Suppositions II

Whoops. Dementee posted a reply to this post from the other day and I missed it. My bad.

My failings as a World Champion Web Surfer aside, let's get down to brass tacks. If you're interested, take the jump.

My oh my, how I love being the instigator. The trouble is, Kathy’s response to my post is one of emotion, not reasoned thought. While this is typical for a liberal, I always hope for more.

I’m going to respond to Kathy’s “Suppositions”, but I have to tread lightly so as ot{sic} to fall into the black hole of her logic.

I do not know why I feel the need to clarify my political position for Dementee's benefit, but I will anyway, just so we're all on the same page here.

I am a libertarian. Not a liberal. There is a difference. Learn it. Live it. Love it. Along the political spectrum, one can place me squarely on the right side, but closer to the middle than Dementee obviously is. Simply because one does not agree with the extreme right wing position of Dementee does not mean one is not a conservative, and hence can automatically be classified as a liberal. Life might be that simple for Dementee, but it's not for the rest of us whose political philosophy is not quite so easily defined. Methinks Dementee and Robert Novak would get along just swell.

As far as my political beliefs---registered Republican who has never voted Democratic ever---are concerned I will simply state that I believe in the priniciples set down by John Locke over two hundred years ago: life, liberty and property. These principles influenced Thomas Jefferson and the Framers of the Constitution greatly. In essence, I'm keepin' it real...dawg.

If the opposite of law and order is anarchy, I believe we need just enough law to keep from reaching anarchy and not one law more. This means I believe in the classical vision of the United States as the Framers of the Constitution intended: one where the overarching arm of The State was kept out of it as much as possible, because they, indeed, saw that anarchy brought about by excessive regulation and bureaucratic meanderings could be just as deadly to our Republic as the sort of anarchy that exists when there is no law.

If that makes me a "liberal" well, so be it. I don't think the Democratic Party would approve of my position, though.

Supposition 1: I would feel bad if a pharmacist denied be his/her services on moral grounds.

Response 1: My argument is based on religious beliefs which, by nature, are much less transient than one’s morals and are actually cited in the constitution. Kathy is attempting to change the premise and, therefore, the playing field by creating an equivalency between morals and religious belief.

So, basically what Dementee is saying here, I believe, is that religious beliefs automatically trump morals. Religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, while "morals" are not. Religious beliefs are supposedly "much less transient" than one's morals. Which is a whopping logical fallacy that I will come back to in a moment.

Ok, let's take a looksee to see precisely what the First Amendment says in this respect:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to assembly, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That first bit there is the one in question. With one one big gulp of air the Framers said that there shall be no state sponsored religion, while with the second breath they qualified and said that no one shall impinge on someone's religious rights. In his rush to embrace the latter, Dementee forgets the former. There shall be no state sponsorship of religion in this country. You are entitled to practice whatever religion you would like, but the Framers decreed that the State is not in the Religion business. Over the years, the State has held true to this belief and has told many, many people to get their religion out of state matters. Sort of like keeping the chocolate out of the peanut butter and vice versa. With these two elegant bits of language, the Framers guaranteed that the secular is just as equal as the religious. One does not trump the other. Both face cards hold the same value in this game of bridge we call America.

As far as Dementee's assertion that religious beliefs are "much less transient" than morals, well, let's go there for a moment, shall we? Morals are universal. Morals are, first and foremost, concerned with the difference between right and wrong. It is wrong to murder someone. It is wrong to lie. It is wrong to have the hots for your neighbor's wife. These are universal values, they are secular, and you ignore them at your peril. The trouble starts when "religion" gets involved as the means of dissemination of said morals. "Don't kill someone" morphs into "Thou shalt not kill." And at that point your not only commiting a sin against whomever you might have killed, you're also committing a sin against God. I can only suppse that Dementee believes that by adding the God bit, there's more force to back up the "Thou shalt not" part, hence his assertion that religious beliefs are "less transient" than morals. Because by adding a third party to reinforce the difference between right and wrong that you and your conscience have to fight out---a third party which has some power with the Big Man---you're less likely to stray to the wrong side of the path if you fear the Big Man.

Dementee believes that I am trying to insert some sort of equivalency between morals and religious beliefs, when in fact this is already the case. Secular morals and religious beliefs are equal. Morals are universal. Religion is a man made insitution meant to spread morals. They are the same thing, only the matter of dissemination is different. In this country, the framers of the constitution said that morals are universal, but that religion divides us, hence we must fall back on universal, secular, morals to decide the difference between what is just and what is not just, not religion. They took the long view. Any attempt to cloak morals under the phrase "religious beliefs" is just someone looking for cover where they think they can find it.

Response 1A: I would not be happy if denied service, but I would “feel” no differently about my position.

Conclusion: Kathy’s attempt to blur the issue by introducing morals as equivalent to religious beliefs falls flat. As does her assumption that I would abandon my argument to serve selfish purposes. The fatal flaw in her argument is her belief that I am like her. That I will put my selfish wants above the rights of others.

Oh, I'm a selfish person because I think my right to medication is more important than someone else's right to believe whatever they choose.

I'm a bad, bad girl! Spank me!

My Goodness. Where to begin with this one? Hmmmm. Oh, I know! How's about we start with the false presumption that someone's religious beliefs trump my need for high-grade, potentially life-saving pharmaceuticals? Then we can move on to the fact that someone is, in essence, trying to me what I should believe. Then we can move onto the fact that since pharmacists are licensed by the whichever state they live in, if we allow them to choose not to dish out drugs they object to, why, that's just STATE SPONSORED RELIGION! Which I believe there to be a clause against in the Constitution, but darned if I can remember it!

But Gosh, I'm a selfish person! I believe I'm more important than someone's right to believe! How hubristic of me! Flog me now!

/drama queen

If you start this business of allowing pharmacists to not dish out drugs they have a problem with morally---and just remember that we've established that morals and religious beliefs under the Constitution are equal---where does it stop? Just to present another out-there hypothetical, there have been reports recently that so many people are on prozac that when they flush, the leftover bits find their way into the water supply and, consequently, into the fish population. What happens when an environmentalist preacher convinces a pharmacist parishoner that prescribing prozac is immoral because it's harming God's creatures? What happens when that parishoner decides, according to his or her religion, that he cannot dish out prozac because he believes it to go against God? Which serves the greater good there? Is a pharmacist's right to religious belief greater than the right for this prozac-prescribed person's right to live a productive, non-depressed life? If you say that the person's right to believe is greater, well, you're wrong. Each person's rights are equal under the law. The pharmacist has the right to believe; the patient has the right to receive a medicine which they were prescribed legally by a licensed physician. The problem comes in when Dementee automatically assumes that religious beliefs trump the patient's rights. That is incorrect. They are equal. Again, they have the same value, and just because the Constitution says that there shall be nothing that stands in the way of anyone practicing the religion of their choice does not mean that right trumps all else. In such a circumstance one is trying to impinge the liberty of another person by forcing them to subscribe to beliefs they might not hold. As such, one must err on the side of the prescribee, not the pharmacist. The pharmacist is a representative of the state, because they are licensed by the state, which as we've already established, is not in the religion business.

{Ed. I'm using the word 'trump" an awful lot, aren't I?}

Supposition 2: I would feel differently if a pharmacist was holding my prescription hostage and forcing their morals down my throat.

Response 2: Again with the feelings and morals? Can we not stick to the original premise of refusing service on the religious grounds? And pack up your feeling in your old kit bag. Feelings have no place or meaning in a debate.

Oh, Christ. Time to whip out the old "I was talking about religious beliefs" saw again. Sheesh. It's a bit tiresome, no? Let me repeat it for your edification: religious beliefs and morals are the same thing. They are equivalent.

As I have no old kit bag, I have nothing to pack up "my feelings" in. And I wasn't talking about my feelings in the original post, I was talking about what I "supposed" Dementee's feelings would be. Get it? The post was titled "Suppositions." Remember? I was supposing about Dementee's feelings, not mine. This, of course, presumes he has any to begin with.

Response 2A: I never have and never will approve of holding one’s prescription hostage. Nor would I stand for someone cramming their moral or religious beliefs down my throat. Nor would I run to the Nanny State if a pharmacist, or any other professional, was doing one, the other or both. There’s a simple solution Kathy: Raise hell, walk away, protest the store, spread the word, go to management, etc., etc., etc.

Well, it's good to know that Dementee wouldn't like having someone's prescription held hostage. However, he should know that this has already happened a few times and it's bound to happen more often once pharmacists are allowed this "right." A pharmacist is in a position of power. Furthermore, they already are, in their refusal to dish out the drugs, forcing someone to get in line with their beliefs. They are, in a de facto sort of way, being forced to believe the same thing as the pharmacist. They are being held accountable to the same religious standards the pharmacist believes in, which could easily be defined as proselytizing. Mild proselytizing, but proselytizing nonetheless. The pharmacist is telling them what is right and wrong in their world and forcing them to believe in the same things. How Dementee cannot see this is already the case, I don't know.

Since Dementee states would refuse to run to the nanny-state to ensure his right to medication isn't impinged we must make a few assumptions about his beliefs politically. He undoubtedly believes in the free market, and in competition. Now, this is all well and good providing there is a competitive market. There might not be. Say the owner of a pharmacy in a small town---where there is not another pharmacy for miles on end---is also the sole pharmacist and refuses to fill a prescription because he or she objects to the drug on moral grounds. Who is the prescribee to complain to? It's all well and good to boycott a business when you've got other options but a lot of people in rural America do not have the option to go somewhere else when something like this happens. They just don't. Saying they can resort to mail-order doesn't cut it when the prescription is time-crucial. Saying they can complain to the management isn't going to cut it, either, because the management is the one refusing to fill the prescription.

I am a big believer in the free market. I wouldn't mind one bit if a pharmacist posted a notice saying to go elsewhere for such and such drugs. I would have no issues with it in a small town, either. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened. They inform the prescribee of this when they've got the prescription in hand. What have these pharmacists done instead of hanging up signs? They've ignored the free market and have gone running to the government for protection in the form of laws that specifically state they can skip filling prescriptions if they object morally to said drugs. They've climbed up on the cross of "Someone wants to tell me what to believe and I'm protected by the First Amendment!" following the time honored example set down by the ACLU, while conveniently forgetting that the state has licensed them not to dish out morals, but rather drugs. If that doesn't strike you as somewhat hypocritical, well, you're not wired correctly. Furthermore, to imply that people shouldn't go running to the government in such a circumstance is erroneous. These pharmacists have gone to the seat of power to make sure they've got the law in their corner. It seems only fair for people to go to the government if they've got a problem with it.

If you live by the sword, you'd better be prepared to die by it.

Supposition 3: The establishment clause isn’t going to shield a pharmacist from a lawsuit when someone dies because of their refusal to dish out drugs they might have problems with.

Response 3: I don’t know how a court would rule in this case, but I do know that no rights are absolute. After all, shouting “fire” in a theater is not protected speech nor is smoking peyote a protected religious exercise. But neither of these exceptions to the first amendment negate the first amendment.

Under our current system of torts, I can very easily see where a pharmacist would have their pants sued right off them if there were adverse consequences to their refusal. Hell, people sue when they slip on a grape in the grocery store. Would Dementee have us believe that some pharmacy wouldn't receive the same---or more likely, better---treatment from the Trial Lawyers of America? I don't think he would, but the point stands: the Establishment Clause of the Constitution is not going to protect pharmacists in such a circumstance. They will have to pay, and pay dearly for their refusal, which, of course, will drive up the costs for all of us, because not only will they have to pay out settlements, the cost of their malpractice insurance will go up as well. Then, what do you think the poor, widdle discriminated-against pharmacists are going to do?

Why, of course, they'll run to their state legislatures, looking for liability shield laws. Which, of course, they'll get in some states. Which, of course, will be struck down by some appeals court as a violation of the establishment clause. Which of course will provoke more and more whining about "activist judges" who are bent on destroying the moral fabric of this country!

Which of course will also prompt legislation in Congress that federally forbids such actions entirely. Because no self-respecting Senator or Congressperson could resist this sort of debate. If you think the Democrats will let this one stand, you're nuts. They'll propose more regulation to make sure this sort of thing never happens again. And while they're at it, they'll also throw in a bunch of other regulations, because that's what they do. And that will wind up costing us all more money.

Bleh. Who needs it? I certainly don't, but the pharmacists asked for it, so I suppose we're all screwed when it comes to entertaining C-SPAN viewing. Thanks!

Bottom line: Kathy does not have a leg to stand on. I cite the Constitution, she responds with the most extreme example – death – to argue against it. I talk about the free exercise of religion, she responds with talk of morals and feelings. I say let the market work, she prefers the Nanny State.

She is Left...I am Right.

Again. Bleh. Let's just reiterate. Morals are equivalent to religious beliefs. I can quote the Constitution as well as Dementee. Yeah, someone could die as a result of this stupid legislation and some pharmacist will have their pants sued off as a result. Not to mention the extra penalties added on for pain and suffering. I would actually prefer for the free market to provide the resolution. Unfortunately, as I've laid out above, the instigators didn't rely on the free market to solve their problems, so I don't see why anyone should have to resort to it to solve the problems these pharmacists caused. In other words, they started it.

Then to wrap up his argument, Dementee resorts to lining us up on the political spectrum again, you know, just to clarify things. And he does it in such a clever way, doesn't he? Gosh! He deserves a spot on the talk show du jour, doesn't he? Because he can sum things up so neatly! Gracious, I'll just have to get his autograph right now, before he gets famous, so I can put it up on Ebay and make a profit when the getting is good! {Insert dramatic swoon here}

Of course, this, like Dementee's argument, is bullshit. But you already knew that.

Posted by Kathy at May 15, 2005 11:45 PM