“Why is that people who are against abortion are people you wouldn’t want to fuck in the first place!?”

We recently wrote an article on pharmacists at Brain Blogger. Pharmacists are self proclaimed “drug experts” and for good reason — they have a Doctor of Pharmacy degree that took fours years to earn and in the process studied a lot of different drugs. But should that give them the right to give out a prescription? Could they accurately identify and treat a disease?

We would like to read your comments on our article. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Kelly

In the midnight hour
She cried “more, more, more”
With a Rebel Butt
She cried “more
more, more more!”

You just made my favorite Billy Idol song even better!

Little pretend lawyer Jill doesn’t realize that the pharmacists are acting according to their ethical rights.

Except they’re not acting ethically, because refusing to fill a prescription and not referring them to a pharmacy that will is unethical according to the APhA. But I wouldn’t expect an MRA to look into that.

My question is: Where and when does “conscience” separate from “religion”? If right-wing Christians are going to use the defense of “religious freedom” to justify denying women contraceptive options and reproductive rights, at what point are we going to demand that the government define the specific beliefs and actions that legally qualify as religiously-motivated? If a fundamentalist Christian is going to claim that his/her homophobia is a factor of religion, then the U.S. government needs to have a definition of what constitutes “Christian behavior” and “Christian belief” in order to determine whether or not that homophobe is simply acting in accordance with his/her religious beliefs. The invocation of “religious freedom” to justify hate and oppression, without any nationwide standard for what counts as distinctly religious motivations, is BS. If the U.S. were to officially state that homophobia is an expression of Christian religious freedom, and therefore could be defended as such in a court of law, then I know many LGBT people and allies who might think twice about their affiliations with Christianity.

And in places where people are legally compelled to be — school, for example — the law should not force them to do things that violate their conscience.

I’m not sure if I agree with this. Call me a radical fundamentalist, but I think the argument of “conscience” can sometimes play to the right and have limited utility for those of us invested in social justice and revolution. It might be advisable for left-leaning people to get more comfortable with the idea that yes, there are certain things people should be forced to do. Like, for examples, a) learn about queer and trans people (and the fact that they deserve all the respect and rights of all human beings), and b) accept that women should have the right to have sex however often they want, with whatever consenting partners they want.

When God looks your rebel butts in the face

and at the front of your rebel pack will be your bare-assed Marines in whom you have put your trust!

What is it with the gluteal obsession?
Oh, well! At least we’ll get a good look at all those bare-assed Marines!

Assholes.

Oh, I totally agree that pharmacists shouldn’t be the ones deciding if there is a “legitimate medical cause” (and neither should the government) — that’s actually part of my point in raising the example. Patients and their doctors are the only ones who can determine correct treatment, whether that relates to an existing medical condition or whether it is preventative (ie, for “sluts,” and it never occurs to the fundies that there’s health reasons for women to prevent pregnancy, too.) Pharmacists do not and should not have access the information needed to make those decisions; nor the expertise, which is only proven out by those of them who don’t seem to understand that many medications, including the pill, have more than one application. I think that bringing the point up can be helpful in showing that it isn’t possible for them to make the ethical determination they are claiming to make. Not that y’all didn’t know that.

It’s considered medical treatment for men to change their “natural function” with Viagra. It frustrates me that so many don’t think it’s medical treatment for women in a rather more serious situation. I’m one of those want-sex-don’t-want-baby cases too, and ideally I think all of these health decisions ought to recognized as having legitimate medical causes. Unfortunately, I don’t expect it to happen anytime soon.