Disingenuous Republican Newspapers, deliberate lies, or just sloppy reporting?
There was an article today on the front page of the Chicago Tribune, it's actually an article from the Red Eye, a publication aimed at a younger demographic, "Just fill the prescription" by Alison Neumer.
It's about the Illinois Governor's emergency order telling pharmacies that carry emergency birthcontrol that they must dispense it, if they carry it.
Again and again the article talks about whether or not a pharmacist has the right to refuse the prescriptions. It mentions a law suit filed on behalf of dissenting pharmacists. The only problem?
It doesn't mention that this emergency DOES NOT FORCE PHARMACISTS TO DO ANYTHING!!!!
What it does do is force pharmacies that carry medication to dispense it. For instance, any pharmacy that does not want to carry it, DOESN"T HAVE TO! Here is an article from Medical News today "Illinois Governor Issues Emergency Rule Requiring Pharmacies To Fill Contraceptive Prescriptions" in which According to Susan Hofer of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, the policy does not require all pharmacies to stock contraceptives.
All the Governor said, is, if you carry it, and you are open for business, you must then sell it. If you don't want to sell it, don't stock it. Simple. If you are a pharmacy that wants to hire men and women (although all pharmacists I have heard of refusing were men, WHAT A SURPRISE), then you have to have staff that is willing to dispense, or you have to stop stocking it.
But, here is a quote from Alison's article " According to Blagojevich's rule, the duty to dispense a prescription falls on the pharmacy, not the pharmacist, which technically means an individual could refuse to fill the prescription as long as someone else is available to fill it without disruption to the patient."
But nowhere does she mention that the pharmacy also has the option to opt out.
No one is being forced to do anything. In the article, it doesn't mention that. It doesn't mention that if you are a pharmacist, all you have to do is negotiate with your boss. And frankly, if you are a pharmacist that believes that EC is wrong, than why are you working for a company that sells it anyway? You would think they would be bothered by this if they are so moral.
Why doesn't she mention that pharmacies are still allowed to not carry EC? My guess is that they want to sensationalize the issue. After all, it makes a much better article if you quote a Cardinal complaining about it, but fail to mention that Catholic pharmacies are free to NEVER fill these prescriptions.
All the law says is that If you carry it, you must sell it. Simple, truth in advertising.
Imagine you go to the store, imagine you pick up a republican paper, lets say the Trib, you take it to the counter, but the clerk won't sell it to you. Why, he feels the contents are against his conscience, his boss wants to sell both Chicago papers, but the clerk feels that because it is a republican paper he has the right not to sell it. NO! His boss (or himself, if he owns the store) do not need to sell it. But to keep it on the shelf but refuse to sell it. How does that make sense?
Well, I e-mailed her, I e-mailed the public editor, I e-mailed the paper. I'll update you on their answers, if I get any. Sometimes they answer, sometimes they don't. I don't expect one this time.
It's about the Illinois Governor's emergency order telling pharmacies that carry emergency birthcontrol that they must dispense it, if they carry it.
Again and again the article talks about whether or not a pharmacist has the right to refuse the prescriptions. It mentions a law suit filed on behalf of dissenting pharmacists. The only problem?
It doesn't mention that this emergency DOES NOT FORCE PHARMACISTS TO DO ANYTHING!!!!
What it does do is force pharmacies that carry medication to dispense it. For instance, any pharmacy that does not want to carry it, DOESN"T HAVE TO! Here is an article from Medical News today "Illinois Governor Issues Emergency Rule Requiring Pharmacies To Fill Contraceptive Prescriptions" in which According to Susan Hofer of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, the policy does not require all pharmacies to stock contraceptives.
All the Governor said, is, if you carry it, and you are open for business, you must then sell it. If you don't want to sell it, don't stock it. Simple. If you are a pharmacy that wants to hire men and women (although all pharmacists I have heard of refusing were men, WHAT A SURPRISE), then you have to have staff that is willing to dispense, or you have to stop stocking it.
But, here is a quote from Alison's article " According to Blagojevich's rule, the duty to dispense a prescription falls on the pharmacy, not the pharmacist, which technically means an individual could refuse to fill the prescription as long as someone else is available to fill it without disruption to the patient."
But nowhere does she mention that the pharmacy also has the option to opt out.
No one is being forced to do anything. In the article, it doesn't mention that. It doesn't mention that if you are a pharmacist, all you have to do is negotiate with your boss. And frankly, if you are a pharmacist that believes that EC is wrong, than why are you working for a company that sells it anyway? You would think they would be bothered by this if they are so moral.
Why doesn't she mention that pharmacies are still allowed to not carry EC? My guess is that they want to sensationalize the issue. After all, it makes a much better article if you quote a Cardinal complaining about it, but fail to mention that Catholic pharmacies are free to NEVER fill these prescriptions.
All the law says is that If you carry it, you must sell it. Simple, truth in advertising.
Imagine you go to the store, imagine you pick up a republican paper, lets say the Trib, you take it to the counter, but the clerk won't sell it to you. Why, he feels the contents are against his conscience, his boss wants to sell both Chicago papers, but the clerk feels that because it is a republican paper he has the right not to sell it. NO! His boss (or himself, if he owns the store) do not need to sell it. But to keep it on the shelf but refuse to sell it. How does that make sense?
Well, I e-mailed her, I e-mailed the public editor, I e-mailed the paper. I'll update you on their answers, if I get any. Sometimes they answer, sometimes they don't. I don't expect one this time.
posted by Johnny Lightheart at 8:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home