Kerry and Santorum Propose Compromise on Religion and Pharmacies

[kerrygoddess]

John Kerry and Rick Santorum, not a pair we'd expect to be working together, may have reached a fair compromise over the issue of pharmacists refusing to dispense certain medications based upon religious objections. The following letter appeared in today's New York Times:


April 12, 2005
Religion in the Pharmacy

To the Editor:

"Moralists at the Pharmacy" (editorial, April 3) addressed "scattered reports" of pharmacists refusing to dispense certain medications that conflict with their personal moral or religious beliefs and women seeking to have these prescriptions filled. We believe that there is a solution that accommodates the needs of both parties.

Recently, we introduced the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which clarifies current law to say a person's religious beliefs should be recognized and accommodated in the workplace as long as this does not adversely affect the employer's business or customers.

The bill is supported by a diverse coalition of more than 45 religious and civil rights groups as well as a bipartisan group of senators and representatives.

If the bill becomes law, a pharmacist who does not wish to dispense certain medications would not have to do so long as another pharmacist is on duty and would dispense the medications.

The Workplace Religious Freedom Act provides a sensible solution to the potential conflict between an employee's religious conviction and the needs of pharmacy customers.

(Senator) Rick Santorum
(Senator) John Kerry Washington, April 7, 2005
The writers are, respectively, Republican of Pennsylvania and Democrat of Massachusetts.

MORE & LINKS - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=704

Related action alert here - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=706

[Mass]

1. Depends on duty where.

If it needs in the same pharmacy, fine for me. If it means that the client has to go somewhere else, I dont how this helps.

Added: I was supporting the bill as long as it was a way to allow people to combat intolerance (allowing people to take religious holidays or have a few minutes to pray). I have a major problem if the law promotes intolerance. Is the next one that you dont have to work with a gay person or a woman because your religion does not agree with that?

[DearAbby]

15. This in affect would be forcing the small pharmacy to hire another person

they would not have needed too in order to fulfill the requirement. If a pharmacy only had one employee, and he/she refused to fill a script based on their religious beliefs. The employer would either have the right to fire this employee for not doing their job, or go at his expense and hire another employee.

Does this seem fair? If a vegetarian applied for a Job at McDonald's then informed them that he/she would not handle meat products, do they then have to hire two people to fill the duties of one person? This is not right.

[Mass]

23. In effect the bill is more restricted than that

It would allow a small company to force somebody to make the sale or be fired. But I dont like the fact that intolerance is promoted. Nobody forces these people to use contraceptive pills. I dont like firearms. It would not come to my mind to go to a weapons stores and ask to be allowed not to sell firearms. What happens to people taking their responsibility? If you dont want to sell some types of medications, dont become pharmacists.

[JerseygirlCT]

35. The person in your example shouldn't be applying for work

at a McD's knowing what is served. Why would they?

That's sort of like looking for a job in construction and saying: I don't do nails.

[blm]

84. GOOD! Then let the fundies BECOME A LIABILITY and lose their jobs.

.

[flpoljunkie]

123. A pharmacist who will not dispense a legal drug ought to get another job!

End of discussion.

[FreedomAngel82]

93. I wonder if people would find loopholes with this

What if there's nobody else there when someone comes and wants to get a perscription? I'm really getting sick and tired of all these "holier then thou" assholes who are invading all of our private lives. If a woman goes in to get birth control or the morning after pill she shouldn't have to tell a pharmiscists why. Some women take birth control for PCOS which is a condition women get sometimes with their menstural cycle (I thought I had this but it turned out to be thyroids). It's none of their damn business and if they don't want to give out medicine like that DON'T GO INTO THAT FIELD!!!!! It's really not that hard. Now the religious thing I can understand (about holiday's and whatnot cause it's really not fair for Christans to get off holiday's and not a Jew) but this I'm not sure about.

[Mass]

96. I agree

but the bill does not create the problem. The problem is already here.

In fact, the bill insures that you will be able to get the pill, while nowadays, there is a doubt. In fact, in AZ, there is no doubt. There is a bill authorizing pharmacists to refuse to sell a pill if they dont want to.

It is not the perfect solution, but it is definitively an improvement on the current situation in some states.

[tx_dem41]

101. In a sense, with this compromise, the Government is invading our private..

lives, or at least the private lives of the owners of pharmacies. And, I don't have a problem with that. Presently, you have no right to not be quizzed by the pharmacist. You only have the right to exit the pharmacy and go to another one. This compromise gives you a right you never had before. It gives you the right to demand to have your prescription filled.

As for the loophole, its covered in the compromise.

[Toots]

130. This is discrimination and unconstitutional

What if my religion doesn't want me serving black people? Could I refuse to do so. Hell no. You can not discriminate against anyone based on race, sex, age, or religion. They want to legitimize discrimination based on religion. I might be wrong but I don't think this is any way for an American to behave..

[Nikki Stone 1]

2. What happens if another pharmacist isn't on duty?

"If the bill becomes law, a pharmacist who does not wish to dispense certain medications would not have to do so long as another pharmacist is on duty and would dispense the medications."


This is nightmare waiting to happen.

[tx_dem41]

18. If there is no other pharmacist on duty, the pharmacist would be ..

obligated to fill the perscription. That's covered in the proposed bill. What's a nightmare now is the growing present situation.

[beyurslf]

3. So in towns with one pharmacist working, he or she would HAVE to

dispense the medication, right?

[tx_dem41]

20. It appears so.

[OrlandoGator]

4. Whatever happened to "don't do your job, get fired"?

I don't think religious freedom has anything to do with this. What next, do vegans working on farms get to refuse to milk the cows?

[HockeyMom]

7. Aids medication?

Would they have the right to refuse to dispense that too? What else might fall under a "religious objection"? Opens the door to a very slippery slope.

[Nikki Stone 1]

8. Or teachers refusing to teach evolution?

Because they have a religious objection to a God that might be intelligent enough to put such a complicated system together.

[tx_dem41]

22. What if the owner of the pharmacy agreed with the "religious" pharmacist?.

This proposed bill at least requires that the perscription HAS to be filled at THAT pharmacy. Under the present situation, there is no governmental authority for that to happen. On first look, I have no problem with this compromise.

[xxqqqzme]

5. santorum must really, really,

really B in trouble in PA. Will PA B able to boot this ass? Please say yes, cuz if he is re-elected he will immediately revert 2 fanatical, christo-fascist, neo-con death squad leader.

[Freddie Stubbs]

94. Both Santorum and Kerry have sponsered this bill in previous Congresses

This is nothing new for either of tham.

[tanyev]

6. BAHAHAHAHA! Freepers bashing Santorum.

Rick Santorum is a FAKE!
vanity | 04/11/2005 | Duane Call


Posted on 04/11/2005 1:10:23 PM PDT by NraFreedom


It would appear that Rick Santorum is trying to make himself appear as a closet Liberal. According to cited sources, he has "proposed raising the minimum wage; suggested that the death penalty be reserved for the most dangerous of killers; voted with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., on curbing sex and violence in the media; and sided with Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., on a bill protecting religious freedom in the workplace."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1381614/posts

[The Blue Knight]

9. "Santorum is a leftist and a wuss"

I just thought I'd reprint that FR gem.

[OrlandoGator]

11. Besides, he's named after butt slime.

What a homo.

[JI7]

12. i wonder if it could be a Democratic troll trying to divide or discourage

Republicans from supporting Santorum. since i was thinking of doing something similar to them.

[Cats Against Frist]

89. Uh -- did I just see people call SANTORUM & HATCH limp-wristed leftists?

My good holy lawd the freepers are fucking crazy.

[rocktivity]

10. Sounds very sensible

It solves the problem of having someone else's religious convictions forced upon you. And I'm sure all the pharmacy owners are looking foward to paying TWO pharmacists full-time during off hours!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Nikki Stone 1]

13. It will open a can of worms and lots of precedent-setting cases

What it WILL do is increase the mail order drug business. If I have to work my schedule around a religious nutbag's hours at a local pharmacy, I am not going to be very happy. I would rather have the prescription mailed to my home, thank you very much.

[LittleClarkie]

17. As it is written in the letter

It sounds like the nutbag would have to dispense to you unless he had someone who was working with him.

You'd have to pair up nutbagger with non-nutbagger though. You couldn't have two of them working.

[Nikki Stone 1]

31. And how soon would that aspect of the law be challenged?

All you need is one case where a nutbag does NOT dispense the medication and gets fired. The radical right will be there with their lawyers and their wacko activists. Since the Kerry-Santorum bill already sets a precedent for refusing to do some aspects of your job on moral grounds, it wouldn't take much to argue that the part of the law requiring activity counter to one's morality (because another pharmacist isn't on duty) is inconsistent and should be excised.

This law gives the Apocalyptic Right the opening it needs to press their case to the Supreme Court.

Too bad this law won't apply to soldiers.

[Dr Ron]

125. Can always be lawsuits, but law would help

As it stands now, in many states a pharmacist could refuse to dispense birth control pills and there might be no remedy. There could be law suits, but there is no guarantee the pharmacist wouldn't win if fired for refusing to dispense birth control pills.

Sure there could be law suits after such a bill is passed, but it gives a tremendous advantage to those who support the selling of birth control pills (and anything else the religious right objects to). Under the law, the pharmacist would be required to dispense the birth control pills if there isn't a "non-nutbag" pharmacist available to do it instead. The law would back the employer who fired the pharmacist.

Sure, in an ideal world, we wouldn't need a law such as this as pharmacists would just dispense the prescribed medications. Unofortuantely we live in a country where the religious right has excessive influence. At least the act would place a meaninful limit on their influence. The alternative (no law) would leave pharmacists free to refuse to dispense what they object to without legal controls.

[tx_dem41]

25. Read the compromise again.

You wouldn't have to work around their schedule at all. The compromise states that the perscription HAS to be filled when you go in. Under the present situation (without this compromise), you definitely would have to work around their schedule.

[Nikki Stone 1]

37. That part will be legally challenged. Mark my words.

Before that, big chain pharmacies will start walking on eggshells around their fundamentalist employees and NOT require them to fill prescriptions.

And they will tell me to come back later.

[tx_dem41]

39. Then the other part of the compromise will be challenged by you.

The issue is going to court regardless of this compromise.

[Nikki Stone 1]

49. The challenge will come from the side with the momentum

Unless the ACLU decides to take this on as a church-state issue.

[tx_dem41]

55. Don't be so defeatist....

there wasn't exactly momentum for the two guys whose case overturned sodomy laws. Cynicism and defeatism are our worst enemies.

I look at the bill as also stating that I, as an Atheist, can't be fired from my job for refusing to attend a company-required prayer/motivational meeting.

[KoKo]

66. Agree it will be challenged. Just hate to know the harrassment women

in small communities will have to face before it's challenged.

[tx_dem41]

71. Umm, hopefully the women will be doing the harrassing...

Harrassing the pharmacy that is now REQUIRED (as a result of this bill) to fill out all birth control prescriptions. Presently, there is no such requirement.

[Mass]

75. They already face it

so the bill does not change anything, except that currently, the pharmacist can say he does not carry contraceptive pills and the woman has to drive miles to fill her prescriptions.

You make it look as if the situation is ideal nowadays. It is not.

[KoKo]

107. It will get worse. n/t

[rocktivity]

30. And in a possibly related story

Santorum flew to Florida on Wal-Marts Private Jet

Calling his recent fundraising trip to Florida “one ugly example of why Pennsylvanians are going to deliver Rick Santorum a pink slip,” Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chair T.J. Rooney today called on Santorum to return the $250,000 in political contributions he raised during his Schiavo junket.

Days earlier, Santorum canceled a Social Security town hall meeting in Tampa "out of respect" for the Schiavo family, but Santorum had no problem going to Tampa anyway, wining and dining big money political donors just hours after visiting Terry Schiavo’s family...

No wonder he's suddenly willing to be see within a mile of Kerry--I'll be he was the one who caved in, LOL! But how did he have the authority to cancel the Soc Sec meeting? and what is he doing raising funds in Florida if he's from Pennsylvania?

:headbang:
rocknation

[FreedomAngel82]

95. That's what we do

We get our medicine mailed to us instead. It's a lot cheaper and you don't have to worry about this shit.

[Mike Daniels]

117. Just schedule non-religious objection employees during the off hours

I don't see a problem with the compromise and any objection regarding staffing can be resolved by having someone without religious objections work the one-person shifts.

[SnowGoose]

14. Again, if it applies to pharmacists, it should apply to *everyone*

including the vegetarian at McDonalds or at the WalMart checkout who must be able to invite you to take your meat purchases to the next register, since he/she doesn't believe in eating meat.

And exactly who's going to put up with that?

[Nikki Stone 1]

19. If I'm a Wiccan at WalMart, can I object to ringing up Halloween items ?

Since they insult witches?

[kerrygoddess]

29. LOL!

Nothing I hate seeing more than the depiction of the witch on a broom. Sadly Salem, MA still uses this as their logo, I wish they would change that.

[Nikki Stone 1]

44. Some Wiccan should do this--just to see how far the bill can stretch

And how weird that Salem has a witch on a broomstick as its logo.

[kerrygoddess]

53. Some wiccan probably will...

I hope.

Slame has used that as a log o since I was kid. I would think someone influential in the realm there would have fought it by now.

[kerrygoddess]

57. See this post -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1719668&mesg_id=1719798&page=

[FreedomAngel82]

97. Yes

I would like to see that. :) You know if they were Christian and did this they'd be praised but if it was a witch they'd be like "so what?" :eyes:

[SnowGoose]

77. Of course!

and don't even get me started on fertility rites!

[saltpoint]

16. The bill significantly pats the Religious Right on the head --

-- and tells it to run along and play.

Then, a second pharmacist fills the prescription.

Kerry obviously has more problem-solving energy than I do. Working with Santorum would strain my civility. Good for Senator Kerry.

A statement should appear in universities' and colleges' entry/admission papers to the effect that a young man or young woman entering a school to pursue this degree & certification is likely to encounter requests which may run counter to their personal religious beliefs.

If they are becoming phramacists to THWART women, I really do have a problem with that.

[Nikki Stone 1]

24. I'm on college campuses, and some kids DO pick certain majors so they can

inject their personal morality into their future jobs and future research. And thwarting women (or, as they would see it, saving women from feminism) is part of that.

I know a born-again Christian who just got accepted for her PhD in pharmacy.

[saltpoint]

26. Very sad to hear this. But I half suspected it.

The Religious Right is NOT winning a lot of converts these days at my house.

[Charon]

134. PHd

Would doubt you would find a person with a PHd in pharmacy dispensing pill at your local drugstore.

[kerrygoddess]

34. The Religious Right would try

I think they would have tried to push through something like this with out Dem support. Thankfully JK can add a voice of reason to this.

[saltpoint]

60. Yes. I bet Rush Limbaugh is seething over this --

-- collaboration, no matter its merits or faults.

And what is the Far Right contingent thinking about Santorum? They must be kicking the furniture over this one.

[kerrygoddess]

108. LOL!

More than the furniture perhaps!

[saltpoint]

112. : )

[madfloridian]

21. This is an outrageous compromise on women's rights.

We have a right to have our birth control prescriptions filled without having one of our own cave in on it.

There was a minority of them, and a whole lot of us.

If this is the wave of the future, it scares me.

[Mass]

27. Where is the compromise?

I dont like the bill in general. I think it gives way too big an importance to religion compared to other convictions, but I dont see the compromise if I understand correctly the letter. There would have to be somebody to sell you the medecine in the pharmacy.

This just seems to complex to manage.

[madfloridian]

32. It was a caving in.

They made up a "conscience clause". Teachers don't have it. I never got to teach what I wanted or refuse to teach what I did not want.

They just interpreted it their way, the radical Christian extremists did, and we went along for the ride.

We gave them power.

Compromise, whatever....not to nitpick words...we caved in.

[Mass]

38. Not a caving on women's rights

A caving on the fact that religion is more important than other beliefs and convictions. As I said, if they dont want to sell these medecines, they should not be pharmacists in the first place (and I would say the same thing for other medecines).

[madfloridian]

40. The issue bottom line is birth control.

Other than that we agree.

[tx_dem41]

51. You should be happy then.

Your right to birth control is affirmed by the compromise. The PHARMACY has to fill out all birth control prescriptions.

[LittleClarkie]

58. Indeed, as things stand now, folks are being denied

if I'm understanding the situation as it now stands, we indeed have pharmacists who are refusing to fulfill perscriptions. This guarantees that someone will be there to do the job. If not one, then the other. As it stands now, apparently we don't have that guarantee.

[KoKo]

59. Agree, it mixes religion with science, too. Religion and Health Care,

and sets a dangerous precedent... Does this mean that Terry Schiavo's parents could have found another doctor who would leave in the feeding tube bypassing the one who said take it out? A religious doctor who didn't believe in denying her right to live?

The courts ruled against that, but, I wonder if they would rule against a lawsuit where the only pharmacist in town couldn't find a backup and so refused to fill a birth control prescription and the person got pregnant because she couldn't get her pills refilled. What about the intimidation of women who would be embarrassed by having to ask for another pharmacist to get a prescription filled. How would anyone feel getting an antibiotic filled and finding the pharmacist disagreed with the way the antibiotic was made and what it was made from (think future stem cell drugs, too) and so refused to fill it?

There are endless complications with this compromise....:-(

[madfloridian]

68. Agreed.

:hi:

We gave them power they should not have.

[DearAbby]

128. It is preferential treatment of one's beliefs over another's

Why should they have preferential treatment, If I was unable to fulfill the job description that I was hired to perform, then I should be fired, period, end of story...but if I add in that it is against my religious morals to perform that duty...then all is well?

and its not just any religious morals, What would happen if a Wiccan refused to perform one of his/her duties as in the Job description? They would not have the same protection of the law

[Pinboy]

114. Conscience laws ALREADY EXIST at the state and federal level...

See post # 111.

As the Kerry/Santorum letter says, this bill "clarifies current law."

This definitely is NOT "caving in."

[flpoljunkie]

124. Pharmacists who refuse to fill Rx for legal drug ought to get another job!

Conscience laws be damned!

[tx_dem41]

33. And the compromise acknowledges that right.

The compromise says that if you go into a pharmacy you are guaranteed to walk out of there with your prescription filled. What part of the compromise are either you or I not understanding?

[madfloridian]

41. When did pharmacists get more power than the doctor?

Why should there have been any compromise at all. Why should a pharmacist object to a woman having birth control?

Why did we go along with the antics of just a small group called Pharmacists for Life. Look them up at Media Matters.

This is a farce.

[Mass]

45. They dont

Once the pharmacists have the right, then the doctor will, then the teachers, ...

When will we come to the fact that Civil Rights will be restricted because of the right of somebody claiming that renting his house to somebody of another religion is against his religion.

[tx_dem41]

46. I don't believe that a doctor is required by law to write a prescription

So, your subject title is incorrect.

Do you think its fair if you were an Atheist and you were fired from your job because you were required to attend a prayer meeting every morning. This bill will prevent this. This bill will also REQUIRE that the PHARMACY fill all prescriptions.

[Mass]

54. A prayer is not part of a job description (except may be in a church)

Filling a prescription is part of a pharmacist job.

[tx_dem41]

65. Going to a motivational meeting is definitely in the job description..

of a salesman. Just talk to one. I have known several that have been fired for refusing to attending such sessions.

Also, remember that this bill was initially introduced by Kerry in the 1990's to protect religious minorities such as Wiccans, Sikhs, Atheists (Atheists are religious groups in the legal sense).

This is a true victory for birth control rights since it for the first time guarantees, by the force of federal law, that all birth control prescriptions must be filled when you enter any pharmacy in this country. Presently, you have no such right.

[FreedomAngel82]

100. Exactly

When I go to the pharmacist I expect them to give me my medicine. For all they know it could be a life or death type of ordeal. I don't go there to be preached at. If I wanted that I'd wait till Sunday morning at church. These people don't need to be a pharmacist if they don't like this.

[tx_dem41]

104. You might expect it, but you have no such right now.

If the compromise were to pass, you would walk into that pharmacy armed with a right, backed by federal law. The right to demand that your prescription be filled.

[madfloridian]

28. We just gave the radical Christian right a whole lot of power.....

they did not really have.

[kerrygoddess]

42. NOT!

Maybe you should read it again because it's very clear that they have to fill it if no one else is available.

Further more, if you think the religious right wouldn't try to push something like this with out Dem support and Dem influence, think again. Lucky for us that Kerry stepped up to the plate and added a voice of reason.

[madfloridian]

43. Read about Pharmacists for Life at Media Matters. Don't yell at me.

I am tired of being yelled out.

We gave them power they did not have.

[kerrygoddess]

63. Who's yelling

It seems like you are the one who is always mad.

I've read the stuff at Media Matters.

[madfloridian]

83. If you want to call it anger, feel free. That is your right.

I happen to call it standing up for things I believe in.

[Mass]

50. I am sure that this was not the case

I think Kerry had good intentions, but I dont see why this compromise should be made.

As I said earlier, I supported the bill on Kerry's reasons for the bill to exist (allow people to celebrate their religious holidays rather than what their boss wants to celebrate). I dont see how to allow people to show their intolerance helps. There are a lot of things I am (philosophically opposed). It would not come to my mind to look for a job where I would have to infringe on them and then ask my boss to be dispensed of doing my duties.

[KoKo]

62. This will be abused in small towns and the women will be intimidated.

This bill assumes that Pharmacists don't have personalities and that most pharmacies today are "Corporate Contolled." If the only pharmacist in your town is a toad who harasses you because you demand he/she fills a prescription that's against he/she's beliefs then this amounts to throwing women's rights back to the 1950's.

It's a terrible compromise. It compromises all our health care with this dangerous precedent.

[Mass]

67. It would be the case with or w/o the bill

Pharmacists already do what you say, so it will not change anything.

[FreedomAngel82]

102. This could be problems too

I think so too. In a small town if you go to a phamracists and the person refuses to give you the medicine and you keep going to them and asking them to whenever you come around and they don't they could go to court or something for you harrassing them when all you're trying to do is get your medicine. I wonder if more people are going to get their medicine in the mail until this mess stops.

[Mass]

103. The situation exists already

except that you will get the lecture and they will say NO.

[StudentOfDarrow]

133. We did?

I don't see how. The prescription still gets filled, it's just that a different pharmacist hands you the pills.

[GOPBasher]

36. This sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. n/t

[ComerPerro]

47. My take: If some fundie thinks that filling a perscription is immoral

Maybe they shouldn't work in a Pharmacy.

This could be an acceptible compromise as long as patients can be guaranteed that they will recieve their medication in a timely, professional and curteous manner.

As a male, I would never have to get a perscription for birth control or anything like that, but if my girlfriend was refused by a fundie pharmicist I would advise her to tell the Pharmacy that they just lost a customer. And I would encourage everyone I know to stop doing business with them. Most importantly, we would let the Pharmacy know exactly why.

A pharmacy employs someone who refuses to fill orders for Birth Control? Fine. Religious freedom. They have someone else working there who can fill it for me. But I am never going back there again.

[DebinTx]

48. Don't we have laws that already say that?

Every muslim I've worked with was allowed company time for prayers, people of certain religious persuasions were not forced to work on other's churches (I am in the construction field), etc.

Seems to me that if these pharmacists were really on the up and up, they'd have clued their employer in long before it became a problem for the customer. If they won't dispense certain medications then let them find a new line of work.

[JI7]

52. Kerry introduced this bill first in the 1990s

most because of religious minorities in his home state such as wiccans, sikhs etc.

<in 1997-JUL, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Dan Coats (R-IN) introduced a bill called the Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 1997 (WRFA; S. 1124)>

more info on the bill and the issue here :

http://www.religioustolerance.org/wrfa.htm

[kerrygoddess]

56. Applause to you!

Thanks so much for posting this link and the fact that Kerry first introduced this in '97 and his reasoning!

[Mass]

61. The problem is not the bill by itself

It is what it seems to be becoming on the pression of the RW that is dangerous.

A few amendments suggested by the Civil Rights Organizations could easily solve the problem.

[JI7]

64. i agree, that's why i'm not all that supportive of this bill itself

but i understand kerry's intentions behind it .

i'm the type that leans towards supporting the french system but that's unlikely to get support in this country anytime soon.

[kerrygoddess]

76. Religious freedom

I think regardless of the push from the religious right we need to look at this with some perspective. We live in a country where we are supposed to have relgious freedom, yet people are still persecuted for their beliefs.

There have been cases of kids sent home from school for wearing pentacles, yet kids wearing crosses are not sent home. Christmas a Christian holiday is a legal holiday yet, other's who have different religious holiday's do not always get to take those holidays off.

Are either of these scenario's fair? No not really.

That "The Workplace Religious Freedom Act" will address a number of freedom of religion workplace issues and also provide some foundation for making certain that pharmicists do their job, if no one else is available to take over when they have a religious object, how is this a bad thing?

[Mass]

78. The bill would be fine

If the modifications asked by the civil rights movements were added.

The movements that oppose it dont oppose it on principle, but because it opens loopholes that could be easily closed.

[kerrygoddess]

79. Have you read the text of the bill?

Is it available? Do we know that JK has not done this?

[Mass]

82. Yes I have

It is on line in the Senate site.

I hope that Kerry will do it, but as to now, it has not be done.

[kerrygoddess]

86. Do you have a link or the bill #

[Mass]

91. Here

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:39:./temp/~c109JjQiMm::

[kerrygoddess]

98. Thanks Mass! I found it too!

You rock!

[kerrygoddess]

92. TEXT OF THE BILL

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 677
To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to establish provisions with respect to religious accommodation in employment, and for other purposes.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 17, 2005
Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. KERRY, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. SMITH, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. TALENT, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. COBURN, and Mr. HATCH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to establish provisions with respect to religious accommodation in employment, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2005 '.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

(a) Definitions- Section 701(j) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(j)) is amended--

(1) by inserting `(1)' after `(j)';

(2) by inserting `, after initiating and engaging in an affirmative and bona fide effort,' after `unable';

(3) by striking `an employee's' and all that follows through `religious' and inserting `an employee's religious' ; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(2)(A) In this subsection, the term `employee' includes an employee (as defined in subsection (f)), or a prospective employee, who, with or without reasonable accommodation, is qualified to perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.

`(B) In this paragraph, the term `perform the essential functions' includes carrying out the core requirements of an employment position and does not include carrying out practices relating to clothing, practices relating to taking time off, or other practices that may have a temporary or tangential impact on the ability to perform job functions, if any of the practices described in this subparagraph restrict the ability to wear religious clothing, to take time off for a holy day, or to participate in a religious observance or practice.

`(3) In this subsection, the term `undue hardship' means an accommodation requiring significant difficulty or expense. For purposes of determining whether an accommodation requires significant difficulty or expense, factors to be considered in making the determination shall include--

`(A) the identifiable cost of the accommodation, including the costs of loss of productivity and of retraining or hiring employees or transferring employees from 1 facility to another;

`(B) the overall financial resources and size of the employer involved, relative to the number of its employees; and

`(C) for an employer with multiple facilities, the geographic separateness or administrative or fiscal relationship of the facilities.'.

(b) Employment Practices- Section 703 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(o)(1) In this subsection:

`(A) The term `employee' has the meaning given the term in section 701(j)(2).

`(B) The term `leave of general usage' means leave provided under the policy or program of an employer, under which--

`(i) an employee may take leave by adjusting or altering the work schedule or assignment of the employee according to criteria determined by the employer; and

`(ii) the employee may determine the purpose for which the leave is to be utilized.

`(2) For purposes of determining whether an employer has committed an unlawful employment practice under this title by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to the religious observance or practice of an employee, for an accommodation to be considered to be reasonable, the accommodation shall remove the conflict between employment requirements and the religious observance or practice of the employee.

`(3) An employer shall be considered to commit such a practice by failing to provide such a reasonable accommodation for an employee if the employer refuses to permit the employee to utilize leave of general usage to remove such a conflict solely because the leave will be used to accommodate the religious observance or practice of the employee.'.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

(a) Effective Date- Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act and the amendments made by section 2 take effect on the date of enactment of this Act .

(b) Application of Amendments- The amendments made by section 2 do not apply with respect to conduct occurring before the date of enactment of this Act .

hese links usually expire but here it is - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109k5uCJc::

[JI7]

80. right, and those are the issues Kerry was trying to address when he

first introduced it.

but as Mass said, we need an amendment which says that these rights offered can't supercede civil rights meaning that if a person's religious belief conflicts with a civil right then they do not have that "religious right".

[kerrygoddess]

85. I get the impression that is what this does.

It says they have to fill the prescription even if they object, if no one else is available to fill it at that time. It makes it a law that they must fill it regardless of their objection. It also gives them the option to ask someone else to fill it if they are not working alone.

[Mass]

87. Not only on this subject

We are talking about gay bashing in firms and other things of this type.

There are currently laws in some states that prevent that and there is some worry that these laws would be superceded by this Act.

This could be simply solved, but it is not, and it would probably close the question for most honest opponents of the bill.

[tx_dem41]

88. I agree, it does exactly that. n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

106. That I like

but the pharmacists bill I'm not sure of. There can always be problems and loopholes. I also agree it's not fair that a Christian gets off for holiday's like Christmas but a Jew or a Muslim can't get off for a major holiday for them. That's truly not fair.

[kerrygoddess]

110. Everything can have damn loopholes

Even wearing crosses or pentacles.

[Plausible]

69. I don't get why pharmacies

would have pharmacy clerks who won't dispense any of the prescriptions.

So, what if we take something to a checkout counter and the clerk doesn't agree with us buying it? They have to call another cashier to that register?

Would if they don't agree with waiting on women wearing shorts or men buying Playboy?

What if their "religon" doesn't agree with racial equality or etc? Seems to me the KKK has a "church."

[Mass]

73. Currently, they dont have too.

So it is an improvement on the current situation.

What we need a clear statement in the bill that this law does not supersede civil right laws (State and Federal). This is the main thing ACLU and reproductive and gay rights movements are asking.

[tx_dem41]

74. What if I, as an atheist and a salesman, don't want to attend...

a religious-based motiviational meeting. You seem to want to defend the right of my boss to fire me.

[EC]

70. They KNEW they would have to dispense these medicines

when they chose to go into their profession...it wasn't against their morals then? This is just bogus...fire them and be done with it. If something was morally wrong to me within a profession, I would not chose that profession to study 4 - 8 years for and then refuse to do my job because it was morally wrong...FIRE THEM....

[tx_dem41]

81. But firing them is not a power I want the Government to have....

...I want the owner to have that power. What if the owner agrees with the pharmacist? What if the owner IS the pharmacist? With the bill, the owner of the pharmacy is REQUIRED to ensure that the perscription is filled. Presently (without the compromise) there is no such requirement. Why DUers prefer the present state is beyond me.

[Nikki Stone 1]

72. To people who think it's a "good compromise"

The text of the law is just the beginning. Any activist or attorney will tell you that what is as important as the law itself is the precedents that the law will set.

An employee could now conceivably refuse to do any task based on religious grounds, and the employer would have to eat the cost. I agree with madfloridian that this is ultimately about birth control, but I think the unintended effects will be far more pervasive. A new precedent has been set.

And with a new precedent comes new law, usually on the side with the momentum, which in this case is the fundamentalist side. That is why I do not think the requirement that the fundamentalist fill the prescription if no one else is available will last. It will be challenged on principle--the new principle set up by this law--and it will lose.

[kerrygoddess]

90. It's not ultimately about Birth Control

Kerry has been working on this bill for years as already pointed out in this thread. This not filling BCP's is a farly recent issue. Evidently Kerry saw a way to get this protection into the bill. The bill says that a person has to perform their job if no one else can cover for them or it creates financial hardship for the business or business owner.

It's very clear. It protects the consumer, the business owner and the employee as best possible it seems.

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 677
To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to establish provisions with respect to religious accommodation in employment, and for other purposes.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 17, 2005
Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. KERRY, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. SMITH, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. TALENT, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. COBURN, and Mr. HATCH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to establish provisions with respect to religious accommodation in employment, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2005 '.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

(a) Definitions- Section 701(j) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(j)) is amended--

(1) by inserting `(1)' after `(j)';

(2) by inserting `, after initiating and engaging in an affirmative and bona fide effort,' after `unable';

(3) by striking `an employee's' and all that follows through `religious' and inserting `an employee's religious' ; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(2)(A) In this subsection, the term `employee' includes an employee (as defined in subsection (f)), or a prospective employee, who, with or without reasonable accommodation, is qualified to perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.

`(B) In this paragraph, the term `perform the essential functions' includes carrying out the core requirements of an employment position and does not include carrying out practices relating to clothing, practices relating to taking time off, or other practices that may have a temporary or tangential impact on the ability to perform job functions, if any of the practices described in this subparagraph restrict the ability to wear religious clothing, to take time off for a holy day, or to participate in a religious observance or practice.

`(3) In this subsection, the term `undue hardship' means an accommodation requiring significant difficulty or expense. For purposes of determining whether an accommodation requires significant difficulty or expense, factors to be considered in making the determination shall include--

`(A) the identifiable cost of the accommodation, including the costs of loss of productivity and of retraining or hiring employees or transferring employees from 1 facility to another;

`(B) the overall financial resources and size of the employer involved, relative to the number of its employees; and

`(C) for an employer with multiple facilities, the geographic separateness or administrative or fiscal relationship of the facilities.'.

(b) Employment Practices- Section 703 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(o)(1) In this subsection:

`(A) The term `employee' has the meaning given the term in section 701(j)(2).

`(B) The term `leave of general usage' means leave provided under the policy or program of an employer, under which--

`(i) an employee may take leave by adjusting or altering the work schedule or assignment of the employee according to criteria determined by the employer; and

`(ii) the employee may determine the purpose for which the leave is to be utilized.

`(2) For purposes of determining whether an employer has committed an unlawful employment practice under this title by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to the religious observance or practice of an employee, for an accommodation to be considered to be reasonable, the accommodation shall remove the conflict between employment requirements and the religious observance or practice of the employee.

`(3) An employer shall be considered to commit such a practice by failing to provide such a reasonable accommodation for an employee if the employer refuses to permit the employee to utilize leave of general usage to remove such a conflict solely because the leave will be used to accommodate the religious observance or practice of the employee.'.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

(a) Effective Date- Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act and the amendments made by section 2 take effect on the date of enactment of this Act .

(b) Application of Amendments- The amendments made by section 2 do not apply with respect to conduct occurring before the date of enactment of this Act .

hese links usually expire but here it is - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109k5uCJc::

[kerrygoddess]

99. Here's an action alert for this issue if you want to do something

http://prochoiceaction.org/campaign/pharmacy_petition/knkges245b6tj7

[Marnieworld]

105. Exactly. the bad precedent is the dangerous slippery slope

What if you consider it part of your religion to hate gays? MAny people do. Will others have the right to refuse to serve gay people in restaurants or other service oriented tasks? Why not if condoning the relationship is against their beliefs? Religion and the texts associated with them have been used to oppress people since the beginning. How about a bill requiring people to dispense only legal things? Since BC is legal then it's required.

[kerrygoddess]

109. Again the point is -

The bill says that employees only can not serve someone due to their beliefs if someone is available to cover for them. If no one is available to cover for them they have to do their job, or if it creates financial hardship for the business.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[Marnieworld]

113. because they will not stop there

If you are already enough of a fundamentalist to believe that release of a non-implanted egg monthly counts as an abortion (why they won't give out the BC pill) are you suddenly going to compromise on a moment to moment basis? "Oh well, yesterday I had principals but the other pharmacist just left on a personal emergency so I'll just do it but tomorrow I'll have those beliefs again." The moment this bill is passed and this happens there will be new legislation "protecting" their "rights" further.

It's setting a dangerous precedent to allow all levels of conscience and philosophy to have such power in a secular environment which is a workplace. It gives the religious more power over the non-religious in these situations. The only way to have equality is secularism. All beliefs are then equal. Anything can be called religious and can be justified. Who decides what is acceptable and what isn't? The laws or government? There is personal choice but then people should deal with the consequences of their principals.

[kerrygoddess]

115. Well the original intent of this bill

Is not for birth control prescriptions to be filled, but the bill will give some control over those who refuse. They can lose their jobs under this bill.

[Q]

116. I agree...

...that it DOES set a dangerous precedent in that it further erodes the rights of the consumer AND the right to obtain birth control without restrictions.

This is nothing more than a continued effort on the part of the 'new' Democrats to compromise with the religious right in the hope of getting a few of their votes. It's simply more pandering to the right that's weakening the principles and values of our party.

[Pinboy]

111. This is NOT a new precedent...

Almost all of the states have already enacted "conscience laws," and in December Congress enacted a federal conscience law, the Hyde-Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment.

The so-called 'conscience laws' were designed to allow health care providers to refuse to perform abortions, as a matter of conscience. At the state level, courts have already extended conscience laws to pharmacists; the Kerry/Santorum bill is restrictive, requiring that pharmacies provide for filling prescriptions when an individual pharmacist declines.

See these links, for example, on existing conscience laws:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/25/184722.shtml

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1594

[Sapphire Blue]

118. What if a pharmacist refuses to dispense Viagra?

Wonder if these 'moralists' would change their tune if pharmacists refused to fill men’s prescriptions for erectile dysfunction meds?

What would a 'moralist' do in the case of a 'morally acceptable' married couple going to the pharmacy... he with a Viagra prescription, she with a birth control or morning after pill prescription?

If a customer has a legal prescription, what business does any pharmacist have in passing judgment on or denying service to this customer? Is this just a backdoor attack against women’s reproductive choice?

[Dr Ron]

126. Viagra

Under this act, if he belonged to a religion which worships flaccidity, the pharmacist would be able to refuse to prescribe the Viagra, but only if there was a non-flacicdity worshiper who was available to prescribe the Viagra.

[Sapphire Blue]

127. Anybody want to start the Church of Flaccidity?

:rofl:

On the more ‘serious’ side, RW ‘moralists’ are more likely than rational people to be opposed to sex for purposes other than procreation... so how would they react to filling a prescription (either birth control or Viagra) resulting in the ability to have sex without the goal of procreation?

Would (or could) they refuse to fill a chemo patient’s birth control prescription? Would (or could) they refuse to fill prescriptions for fertility drugs which result in procreation along with the discarding of unwanted embryos? Would (or could) they refuse to fill a gay customer’s prescription for Viagra because the customer is gay? Would (or could) they refuse to fill a sex-change patient’s hormone prescription? Would (or could) they refuse to fill prescriptions based on their perception for the customer’s need for the medication, or based on their bigotry against the customer?

Why do these self-appointed RW ‘moral values’ guardians choose a profession which may require them to perform duties opposed to their twisted ‘moral values’? The unmitigated gall of these ‘moralists’ desire to rule others is pathetic.

[roguevalley]

119. this is total crap. they should be made to uphold their oath. what

if I say its against my religion to teach people whose parents believe in war and bush? Fuckers. They are all fuckers. Any self righteous pharmacist that I knew of would get the finger from me everytime I saw them.

[Al-CIAda]

120. This is fucking stupid. Go back to the photomat if you can't handle

handing out a perscription.

If I'm against the killing of innocent fungus, can I refuse the selling of Tinactin?

RETARDS.

[Dr Ron]

121. Fungus

Presumably if this law passes you could refuse to sell Tinactin, especially if you belong to a religion which worships fungi, but only if there is another pharmacist available to fill the prescription. Fungus worshippers would be scrwed if there wasn't another pharmacist to dispense the Tinactin.

[kerrygoddess]

122. ROFLMAO!

Oh my... I wish people would read this.

[KoKo]

131. Exactly...the repercussions are great... "law of unintended consequences"

will rule with this. Now is it worse than what Santorum alone would have sponsored? Did Kerry modifiy it enough to beat back the "Crazies?"

I don't know... but it's BAD...and no amount of "spoonful of sugar making the medicine go down" will make it ANY BETTER...IMHO...

[Dr Ron]

132. It is definately better than what Republican alone would sponsor.

Republicans alone would go for a bill which allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control pills at will. At least this does require them to dispense the pills if there isn't someone else available who will.

In a perfect world it would not be necessary for Kerry to propose an ant at all. As we live in a world where pharmacists could be pressured into not dispensing BCP's by the religious right, we are better off having the law require that the customer receive the ordered medication from someone.

I doubt the Republicans will go along with this and pass it. It is basically a case of the religious right being strung along, as was the status quo before Bush. The religious right wins on rhetoric, but we win where it counts as the law ensures that women will receive their birth control pills and anything else the religious right wants to block.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

129. I think this bill sounds like a good compromise

We're meant to be in favour of freedom of conscience, not just freedom of conscience in so far as it is used by left-wingers.

I don't have any particular desire to force people to dispense condoms if they don't want to, or to forbid them from doing the rest of a pharmacist's job if they want to, *provided* that they do not prevent people who want to buy them doing so. This seems a good solution.

One thing that does strike me as slightly odd is that such an obvious compromise took so long to arrive at, though.