I was watching a legal program in which the guest was a woman who was a pharmacist for a national retailer and was fired becuase she would not fill a perscription for a woman for the abortion pill or some sort of birth control that equates to a morning after pill. In her contract with the retailer it states that she did not want to have to fill a perscription that violated her conscious and the company agreed.

Until this situation came up. Then she was fired after she said that she would not sign a wavier that would require her to fill any and all perscriptions. Even those that violate her religious convictions.

Now I know I dont have all the facts on this but if in fact she was fired because of her convictions, that is wrong.

The woman was unable to do her job. If your religious convictions prohibit you from doing your job, you should not have taken the job in the first place.

Most people are employees at will, which means they can be fired for any non-discriminatory reason any time they want. Since she had a contract, she's not an employee at will. So one would have to see the terms of the contract to see whether she has a case or not.

What an dumb bitch. Why become a pharmacist if you aren't able to do the job.

That equates to taking a job as a bus driver but refusing to make left hand turns because of your convictions.

you know, when kerry said that he supports the right of abortion, people took that and ran with it. then he had to explain that he wouldnt do it himself, but he defends the right of anyone who wanted it. people went crazy. people at my job were saying that he was for abortion.......i hate that people dont think ! i believe in christ, but i more than respect ANYONE that doesnt. the bible even tells us not to judge, and thats exactly what that woman was doing. and we wonder why people have a problem with "so called religeous or people with so called " convictions". give me a break. they are hypocrites....plain and simple, because if she wasnt, compassion would have taken over......but a hypocrite doesnt even know compassion, because everything is geared towards only believing what they think and everything else is phony !!!.......sounds familiar dems and repubs ?

I agree, she shouldn't have taken the job



Originally posted by Echo2
What an dumb bitch.

Yu tel her.

I think it goes further than that. She was able to do the job but I think it comes down to whether she wanted to be a part of an abortion, a procedure she does not believe in. She called in the perscription to another pharmacy, she just would not fill it herself. I think there is a fine line between you doing something and then having someone else do it for you. I think you can do the job and still have your convictions.

I would never hire someone that agreed to do a specific job but then put restrictions on specific parts their "convictions" wouldn't allow them to do.

As I said before... Who wants to hire a bus driver that won't turn left because of his "convictions". He should find a job where his precious "convictions" won't intervere with the business.

I would not go back to a pharmacy that refused to fill my prescription and sent me to another place. My time is important and my trust in a pharmacy is important.

Any pharmacist that would do this would not be beyond putting plain aspirin in the bottle to "save the baby". Their hearts may be in the right place but their minds are fogged. That baby could have been terribly deformed or diseased. The mother could have hyperclmpsia or some other deadly problem. A pharmacist has no business making decisions about what legal drugs people should get or not.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
...whether she wanted to be a part of an abortion, a procedure she does not believe in. She called in the perscription to another pharmacy...

Then she did get involved in the "procedure"

I still want to know how the hell a morning after pill is abortion. I also want her to take an IQ test just so I can laugh some more. How idiotic...

If she had a contract that stated that she did not have to fill those orders then it was certainly wrong for them to fire her and she could sue them for breach of contract.

If she had no binding contract, then she was not able to do the job and should have chosen a different job.

Originally posted by DrewM
If she had a contract that stated that she did not have to fill those orders then it was certainly wrong for them to fire her and she could sue them for breach of contract.

If she had no binding contract, then she was not able to do the job and should have chosen a different job.
It would depend on how the contract was worded. Until we see the contract, we can't exactly make an informed decision.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
It would depend on how the contract was worded. Until we see the contract, we can't exactly make an informed decision.
----------------------
I agree with Borg on this one. Wording would determine legality.
I also find it hard to believe that a major chain would have agreed to limitations of her employment in the first place.

If the contract was not worded to say she didn't have do those things - then she did not have a contract regarding this issue.

The issue is fairly clear cut - either she had a contract or she didn't. If she did she was dismissed unfairly.

Originally posted by Blibblob
I still want to know how the hell a morning after pill is abortion.


"Non-surgical abortions using RU486 are performed in the first 63 days of the first trimester. "

I think "morning after" is a euphamism.

http://www.ru486.com/topics/articles/article_73.asp

Originally posted by Brooks
I think "morning after" is a euphamism.
That's exactly what it is.

"Non-surgical abortions using RU486 are performed in the first 63 days of the first trimester. "

I think "morning after" is a euphamism.
Dude... that is NOT a baby. It's not even a damn fetus. It's still an embryo! It has no functioning parts. It has no brain, no heart, no damn nervous system. It is not a baby! It's a clump of cells that don't do anything specific or special. At that age the cells are still embryonic stem cells. There are no noticable features of a fetus or human, growth of head, the first, is hardly to not noticable. It's not really abortion, your not taking out a fetus or killing any being, your just stopping the growth of currently useless cells.

I understand where you're coming from Blib, but the issue here is not one of science, it's one of moral conviction, and that's where this whack job has placed her initiative. Hell, I agree with you, but that's not the point. If her contract relieved her of supplying perscriptions she had moral qualms over filling, then she had every right not to do it.

Originally posted by Blibblob
"Non-surgical abortions using RU486 are performed in the first 63 days of the first trimester. "

I think "morning after" is a euphamism.
Dude... that is NOT a baby. It's not even a damn fetus. It's still an embryo! It has no functioning parts. It has no brain, no heart, no damn nervous system. It is not a baby! It's a clump of cells that don't do anything specific or special. At that age the cells are still embryonic stem cells. There are no noticable features of a fetus or human, growth of head, the first, is hardly to not noticable. It's not really abortion, your not taking out a fetus or killing any being, your just stopping the growth of currently useless cells.

"Dude", your first post showed that you thought the morning-after pill literally was taken the morning after, that's all I was commenting on.

I have to comment on your description of 63 days of development, you're uninformed:

By week 7 (49 days), it is usually possible to see the developing baby within the womb and detect its heartbeat by ultrasound examinations.

By week 8 (56 days), the baby's face and features begin forming.

The first bone cells form.

Fingers and toes are growing, along with the beginnings of nails.

The liver begins making bile (a liquid that helps break down fats in food so they can be absorbed), and the kidneys begin secreting urine into the bladder.

The circulatory and respiratory systems begin functioning.

The fetus also begins to move during the first trimester, although the mother won't feel movement until around the fourth month.

http://yourmedicalsource.com/library/pregnancy/PGW_normal.html

Lastly, if you want, go to this next link. It shows shows this "clump of cells" after "choice" has taken place. Look at the 7 week picture, and tell me you don't see any trace of humanity there (I don't advocate forcing people to see this, but I think you really don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry to say it that way)

http://abortionno.org/Resources/pictures.html

I have to comment on your description of 63 days of development, you're uninformed:
I was unsure as to exactly how early the fetus begins to form, but I was positive it wasn't until late first trimester, early second trimester. Late trimester it is. I saw "Before 63 days [otherwise you're screwed]". It's not a fetus until 8 weeks, and it's brain doesn't function until 12. (found a better site with dop's aliens (http://www.w-cpc.org/fetal1.html)) Interesting, mom doesn't stop menstrating until 4 whole weeks in. Oh, right, back to my point. It doesn't function. I see abortion like this: first trimester - it doesn't function, really, I don't care here; second - you better have a damn good reason to abort, you've had some time; third - what the hell? You've had at least a whole six weeks to get rid of it, and you want to do it now? I mean, I might be willing since we get rid of some stupidity genes, but only if mother and child go, I mean one without the one that can make more? What's the point in helping the gene pool?

Look at the 7 week picture, and tell me you don't see any trace of humanity there
Looks like a red frog, something you'd shit out and go "oh, well that looks weird". Does it function? No. Even your information doesn't place functioning organs until it's begining the second trimester. Before 63 days, it certainly is something, but it's something that doesn't work.

Originally posted by Blibblob
[b] Even your information doesn't place functioning organs until it's begining the second trimester.

Actually "my" information put functioning organs at 56 days, not at beginning of second trimester, which is about 90 days (did you read it?)

Let me try to understand your position (I'm just gonna convert your weeks into days for you):
* It's not a fetus until 56 days
* Before 63 days " It's not even a damn fetus. It's still an embryo! It has no functioning parts. It has no brain, no heart, no damn nervous system. It is not a baby! It's a clump of cells "
* "Before 63 days, it certainly is something"
Not consistent, or ill informed.

I think the less you know about this topic, the easier it is to be flippant (shitting a red frog, etc.)

Actually "my" information put functioning organs at 56 days, not at beginning of second trimester, which is about 90 days (did you read it?)
Oh noes! I forgot almost!

* It's not a fetus until 56 days
* Before 63 days " It's not even a damn fetus. It's still an embryo! It has no functioning parts. It has no brain, no heart, no damn nervous system. It is not a baby! It's a clump of cells "
* "Before 63 days, it certainly is something"
Consistant, if you don't mush and match. Techincally not a fetus until 56 days(not so anyways, it's still that week, not exactly that many days), still not really even one, I don't see how it's considered a fetus if it doesn't even have a full brain yet. I was off a week on it not being a fetus! Oh dear. It still says before 63 days, before 8 weeks, not really up to. And yes, it is something before 63 days, if you didn't cut the rest of the sentence off, you'd see "but it's something that doesn't work." Inconsistant, nay. Generalized, yea.

Ya sure cleared that up, "Dude".

You're such a bastard, Brooks, but I love it... :D

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
I was watching a legal program in which the guest was a woman who was a pharmacist for a national retailer and was fired becuase she would not fill a perscription for a woman for the abortion pill or some sort of birth control that equates to a morning after pill. In her contract with the retailer it states that she did not want to have to fill a perscription that violated her conscious and the company agreed.

Until this situation came up. Then she was fired after she said that she would not sign a wavier that would require her to fill any and all perscriptions. Even those that violate her religious convictions.

Now I know I dont have all the facts on this but if in fact she was fired because of her convictions, that is wrong.

Yeah, that's crap. I don't believe in abortion. It's murder.

Originally posted by Assassin
Yeah, that's crap. I don't believe in abortion. It's murder.
What you believe in or not is irrelevant in this case...

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
Now I know I dont have all the facts on this but if in fact she was fired because of her convictions, that is wrong.



I fail to see how it is "wrong" for the employer to expect her to behave rationally and perform the required work.

I'd like to see a few million American working people inform their boss tommorrow---"Uh, sir? I need to inform you that I have become an adherant of the Glapdishnookian religion and, well, in our religion, we have to relax and nap between the hours of 8 am and 5 pm every day, so, you will be getting a lot less productivity out of me in the future. But hey!....they're my religious convictions, so you can't fire me!!"

Then let's see how many Rightwing Religious types wade into the fray, defending those worker's ""religious convictions"".

What I don't understand is why there would be a clause in her contract enabling her to decide whether or not to fill any given prescription...it makes no sense. Jesus, leave your convictions at home when you're at work.

If she called it in anyway, thats still being involved, so she should have just filled it. There is no reason for anyone to become involved with what is so clearly between the doctor and patient, people bomb abortion clinics for the same mind set. I would find it hard to believe that she has a contract that supports her convictions....There are not many companies who worry about if the job descriptions fits a persons convictions they just want the job done...

you know what bothers me, let some fat cats daughter get pregnant, and see what he does.......out in the open, everyone wants to SEEM moral, but behind closed doors, a lot of those guys are pulling a joe kennedy, have secret operations done on their kids that no one will find out about ! they give us the rules, but i bet that they dont follow them...........do i sound cynical !....lmao....well , i am. its like , if i know a cop, or have one in my family ( no shot at you brooks ), i will not get speeding tickets, just for mentioning a name.......rules are only for the sheep, not the herder

The grey area here and maybe more to the point should not be birth control.
The preemptive act of birth control should not be an issue to a pharmacist.
While some may have issue w/abortion or a pill that causes such.
There is a strong arguement NOT to use abortion for birth control.

There was a snippet on the Daily Show where a pharmacist (sitting in a retail setting) said because of his moral convictions, refused to fill a script for birth control.
Now that's a pinhead.
If you don't want to shear sheep;
you shouldn't have signed up to be a sheep shearer.

As I have said before, I dont know the whole story, so I cannot comment beyond what I know. I am just saying that if she or any one of us were fired because of our convictions it is wrong.

Originally posted by korg

its like , if i know a cop, or have one in my family ( no shot at you brooks ), i will not get speeding tickets, just for mentioning a name.......rules are only for the sheep, not the herder

Explain that one to my wife when she got burned for no-seat-belt

(PS - coming from you, there is no offense taken)

As I have said before, I dont know the whole story, so I cannot comment beyond what I know. I am just saying that if she or any one of us were fired because of our convictions it is wrong.
I disagree - if her convictions thwarted her from performing her duties, then she deserved termination. It's akin to being a construction worker who doesn't believe in building synagogues. If you're paid to do a job, then you do it, period.

However, the contract loophole poses an interesting question: is it worded in a way that allows her to take those liberties? If so, then no, she shouldn't have been fired.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
I am just saying that if she or any one of us were fired because of our convictions it is wrong.

But ANYBODY can come up with a set of so-called "convictions" that would exempt them from doing any actual labor.

What if 20 million American workers informed their bosses tommorrow--- "Uh, sir? I need to inform you that I am an adherant of the Glapdishnookian religion and, well, in our religion, we have to relax and nap between the hours of 8 am and 5 pm every day, so, you will be getting a lot less productivity out of me in the future. But hey!....they're my religious convictions, so you see, it would be "wrong" for you to fire me."

.....??

How could the employer ever demand a fair amount of labor from anyone if we as a society make it "wrong" for employers to fire a worker because they don't want to perform a required task.....???