Bill Maher: Moral Pharmacy?

[gardener]

Once upon a long time ago, condoms were not openly displayed in 7-11s. They were sold in pharmacies, and had to be asked for, after first looking around to make sure your mother or English teacher wasn't in the next aisle. And they were labelled "For protection against disease only." They weren't really contraceptives, were they? Mainly they were worn to prevent diseases spread by chiggers.

Things have changed. But it seems that pharmacists are having a bad time these days. Women keep coming in with prescriptions for pills to keep them from becoming pregnant--sometimes to keep them from becoming pregnant AFTER they've had sex the night before. It's a horrible thing for some of these pharmacists... it might even be that one of these sluts looks like she enjoys sex. So they need to protect themselves, and a movement is now afoot whereby pharmacists can refuse to fill immoral prescriptions...

As usual, Bill Maher makes sense on this issue. From week before last's Real Time, here's his New Rules.

New Rule: Pharmacists have to fill prescriptions. As our audience seems to already know, more and more American pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control because of their personal moral objections.

Hey, you know what would really teach us a lesson? If you took off your pretend doctor jacket and got another job.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe cutting off the pill doesn't even go far enough. Yeah, it's high time activist drugstores stopped coddling sluts on every aisle. Let's not sell any more makeup either. A good woman doesn't paint herself. And no more deodorant. You should smell bad. Keep the boys from getting ideas. And no suntan lotion. I've seen what happens at the MTV Beach House, you whore. You want to avoid melanoma, buy a veil.

Why is this country becoming Utah?! You know, I know the conservatives are always saying that the coastal elites don't really get it about them because we just fly over. Okay, maybe. But, you know what? You guys don't get us either. We need to fuck. Refusal to provide birth control threatens our economy and our very way of life here in Southern California. There's a lot of hot chicks out here, man. We need birth control! I mean, seriously, how do you think movies get made?

Now, of course, I know the other side is saying, yes, but this is a moral issue. Yeah, but the problem is, not everyone gets their morals from the same book. You go by the book that says slavery is okay but sex is wrong until after marriage, at which point it becomes a blessed sacrament between a husband and the wife who is withholding it.

In conclusion, let me say to all the activist pharmacists out there, the ones who think sex is bad probably because sex with them always is.

Fellas, a pharmacist is not a law-giver, not even a doctor. In the medical pecking order, you rank somewhere in between a chiropractor and a tree surgeon.

You don't answer to a law above the laws of men. You work for Sav-On. The doctors are the ones who make medical decisions because they went to medical school, whereas you were transferred from the counter where people drop off film.

[Jean-Paul]

He really knows how to rile people up, doesn't he? I have to agree with him though... Pharmacists jobs are simple. Follow the instructions written on the pad by the DOCTOR. This culture war is really exploding now it seems. The extreme right is revealing their true intentions... to control our behavior in the bedrooms.

Next thing you know they are going to put those dumb laws back on the books where oral sex is illegal, and this time they will enforce it. Funny but true, oral sex - even between a married man and woman - in the state of arkansas is still illegal. I guess that makes me a multiple offender!

[Matthew]

Where was this taken from?

[chris_f]

JP: Pretty sure "sodomy", or "any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality," includes oral too, and is still illegal in RI as well.

I guess that makes me a multiple offender!

by the way, there is such a thing as too much information! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[russ]

Originally posted by Jean-Paul:
He really knows how to rile people up, doesn't he? I have to agree with him though... Pharmacists jobs are simple. Follow the instructions written on the pad by the DOCTOR. This culture war is really exploding now it seems. The extreme right is revealing their true intentions... to control our behavior in the bedrooms.

I agree with the premise that Pharmacists don't have any business refusing certain prescriptions on the basis of their religious beliefs/morality. The prescription has been given to the patient for a reason, and their job isn't to impose their viewpoint on the patient.

I don't think that the importance of what they do should be denigrated, though. They are quite well-educated and their job is more complex than just filling out prescriptions and Maher's placing them near the bottom of the 'medical pecking order' is a bit insulting because they really do have some very important functions and are capable of saving a prescribing doctor's ass in certain situations.

[kuri]

The prescription has been given to the patient for a reason, and their job isn't to impose their viewpoint on the patient.

Excellent point Russ. I had the same thought when I first heard about this. I agree with the person on 60 Minutes who said if such work offends them that much they should find a different vocation.

[russ]

Originally posted by kuri:
I agree with the person on 60 Minutes who said if such work offends them that much they should find a different vocation.

Precisely. It's roughly equivalent to someone such as myself refusing to interpret studies for patients whose beliefs don't coincide with my own.

[diamondpete]

Originally posted by Jean-Paul:

Funny but true, oral sex - even between a married man and woman - in the state of arkansas is still illegal. I guess that makes me a multiple offender!

Now if you read that last part again, and pause in the right way, smile and think of what a multiple offender could entail and it sounds pretty funny JP LOL.

But seriously, I cannot help but feel that the majority of voters who supported the Bush administration knowing the influence of the Christian right should enjoy the swing "back to morality".

I do not believe that most of the Bush supporter do support the Christian right, but the have certainly empowered it.

Peter

[gardener]

For a state-by-state review of sodomy laws in the US--which states don’t have them on the books any longer and which do, along with suggested penalties, check out this site--

http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/sodomy.html

For international information, including recent news stories, this site is fairly complete.
http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/nevi.../nknews003.htm

Regarding some territory that’s been previously here, my greater longevity than anyone else in these precincts gives me a different perspective than any of you young whippersnappers. Since the 1950s, the changes in the sexual attitudes of at least a very large proportion of the American public have been profound. (On this point, the brilliant movie “Kinsey” is excellent.) Considering the prominent display of condoms in drugstores, grocery stores, and convenience stores, it may be hard to realize that until 1965 states were free to forbid altogether the sale of any kind of contraceptive device.

The turning point came in 1965 with the Supreme Court’s decision in Griswold v. Connecticut. Until this decision, not only the sale or use of contraceptives but also information concerning their use was forbidden in the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts. (These laws went on the books in the late 19th century by the Protestant sexual moralist Anthony Comstock, but in the 20th century they were strongly upheld by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, which favoredd only the rhythm method, aka Vatican roulette.) Estelle Griswold, wife of the president of Yale University, worked for Planned Parenthood, and in a test case was prosecuted by the state of Connecticut for dispensing information about “family planning.”

The Supreme Court overturned the laws of Connecticut on this head, on the basis of a Constitutional “penumbra” involving the right to privacy. For the majority, Justice William O. Douglas wrote,

Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The [381 U.S. 479, 486] * very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Potter Stewart wrote—

Since 1879 Connecticut has had on its books a law which forbids the use of contraceptives by anyone. I think this is an uncommonly silly law. As a practical matter, the law is obviously unenforceable, except in the oblique context of the present case. As a philosophical matter, I believe the use of contraceptives in the relationship of marriage should be left to personal and private choice, based upon each individual's moral, ethical, and religious beliefs. As a matter of social policy, I think professional counsel about methods of birth control should be available to all, so that each individual's choice can be meaningfully made. But we are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that I cannot do.

The Griswold decision made an enormous practical difference in the lives of people. I offer jut one anecdote. A friend of mine who was in grad school at U. Mass in the early 1960s was divorced and a counselor in a women’s dorm. She was required as a condition of employment to sign a statement that she would not “reveal the secrets of the marital bed.”

Having oral sex (and admitting it!) (whether homo- or hetero- or bi), using contraceptives, non-marital sex--these particular genies may be difficult or impossible to cram back in the bottle, but don’t think that no one wants to try. Check out
http://www.democraticwings.com/democ...ies/001569.php

Here, for one thing, there’s an interview with Senator Rick Santorum right before last year’s Supreme Court decision striking down Texas’s sodomy laws:

We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

You can bet your bottom dollar that as the current attack on the judiciary proceeds Santorum's views on the right to privacy will find a lot of support--and that will potentially have substantial effect on the prvate lives of many Americans. Do some preachers want to have power to regulate what you and I do under the covers? Does a bear sh-t in the woods?

There’s no lack of other voices condemning contraception, some in very high places. The late John Paul II was opposed to the use of condoms, even to prevent AIDS.

And Joseph Seidler, of the Pro-Life Action League put in his word--

I would like to outlaw contraception...contraception is disgusting -- people using each other for pleasure.

Then there’s Randall Terry, of Operation Rescue (and recent prominence in the Schiavo circus)—

I don't think Christians should use birth control. You consummate your marriage as often as you like -- and if you have babies, you have babies.

The “abstinence only” policies of the Bush administration are well known. And so are the support these policies have gotten from several appointments, such as —

http://www.alternet.org/story/18259

the administration moved quickly to install similarly-minded Christian fundamentalists to positions of authority and influence over all matters relating to reproductive and sexual health.

Dr. Alma Golden: appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of Population Affairs. A Texas pediatrician, she is a longtime proponent of abstinence as the only acceptable means of birth control. Dr. Golden declared that henceforth the department would stress "abstinence-only" as the solution to unwanted pregnancies, not just for teens, but unmarried adults as well.

Tom Coburn: Former Republican congressman and anti-condom crusader. Appointed co-chair of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS. While in congress Coburn tried to force condom manufacturers to label condoms as "ineffective" against the spread of sexually transmitted infections. "I will challenge the national focus on condom use to prevent the spread of HIV," Coburn said upon his appointment. [Coburn is now A Republican senator from Oklahoma.]

Dr. Joseph McIlhaney, Jr.: Appointed to Coburn on the HIV and AIDS advisory council. McIlhaney has a long and well-documented history of disseminating misleading data on condom failure rates. He was appointed in spite of the fact that in 1995 Governor George W. Bush's own Texas Commissioner of Health openly denounced McIhaney's anti-condom propaganda and his professional credibility.

Dr. W. David Hager: Appointed to the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Dr. Hager served as spokesperson for the Christian Medical Association. He authored the book, As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now, and co-authored a book that recommended scripture readings and prayers to relieve the symptoms of PMS. Dr. Hager opposes prescribing contraceptives to unmarried women and spearheaded a petition drive by the Christian Medical Association to revoke the FDA's approval of mifepristone, the so-called "morning after pill."

Dr. Joseph B. Stanford: Also appointed to the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Dr. Stanford is on record for his belief that the only acceptable form of contraception, besides abstinence, is the all-natural "rhythm method." Dr. Stanford refuses to prescribe contraceptives, stating that "(modern) medicine is permeated with attitudes toward sexuality and fertility that are incompatible with Christian values of the sanctity of life, marriage, and procreation, attitudes that both reflect and perpetuate the recreational approach to sexuality found in our secular culture."

Susan A. Crockett: The third Christian fundamentalist appointed to the same FDA committee. Crockett served as a board member of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. She co-authored, "Using Hormone Contraceptives is a Decision Involving Science, Scripture, and Conscience" in the book, The Reproductive Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality, Reproductive Technologies and the Family. The book was edited by Dr. Hager.

The forces of oppression, denial of personal liberty in sexual and reproductive choices, and mandatory morality based on the wacko notions of pushy and nosy theocrats have an agenda that affects us all. And they are extraordinarily well organized and poised to reform American society, taking us forward to the darkness of the past. We may be forced to wear scarlet A's if we stray from our marital promises--and if we just get laid, well, there's always F for fornicator. And oh yes, O S.

[Jean-Paul]

Why don't moral conservatives just mind their own damn business? That's what I want to know. If they choose to deprive themselves of sexual pleasure, that is their business, but they aren't happy stopping there. Its as if they are saying, "if I can't have fun, I'm not gonna let anyone else have fun either."

Thanks for that research, Gardener. I had no idea that all those people from those conservative groups have been appointed into positions that oversee groups that try to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS through far-right, dark ages propaganda.

Is there anyone in this forum that agrees with this stance? I am curious. I don't want to attack anyone... Just understand. People who are that wound up are usually just pressure cookers with all sorts of sexual hang-ups. People who have healthy sex lives are usually much more laid back and easy to get along with. I realize these are broad generalizations, but someone who abides by these stringent guidelines step in and tell me different, please.

[russ]

Originally posted by Jean-Paul:
Why don't moral conservatives just mind their own damn business? That's what I want to know. If they choose to deprive themselves of sexual pleasure, that is their business, but they aren't happy stopping there. Its as if they are saying, "if I can't have fun, I'm not gonna let anyone else have fun either."

I don't think the latter part of your statement has as much to do with the root of the problem as does the seemingly gluttonous apetite for power that this group has, combined with their conviction that they are absolutely correct and can't be questioned, as they seem to believe themselves to be doing God's work.

I had no idea that all those people from those conservative groups have been appointed into positions that oversee groups that try to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS through far-right, dark ages propaganda.

I knew about it, and it's rather controversial (many would say irresponsible) given that their policies don't exactly meet with great success in parts of Africa where HIV positive status in endemic (the recently deceased Pope's stance on birth control has been criticised for similar reasons in light of the growth of Catholicism in Africa).

[gardener]

the seemingly gluttonous apetite for power that this group has, combined with their conviction that they are absolutely correct and can't be questioned, as they seem to believe themselves to be doing God's work.

Amen! Now, since we agree very substantially on many social and cultural issues, are we liberals or conservatives? (My own dichotomy is skeptic/true believer...)

[russ]

Originally posted by gardener:
Amen! Now, since we agree very substantially on many social and cultural issues, are we liberals or conservatives? (My own dichotomy is skeptic/true believer...)

I often find myself questioning the meaning of terms such as 'liberal' and 'conservative' as it would seem to me that opinions generally fall along a spectrum, not a sharp dividing line (except in the case of extremists, who dichotomise their implicitly correct views versus the incorrect views of others). Moreover, one's views can fall along different points on the spectrum for different issues. That is certainly the case for me.

Perhaps I'm a secular humanist with strong ties to the cultural aspects of his religious heritage (IMHO, one can still call oneself a Jew despite openly questioning the existence of God) and fiscally conservative leanings. My views regarding criminal justice are somewhat conservative as well (although they may qualify as wildly liberal by Texan standards).

Can skeptic/true believer really be viewed as a dichotomy? I would think that many folks hold views which fall somewhere in between.....

[kuri]

Excellent discussion here!

Russ, you made a good point regarding the travesty that is abstinence programs in Africa. I've read that orgs promoting birth control and sex education have had solid success regarding AIDS but the same cannot be said for the Pope/Bush view.

Borrowing Sam Huntington's idea of a Clash of Civilizations I would alter that to say there is a worldwide struggle between strict fundamentalists (Islam, Christian, Hindu etc...) and everyone else. Isn't it ironic that Islamic fundamentalist power has decreased somewhat in certain areas only to increase in some Western areas in part due to actions of fundamentalist Christians?

Maybe opposition to fundamentalist views defines Russ, Gardener, JP, myself, and others here better than opaque political labels. Who woulda thunk it

[gardener]

Perhaps I'm a secular humanist with strong ties to the cultural aspects of his religious heritage

Ditto, I think.

Someone who had a great influence on my thinking, way back in the 60s, was Paul Van Buren, author of The Secular Meaning of the Gospel...also Harvey Cox and his book The Secular City. In their time, these books meant something, althought they might be unreadable today. I identify myself as a non-believing Episcopalian, if asked. I have gotten very, very suspicious of people who claim religion in general and Christianity in particular as their own--and are ready to excommunicate others who differ with them.

I can't cut myself away from what I grew up with, particularly the music--by which I mean hymns, but also Bach's Magnificat and St. Matthew Passion, Brahms' Ein Deutsches Requiem, the Mozart Requiem, and other classics. I go to the Metropolitan Museum, and it is obvious how much great painting and sculpture owes to Christianity. (And also owes to Greek paganism...)

Last Saturday I went to a friend's funeral, Episcopalian service from the Book of Common Prayer. His death was a blessing--he had the same Altzheimer's that kept my mother unconscious for her final two decades. I 've never minded saying creeds that I don't believe in an y literal sense. I believe in the Resurrection, for me, means that the final word about any one of us is not "he died." We do live on, in a sense, for a while. But Saturday I couldn't recite a creed or join in a public prayer. At a time when a few strident voices are saying we must serve God and love Tom DeLay... it just sticks in my craw.

And I wonder, what's happened to the old stuff about visiting widows and orphans, not beating our breasts in the company of others, and about the meek inheriting the earth? Falwell, meek? Terry Randall, meek? Dominion/Reconstruction theology meek?
Tim LaHaye, meek? I'd say, no, these guys are proud.. "superbos" in Latin. And if the Magnificat is right, these guys are false prophets and a snare to the feet of the truly righteous (which I am not...)

[OldGuy]

From today's NY Times (a long article so I'll just post the link).

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/na...rtner=homepage

[poopy pants]

So they need to protect themselves, and a movement is now afoot whereby pharmacists can refuse to fill immoral prescriptions...

This is utter bullshit. How dare these assholes stand in the way of a patient/doctor relationship! It's already hard enough for the patients and doctors dealing with the fucking insurance companies who stand in the way of needed treatments, but hey, maximize shareholder profit and get a $20M bonus just like that heathen from Anthem (now Wellpoint the 400 pound gorilla) did.

[Jean-Paul]

I just can't believe someone would have the audacity to decide for someone else what is moral or immoral. I know that many women who aren't even sexually active take birth control pills because it helps them minimize pre-menstrual cramps and such. Besides all that, if someone wishes to have consensual sex with another person, whose business is it but their own? I just don't get this at all!