Have you been following the ELCC?

[Sage1776]

Crap, I always tend to forget to list an assumption, one of which in my analysis is that the employer MAY fire the employee, but is not REQUIRED to by law, under the proposal. Otherwise there would still be an involuntary transaction on the part of employee and employer.
Slippery slope arguments can be applied to anything, including slippery slope counter-arguments.
If the letter supports the city council’s opposition to the proposed legislation, and if the legislation is generally what I assume it is (I have not looked at it and my analysis is based on how I would shape it, which may be quite different from what it is) I would like to write either a dissenting opinion, have the language in the letter that it is represents the majority of the members of the organization, or I will just not be a formal member. No big deal. I am just doing the law student/lawyer thing of making things complex, although at least I am avoiding the drafting of the letter in general, as then we would have to define the words we are using to define the words we are using to define “is,” and other silliness.

Well I must study and leave this behind.
Just write the letter, I assume I will not get a dissenting opinion on it , and I will decide to be a formal member or not.
Hurray, the world is simple again after the mess I created, which I hope was of some benefit as mental exercise and freethinking.

[Atsuko73]

I don't think that we would be opposed to wording the letter in a way that says just a majority of the group supports it. But that's just me. maybe a poll can be set up.

[ebonywnd]

We definitely do not need to state that the entire group agrees with the ELCC, a statement of majority should be fine. I would, however, advise against putting a dissenting veiwpoint in this particular letter. Of course, anyone may write their own letter, or perhaps a group of dissenting voices can get together on their own time and write a letter. We will not be using meeting time to write the letter, only to see where everyone stands on the idea.

[Valvilis]

Crap. lost half of my nice, big, long, post. Alright, short version:

In response to Sage's post "reply #12," the entire post would fare well from a healthy dose of proper information. I don't mean that as an attack, but a lot of what is mentioned there is simple misinformed or underinformed concerning medical abortion in the US. But, that has little to do with the meat of this arguments, so...

Every profession has rules, that of the pharmacist is no exception. If you are a conscientous objector, you cannot join the US military. There are plenty of jobs in the military where you will very likely never have to fire a weapon during duty, such as an office administrator or diesel mechanic. BUT, the fact that you MAY be called upon to do so, IS part of your JOB.

Would we be having this conversation about police or firemen? Is it okay for an officer to opt to not call an ambulance when a murderer is bleeding? Or to not file a report on the murder of a notorious drug lord? Is it ethically permissible for a fireman to not put out a blaze accidentily started in a terrorist's basement while making bombs? Or what about even just a different situation concerning the pharmacist? Would we allow him or her to refuse to fill a prescription for oxy contin because they know it is often abused? Can they deny a life saving drug to a bad person simply because doing otherwise would be contributing to evil? How would you feel if every occupation reserved this right? When you order a steak and your vegatarian waiter gives you instead a lecture on animal rights, or when your bartender decides that alcohol is responcible for many of the problems in America and you can't have any, or when your gas station attendant insists you buy a hybrid engine car before he sells you any fuel, then will you see the problem here?

PHARMACISTS FILL PRESCRIPTIONS. If they want to decide what drugs someone gets to have, let them do another five years of med school and become real medical doctors. Any other job or any other issue and this legislation would not exist.

[Sage1776]

As I stated before, we are looking at the policy implications and the costs and benefits there of, of pharmacists and abortion pills in non-emergency situations. The costs and benefits will be different in emergencies and for other situations.
But if you want analogies, how about requiring anyone who sells rocks to sell “sacred rocks” to use in the stoning to death of women who have had sex out of wedlock. Hopefully you would feel outraged if there was a law that stated your employer must fire you if you refused to sell such rocks as terms of employment. Weigh that outrage against the inconvenience of the religious fanatics to go to another store that sold such rocks. Of course this is not a perfect analogy (any rocks would do I suspect, rock selling does not require four years of education, religious fanatics in America are tolerant enough not to actually stone women to death, and it is against the law), just like any about firefighters and such.
It is true that I do not know a whole lot about medial abortion in the U.S., mainly because it seems pretty accepted, and because legal issues involving stem-cell research are much more important to me, as the benefits of such research vastly outweigh and bad feelings of religious people. I focus my resources on the issues that are of the most importance in terms of my ability to influence the policy, and the benefits of such policy changes. The ability of organizations to influence policy is correlated to how objective they are perceived.
I may not be able to make this week’s meeting, but it is not because I am angry with the group or anything. I am just likely to be too busy. If a vote on the issue is done, I am for stating that the “majority” language be used as I feel that the letter will lower the organization’s influence for more important issues relative to the present one of a low probability of generally minor inconvenience for consumers of abortion pills.
I am pretty much done with debating this issue as we are now repeating the same arguments. But I will try to respond to any new objective arguments to the issue at hand (not analogies and hypotheticals).

[Seany-D]

Sage1776 said:

As I stated before, we are looking at the policy implications and the costs and benefits there of, of pharmacists and abortion pills in non-emergency situations.

A nit to pick: You might be, but I am not. This incident occured over an "emergency" abortion pill -- the one you have to take within 72 hrs. of rape in order to be effective. Time was an issue, and this bill was crafted to address the outcome arising from that specific situation.

[Rama]

Sir, you deserve a hat for this thread.
|3
Wear it proudly.

[Sage1776]

If the bill was crafted to stop rape victims from taking abortion pills, then I do not support it.