On Digg, I came across this:
The Conscience Clause should not be legal
I don't really know much about the Conscience Clause. I'm more interested in the apparent outrage it has caused in reference to a pharmacist being allowed to deny birth control to customers because of the Conscience Clause.
Of course, the Constitution already provides an individual the right to sell, or not sell, whatever he/she wants to in the United States.
People on left more and more confuse individual rights with the expectation of the government the ensure the majority has everything they need to live happy lives irregardless of whoever else's rights are tramped on. This is ok because the majority says so (or are just indifferent), and the majority is always right, so says democracy.
Statements like the following always tear me apart as I'm not sure whether to laugh at the stupidity and hypocrisy, or cry because so many people probably agree with it:
Furthermore, the people that cannot do the job required of them because their beliefs get in the way should NOT be protected under the law. If you want to work in a company that does not prescribe birth control go work in a Catholic hospital.
People depend and rely on their pharmacists (and doctors, nurses, etc.) to provide them with the best care and arm them with the information they need. For a professional to withhold service or information because they don't agree with it is unacceptable and that person should be relieved of their duties immediately.
This was found in the comments section of the linked article above. The only job someone is required to do is the one they are contracted to do. If a pharmacist is contracted with a pharmacy to perform a task, and they are not, then that is between the pharmacy and the pharmacist, not the consumer and the pharmacist. Go to a different pharmacist. The government only ever comes into play if an agreement is breached and a third party is needed to mediate. Just because someone has gone to school to be a pharmacist, does not mean that person is obligated to sell you whatever drug you want or may think you need.
If you're going to depend on a pharmacist to provided you with a service, it would be wise to make sure you depend on a pharmacist willing to provide that service.
There's an insinuation in that quote that if its deemed by the public that a professional isn't providing the generally expected good and services of their job, than someone should intervene and relieve that person from their duties. The person never specifically indicates this is the government's role, although the context in which this was written would suggest that is the case.
A pharmacist, just like any other professional, will lose his/her job if their employer deems they are not providing the services they hired him/her for. End of story. There needs to be no debate on this subject.
6 comments:
No, they are asserting that a pharmacist that refuses to sell said product is violating their rights to consume what they want to consume.
It is definitely the government's job. The pharmacist that acts on his or her beliefs in relation to another person's right to choose is trampling upon that person's rights. Regulating rights is a function of a constitutional or democratic government.
It's like cigarettes in public used, but privately owned establishments. The owner or other customers should not have the right to decide that cigarette smoke is okay because they own the place. Cigarette smoke tramples on the rights of those who do smoke in the most fundamental of ways: it causes cancer and kills a significant percentage of the time. Oh yeah, and before you bring up examples, bars!
No point in arguing with someone who believes government's job is to regulate my rights when government serves as the biggest threat to my liberties.
And there is no point aruing with someone who will not recognize that government created and protects rights. Without government protecting those rights we would live in a world like that of the movie "City of God".
No point in arguing with someone who basis what they believe society would turn into with smaller government on a movie that takes place in a socialist society.
Post a Comment