Back to the theocratics for a minute, and their push to have states permit pharmacists to refuse to fill legal prescriptions on morals grounds.

DailyKOS has a thread about how non-judgmental pharmacies can capitalize on the moral exhibitionist pharmacy movement, by advertising that they are a “Patients’ Rights Pharmacy”, which fills all legal prescriptions. Good idea.

The excerpt below is merely one comment in the thread. It’s about a related issue: Will the “moral” phamacists also refuse to fill Viagra prescriptions for unmarried men? Will they refuse to sell condoms at all, or just refuse to sell them to unmarried men and women?

And, I wonder how in the world the moral pharmacists will attempt to establish whether someone is married or not? Will they take the word of the customer? In determining whether to accept the word of the customer, the pharmacist will have to judge credibility. That means the pharmacist will be refusing to take the word of some customers based on how they appear or act. This will lead to legal action for illegal discrimination, if the pharmacist has a pattern of not taking the word of persons of color or ethnicity.

Anyway, if the moral pharmacy movement wants to really take off, get Walgreens on board. Since the Mormons took over Walgreens some years ago, Walgreens eliminated its liquor section, and I think they are doing fine. If Walgreens got rid of birth control pills and Viagra and condoms, the public would still shop there. Womens’ groups would raise hell, to no effect. Men would get their Viagra and condoms at Walmart, and women would get their birth control pills at Walmart or at the grocery store pharmacies. And American life would continue pretty much the same as before.

If a new pharmacy chain called “Patients Rights Pharmacies” sprang up, it would fail most likely, because Walgreens is just too darn big.

Daily Kos :: “We Are a Patients’ Rights Pharmacy”: “‘Pharmacists for Ramming-our-pretend-morals-down-women’s-throats’ are only, and I mean only, interested in controlling drugs women can have; they are not even talking about objecting to giving unmarried men pecker-enlarging drugs. That is the part of this that is so very revealing. This is an attempt by the RW to control not only the sexual behavior of women, but all their behavior. If we are pregnant against our will, doesn’t that control more than who with, where, how, and why we have sex? It controls everything about us, except what we think. Maybe they will have figured out a way to control that by the time we can no longer control our sex lives. It’s funny, but the only women who won’t be controlled will be our lesbian sisters, when all this enforced fertility comes to pass. I wonder if they’ve thought of that?”