Story should be accessible, as I just saw it a minute ago, at www.yahoo.com yahoo lifestyle. Woman’s name is Hilde Hall.
Ms. Hall was mortified at CVS by pharmacist loudly asking why doctor prescribed a combination of female hormones. Regardless of how one feels about transgender Americans, wouldn’t pharmacist have been better off from a business standpoint either filling out script, or at least quietly asking for explanation? He has now been canned by CVS and Rx transferred to Walgreens.
Apparently AZ is one of 6 states where pharmacists are shielded from filling scripts based on religious objections. However, another pharmacist refused to fill a script for a drug known as part of Plan B.
Included in objections is this drug, but the woman was prescribed it when the baby she wanted stopped developing. She wasn’t seeking an abortion for an oopsie, and can’t carrying such a baby endanger the mother?
Have these 6 states gone to far in allowing religious objections? Or is it individual interpretation & misuse of these laws that’s the problem.
I wonder why this isn’t in Politics. It’ll get less traction here, me thinks.
I can’t imagine how upsetting it was for the Trans Woman. Being outed has to be traumatizing; so having a pharmacist publicly out you has to be really embarrassing. The religious accommodation the CVS had in place seems appropriate enough, however that single employee was out of line for their actions.
Personally, I feel that if someone is going to get in the business where as part of their job title they dispense over the counter drugs to the people who want them, and prescription drugs to those whose doctors prescribed them. It’s not my place to impose my religious beliefs on other people. God didn’t ask me to judge other people, but to work on making myself a better person.
I feel if a state wants religious objection laws, they need to apply those laws equally for all religions. Just like some religions are strictly anti-homosexual relationships, some religions are strictly against people believing other religions. If I have the right to not serve marriage cakes to homosexuals, should I also be able to smoke weed because it’s part of my spiritual beliefs?
I think it’s probably hard to make everything equal. Therefore religion should probably be kept out of our secular government. I want laws based on logic rather than faith, but I’m going to exploit loopholes in the law just like the rest of my spiritual brethren if given the chance.
Edit: Every time I post something with my serious voice I also pat myself on the back.
Yes, but you did frame it in a national context with your question about whether states have gone too far in allowing religious objections. Your choice though. I just fear you’ll get less exposure here, and I felt it was fair question so it should get an honest response.
I gotta fix my quote. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to figure that out and fix it.
According to the yahoo article, the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription, asked why it was given in the first place and refused to return it when Hall asked for it back. If the pharmacist did not give a colleague the opportunity to complete the transaction then at the very least they deserve to be terminated. They have no right to come between a patient and their doctor’s care.