should we worry about the Bush administration having that authority/ability? Maybe no one's being wire-tapped at all, but the fact remains that the Bush people say they reserve the right to do so without a warrant. That's the issue.

Likewise, the issue here is whether a pharmacist should have the right to deny medication to someone because the particular medication offends their sensitive religious beliefs. For the various reasons I've mentioned, the answer is absolutely not.

It's ridiculous to see that a system is set up for abuse but make the law wait until people are actually abused before you'll allow anything to be done about it.

[dsc]

23. Maybe I am not being clear since you keep bringing up pharmacists

I have no problem with requiring people to fill perscriptions provided the store carries the product. I do have a problem with making the store carry the product. There is literally no difference at all in giving the government power to make stores carry bc and giving the government the power to forbid stores from carrying bc. None. It is the same power. As as sure as we are both on DU there are quite a few states which would, given the power, ban stores from carrying bc. Thus before I would even dream of giving government that power I would like one case, just one case, of someone, somewhere, actually not being able to get bc due to a pharmacy not filling a script. I don't think that is too much to ask. Just like, before we should dream of giving the government wiretapping power, we should see at least some evidence that such power is needed to stop terrorist attacks.

[tyedyeto]

26. Read these articles:

http://www.prevention.com/cda/article/access-denied/a9a466263d803110VgnVCM20000012281eac____/health/healthy.living.centers/ob.gyn.health

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4425603.stm

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/05/31/birth_control/


Google 'pharmacy deny birth control' and you will see how often the denial of birth control pills by pharmacists actually happens. These are just 3 examples of 451,000 hits on Google. Many of the women who report this happening to them are not even using bith control pills for contraceptive purposes but for other medical reasons. Yet, pharmacists around the US are denying women the right to medication that their Doctor has deemed necessary for their well being.

[dsc]

33. I looked at all three

Your first link, the problem seems to be mostly doctors, and I think you can see the huge danger of giving government power to interfere in doctor, patient relationships. If you can't, imagine if Bush's government had that power and think of what he would do. The second link actually is close to what you are saying. If that man had been an employee of mine he would have been so fired. The third article was a bit short on details but again pointed out doctors were a bigger part of the problem. I will admit, that you are beginning to show a problem, but to the extent it is a doctor based problem I think even you would be loathe to see a government solution. Honestly, I am deeply afraid of giving the government power in this arena. There really seems to be virtually no limit once you start.

[defendandprotect]

47. Your clarification is . . .

inane ---

A "store" not carrying the product is the same premise as an individual not wanting to
fill the prescription --- there's no difference.

If you want to run a pharmacy --- run a pharmacy -- fill prescriptions.

If you want to open a church --- open a church --- and preach to people.

Again --- government FORBADE the selling of birth control products for eons ---

until the 1960's . . .

Even condoms were taboo ---

So your concerns are moot ---

[defendandprotect]

31. The problem is the THREAT of not getting the reproductive drug you require . . .

The very nature of Plan B is immediate use ---

If you have to drive 10 or 20 miles or more to get a prescription immediately this

is to say the least inconvenient and sometimes difficult for women with children.

Inconvenience seems to be meaningless to you --

And why don't YOU try telling us what other drug is treated in this way ----?

Name one other drug that is handled in this way . . .

This only involves reproductive freedom --- birth control/Plan B.

It's about continuing attempts to exert patriarchal religious control over women.

[dsc]

39. try getting aids drugs

in the 1980's and 1990's. I absolutely, positively, totally guarentee you that it was much, much, much harder for someone in say West Virginia to get those than bc. I know this due to knowing people who played hob to get those drugs.

[defendandprotect]

42. All you're doing is reaffirming the obsession with sex in patriarchal religions . .

The 1980's and AIDS was Reagan's deal for the Fundies ---

plus his own enormous ignorance ---

Meanwhile, these are people obsessed with controlling the sexuality of others ---

and we shouldn't let them get away with it ---

[Zhade]

32. You don't know that. You assume that.

Just because such a person hasn't posted to DU about the issue doesn't mean it's never happened.

[dsc]

40. I didn't say it never happened

I did say that despite dozens of requests no one was able to produce an example. Someone finally did.

[defendandprotect]

41. I agree -- and if this nonsense ends up impacting the life or health of

the pregnant female, then I think these pharmacies should be held accountable.

[mudesi]

44. Are you waiting for it to actually happen? (nm)

[defendandprotect]

30. The nature of Plan B, for instance, doesn't provide for shopping by mail . . .

and I doubt Bob Dole would want to "dance" while he waited for his Viagra to arrive in the mail?

Pharmacies/corporations have to decide if they are dispensing drugs or religion --?

[petronius]

48. What are the security issues with cancer drugs (serious question)?

:shrug:

[ismnotwasm]

53. The Pharmacy's line of reasoning is bullshit though

Pharmacies stock all kinds of items that can cause death, including fetal death. This is targeting women, period. I think it's a civil rights issue, and I think the civil rights of women are being violated.

[JerseygirlCT]

19. Totally agree with you.

Around here, pharmacies are a dime a dozen and on nearly every corner. But there are too many places where medical care is scarce - pharmacies, women's health providers... If they want to be in the business, they have an obligation first to their customers' health, not to their personal opinions. If their personal opinions would prohibit them from putting the best medical interests of their customers first, they need a different business.

[LeftyMom]

21. Pharmacies are a regulated industry, so providing certain services as a condition of licensure is

perfectly reasonable.

To use a completely different example, my Dad owns a limo company. To get his state permits, there were conditions that he provide his driving record and those of his drivers, that he enroll all of his drivers in a drug screening program, and that he show proof of valid commercial insurance that meets state requirements for coverage. If he were to violate state safety, workmans comp, insurance or non-discrimination rules, he could be denied permission to run his business. To get his county business license, he had to demonstrate that his business was operated in accord with local zoning laws. If he were creating problems for his neighbors by parking cars on the lawn or something, he could lose his permit. To get permission to take passengers to the airport, the airport authority subjected each car to a safety inspection, doublechecked his permits and insurance, and fitted each car with a transponder that bills him for a dollar fee every time one of those cars passes the airport entry. If he sent cars without permission to pick up or drop off passengers at the airport, he could lose his permit to do business there- to be on the safe side and avoid the perception of impropriety, he doesn't even take family members out there in his personal car.

All businesses are regulated to ensure that they meet the needs of the public. Since just over half of the public are of the vagina-bearing variety, and hormonal birth control medications are a cornerstone of female reproductive health care (used to treat all sorts of gynecolological maladies and even infertility as well as to prevent pregnancy) it is no more unreasonable to require that state permitted pharmacies offer birth control medication than to require that all cars taking passengers to the airport have functional seat belts.

[defendandprotect]

27. Well, you don't have to run a pharmacy . . . but if you do, then customers should be able to

expect to find all pharmaceuiticals available there --- not discrimination.

This is targeted discrimination against females ---

And, it's religious intrusion on a females right to reproductive freedom.

[azureblue]

7. typical fundies

using the bible to support their hate & prejudices by cherry picking verses. Last time I had an argument with one, they had the typical anti homo rant, so I whipped out my check book & offered them $250.00 for their oldest daughter. Of course they got all offended, but i told them that the same chapter of the bible says its Ok to sell your oldest daughter, so I am offering.

But of course the same drugstore the funie works at sells items made with pork skin, and they say nothing about that.

Finally the definition of a pro lifer is one who cares about life from conception to birth...

They are all nuts and self deluded.

[azureblue]

8. PS

I suggest this: If a pharmacy refuses birth control or the morning after pill, then the pharmacist and the store manager must sign a paper to that effect- an affidavit. But I would add in, in small type, of course, a responsibility for outcome clause. IOW make them put their money where their mouth is.

[supernova]

10. I'm glad states are going after these nutballs

who think they can get away with dispensing meds only they personally approve of.

The earlier poster who raised the question of pharmacies in rural areas is spot on. The same is also true in urban areas. In other words, if you are poor, and in need of Plan B, the town pharmacy may be of little use to you. The problem can be compounded if transportation is an issue.

Thank God for Planned Parenthood.

I really want some of these jerks to just try selling only cold meds and diapers and see how far they get. They'll go belly up in no time and that would suit me just fine.

[knitter4democracy]

35. 1. AFA's evangelical, and 2. I agree with the legislation.

There's a difference between fundamentalism and evangelicalism, and the AFA's firmly in the evangelical camp (Dobson's Nazarene, and his dad was a Nazarene pastor).

I think we do need to make it so that pharmacists do their jobs right. Many drugs can cause abortions, as pharmacists well know, so if a pharmacist thinks a woman might be preggers, will he not dispense anything at all? If we let them have this, they can quite easily extend it to birth control and any number of other drugs. If they want to be pharmacists, they need to do their jobs.

[defendandprotect]

Thanks for the clarification . . . I hear that Ratzky is moving the RCC to Evangelicalism . . .

whether Fundi or Evangelical, both groups are obsessed with the sexuality of OTHERS ---

[JerseygirlCT]

49. Evangelical really just means

someone who spreads the word of God. So the practical result of that can be anything along a wide spectrum. Some of the most liberal churches, for instance, consider themselves "evangelical". In fact, evangelism is part of Christian faith, period. Now, how one does that and the results one is hoping to achieve can be pretty different.

Fundamentalism is more restricted - this is a descriptor for people who represent a branch of Christian belief that is really pretty Johnny Come Lately. It includes bible literalists, and lots of the people you describe.

Now, obsession with sexuality of one sort or another is also sort of equal opportunity among different Christian denominations... you can find those people all over the place - and you can find churches whose official stance certainly qualifies who have many members who don't do that at all. (The RCC is a good example there).

It's not that easy to categorize!

[defendandprotect]

52. Actually, here's what "Evangelical" means .. .

Here's the dictionary on it ---


e·van·gel·i·cal –adjective

1. Also, e·van·gel·ic. pertaining to or in keeping with the gospel and its teachings.
2. belonging to or designating the Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the Scriptures, esp. of the New Testament, in opposition to the institutional authority of the church itself, and that stress as paramount the tenet that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in the atonement of Christ.
3. designating Christians, esp. of the late 1970s, eschewing the designation of fundamentalist but holding to a conservative interpretation of the Bible.
4. pertaining to certain movements in the Protestant churches in the 18th and 19th centuries that stressed the importance of personal experience of guilt for sin, and of reconciliation to God through Christ.
5. marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause.
–noun
6. an adherent of evangelical doctrines or a person who belongs to an evangelical church or party.


According to this, basically, they're FUNDIS who changed their label in the 1970's, but not
their intent --

and it would be in keeping with my understanding of the direction of the RCC in moving toward
stressing Bibical teachings which used to be pretty much ignored by the church, until I guess
the 1970's also in their case. Certainly such a move would have helped them in overcoming and
blocking Vatican II which is a primary interest of the right-wingers in control of the RCC now.
And they've been pretty successful at giving members amenesia about Vatican II and moving the
church to the right -- probably way further than it was at the time that Pope John XXIII
brought forth Vatican II.

As far as the scarier mission of "spreading the word of God" . . . as I recall it, the Mormons
are frighteningly big on that sending males off on these long term missions to convert people.

[knitter4democracy]

50. Now, that we can agree on.

It's even worse inside the church.

[upi402]

43. I don't work in their damn churches, so they can just find another gig

i'm so sick of the jesus taliban. it's not like our tax dollars support pharmacies and require them to work there.

[RayOfHope]

46. These dumbasses continually use the morning after pill and RU 486 interchangeably

jesus. I know that isn't what this is about, but that irritates the shit out of me.