It’s Not About Gay Wedding Cakes. It’s About A National Religion
Take a good long look at this story.
MILLEDGEVILLE, Ga.– Brittany Cartrett recently learned some bad news from her doctor about her pregnancy. She miscarried around five or six weeks along.
“So we made the decision to not do a D&C and to get a medicine. So he said I’m going to give you this medicine, you’ll take it, and it will help you to pass naturally so that you don’t have to go the more invasive route”, said Brittany Cartrett.
The doctor’s office called the Milledgeville Walmart to fill the prescription but they were told no and they were not given a reason.
“So we found another place to fill it but I still had to go up there to get another prescription so when I went up there she asked if I had any questions about this prescription I said no I don’t but I do have a question about the other one. And she looks at my name and she says oh, well…I couldn’t think of a valid reason why you would need this prescription“, Cartrett said.
The drug in question is Misoprostol, which can also used to induce abortions. [emphasis mine]
Everyone okay with a pharmacist overruling an actual doctor’s orders and diagnosis? Everyone okay with a pharmacist deciding, without examining you (not that they would even be capable of that) or knowing your medical condition, if you have a “valid reason” for the prescription decided upon by an actual doctor?
Republicans knew what they were doing making this about wedding cakes and photographers – they knew most people would shrug at cakes, flowers and wedding photos while missing the end game. These pharmacist “conscience clauses” are simply another way to achieve the same end. Religious Discrimination. I can’t even imagine a pharmacist thinking they are remotely qualified to make such a decision. How certain drugs interact? Sure. Whether you have a “valid reason” for needing a drug? That decision is far above their pay grade. They are not qualified (not one little bit) to make such a decision.
They should be forbidden, by law, from making/overruling a decision made by an actual doctor. And if their “conscience” bothers them then they need to find a new job, because they are unable to do the job they were hired for. And we’d never tolerate this behavior in any other profession. A fireman/woman who refused to enter a burning building because fire = Satan? A fast food worker who refused to serve an overweight person because fast food could lead to their death? And there’s Cassandra’s example of a Muslim grocery store clerk who won’t allow pork products in their lane. (We know the last example won’t happen since these proposed/existing laws only consider christian beliefs. We are fast approaching a National Religion, and that should concern everyone.)
And given the Hobby Lobby decision – which said what you believe matters (that Plan B and Ella are abortifacients), not facts (they aren’t)* – then what happens when pharmacists “believe” other medication cause abortion or death and they can’t fill prescriptions because of their conscience? Don’t worry, Viagra will always be considered a god-given right, but what about other medications considered unsafe during pregnancy? What if the pharmacist “believes” you’re pregnant, and in “good” conscience refuses to fill your actual doctor’s prescription? And that’s not a leap, it’s the plan. All women of child bearing age shall be considered pregnant at all times. I’m bracing myself for mandatory pregnancy tests administered at the pharmacy counter.
And just like wedding cakes aren’t remotely the real issue (they are just a way to get to get lazy focus groups to say “yep” without having to think – because, hey, it’s just a cake!), these “conscience clauses” aren’t about a pharmacist’s conscience, they are about inflicting the pharmacist’s religious views on everyone else. And that’s a problem that will eventually impact everyone. I cannot stress that enough. Be very careful in dismissing/labeling these incidents as gay issues or women issues or minority issues. Religious Conservatives are counting on that; they are counting on people letting this nonsense slide because their next steps rely on laying this groundwork.
*Pay close attention to Hobby Lobby’s bogus claim that Plan B and Ella are abortifacients. Once they get that lie cemented into public opinion (just like they did with wedding cakes) get ready for The Pill to come under further attacks by “pro-life” groups and christian pharmacists because the medication in Plan B and Ella are exactly the same as oral contraceptives. See how that works? If you “believe” Plan B/Ella are abortifacients then you believe oral contraceptives are abortifacients. No leap required.
Tags: Abortion, Featured, Gay Marriage, Religious Intolerance, Women's Health
pandora–I understand your concern in regards over a denial with regards to “morning after pill”, Depo, etc.. and where you feel this will lead. Unfortunately, this particular example though is more a sensationalized version probably hijacked for the dog whistle effect.
Pharmacists are one of the top two professions of brilliance–underutilized in my opinion. The “denial” of the medicine in question, has LONG been a respect in practice by all healthcare practitioners, when there is a question of dose, interaction, pending lab study etc.., until further clarification or discusion with the ordering physician. Many an error has been avoided with that checks and balances. Ultimate denial based on belief, or conscience is well managed between pharmacists and pharmacies without a blip to the consumer. They said they couldn’t fill it. That’s it. Just like some pharmacies don’t carry Oxycontin anymore because they don’t want to deal with the safety risk, some choose not to carry immunizations because of the liability rider to their insurance. No outrage? The point being–the person looking at her presescription and commenting “I can’t think of a valid reason you would need this prescription…..”, is just a clerk. Probably didn’t even know what the prescription was. And the pharmacy was either out of stock or they don’t carry it. Both scenarios are quite frequent.
I would be suspect of this individual before I would be suspect of the individual pharmacy/pharmacist. And FWIW, 5-6 weeks is a bit hasty to be pushing all those darn hormones on someone when generally nature will do her work, less painfully. But again, none of us have all the facts huh?
JC, i totally disagree.
A pharmacists is not your doctor. They can give you guidance on how medicine’s react with each other, dosage, etc. … but nowadays, so can web MD. This is not the only case of a pharmacist making a decision for a woman when it comes to birth control. Their job is to fill prescriptions, not to second guess a real doctor.
How do you know the person is just a clerk? I have no idea. And if she was just a clerk than why would she even have a say? Because if the pharmacist filled the prescription then that clerk would be fired for not ringing it up.
And nature’s way should be decided by a doctor. It’s their patient. Pharmacists need to do their jobs – they are not doctors. If they’re unable then they need to switch professions.
What if this was the only pharmacy in town? We really need to start considering this reality.
when there is a question of dose, interaction, pending lab study etc.., until further clarification or discussion with the ordering physician. Many an error has been avoided with that checks and balances.
That’s not what this pharmacist did. She just told this woman that she couldn’t think of why she needed this drug. Checks and balances are about checking with the ordering doc, not just saying you don’t know why you need this drug.
exactly. She needed it because her DR said so. do your job and fill the rx. .
Its as if these “Christians” get jobs that specifically position them to force their beliefs on others.
ben–a pharmacist isn’t a parts clerk. just fill the prescription and go, may work for the occasional antibiotic you grab, but many people are reliant on the greater knowledge base a pharmacist has of either their chronic health problems and meds prescribed, or new journey into chemo or an acute situation. Your doctor and pharmacist work together.
Here’s one for ya…many a gal has faced. On BC pills. Have a nasty bronchitis, You go to MD about and prescribes antibiotics. Show up at pharmacy, and wise pharmacist says, hey you’re on BCP–they may not be as effective now with this antibiotic. Gee, MD or urgent care made nary a mention. Why? Routine for patient, like a vitamin, and besides the OB-GYN prescribed. So, do you still fill and bill, or make that courtesy clarification to the MD? That’s EVERYDAY. Or yes, your pharmacist in your view, fills it in isolation of the big picture. And I guess they’ll see you for Plan B, or carrying that bouncing bundle of Ortho No Nothing.
Really?
The person, whoever it was, didn’t inquire about interaction with other drugs or dosage. She didn’t say they may not have something in stock. If she wanted a question answered it may have been better to, I don’t know, ask a question. She could have phoned the prescribing doctor or asked the patient. So is she just suppose to make an independent decision about what she is going to dispense based on her personal “confusion”?
If there was any question it should have been asked. These people seem to think their personal fantasies apply to everyone. They don’t. If somebody is uncomfortable serving a same-sex wedding and filling an order for medicine then don’t get into the business of serving customers.
Joanne, you’re creating a bunch of hypotheticals that don’t seem to be relevant.
The situation you’re describing is not the one talked about in the article…. so I don’t get it.
There are counter anecdotes for every example, so yes. people with pharmaceutical training provide good services in many cases. Fine. It is still not their place to deny a dr’s RX…. and most of the time it happens because they dont agree with birth control. The article in the OP is hardly the first time that has happened….
No DG. That’s just it. The “hypotheticals” aren’t just one-sided. Why is it straight to “they are AGAINST filling this….”? Why is NO–with no reason given–get portrayed as deafening anti-women reproductive rights–instead of a stupid person didn’t ask why? And c’mon we’re talking Walmart here…..she gets the other prescription without any questions as stated in story. The subsequent question was asked at the same time. Anybody ever having a presecription filled at Walmart is handled by a clerk in transaction UNTIL there is a question (and really most pharmacies), THEN the pharmacist steps in. They transact thousands at each location no doubt. That’s it. A simple procedural matter. Why is it so hard to accept an inventory, insurance, procedural, drug interaction, clerical, or brand preference in this denial than it is to readily and catapault an unanswered, UNASKED question to misogyny and denying womens’ reproductive rights?
You just gotta do better than this. 🙂
This idea that I need to explain why I need the thing I’m buying to the person selling it is nonsense. The onus isn’t on the consumer. We don’t know anything. It is one sided. (And nobody asked this question when a gun is being purchased at Walmart, so far as I know.) Who can just refuse service and say, well, we didn’t know why you needed it. The chemist wasn’t at the doctor appointment they wouldn’t know would they…
Who explians the reason for the prescription the the phramacist? I’ve never even heard of such a thing. So it’s not the patient’s responsibility to convince the chemist he/she needs what they were prescribed? If the phramacy has a question then ask the question.
As far as assuming some anti-woman, religious “liberty” deal… yeah, I guess that’s not clear. But your argument is no good.
I clerk at a pharmacy window has even LESS right to question the RX.
Sorry, Joanne, but you have to do better. Love ya! But not one of your imagined scenarios fits this situation. Let’s just deal with what the patient was told at the pharmacy. If there was another reason it sure wasn’t stated. So let’s just deal with what was actually said.
As far as doctors asking about BC. My daughter is getting her wisdom teeth out this summer and when the nurse was filling her in on the procedure she asked about BC, saying the antibiotic given after surgery would lessen the effectiveness of BC. Seemed like standard procedure.
The point here is that the pharmacy is overruling a doctor’s prescription. They are playing doctor. That’s the only point.
#1 I’ll even concede that the phramacy can (and perhaps sometimes should) ask these questions, but a question was not asked.
#2 The idea that the consumer needs to proactively explain herself or investigate with the phramacy the decision is a completely inane argument.
Head exploding. ben–the clerk DIDN’T question the Rx. The “answer” was she didn’t know the reason she needed this…….as in, regardless…..here’s your prescription back for whatever reason we can’t fill it. Just returning the paperwork of the unfilled prescription with the filled prescription. You are heavily hanging on every word a consumer “reports” was said to her–in a huge pharmacy, a chain pharmacy, a pharmacy that has more clerks and techs than the deli counter.
Why is that such a stretch in everyday pharmacy interaction for you?
.Head doing just fine……JC, why is it so hard for you to see what is really going on … not just here… but all over the place?
Wait… Joanne, are you saying the woman was lying about what was said to her? Is that where you’re coming from? If so, why do you think that?
And the prescription wasn’t handed over to that pharmacy – it had to be filled at another pharmacy. The doctor’s office called the pharmacy first. All of this is in the article.
Womens bodies do NOT always expel dead fetuses in a timely and painless matter. They go septic ALL THE TIME. WTF. All options when facing a miscarriage are equally sucky and for a pharmacist to make treatment difficult or override a doctors order is beyond reproach, no matter how you try to explain it away. HIPPA protects patients from having to explain to some clerk why they need medicine, no matter what it is. Due to these “anti abortion even when its not an abortion” people, when you are past a certain time frame, you even lose the option of going to a hospital with your own doctor and are forced to a real clinic with protesters.
What the F is wrong with these sexually obsessed folk in everyone’s business? Mind your owing F-ing business and hide in your shelters before Obama comes to take your guns and put you in a FEMA camp
Oh for the love of the free country……just bring the dang prescription to the FEMA camp, and I will personally see it gets filled by some low wage worker, who knows it will be well stocked and available there!
Can this paper tiger go back in a cage now? This woman from Georgia got her 15 minutes. Confused or not. I just wanted to hear the “rest of the story”….that’s all.
“The doctor’s office called the Milledgeville Walmart to fill the prescription but they were told no and they were not given a reason.”
How anyone can be okay with a Walmart employee’s religion coming in between the decision of a doctor and patient is beyond me.
Coming between a patient and their doctor over a legal prescription. And telling the woman, “I couldn’t think of a valid reason why you would need this prescription.” – Like this person needed a “valid reason” to dispense doctor prescribed medication.
Wonder how far this conscience clause would go for a bank executive refusing to serve a corporation that made medications they didn’t approve of?
Saw in Slate this morning that the Rx was refused based on “conscience”. So that removes all the hypotheticals from it.
If you are unwilling to preform the lawful duties required find another career. Maybe homeschooling or putting bibles in hotel nightstands. The idea that personal religious rights can be applied to others (customers, patients, &c.) is incorrect. If the chemist disagrees with the course of treatment he or she can refuse it for themselves.
And there you go. Thanks, Dorian.
If your conscience doesn’t allow you to fulfill your work duties, you should find another line of work. If the “conscience” of Wal-Mart (like a soulless corporation has one) says it cannot provide some pharmacy services, it shouldn’t provide any because it is then not a real pharmacy. If I’m working as a bartender and decide that alcohol is bad, I can’t just serve sodas to people, can I? Of course not, I do my job or I find a different one.
Unfortunately, this is not something new or recent, at least in Georgia. It’s been the law there for 15 years. It won’t stop people from shopping at Wal Mart, but it should. Even though Wal Mart only complies with Georgia law, they wield influence appropriate to their size and should not tolerate this practice.
What if each of us would either bake a cake, or buy a cake and seek out someone who is gay and give it to them, and let them know they are a welcomed part of our neighborhood. Wouldn’t it make a great story for Delaware in the national news if a movement could be started here — a “Give your gay neighbors a cake day” in Delaware? It might show the world that you can actually welcome someone who is different from you into your circle of friends? I am going to do it.
Would bisexual neighbors only get half a cake? 🙂 The thing is, people aren’t asking for special treatment or special rights, just equal rights. Not sure I can get behind the “Let them eat cake” movement. (Even though Marie Antoinette never actually said that.)
a gesture of kindness and acceptance never hurts, though!
Is it kosher to ask someone if they are gay?
Please don’t beat me up over this PANDORA – or anyone else….
but if you are going to write about gender and issues of integrity please use the proper terminology
It’s not a FIREMAN – it never was a FIREMAN – a FIREMAN is someone who shovels coal into the furnace on a train
The proper term for someone that puts out a fire is called a FIREFIGHTER – and as adamant as you are in these issues please understand that for decades people in the fire service- both men and women have been fighting to have the proper, non- gender specific term used
I know you meant no offense – but using the term FIREMAN is not only technically incorrect – it also permanently affixes the male gender to the job
By using the term FIREFIGHTER – it correctly describes the base premise of the job function as well and NOT affixing a gender to the role- and there by hopefully allowing for the progression of women and other gender neutral persons in the Fire Service
The delaware volunteer Firemans Association made the change several years ago to be inclusive and correct – they are now the Delaware Volunteer Firefighters Association – and trust me – they are not the most progressive of groups – but even they realized that the term was incorrect and exclusive
Thank you for understanding and taking this constructive criticism in the spirit with which it is intended
When I was a kid, I had a fireman’s hat and fire truck that would connect to the hos bib and shoot a 20 ft stream of water