it stops when it is discriminating between customers. She was denying one person a drug while dispensing it to other people. You can't do that legally, any more than you could refuse to sell it to people of a given race.

You're combining two different things. It does not cause a chemical abortion, no, but it is specified that it can prevent implantation. I read the drug specifications this morning specifically because of this discussion.

If there were laws that required pharmacists to dispense any medication without fail, you'd be right. There isn't though. That's what this regulation sought to do, only it did it with such an imbalance that pharmacists could pick and choose at will with the exception of plan-b.

The problem with that is it can be said right back to you and the only difference is a subjective argument. If our rights were decided by the court of public opinion, our rights would change every time the social mood changed. Instead, we are granted ALL rights and powers that aren't specifically denied, and we have…

"Would this mean that, according to this judge, if a conservative Muslim or Orthodox Jew were to own a bar, that they could ban women from entering based on their conscientious objection? "

According to the bill of rights all freedoms exist unless they are specifically forbidden. In order for the government to intrude, there has to be an overwhelming cause. That's why we have abortion in the US actually. The courts decided that there was no cause for government to insert itself into the decision of…

Some made that argument, sure. For the most part the argument against access was they just didn't want to let them in, and didn't have to, because it was a private business and they could choose what they wanted. That SOUNDS like that applies here, but it really doesn't.

I'm having a hard time parsing your post, it doesn't seem to be addressing what I am saying at all. Perhaps you're reading what you assume to be my opinion instead of actually seeing what I am saying and understanding it.

I'm sorry, and with great respect to your beliefs, but that's what you are promoting here, a belief, not law. Fireman may not discriminate against people because of their religion, no, but that's the exact case being made by the judge in this ruling. The regulation can't give everyone EXCEPT religious people the…

Again, and with great respect, but that isn't true. There may be state-to-state licensing restrictions about what kind of doctor can perform an abortion, but pretty much any doctor who is trained to can, and any doctor can be trained to if they so choose. This misconception actually gives doctors a pass on it, since…

While I agree completely with you as far as how things SHOULD be, we don't have those ideals legislated in any legally binding form. Obviously we are only now considering health care a right in the US, which is why these debates are flaring up. The FDA sets up regulations on how pharmacists may or may not dispense…

"How does Plan B® (levonorgestrel) work?

That's certainly a solution. I tend to think things will go the other way, though. As much as it makes us angry to see all this stuff during an election year, the fact is fewer Americans differ with contraception and abortion now than did in the past. It's a serious issue now, and will continue to be, but I truly…

That was a loophole in the regulation that was overturned. I'm not sure what drug it addressed or what situation provoked it being added to the rule that they had to keep drugs on hand. Might want to ask the folks who drafted it.

With all due respect though, someone in the 1950's could have made the same argument about segregation. Those were regulations too. The reason we have a bill of rights is to prevent regulations from unfairly targeting people based upon their race, religion, gender, etc.

The federal government in the US holds to the scientific definition of pregnancy, so plan-b would be contraception. States have their own definition in many cases though, and some of them define fertilization as the beginning of life. Add to that the fact that there are both federal and state regulations for…

Again, this isn't about employees not wanting to sell plan-b that the pharmacy stocks.

I think most of the pharmacists in question do understand it. Those who wouldn't want to sell it would tell you they believe life begins at fertilization, so the act of preventing the fertilized egg from becoming a pregnancy would to them be an abortion, not contraception. So, it's not as much about the pharmacists…

Well, it was the employer fighting the regulation. The owner of the pharmacy didn't want to stock the drug. Granted, had the regulation stated that the pharmacy had to carry all drugs for which their was a demand with no loopholes then this regulation wouldn't have been overturned.

Not sure how you can read any of that into it. This ruling wouldn't have any effect on the situation you're talking about. This has to do with a regulation that forced pharmacies to stock particular drugs.