SB 164, the bill which would remove the right of pharmacists to exercise their conscience in selling contraceptives, passed the state Senate Health and Human Services committee today, according to the Rapid City Journal.
Democrat Senator Tom Katus of Rapid City, who is on the committee, voted in favor.
The article included a statement from one of the sponsors:
Sen. Ed Olson, R-Mitchell, the sponsor of the bill, said it's only purpose was to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Really? Women can't get contraceptives elsewhere, like from another pharmacist, or order them through the mail?
The currently existing moral exception granted to pharmacists is based on language which specifies drugs which may be used to kill someone or cause an abortion. Since a number of oral contraceptives can prevent the implantation of a new human being into the uterus of its mother, this moral clause includes some oral contraceptives.
As I've pointed out before, this bill also attempts to redefine the meaning of "unborn child" according to South Dakota law.
I'd also like to hear Senator Olson's (or someone's) explanation of how a pharmacist who owns his own store or works for a private company can be interpreted to be a "government entity," since the language of the bill says it wants to stop "government intrusions" by "government entities."
Or is this simply an attempt to force one person's morality on another by forcing them to choose between their job and following their conscience?
5 comments:
The right of one person cannot be contingent on the actions of another. Your right to speak freely does not require that I listen. Your right to the pursuit of happiness cannot repose in taking my property. Your right to contraception, if it were a right, cannot require me to forfeit my right to act in accordance with my conscience.
SB 164 would seem to be a potentially seminal case for the US Supreme Court. But I doubt it would make it through the state courts.
"The right of one person cannot be contingent on the actions of another."
Right, like the right to vote cannot possibly have been contingent on the actions of those imposing poll taxes? A little history lesson, anyone?
Erin, I'd encourage you to go back and read the context of what Theo said. He was attempting to illustrate that our natural rights are not contingent on someone else providing them for us. To provide another couple of examples, my right to free speech does not require you to pay to buy me a newspaper or printing press, and my right to keep and bear arms does not require you to pay for my gun, or even to sell me one.
Context, as always, is key.
English lessons, anyone?
Erin, here is a little history lesson for you.
The US Contitution does not specify a right to vote. True, it alludes to one, but leaves the particulars to each state. Article 1, Section 4 states "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations..."
A poll tax, a requirement for voters to be male and land owners and in some states a requirement to be a member in good standing in a specific church denomination were common in the early days of the republic. I'm not claiming these were good ideas, but they were constitutional.
Theo, I'm not sure which Constitution you're looking at, but the U.S. Constitution - Amendments 14, 15, 19, & 26 all guarantee the right to vote.
Post a Comment