DeathStar1977 posted:But as you know this isn't absolute. A business needs a state license (or some variance) to operate, and must operate under those laws. What I (and others) seem to be saying is that part of what should be required for a pharmacy to obtain/sustain a license would be that all legit prescriptions should be filled. Yes, there is freedom of religion, but there isn't freedom to pick and choose what job you want. One has to fulfill the qualifications and obligations that are required by the employer AND as required under law.
DeathStar1977 posted:Anyway, I'm kinda surprised that the change in laws regarding abortion clinics in Missouri generated such little discussion.
DeathStar1977 posted: Anyway, I'm kinda surprised that the change in laws regarding abortion clinics in Missouri generated such little discussion. For a change of pace, I thought I'd repost it: Mo. tightens abortion clinic regulations By DAVID A. LIEB, Associated Press Writer Fri Jul 6, 6:05 PM ET JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - Missouri abortion providers will face new regulations for their clinics and new restrictions on teaching sex education classes under a bill Gov. Matt Blunt signed into law Friday. The measure places more abortion clinics under government oversight by classifying them as ambulatory surgical centers. Planned Parenthood has said the law could force it to spend up to $2 million to remodel one of its clinics and halt medical abortions at another site. The law also bars people affiliated with abortion providers from teaching or supplying materials for public school sex education courses, and it allows schools to offer abstinence-only programs. Blunt proclaimed the law "one of the strongest pieces of pro-life legislation in Missouri history" as he spoke from a cross-shaped lectern during a signing ceremony in the sanctuary of Concord Baptist Church. The Republican governor said he has no qualms if the stricter state oversight causes hardships for abortion clinics. "I say if they can't meet the same basic requirements that other (medical) providers do, then they should shut down," Blunt said. Missouri Right to Life, which backed the measure, argued that groups like Planned Parenthood have a conflict of interest in supplying sex education materials because they could make money if female students go to their clinics. Blunt echoed that concern, saying sales of material to public schools were a "significant source of revenue" for the group. Planned Parenthood said it provides sex education materials to schools for free and its staff members who teach sexual health and education lessons in 41 Missouri schools are trained not to discuss abortions. An official with Planned Parenthood, which has several staffers who visit public schools, called the profiteering assertion "political propaganda." "Essentially, what Governor Blunt and the Legislature is doing is saying that teens need to be protected from information, not from sexually transmitted infections or unintended pregnancies," said Peter Brownlie, chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri. The state already licenses facilities that get at least half of their revenue or patients from abortions. Only one, a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis, falls under that licensing requirement. The Department of Health and Senior Services said the new law would require three other clinics to be licensed. The department didn't identify them, but Planned Parenthood said its offices in Columbia and Kansas City would be affected. The organization is considering a legal challenge.
Mo. tightens abortion clinic regulations By DAVID A. LIEB, Associated Press Writer Fri Jul 6, 6:05 PM ET JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - Missouri abortion providers will face new regulations for their clinics and new restrictions on teaching sex education classes under a bill Gov. Matt Blunt signed into law Friday. The measure places more abortion clinics under government oversight by classifying them as ambulatory surgical centers. Planned Parenthood has said the law could force it to spend up to $2 million to remodel one of its clinics and halt medical abortions at another site. The law also bars people affiliated with abortion providers from teaching or supplying materials for public school sex education courses, and it allows schools to offer abstinence-only programs. Blunt proclaimed the law "one of the strongest pieces of pro-life legislation in Missouri history" as he spoke from a cross-shaped lectern during a signing ceremony in the sanctuary of Concord Baptist Church. The Republican governor said he has no qualms if the stricter state oversight causes hardships for abortion clinics. "I say if they can't meet the same basic requirements that other (medical) providers do, then they should shut down," Blunt said. Missouri Right to Life, which backed the measure, argued that groups like Planned Parenthood have a conflict of interest in supplying sex education materials because they could make money if female students go to their clinics. Blunt echoed that concern, saying sales of material to public schools were a "significant source of revenue" for the group. Planned Parenthood said it provides sex education materials to schools for free and its staff members who teach sexual health and education lessons in 41 Missouri schools are trained not to discuss abortions. An official with Planned Parenthood, which has several staffers who visit public schools, called the profiteering assertion "political propaganda." "Essentially, what Governor Blunt and the Legislature is doing is saying that teens need to be protected from information, not from sexually transmitted infections or unintended pregnancies," said Peter Brownlie, chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri. The state already licenses facilities that get at least half of their revenue or patients from abortions. Only one, a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis, falls under that licensing requirement. The Department of Health and Senior Services said the new law would require three other clinics to be licensed. The department didn't identify them, but Planned Parenthood said its offices in Columbia and Kansas City would be affected. The organization is considering a legal challenge.
DeathStar1977 posted:SL The answer to #1 is that I believe the reclassification means there are now different staffing and equipment requirements. V03 will hopefully magically appear and explain it to us. I think most clinics that provide abortion services also provide a variety of reproductive services. I have no problem with them distributing information regarding reproductive health, nor would I have a problem with someone distributing information regarding abstinence, provided all information was factually accurate. Wow, this is agenda pushing at the other extreme. C'mon, signing the bill in front of a church on a podium shaped like a cross? Ya think? Still... it did get passed into law, so I suppose it's what the state wants. I guess Missouri is more pro-life than other states. The governor doesn't have to be a smug jerk about it though. Agreed. Its really an end-around abortion laws. Rather than confronting the issue directly, they are using other, sneakier methods to end abortion rights. But my guess is that this is legal. I would guess that if the state changes the rules/requirements of an abortion clinic, that they can do so, as long is it doesn’t violate federal law yes?
Kimball_Kinnison posted:malkieD2 posted:..............................at the expense of healthcare for the patient, which is unacceptable. It doesn't matter than a referral can be obtained.You position is at the expense of a free society, which is unacceptable. It doesn't matter that the patient would be temporarily inconvenienced. See? Two can play that game. Kimball Kinnison
malkieD2 posted:..............................at the expense of healthcare for the patient, which is unacceptable. It doesn't matter than a referral can be obtained.
malkieD2 posted:Kimball_Kinnison posted:malkieD2 posted:..............................at the expense of healthcare for the patient, which is unacceptable. It doesn't matter than a referral can be obtained.You position is at the expense of a free society, which is unacceptable. It doesn't matter that the patient would be temporarily inconvenienced. See? Two can play that game. Kimball Kinnison but we don't live in a free society, but we do live in a society where best healthcare possible is a number one priority.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:Once more, let's use my death row example. It's not allowed to force organ donation from condemned prisoners in the US or the UK. In fact, in places where that is done, it is looked down upon as being highly unethical. Why is that? After all, it saves lives, and the prisoners are being executed, so they don't need those organs anymore. The answer is simple. Because the harm to society in violating the rights of those prisoners if far greater than the benefit that comes from fixing the physical health of a few patients. That's why the Allies destroyed much of the medical data collected by Nazi doctors in the various concentration camps. The unethical means used to produce that data taints it, and makes any further use of it contributory to the crimes against humanity that spawned it.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:malkieD2 posted:Kimball_Kinnison posted:[quote=malkieD2]..............................at the expense of healthcare for the patient, which is unacceptable. It doesn't matter than a referral can be obtained.You position is at the expense of a free society, which is unacceptable. It doesn't matter that the patient would be temporarily inconvenienced. See? Two can play that game. Kimball Kinnison but we don't live in a free society, but we do live in a society where best healthcare possible is a number one priority.
malkieD2 posted:Kimball_Kinnison posted:[quote=malkieD2]..............................at the expense of healthcare for the patient, which is unacceptable. It doesn't matter than a referral can be obtained.You position is at the expense of a free society, which is unacceptable. It doesn't matter that the patient would be temporarily inconvenienced. See? Two can play that game. Kimball Kinnison
Kimball_Kinnison posted:[quote=malkieD2]..............................at the expense of healthcare for the patient, which is unacceptable. It doesn't matter than a referral can be obtained.
malkieD2 posted:we're governed by laws and rulings; we don't live in a free society
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon posted:Out of curiosity, does anyone know whether or not scientists in the former Allied nations have used the sites of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to study the effects of nuclear radiation?
KK posted:malkie, you are either a lot dumber than you've claimed to be, or you are intentionally missing the point. Go read pretty much any political philosophy used to build up the British and US systems of government.
KK posted:Therefore, while laws and rulings can infringe upon rights, the existence of them does not prove that we do not live in a free society.
KK posted:even if we were to accept every single one of your claims about the purpose of healthcare, that still would not justify using the government to enforce your view, because such actions would be a violation of the purpose of government
malkieD2 posted:I completely disagree. The government quiet clearly controls many aspects of our lives and impose a multitude of laws, rules and policies. As such, we are not free to make any choice that we wish to make.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:Yes, a perfect free society is impossible because humans are imperfect, but the purpose of government is still to get as close to a free society as humanly possible. Because the purpose of government is to secure the rights and liberties of its citizens, any action that the government takes should be targeted at minimizing the infringement on rights.
malkieD2 posted:Can you highlight where I've ever claimed to be an expert on either politics or philosophy ? (I'm not conceeding your point, just trying to get you to justify your "you are dumb" comment)
malkieD2 posted:malkieD2 posted:Can you highlight where I've ever claimed to be an expert on either politics or philosophy ? (I'm not conceeding your point, just trying to get you to justify your "you are dumb" comment)
