When Issues Ignite Ire
Part 2: Fallacies of Logic Do Not a Fair Fight Make
Especially throughout this season of campaigning for the highest office in the land, emotions run deep; and folks don’t always see eye to eye. Passionate exchanges are inevitable, even within the faith community. While engaging allies or adversaries, our charge as believers is to employ clear thinking, alongside conviction, because fallacies of logic do not a fair fight make.
Straw Man Fallacy
One way of strengthening a weak position is to respond in advance to the anticipated arguments of one’s opponents. In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent's position and, then, knocks it down.
Consider, for example, a four-year legal fight in Washington State in which two individual pharmacists and a family-owned pharmacy could be forced out of their profession solely because of their religious beliefs. You see, plaintiffs correctly view moral choice as their constitutional right under the “free exercise” clause of the Constitution. They cannot in good conscience dispense Plan B or Ella because they believe human life begins at the moment of fertilization; and both drugs operate by destroying a fertilized egg, or embryo.
Opponents insist that for plaintiffs to exercise conscientious objection is to deny a woman her right to reproductive health. This is especially true, defendants argue, in the case of rural patients seeking Emergency Contraception. Reasonable as it sounds, this simply is not so. Even in remote, rural areas, resources are available to patients through Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), the prescribing physician, social services, the internet, and/or third party delivery services—e.g., collaborative agreements, remote telepharmacy programs, automated dispensing machines, and/or balancing systems for owners of pharmacy chains.
It can’t be emphasized enough that, with or without referrals, there’s no documented access problem for any drug in the State of Washington (Plan B included). A patient’s need for timely delivery is met effectively by “alternative” facilitated referral.
Summarily dismissing right to conscience, President Obama announced in January 2012 that most religious employers must provide full medical insurance coverage for contraceptives, including abortion-causing drugs like Plan B and Ella. Thereafter, the President “softened” his position; but Andrew Jackson understood what our current administration is slow to grasp: “As long as our government … secures to us the rights of persons and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending.”
False Dichotomy Fallacy
This election year, another popular fallacy is that of false dichotomy in which the arguer sets up a situation to look like there are only two viable choices when, in reality, many more exist. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that only one remains—namely, the one the arguer posed in the first place.
For example, worshippers at Congregation Kol Shalom on Bainbridge Island in Washington are told, rightly so, that amid “all the howling” on both sides of the issue, few take the time to see what the Bible actually says about same-sex marriage. I agree with the Rabbi, “Reflective Bible study doesn’t come easily.” However, it would seem, his treatment of scripture is more “defective” than it is “reflective.”
In a special article printed in the Seattle Times (21 January 2012), the Rabbi explains what he believes the Bible to say about the matter. First, he distinguishes between the Christian Bible and Hebrew Scriptures. Of the Torah’s nearly six thousand verses, the Rabbi offers two that prohibit a man from lying with another man, as he lies with a woman.
Significantly, in presenting his case on behalf of gay marriage, the Rabbi fails to reference Genesis 19:5-11, 24, 25; Deuteronomy 22:5; 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24; 22:46; or Judges 19:22; and he dismisses altogether applicable New Testament references.
Instead, he selects two Bible verses, which he presents as comprehensive. The first, Leviticus 18:22, reads, “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman.” According to Leviticus 20:13, to do so is a capital offense. Both, of course, cinch the biblical case opposing gay marriage; but these reasonably clear references apparently don’t qualify as definitive in the Rabbi’s view.
Begging the Question
The Rabbi sets up a situation to appear as if the Bible’s treatment of the subject is limited when, in fact, that is not the case. Then, he commences to “beg the question.” An argument that begs the question asks the reader simply to accept the conclusion without providing real evidence. The argument relies either on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion ("being circular" or "circular reasoning"), or it simply ignores an important (but debatable) assumption upon which the argument rests—namely, that the Leviticus references expressly forbid gay marriage.
Rampant Rationalization
Next, the Rabbi rationalizes that, in prohibiting homosexuality, God fails to explicitly prohibit lesbianism. “If the Bible is to be our guide,” he adds, “we’ll be hard-pressed to find a reason to forbid women from marrying women.”
In attempting to strengthen his original position, the Rabbi introduces doubt by posing a provocative version of the serpent’s question to Eve, “Hath God said?” Literally, the Rabbi explains, a man isn’t supposed to “woman-lay.” Perhaps the Bible simply prohibits certain sexual positions (like the missionary position?), or maybe God doesn’t want sex between men to be patterned after sex between a man and woman—i.e., as an act of conquest.
Tellingly, the Rabbi grabs at straws by admitting same-sex marriage “hadn’t been invented back then.” In this, he unwittingly accepts its having been birthed from a human (carnal) mind—not as part of God’s plan outlined in the Book of Genesis. Finally, he offers the real crux of the issue: To prohibit same-sex marriage would be as successful as folks today attempting to stop Facebook. In other words, just go with the flow.
Once sanitizing homosexual marriage as inevitable, the Rabbi sanctions it as reflective of loving one another and treating others with dignity and respect. He reasons that, while we’re together on the journey of life, we must be nice and get along.
In this, Rabbi Mark S. Glickman presents a viewpoint popularly held among the religious left. For the sake of consensus, he precipitously dismisses Bible truth for “unnatural selection.” By posing the puzzling question (“Hath God said?”), the Rabbi suggests (wrongly so) that God is more “nice” than He is sovereign.
Problem is, being “nice” doesn’t qualify as fruit of the spirit, and the Bible doesn’t explicitly command adversaries to “get along.” Nor does either solve the same-sex marriage issue. No one argues that traditional marriages are free from attack. Many end in divorce. However, homosexual relationships are not the answer just because the practice is increasingly accepted in a culture that has lost spiritual mooring.
Whereas 85% of married women remain true to their marriage vows for lifetime, and 75% of married men do likewise, numerous studies show that male homosexual relationships are most accurately measured in months rather than years. Specifically, a Netherlands study published in AIDS pinpointed the "duration of steady partnerships" to be 1.5 years. In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male live-in relationship lasts between two and three years; and a Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men further found that only 2.7% of homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime (Paul Van de Ven et al). These facts undermine any argument attempting to equate gay marriage with marriage in the biblical tradition.
Tradition Under Fire
Forget that the Constitution never gave final say on constitutional matters to the Supreme Court. By February 2011, President Obama had instructed the Justice Department to stop defending DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), which legally prohibits federal recognition of so-called same-sex marriages.
G.K. Chesterton wrote, “Any man who is cut off from the past … is a man most unjustly disinherited.” Throughout the course of history, marriage between one man and one woman has been the most fundamental institution of the whole of civilization. It represents the traditional building block of human society.
Embracing a homosexual neighbor or co-worker is not the same thing as normalizing homosexual marriage. For Lawrence v. Texas to protect sodomy under the Constitution’s so-called “right to privacy” demonstrates what a great Christian statesman, Lord Shaftesbury, famously argued: What is morally reprehensible cannot be politically right. Morality is more than a strategy for self-development, and the right to marriage is more than the right to state-defined benefits.
Serving as the prologue to homosexual marriage in America, this 2004 U.S. Supreme Court ruling was the prelude, as well, to legally sanctioned polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and bestiality.” Justice Antonin Scalia adds, the decision “effectively decrees the end of all moral legislation.”
Consequences of Moral Confusion
Arguably, our nation’s principles of ethical behavior and criminal justice are firmly rooted in Bible truth. Indeed, founders granted freedom conditionally, based upon a citizen’s constant exercise of religious responsibility.
Unfortunately, America today houses two irreconcilably opposing cultures. One is Bible based; the other, decidedly not. Unless and until our national mind is cleared of the cobwebs of fuzzy thinking, history is destined to repeat itself: Once a society forfeits moral absolutes, totalitarian power inevitably moves in to fill the vacuum and, then, to order resulting chaos.
Notable historian Arnold Toynbee fingered a clear indication of declining civilization: It’s when the elites mimic vulgarity and promiscuity of a “dominant minority” representing what he describes as “society’s bottom-dwellers.”
Unless Christians expose fallacies of logic, sexual “rights” will triumph over free expression of religion; academia will altogether silence politically incorrect speech; and ministers will be punished for preaching the Bible. In other words, the “grand experiment” we call America will have failed.
1. Stormans v. Selecky, a landmark case handled by the Becket Fund, a non-profit, non-partisan law firm that protects the
religious liberty of all faiths. Also on the legal team are lawyers Kristen Waggoner and Steve O’Ban with Seattle-based
law firm Ellis, Li & McKinstry. Plaintiffs are challenging the Washington State Pharmacy Board ruling that, despite religious objections, pharmacies must forfeit their prerogative to facilitated referral and stock/dispense early abortifacient drugs, as Plan B and Ella.
2. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified effective 15 December 1791, follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
3. Leviticus 18:22; 20:13.
4. Romans 1:26-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:10, Jude 7,10.
5. Galatians 5:22-23—The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
6. Charles Colson. “Addressing Sexual Dis-Integration.” The Sky is Not Falling: Living Fearlessly in These Turbulent Times: 2011, p.51.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Be Angry, but Sin Not
When Issues Ignite Ire
Part 1: Be Angry, but Sin Not
Whether self-described as “right” or “left,” “faith-based” or “secular,” “conservative,” “liberal,” or “moderate,” those engaged in the political process poise themselves for battle. Unfortunately, the voice of reason is too often sidestepped. As agenda-driven politicians lick their chops in anticipation of a pending presidential election, scathing rhetoric escalates all the more.
With this in view, I’m reminded that Jesus was no stranger to “telling it like it is.” However, in characterizing Pharisees as “white-washed tombs” and “a brood of vipers,” He never succumbed to conspiratorial plotting, pride, hatred, or lies. Only fools engage in slander, and Jesus was no fool!
Following His example, Bible honoring Christians must speak out boldly without fear of ridicule or, in extreme cases, persecution. But, frankly, as a Christian, I’m sometimes at a loss. Wisdom dictates that a “soft answer turns away wrath,” but I’m often befuddled as to how best to broach flammable issues that, by their very nature, ignite ire.
Navigating Strategically Set Land Mines
True, our adversaries draw from an arsenal of dubious political tactics; but tit for tat hardly becomes a Christian. Before jumping into the fray, we best examine our own motives and the accuracy of our information. Both should remain above reproach.
Given the postmodern mindset, ceding to “common ground”—i.e., the lowest common denominator—is deemed necessary. Not so for Christians. Simply by choosing the narrow way less commonly traveled, and by acknowledging moral absolutes, fundamentalists bear the unfair label of being somehow divisive.
In navigating strategically set land mines, Christians must remain ever mindful that postmodern ground rules forbid “adversarial processes”—e.g., proclaiming Bible truth. Given the dialectic process, ends always justify means. Accordingly, in Sustainable Values, Ross McCluney calls for a new, more liberal core set of “universal” values distinguished by imagination, ambiguity, and “evolving truth.”
To uphold Bible truth, Christians must challenge what’s wrong, not go along with it. Otherwise, rugged individualism will take its final bow to consensus, and “gray” thinking will trump absolutes. Hence, for Bible honoring Christians, the art of “collaboration” goes beyond difficult. It can be downright impossible.
The Civility Card Tactic
George Orwell explained: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Even when its presentation is diplomatic, this revolutionary act is tagged “uncivil.” Count on it. Playing the civility card is intended to silence one’s opponent, and it does a great job of it. Once accused of incivility, the faint hearted wilt and fade so as not to appear bullish. In response, opponents skillfully steer the sheepish into conceding core convictions about traditional family, national patriotism, religious dogma, and the like.
Opportunistic Outrage
Shifting accountability from self to others, many tacticians feign “outrage” over moral failings of their adversaries. As Christians, we’re to “judge nothing before the time until the Lord come.” That is to say, while Christians rightly exercise and act upon spiritual discernment, they mustn’t usurp God’s position as Supreme Judge. Furthermore, before attempting to remove a speck from another’s eye, they first must remove the log from theirs.
When it comes to politics, however, Christian activists sometimes fall prey to bouts of opportunistic outrage when, instead, they should strive more diligently to be irreproachable workmen who honor the Bible, “all men,” and dignitaries for whom they are commanded to pray.
Our purpose, as Christians, isn’t to prove others wrong. Rather, we’re to seek truth and, with meekness and due reverence, give account for our findings. In so doing, we remain fully aware of our personal limitations and strive to avoid nonproductive wrangling over dogma intended to advance some church-, philosophical-, or political- agenda. Apart from God’s calling, we mustn’t presume to teach others lest, by our own errors and shortcomings, we lead them astray.
“Iron sharpens iron,” and that’s a good thing. However, in wielding the sword of truth, believers mustn’t go so far as to disembowel their fellows! Divide and conquer is the Devil’s work. He’s the consummate accuser. Christians aren’t.
Hot Button Christianity
Because their respective worldviews are altogether incompatible, Christians simply won’t see eye-to-eye with secularists. In the Book of Amos, we learn that two cannot walk together except they’re agreed; nonetheless, the basis of fellowship with other believers is not so much agreement when it comes to highly disputed or complicated theology. Rather, it’s founded on shared, saving knowledge of Jesus Christ—distinguished by sound biblical belief and shameless confession of one’s faith.
Curious, isn’t it, that in the Gospels Jesus posed over 300 questions and, when asked some 183 questions, He answered only three of them [Don Everts and Doug Schaupp, I Once was Lost (IVP, 2008)]. Jesus wasn’t uninformed or confused. Rather, we glean from this observation that Christianity is not entirely a “tucked-in-tight religion.”
Nonetheless, unity is achievable if, when hot button issues arise, zealots avoid becoming unduly blinded by their own biases. It’s true, there are “deal breakers” rendering compromise impossible; but we’re likely to catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. By following Christ’s example of asking probing questions to expose folly, we’re more likely to accomplish this without capitulating our values and standards.
The Ploy of Stereotyping with Impunity
By taking moral stands, supporters of life (over abortion) and traditional marriage (over gay relationships) are not necessarily hateful. But to special interest groups focused on targeted political agendas, you’d never know it! Such groups accuse principled religionists of phantom phobias and, then, fashion negative stereotypes to belie believers’ rich heritage of abolishing the slave trade, defending human rights, practicing charity, and founding hospitals and schools.
By stereotyping with impunity, opponents undermine traditional values and break ground for rampant secularism, sexual perversion, genderism, Afrocentrism, and radical environmentalism. So powerful are special interest groups that theirs have become, in effect, a fourth branch of government characterized by unchecked power funded through earmarks.
While biblical perspective for holding government in check includes sphere sovereignty, subsidiarity, balance of power, and God’s transcendent law, too many have come to believe that emissaries of an all powerful Nanny State must act for the common good by curbing religious zeal and silencing moral absolutism—this, to foster utopian dream of an illumined, collectivist world order.
My Point?
A secularist who believes that “ends justify means” is expected to play the civility card, feign outrage at moral failings of others, and fashion fallacious stereotypes that discredit opponents. But Christians are held to a much higher standard. In no way are faith-driven citizen activists “just another special interest group” pleading for some self-serving agenda. When issues ignite ire, Christians rightly manifest indignation at what’s wrong, yet their charge is to “sin not.” Believers are commanded to love their enemies and pray for those who abuse or falsely accuse them.
In fighting “the good fight of faith,” believers mustn’t faint. Nor must they engage adversaries with arrogance, hostility, or deceptive practices. Theirs is a spiritual fight in which principled moral positions evade partisanship. Uniquely, their war targets forces of darkness, not the people deceived by them.
There exists a natural order that government “under God” is compelled to respect and uphold. For Christians, “politics is the high calling of ensuring that government protects the pre-political institutions and preserves the moral order.” Standing for truth demands nothing less than absolute integrity.
1. Prominent and influential, Pharisees were a closely organized separatist group at the time of Christ.
2. Psalm 31:13,101:5; Proverbs 11:9; Jeremiah 9:4.
3. Proverb 10:18.
4. Proverbs 15:1.
5. 1 Corinthians 4:5.
6. 1 Corinthians 2:15.
7. Matthew 7:3-5.
8. 2 Timothy 2:15.
9. 1 Peter 2:17
10. Jude 8.
11. 1 Timothy 2:2
12. Acts 17:11.
13. 1 Peter 3:15.
14. 2 Timothy 2:24.
15. 2 Timothy 2:24; 1 Timothy 6:20.
16. James 3:1.
17. Proverbs 27:17.
18. Revelation 12:10.
19. Romans10:9; 2 Timothy 3:16.
20. Marvin Olasky. “Complicated Truth.” World: April 23, 2011, p.84.
21. Ephesians 4:13.
22. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Andrew_M._Miller.
23. Dutch statesman Abraham Kuyper coined the term “sphere sovereignty” to assert that individuals, families, churches, schools, and businesses owe their origin, not to government, but rather to God, before whose face they live. Accordingly, their rightful structures and functions come from Him.
24. Subsidiarity insists that nothing is rightly done by larger, more complex organizations when a smaller one closer to issues at hand can handle it.
25. Ephesians 4:26.
26. Matthew 5:44.
27. 1 Timothy 6:12.
28. Ephesians 6:12.
29. Charles Colson. “The Value of Virtuous Government.” The Sky is Not Falling: Living Fearlessly in These Turbulent
Times: 2011, p.140.
Part 1: Be Angry, but Sin Not
Whether self-described as “right” or “left,” “faith-based” or “secular,” “conservative,” “liberal,” or “moderate,” those engaged in the political process poise themselves for battle. Unfortunately, the voice of reason is too often sidestepped. As agenda-driven politicians lick their chops in anticipation of a pending presidential election, scathing rhetoric escalates all the more.
With this in view, I’m reminded that Jesus was no stranger to “telling it like it is.” However, in characterizing Pharisees as “white-washed tombs” and “a brood of vipers,” He never succumbed to conspiratorial plotting, pride, hatred, or lies. Only fools engage in slander, and Jesus was no fool!
Following His example, Bible honoring Christians must speak out boldly without fear of ridicule or, in extreme cases, persecution. But, frankly, as a Christian, I’m sometimes at a loss. Wisdom dictates that a “soft answer turns away wrath,” but I’m often befuddled as to how best to broach flammable issues that, by their very nature, ignite ire.
Navigating Strategically Set Land Mines
True, our adversaries draw from an arsenal of dubious political tactics; but tit for tat hardly becomes a Christian. Before jumping into the fray, we best examine our own motives and the accuracy of our information. Both should remain above reproach.
Given the postmodern mindset, ceding to “common ground”—i.e., the lowest common denominator—is deemed necessary. Not so for Christians. Simply by choosing the narrow way less commonly traveled, and by acknowledging moral absolutes, fundamentalists bear the unfair label of being somehow divisive.
In navigating strategically set land mines, Christians must remain ever mindful that postmodern ground rules forbid “adversarial processes”—e.g., proclaiming Bible truth. Given the dialectic process, ends always justify means. Accordingly, in Sustainable Values, Ross McCluney calls for a new, more liberal core set of “universal” values distinguished by imagination, ambiguity, and “evolving truth.”
To uphold Bible truth, Christians must challenge what’s wrong, not go along with it. Otherwise, rugged individualism will take its final bow to consensus, and “gray” thinking will trump absolutes. Hence, for Bible honoring Christians, the art of “collaboration” goes beyond difficult. It can be downright impossible.
The Civility Card Tactic
George Orwell explained: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Even when its presentation is diplomatic, this revolutionary act is tagged “uncivil.” Count on it. Playing the civility card is intended to silence one’s opponent, and it does a great job of it. Once accused of incivility, the faint hearted wilt and fade so as not to appear bullish. In response, opponents skillfully steer the sheepish into conceding core convictions about traditional family, national patriotism, religious dogma, and the like.
Opportunistic Outrage
Shifting accountability from self to others, many tacticians feign “outrage” over moral failings of their adversaries. As Christians, we’re to “judge nothing before the time until the Lord come.” That is to say, while Christians rightly exercise and act upon spiritual discernment, they mustn’t usurp God’s position as Supreme Judge. Furthermore, before attempting to remove a speck from another’s eye, they first must remove the log from theirs.
When it comes to politics, however, Christian activists sometimes fall prey to bouts of opportunistic outrage when, instead, they should strive more diligently to be irreproachable workmen who honor the Bible, “all men,” and dignitaries for whom they are commanded to pray.
Our purpose, as Christians, isn’t to prove others wrong. Rather, we’re to seek truth and, with meekness and due reverence, give account for our findings. In so doing, we remain fully aware of our personal limitations and strive to avoid nonproductive wrangling over dogma intended to advance some church-, philosophical-, or political- agenda. Apart from God’s calling, we mustn’t presume to teach others lest, by our own errors and shortcomings, we lead them astray.
“Iron sharpens iron,” and that’s a good thing. However, in wielding the sword of truth, believers mustn’t go so far as to disembowel their fellows! Divide and conquer is the Devil’s work. He’s the consummate accuser. Christians aren’t.
Hot Button Christianity
Because their respective worldviews are altogether incompatible, Christians simply won’t see eye-to-eye with secularists. In the Book of Amos, we learn that two cannot walk together except they’re agreed; nonetheless, the basis of fellowship with other believers is not so much agreement when it comes to highly disputed or complicated theology. Rather, it’s founded on shared, saving knowledge of Jesus Christ—distinguished by sound biblical belief and shameless confession of one’s faith.
Curious, isn’t it, that in the Gospels Jesus posed over 300 questions and, when asked some 183 questions, He answered only three of them [Don Everts and Doug Schaupp, I Once was Lost (IVP, 2008)]. Jesus wasn’t uninformed or confused. Rather, we glean from this observation that Christianity is not entirely a “tucked-in-tight religion.”
Nonetheless, unity is achievable if, when hot button issues arise, zealots avoid becoming unduly blinded by their own biases. It’s true, there are “deal breakers” rendering compromise impossible; but we’re likely to catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. By following Christ’s example of asking probing questions to expose folly, we’re more likely to accomplish this without capitulating our values and standards.
The Ploy of Stereotyping with Impunity
By taking moral stands, supporters of life (over abortion) and traditional marriage (over gay relationships) are not necessarily hateful. But to special interest groups focused on targeted political agendas, you’d never know it! Such groups accuse principled religionists of phantom phobias and, then, fashion negative stereotypes to belie believers’ rich heritage of abolishing the slave trade, defending human rights, practicing charity, and founding hospitals and schools.
By stereotyping with impunity, opponents undermine traditional values and break ground for rampant secularism, sexual perversion, genderism, Afrocentrism, and radical environmentalism. So powerful are special interest groups that theirs have become, in effect, a fourth branch of government characterized by unchecked power funded through earmarks.
While biblical perspective for holding government in check includes sphere sovereignty, subsidiarity, balance of power, and God’s transcendent law, too many have come to believe that emissaries of an all powerful Nanny State must act for the common good by curbing religious zeal and silencing moral absolutism—this, to foster utopian dream of an illumined, collectivist world order.
My Point?
A secularist who believes that “ends justify means” is expected to play the civility card, feign outrage at moral failings of others, and fashion fallacious stereotypes that discredit opponents. But Christians are held to a much higher standard. In no way are faith-driven citizen activists “just another special interest group” pleading for some self-serving agenda. When issues ignite ire, Christians rightly manifest indignation at what’s wrong, yet their charge is to “sin not.” Believers are commanded to love their enemies and pray for those who abuse or falsely accuse them.
In fighting “the good fight of faith,” believers mustn’t faint. Nor must they engage adversaries with arrogance, hostility, or deceptive practices. Theirs is a spiritual fight in which principled moral positions evade partisanship. Uniquely, their war targets forces of darkness, not the people deceived by them.
There exists a natural order that government “under God” is compelled to respect and uphold. For Christians, “politics is the high calling of ensuring that government protects the pre-political institutions and preserves the moral order.” Standing for truth demands nothing less than absolute integrity.
1. Prominent and influential, Pharisees were a closely organized separatist group at the time of Christ.
2. Psalm 31:13,101:5; Proverbs 11:9; Jeremiah 9:4.
3. Proverb 10:18.
4. Proverbs 15:1.
5. 1 Corinthians 4:5.
6. 1 Corinthians 2:15.
7. Matthew 7:3-5.
8. 2 Timothy 2:15.
9. 1 Peter 2:17
10. Jude 8.
11. 1 Timothy 2:2
12. Acts 17:11.
13. 1 Peter 3:15.
14. 2 Timothy 2:24.
15. 2 Timothy 2:24; 1 Timothy 6:20.
16. James 3:1.
17. Proverbs 27:17.
18. Revelation 12:10.
19. Romans10:9; 2 Timothy 3:16.
20. Marvin Olasky. “Complicated Truth.” World: April 23, 2011, p.84.
21. Ephesians 4:13.
22. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Andrew_M._Miller.
23. Dutch statesman Abraham Kuyper coined the term “sphere sovereignty” to assert that individuals, families, churches, schools, and businesses owe their origin, not to government, but rather to God, before whose face they live. Accordingly, their rightful structures and functions come from Him.
24. Subsidiarity insists that nothing is rightly done by larger, more complex organizations when a smaller one closer to issues at hand can handle it.
25. Ephesians 4:26.
26. Matthew 5:44.
27. 1 Timothy 6:12.
28. Ephesians 6:12.
29. Charles Colson. “The Value of Virtuous Government.” The Sky is Not Falling: Living Fearlessly in These Turbulent
Times: 2011, p.140.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Slippery Slope Politics
Right to Free Exercise
Part 2, Slippery Slope Politics
Part 1 Revisited
Once again, a four-year legal fight in Washington State has landed in a federal courtroom. In the end, two individual pharmacists (Margo Thelen and Rhonda Mesler) and a family-owned pharmacy (Ralph’s Thriftway in Olympia) could be forced out of the pharmacy profession solely because of their religious beliefs. Yes, in America.
The plaintiffs view moral choice as their constitutional right under the “free exercise” clause of the Constitution. They cannot in good conscience dispense Plan B or Ella because they believe human life begins at the moment of fertilization; and both drugs operate by destroying a fertilized egg, or embryo. This dilemma, they’re told, is best resolved through a new line of work. But plaintiffs disagree.
The Pharmacy Board found no evidence that anyone in the State had ever been unable to obtain Plan B (or any other time-sensitive medication) in a timely fashion because of religious objections. Yet conscientious objectors alone have been singled out for refusing to dispense drugs to which they morally object.
FacilitatedReferrals, Yes!
Conscientious Facilitated Referrals? No Way!
It can’t be emphasized enough that, with or without referrals, there’s no documented access problem for any drug in the State of Washington (Plan B included). A patient’s need for timely delivery is met effectively by “alternative” facilitated referral. In fact, a survey initiated by the Pharmacy Board revealed that 85% of the responding pharmacies knew of others within a five-mile radius of their own. Were hospitals and other delivery options listed on that survey, the percentage would be even higher.
Facilitated referral is a time-honored practice that oftentimes better serves patients since it’s potentially faster. Even in remote, rural areas, resources are available to patients through Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the prescribing physician, social services, the internet, and/or third party delivery services—e.g., collaborative agreements, remote telepharmacy programs, automated dispensing machines, and balancing systems for owners of pharmacy chains.
If timely, non-restrictive access were truly a "right," as opposed to a convenience, as the State would have us believe, then all pharmacies would be forced to operate 24/7 under threat of
government enforcement. For now anyway, this isn’t the case.
Non-Neutral, Special Interest Politicking
The Washington State Pharmacy Board argues that rules are “neutral” and “generally applicable.” But this is not the case. In 2006, the State Board of Pharmacy unanimously voted to support a rule protecting pharmacists’ right of conscience until, that is, the Governor’s office
intervened and insisted that the only allowable exemptions must be of the non-moral, non-religious (hence, non-neutral) variety.
At the time, Governor Christine Gregoire replaced several board members with candidates screened by Planned Parenthood; and she boycotted Ralph’s Thriftway that, for decades, had served the Governor’s Mansion. Buckling under the Governor’s pressure, the board ultimately adopted a version of the regulations recommended by the Governor and drafted by Planned
Parenthood. (Can you say “special interest” politicking?)
While the board insists that it’s the pharmacy (not the pharmacist) subject to discipline, the pharmacist nonetheless pays a dear price. Just ask Margo Thelen. A respected pharmacist for decades, Thelen served customers well—sometimes by paying for, or hand delivering, their drugs. With her Spanish-speaking customers in mind, she even hired a tutor to hone her
second language skills!
Aware of her conscientious objection to Plan B, her employer (Safeway) happily accommodated Thelen until, that is, the politically driven new rule made it financially unfeasible. Of three methods the board discussed to accommodate conscientious objectors, one was singling out a conscientious objector for termination.
A single parent and (at the time) sole provider for her household, Thelen felt compelled to leave the job she loved before that could happen. In doing so, she understood that potential employers were more likely to hire a non-conscientious objector, rather than suffer the expense and hassle
of accommodating a religious, moral objector.
Tumbling Down the Slippery Slope
A pharmacist consultant with the Department of Health, Timothy S. Fuller testifies that “safety” is the Pharmacy Board’s driving principle. In practice, however, this isn’t completely true. If forced todispense Plan B, a pharmacy committed to “do no harm” must violate the “safety”
principle with respect to an embryo. After all, the function of an early abortifacient, as Plan B, is to “harm” the embryo’s earliest developmental stage.
Granted, not everyone agrees on these matters, but think about it: Just because something is legal doesn’t make it safe, ethical, ormoral. On the basis of conscience, a pacifist need not go to war, and a nurse need not participate in an abortion. Most concur that, when it comes to Death
with Dignity for adults, health care workers should be free to opt out.
To negate right of conscience on behalf of the unborn is to open the floodgates—perhaps to partial- and live- birth abortions (infanticide), harvesting and selling baby parts in the name of science. All undermine human dignity and violate core principles of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” (specifically for the unborn).
If a provider believes use of legal emergency contraceptives, medical marijuana, and/or lethal drugs for physician-assisted suicides are harmful, he mustn’t be forced to dispense. But if “choicers” have their way, a pharmacist could be strong armed to forfeit choice of conscience,
career, or privately owned business in deference to someone else’s perceived “right” to convenience.
Even Non-Christians Get It!
With the single exception of Washington State, nations of this world collectively affirm everyone’s "right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion … and to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance." Check it out: Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In the words of Mohandas Gandhi, “There is a higher court than courts of justice, and that is the court of conscience,” which, he adds, “supersedes all other courts.” This rings especially true for a nation, as ours, founded on biblical principles. Andrew Jackson said it well: “As long as our government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of persons and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending.”
A Moral Mandate to Defend Conscience
Deputy National Litigation Director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Luke Goodrich rightly insists, “No individual should be forced out of her profession solely because of her religious beliefs. If pharmacies can refer patients elsewhere when a drug is unprofitable or out of
stock, they should be allowed to do the same thing when the drugs violate their deepest religious convictions.”
In America folks may agree or disagree with my convictions as a Christian (and I with theirs), but they may not deny me (or anyone) the right to voice and practice heart held convictions. The U.S. Constitution affords everyone the rights to “free exercise” and “due process.”
The First Amendment implicates Washington State pharmacy responsibility and stocking rules; and if all are not enforced, it’s only fair that none should be (Judge Ronald Leighton, December 9, 2011). Agree or not, Albert Einstein cautioned, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”
Make no mistake. Stormans v. Selecky is a landmark case. If special interest politics were to prevail over the constitutional right to “free exercise of religion,” then everyone’s core convictions would be “up for grabs.” Next time, maybe yours.
1. Stormans v. Selecky, a landmark case handled by the Becket Fund, a non-profit, non-partisan law firm that protects thereligious liberty of all faiths. Also on the legal team are lawyers Kristen
Waggoner and Steve O’Ban with Seattle-based law firm Ellis, Li & McKinstry. Plaintiffs are challenging the Washington State Pharmacy Board ruling that, despite religious objections, pharmacies must forfeit their prerogative to facilitated referral and stock/dispense early
abortifacient drugs, as Plan B and Ella.
2. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified effective 15 December 1791, follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
3. Curt Woodward, The Seattle Times, 9 July 2009.
4.http://citizen-patriot.blogspot.com/2008/01/is-plan-b-abortifacient.html.
5. Psalm 139:13-14—“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful. I know that full well.”
6. Acts 24:16—“And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man.”
Part 2, Slippery Slope Politics
Part 1 Revisited
Once again, a four-year legal fight in Washington State has landed in a federal courtroom. In the end, two individual pharmacists (Margo Thelen and Rhonda Mesler) and a family-owned pharmacy (Ralph’s Thriftway in Olympia) could be forced out of the pharmacy profession solely because of their religious beliefs. Yes, in America.
The plaintiffs view moral choice as their constitutional right under the “free exercise” clause of the Constitution. They cannot in good conscience dispense Plan B or Ella because they believe human life begins at the moment of fertilization; and both drugs operate by destroying a fertilized egg, or embryo. This dilemma, they’re told, is best resolved through a new line of work. But plaintiffs disagree.
The Pharmacy Board found no evidence that anyone in the State had ever been unable to obtain Plan B (or any other time-sensitive medication) in a timely fashion because of religious objections. Yet conscientious objectors alone have been singled out for refusing to dispense drugs to which they morally object.
FacilitatedReferrals, Yes!
Conscientious Facilitated Referrals? No Way!
It can’t be emphasized enough that, with or without referrals, there’s no documented access problem for any drug in the State of Washington (Plan B included). A patient’s need for timely delivery is met effectively by “alternative” facilitated referral. In fact, a survey initiated by the Pharmacy Board revealed that 85% of the responding pharmacies knew of others within a five-mile radius of their own. Were hospitals and other delivery options listed on that survey, the percentage would be even higher.
Facilitated referral is a time-honored practice that oftentimes better serves patients since it’s potentially faster. Even in remote, rural areas, resources are available to patients through Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the prescribing physician, social services, the internet, and/or third party delivery services—e.g., collaborative agreements, remote telepharmacy programs, automated dispensing machines, and balancing systems for owners of pharmacy chains.
If timely, non-restrictive access were truly a "right," as opposed to a convenience, as the State would have us believe, then all pharmacies would be forced to operate 24/7 under threat of
government enforcement. For now anyway, this isn’t the case.
Non-Neutral, Special Interest Politicking
The Washington State Pharmacy Board argues that rules are “neutral” and “generally applicable.” But this is not the case. In 2006, the State Board of Pharmacy unanimously voted to support a rule protecting pharmacists’ right of conscience until, that is, the Governor’s office
intervened and insisted that the only allowable exemptions must be of the non-moral, non-religious (hence, non-neutral) variety.
At the time, Governor Christine Gregoire replaced several board members with candidates screened by Planned Parenthood; and she boycotted Ralph’s Thriftway that, for decades, had served the Governor’s Mansion. Buckling under the Governor’s pressure, the board ultimately adopted a version of the regulations recommended by the Governor and drafted by Planned
Parenthood. (Can you say “special interest” politicking?)
While the board insists that it’s the pharmacy (not the pharmacist) subject to discipline, the pharmacist nonetheless pays a dear price. Just ask Margo Thelen. A respected pharmacist for decades, Thelen served customers well—sometimes by paying for, or hand delivering, their drugs. With her Spanish-speaking customers in mind, she even hired a tutor to hone her
second language skills!
Aware of her conscientious objection to Plan B, her employer (Safeway) happily accommodated Thelen until, that is, the politically driven new rule made it financially unfeasible. Of three methods the board discussed to accommodate conscientious objectors, one was singling out a conscientious objector for termination.
A single parent and (at the time) sole provider for her household, Thelen felt compelled to leave the job she loved before that could happen. In doing so, she understood that potential employers were more likely to hire a non-conscientious objector, rather than suffer the expense and hassle
of accommodating a religious, moral objector.
Tumbling Down the Slippery Slope
A pharmacist consultant with the Department of Health, Timothy S. Fuller testifies that “safety” is the Pharmacy Board’s driving principle. In practice, however, this isn’t completely true. If forced todispense Plan B, a pharmacy committed to “do no harm” must violate the “safety”
principle with respect to an embryo. After all, the function of an early abortifacient, as Plan B, is to “harm” the embryo’s earliest developmental stage.
Granted, not everyone agrees on these matters, but think about it: Just because something is legal doesn’t make it safe, ethical, ormoral. On the basis of conscience, a pacifist need not go to war, and a nurse need not participate in an abortion. Most concur that, when it comes to Death
with Dignity for adults, health care workers should be free to opt out.
To negate right of conscience on behalf of the unborn is to open the floodgates—perhaps to partial- and live- birth abortions (infanticide), harvesting and selling baby parts in the name of science. All undermine human dignity and violate core principles of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” (specifically for the unborn).
If a provider believes use of legal emergency contraceptives, medical marijuana, and/or lethal drugs for physician-assisted suicides are harmful, he mustn’t be forced to dispense. But if “choicers” have their way, a pharmacist could be strong armed to forfeit choice of conscience,
career, or privately owned business in deference to someone else’s perceived “right” to convenience.
Even Non-Christians Get It!
With the single exception of Washington State, nations of this world collectively affirm everyone’s "right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion … and to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance." Check it out: Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In the words of Mohandas Gandhi, “There is a higher court than courts of justice, and that is the court of conscience,” which, he adds, “supersedes all other courts.” This rings especially true for a nation, as ours, founded on biblical principles. Andrew Jackson said it well: “As long as our government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of persons and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending.”
A Moral Mandate to Defend Conscience
Deputy National Litigation Director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Luke Goodrich rightly insists, “No individual should be forced out of her profession solely because of her religious beliefs. If pharmacies can refer patients elsewhere when a drug is unprofitable or out of
stock, they should be allowed to do the same thing when the drugs violate their deepest religious convictions.”
In America folks may agree or disagree with my convictions as a Christian (and I with theirs), but they may not deny me (or anyone) the right to voice and practice heart held convictions. The U.S. Constitution affords everyone the rights to “free exercise” and “due process.”
The First Amendment implicates Washington State pharmacy responsibility and stocking rules; and if all are not enforced, it’s only fair that none should be (Judge Ronald Leighton, December 9, 2011). Agree or not, Albert Einstein cautioned, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”
Make no mistake. Stormans v. Selecky is a landmark case. If special interest politics were to prevail over the constitutional right to “free exercise of religion,” then everyone’s core convictions would be “up for grabs.” Next time, maybe yours.
1. Stormans v. Selecky, a landmark case handled by the Becket Fund, a non-profit, non-partisan law firm that protects thereligious liberty of all faiths. Also on the legal team are lawyers Kristen
Waggoner and Steve O’Ban with Seattle-based law firm Ellis, Li & McKinstry. Plaintiffs are challenging the Washington State Pharmacy Board ruling that, despite religious objections, pharmacies must forfeit their prerogative to facilitated referral and stock/dispense early
abortifacient drugs, as Plan B and Ella.
2. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified effective 15 December 1791, follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
3. Curt Woodward, The Seattle Times, 9 July 2009.
4.http://citizen-patriot.blogspot.com/2008/01/is-plan-b-abortifacient.html.
5. Psalm 139:13-14—“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful. I know that full well.”
6. Acts 24:16—“And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man.”
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
No Leeway for Conscience
Right to Free Exercise
Part 1, No Leeway for Conscience
Once again, a four-year legal fight in Washington State has landed in a federal courtroom. In the end, two individual pharmacists (Margo Thelen and Rhonda Mesler) and a family-owned pharmacy (Ralph’s Thriftway in Olympia) could be forced out of the pharmacy profession solely because of their religious beliefs. Yes, in America.
Significantly, Washington is one of only two states requiring pharmacies that object on the basis of conscience to stock and dispense early abortifacient drugs, as Plan B and Ella. The other state (Illinois) recently struck down similar regulations as unconstitutional—and rightly so. The plaintiffs view moral choice as their constitutional right under the “free exercise” clause of the Constitution. They cannot in good conscience dispense Plan B or Ella because they believe human life begins at the moment of fertilization; and both drugs operate by destroying a fertilized egg, or embryo. This dilemma, they’re told, is best resolved through a new line of work. But plaintiffs disagree.
More About Agenda Than Access
At public hearings in 2010, activists from Planned Parenthood, Legal Voice, NARAL, and others testified passionately in Renton, Washington, before the Washington State Board of Pharmacy. Their demand was clear: Regulations are necessary to force pharmaceutical providers to dispense the “morning-after pill” when and where a repeat customer asks for it. In their worldview, religion has nothing to do with it.
To “choicers,” a state license held by pharmacies is a privilege, not a right. They believe defense of conscience deadheads at the drug counter, and a pharmacy must forfeit personally held, religiously motivated moral objections to meet a woman’s demand for emergency contraception. Moreover, respecting politically charged drugs as Plan B and Ella, facilitated referral is not an option. Since Stormans, Thelen, and Mesler are left with only one choice (their livelihoods or their deeply held religious beliefs), real “choice” applies exclusively to “choicers.”
In brief, patient access to Plan B trumps the Bill of Rights. Timely access of safe and appropriate drugs, we’re told, is what every patient is due. However, forcing pharmacies out of business—Ralph’s Thriftway, for example—actually limits access (and therefore choice) for other patients in need of time-sensitive medications. It stand to reason that agenda, not access, is at the heart of the matter.
Lots of Room for Wriggle—Only Not for the Conscience Crowd
For decades, there’s never once been a complaint about the stocking rule. In fact, until 2006, the rule was not broadly known. To meet patient demand, a pharmacy need only stock a “representative assortment of drugs,” but the State provides no list of required drugs. Nor does it publish policies or established procedures for determining stocking violations.
In the pharmaceutical industry, it’s accepted that numbers of reasons—i.e., economic, convenience, business, clinical—exempt a pharmacy from stocking a drug. Everyday Washington pharmacies make choices about which of more than six thousand FDA-approved drugs they’ll stock (or decline from stocking, as the case may be).
Arguably, the stocking rule leaves lots of room for wriggle since our State gives no definition for “good faith compliance.” For most, there’s no quantitative formula of patient demand signaling need to stock a drug, nor are there rules for how long the pharmacy must carry a given drug, once demand for it wanes.
Additionally, Washington State offers no stocking standards for low-demand drugs within a given community, nor are pharmacies required to stock diabetics’ syringes, Schedules 2 and 5 nonprescription meds, or narcotics feared to invite armed robberies.
If shelf space is limited and a medication has a short life, no problem. If it’s exceptionally expensive (and the patient can’t afford it)—or if stocking it requires additional, burdensome paperwork or unit dosages—no worries. If bulk purchase is necessary (beyond what the patient can consume), or if a drug requires monitoring or special preparation (e.g., compounding processes that require related equipment)—again, not to worry. Don’t stock it.In the industry, it’s generally understood that a repeat customer’s prescription triggers the “stocking rule requirement,” but then the rule has no teeth and is never enforced. However, when it comes to conscientious objectors, this overly permissive and otherwise vague rule takes on selective specificity.
An adequate, though not ideal compromise is for a pharmacy/ pharmacist to “step away, but not in the way.” But that’s not good enough for Washington State. While it’s okay to refer patients elsewhere for reasons other than conscience, it’s not acceptable to redirect a seeker of Plan B.
No Leeway for Conscience
Only pharmacies with religious objection, as Ralph’s Thriftway, are held accountable to stock and dispense designated drugs when regular customers request them. Apparently, others are free to decide for themselves. For example, Walgreen pharmacies have opted not to serve Medicaid patient demands and, without facing disciplinary action, niche pharmacies limit drugs they stock to specified healthcare categories such as pediatrics, cancer, or long-term care.
What’s more astonishing is this: Also never having faced disciplinary action, faith-based Catholic hospitals exclude Plan B from their inventories; but Ralph’s Thrifty isn’t afforded the same leeway. You see, by its own admission, the Pharmacy Board is “complaint-driven.” Hence, when Planned Parenthood Pill Patrollers target a pharmacy, the board takes action.Otherwise, it’s business as usual.
Even so, the Washington State Pharmacy Board argues that rules are “neutral” and “generally applicable.” But the plaintiffs disagree (and for good reason). Should a patient violate pharmacy dress- and/or behavior- codes—e.g., no shirt or shoes—or should he be identified as a known shoplifter, he need not be served. But a woman who demands emergency contraception must be served, even when a pharmacy conscientiously objects to it. Neutral? I think not. Generally applicable? You tell me.
My Problem; Your Responsibility
Practically speaking, a woman can conceive when responsible efforts to prevent pregnancy are ineffective. In the minds of activists, this apparently becomes the pharmacist’s problem. It’s his job not to refer a patient elsewhere, but rather to “fix” the outcome; conscience, we’re told, has nothing to do with it.
Forget that emergency contraception may be effective for days after unprotected intercourse, and that it’s never 100% foolproof, activists nonetheless insist upon immediate product and service from the first pharmacy of choice—no matter the provider’s heartfelt convictions against a drug’s safe, ethical use. The reason for referral has no bearing on the fact that, for whatever reason, the patient must go elsewhere, but for Plan B patients a pharmacy on the next block simply won’t do.
More to come in Part 2.1.
Stormans v. Selecky, a landmark case handled by the Becket Fund, a non-profit, non-partisan law firm that protects the religious liberty of all faiths. Also on the legal team are lawyers Kristen Waggoner and Steve O’Ban with Seattle-based law firm Ellis, Li & McKinstry. Plaintiffs are challenging the Washington State Pharmacy Board ruling that, despite religious objections, pharmacies must forfeit their prerogative to facilitated referral and stock/dispense early abortifacient drugs, as Plan B and Ella.
2. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified effective 15 December 1791, follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
3. http://www.newswithviews.com/Rae/debra177.htm.
4. The Seattle Times editorial view, 29 November 2011.
Part 1, No Leeway for Conscience
Once again, a four-year legal fight in Washington State has landed in a federal courtroom. In the end, two individual pharmacists (Margo Thelen and Rhonda Mesler) and a family-owned pharmacy (Ralph’s Thriftway in Olympia) could be forced out of the pharmacy profession solely because of their religious beliefs. Yes, in America.
Significantly, Washington is one of only two states requiring pharmacies that object on the basis of conscience to stock and dispense early abortifacient drugs, as Plan B and Ella. The other state (Illinois) recently struck down similar regulations as unconstitutional—and rightly so. The plaintiffs view moral choice as their constitutional right under the “free exercise” clause of the Constitution. They cannot in good conscience dispense Plan B or Ella because they believe human life begins at the moment of fertilization; and both drugs operate by destroying a fertilized egg, or embryo. This dilemma, they’re told, is best resolved through a new line of work. But plaintiffs disagree.
More About Agenda Than Access
At public hearings in 2010, activists from Planned Parenthood, Legal Voice, NARAL, and others testified passionately in Renton, Washington, before the Washington State Board of Pharmacy. Their demand was clear: Regulations are necessary to force pharmaceutical providers to dispense the “morning-after pill” when and where a repeat customer asks for it. In their worldview, religion has nothing to do with it.
To “choicers,” a state license held by pharmacies is a privilege, not a right. They believe defense of conscience deadheads at the drug counter, and a pharmacy must forfeit personally held, religiously motivated moral objections to meet a woman’s demand for emergency contraception. Moreover, respecting politically charged drugs as Plan B and Ella, facilitated referral is not an option. Since Stormans, Thelen, and Mesler are left with only one choice (their livelihoods or their deeply held religious beliefs), real “choice” applies exclusively to “choicers.”
In brief, patient access to Plan B trumps the Bill of Rights. Timely access of safe and appropriate drugs, we’re told, is what every patient is due. However, forcing pharmacies out of business—Ralph’s Thriftway, for example—actually limits access (and therefore choice) for other patients in need of time-sensitive medications. It stand to reason that agenda, not access, is at the heart of the matter.
Lots of Room for Wriggle—Only Not for the Conscience Crowd
For decades, there’s never once been a complaint about the stocking rule. In fact, until 2006, the rule was not broadly known. To meet patient demand, a pharmacy need only stock a “representative assortment of drugs,” but the State provides no list of required drugs. Nor does it publish policies or established procedures for determining stocking violations.
In the pharmaceutical industry, it’s accepted that numbers of reasons—i.e., economic, convenience, business, clinical—exempt a pharmacy from stocking a drug. Everyday Washington pharmacies make choices about which of more than six thousand FDA-approved drugs they’ll stock (or decline from stocking, as the case may be).
Arguably, the stocking rule leaves lots of room for wriggle since our State gives no definition for “good faith compliance.” For most, there’s no quantitative formula of patient demand signaling need to stock a drug, nor are there rules for how long the pharmacy must carry a given drug, once demand for it wanes.
Additionally, Washington State offers no stocking standards for low-demand drugs within a given community, nor are pharmacies required to stock diabetics’ syringes, Schedules 2 and 5 nonprescription meds, or narcotics feared to invite armed robberies.
If shelf space is limited and a medication has a short life, no problem. If it’s exceptionally expensive (and the patient can’t afford it)—or if stocking it requires additional, burdensome paperwork or unit dosages—no worries. If bulk purchase is necessary (beyond what the patient can consume), or if a drug requires monitoring or special preparation (e.g., compounding processes that require related equipment)—again, not to worry. Don’t stock it.In the industry, it’s generally understood that a repeat customer’s prescription triggers the “stocking rule requirement,” but then the rule has no teeth and is never enforced. However, when it comes to conscientious objectors, this overly permissive and otherwise vague rule takes on selective specificity.
An adequate, though not ideal compromise is for a pharmacy/ pharmacist to “step away, but not in the way.” But that’s not good enough for Washington State. While it’s okay to refer patients elsewhere for reasons other than conscience, it’s not acceptable to redirect a seeker of Plan B.
No Leeway for Conscience
Only pharmacies with religious objection, as Ralph’s Thriftway, are held accountable to stock and dispense designated drugs when regular customers request them. Apparently, others are free to decide for themselves. For example, Walgreen pharmacies have opted not to serve Medicaid patient demands and, without facing disciplinary action, niche pharmacies limit drugs they stock to specified healthcare categories such as pediatrics, cancer, or long-term care.
What’s more astonishing is this: Also never having faced disciplinary action, faith-based Catholic hospitals exclude Plan B from their inventories; but Ralph’s Thrifty isn’t afforded the same leeway. You see, by its own admission, the Pharmacy Board is “complaint-driven.” Hence, when Planned Parenthood Pill Patrollers target a pharmacy, the board takes action.Otherwise, it’s business as usual.
Even so, the Washington State Pharmacy Board argues that rules are “neutral” and “generally applicable.” But the plaintiffs disagree (and for good reason). Should a patient violate pharmacy dress- and/or behavior- codes—e.g., no shirt or shoes—or should he be identified as a known shoplifter, he need not be served. But a woman who demands emergency contraception must be served, even when a pharmacy conscientiously objects to it. Neutral? I think not. Generally applicable? You tell me.
My Problem; Your Responsibility
Practically speaking, a woman can conceive when responsible efforts to prevent pregnancy are ineffective. In the minds of activists, this apparently becomes the pharmacist’s problem. It’s his job not to refer a patient elsewhere, but rather to “fix” the outcome; conscience, we’re told, has nothing to do with it.
Forget that emergency contraception may be effective for days after unprotected intercourse, and that it’s never 100% foolproof, activists nonetheless insist upon immediate product and service from the first pharmacy of choice—no matter the provider’s heartfelt convictions against a drug’s safe, ethical use. The reason for referral has no bearing on the fact that, for whatever reason, the patient must go elsewhere, but for Plan B patients a pharmacy on the next block simply won’t do.
More to come in Part 2.1.
Stormans v. Selecky, a landmark case handled by the Becket Fund, a non-profit, non-partisan law firm that protects the religious liberty of all faiths. Also on the legal team are lawyers Kristen Waggoner and Steve O’Ban with Seattle-based law firm Ellis, Li & McKinstry. Plaintiffs are challenging the Washington State Pharmacy Board ruling that, despite religious objections, pharmacies must forfeit their prerogative to facilitated referral and stock/dispense early abortifacient drugs, as Plan B and Ella.
2. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified effective 15 December 1791, follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
3. http://www.newswithviews.com/Rae/debra177.htm.
4. The Seattle Times editorial view, 29 November 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
