Comments on UVA Law Blog: Go Vote Today (Plus Open Thread)

This just in: health care bill doesn't have a ...

2009-11-09T14:06:58.366-05:00

This just in: health care bill doesn't have a 3L's chance at OGI of passing the Senate.

Wow... great to see people are so argumentative th...

2009-11-08T18:14:58.644-05:00

Wow... great to see people are so argumentative that they must reduce themselves to citing Walgreens websites. Like, srsly dude? Get the fuck off this blog and go knock one out, because you certainly need better things to do with your time. Pretty obvious the commenter was pointing out to you that the issue is bigger than just handing out Plan B. But you've used Walgreens as authority, so I guess you win, right? Great job, there.

As an apparent side note (and the reason why I even clicked to comment) Deeds basically handed the election to the Repubs, so I wouldn't go chest-beating and yelling "AMERICA!" tooooo fast. Will be very interested to see what recent political developments will do for the upcoming Senate vote on healthcare reform...

- 4L

LOL @ the editor of this blog trying to be all &qu...

2009-11-05T21:22:43.806-05:00

LOL @ the editor of this blog trying to be all "progressive" and s***. Being progressive doesn't stop people from thinking you're ugly and annoying.

8:31 -- Birth control, yes. Plan B, no. Douche. O...

2009-11-05T21:04:55.902-05:00

8:31 -- Birth control, yes. Plan B, no. Douche.

Of course, if you tend to mostly purchase it for girls under 18, I can see how you might be mistaken.

See http://www.walgreens.com/marketing/library/ask/aap/birthcontrol/birthcontrol_planbprescription.jsp

FYI, birth control DOES require a prescription. Do...

2009-11-05T20:31:29.579-05:00

FYI, birth control DOES require a prescription. Douche.

Deeds got crushed, you hipster.

2009-11-05T19:06:46.972-05:00

Deeds got crushed, you hipster.

FYI, Plan B doesn't require a prescription. So...

2009-11-05T17:21:02.432-05:00

FYI, Plan B doesn't require a prescription. So you're getting between a woman and... what she wants. Not a good idea, but her doctor isn't necessarily involved.

Also, I think 9:47 and I have a different view of the conscience clause. My understanding was that it prevents the state from yanking a pharmacist's license for refusal to dispense a certain medication. NOT that it prevents CVS from firing a rogue pharmacist for not following company policy. If I'm wrong, I'd welcome a citation, because I'd change my mind on this issue.

That said, while I support the conscience clause as I understand it, I would think exercising it is actually more likely to cause an abortion than to change sexual behavior. So I would hope pro-life pharmacists realize what Plan B is and isn't, and choose to dispense it, even if they don't have to.

10:51 said: I like how Deeds' advertisements...

2009-11-05T13:33:41.042-05:00

10:51 said:

I like how Deeds' advertisements touted the fact that he was going to regulate the market, and criticized a McDonnell as a deregulator. Who doesn't want more government intervention in the market? I know I hate freedom!

-----------

what a sophisticated argument you have here.

9:47 PM makes a great point, and I'm surprised...

2009-11-05T00:28:58.685-05:00

9:47 PM makes a great point, and I'm surprised it has not really been brought up yet. The pharmacist essentially acts as a middleman for the doctor and patient. Although pharmacists as individuals require technical training, the business itself is essentially the role of retailer. If you can't handle the demands of the market, find another profession. I think it's far more objectionable to impose your personal beliefs on (yes yes, "possibly") stranded patients than to have to opt for a different profession. A person with enough intelligence to own a business can probably find another job. A woman facing an unwanted pregnancy because she was refused contraception properly prescribed by her doctor cannot simply find a different future.

There's an easy solution for the person who ha...

2009-11-04T21:47:33.807-05:00

There's an easy solution for the person who has a moral objection to selling certain kinds of medication to certain people: it's called "Don't Become a Pharmacist." There are plenty of other ways to make a living. But if you choose to enter a profession that will place you in what you consider to be morally ambiguous situations (future lawyers take note!), then you should be prepared to live with the economic consequences of the decisions you make.

If I'm a vegan and I choose to get a job in a slaughterhouse, I'm going to face some difficult choices. I may refuse to take part in killing the cute little animals, and that's certainly my prerogative--but it's also my employer's prerogative to fire me and hire someone who can actually do the job.

If the legislature awards me with a conscience clause, though, I can keep my job, collect my paycheck, and skip out on part of my duties--and the slaughterhouse will be legally prohibited from firing or disciplining me. Somehow that sounds a little more coercive than all the "live and let live" rhetoric.

7:06 -- It matters, but it shouldn't in this e...

2009-11-04T20:53:04.951-05:00

7:06 -- It matters, but it shouldn't in this election. Makes no sense to say, "This proposed law, which doesn't present a problem in the state in which it is proposed, should not be passed because it might be a problem in another state that this legislature/gov don't control." In this "real world" of yours, does Kansas blindly enact every statute Virginia adopts without confirming that it won't present problems there that it didn't here?

7:07 -- No idea why that guy said "duty to allow a woman," which certainly sounds (and is) terrible. But rephrase it as it should have been -- "why should a pharmacy have the obligation to provide chemicals that will be used to do something they object to" -- and I think the "live and let live" side comes out the other way.

For what it's worth -- I'm a man, I'm extremely in favor of widespread, easily-available birth control (including emergency contraception)... and I also think no business should be forced by the state to sell products that its owners or employees find especially objectionable.

"duty to allow a woman to do something with h...

2009-11-04T19:07:53.661-05:00

"duty to allow a woman to do something with her body that they believe is morally objectionable"

Duty to *allow* a woman.... think about what you're saying. Repeat it a couple times. Real. Slow.

Wow, apparently 3:35PM lacks any understanding of ...

2009-11-04T19:06:36.684-05:00

Wow, apparently 3:35PM lacks any understanding of how "precedent" works in the real world... VA doesn't live in a political and judicial bubble, dude. Believe it or not, it does matter what happens in other states.

11:57 - I thought we were talking about Virgnia...

2009-11-04T15:35:57.162-05:00

11:57 - I thought we were talking about Virgnia's governor and his vote in Virginia. What does that have to do with Midwestern states? Even if you are correct in saying it would be a problem there (which I don't think you can substantiate), that has nothing to do with Virginia.

Also, why should a mom and pop pharmacy have the duty to allow a woman to do something with her body that they believe is morally objectionable? The so called "conscience clause" does nothing to prevent a woman from doing whatever she wants to her body. It just says that other people don't have a duty to facilitate what she wants to do.

This may be a little too basic on my part in terms...

2009-11-04T11:57:43.785-05:00

This may be a little too basic on my part in terms of reasoning, but what entitles a pharmacist to have the power to derail the physician-client relationship and effectively prevent a woman from exercising her constitutional right to control her own medical treatment? Maybe VA doesn't (arguably) present any problems w/finding an alternative retailer, but there sure as hell are plenty of states in the Midwest that would. And like the other poster has said, there seems to be no rumbling about moral objections to dispensing abusable drugs (e.g., codeine), just contraception. Seems like a bunch of BS to me. Just more underhanded attempts to prevent women from exercising control over their own bodies.

10:52 AM says: "I'm saying that the real ...

2009-11-04T11:23:44.345-05:00

10:52 AM says: "I'm saying that the real issue here is whether you should have the power to make it harder for other people, besides yourself, to have access to contraception."

With respect, that's not the real issue at all. A little background might help. In some other states, Pharmacy Boards or legislatures passed or were contemplating passing "must fill" regs. Pharmacists would have to fill all legally written prescriptions as a condition of continued operation.

The [proposed] Virginia bill would have stated, as a matter of law, that nothing in the Virginia Code shall "prohibit any physician, pharmacist, or other medical or health care professional from exercising conscientious refusal in dispensing or administering any medication prescribed for the purpose of performing or causing an abortion."

Isn't that the essence of a diverse, pluralistic position. If you want to buy and use Plan B, fine. Just go to a MD who will prescribe it and a pharmacist who will fill the prescription. But don't make an agreement to fill the prescription a condition of licensure or operation.

If UVA law students would stop being drunken whore...

2009-11-04T11:12:54.315-05:00

If UVA law students would stop being drunken whores, maybe they wouldn't be so wrapped up about the new Governor's position on abortion, etc.

8:14 - 4:32 here. Just to clear the air, allow me ...

2009-11-04T10:52:51.211-05:00

8:14 - 4:32 here. Just to clear the air, allow me to quote from myself: "This isn't a slippery slope argument. But I think this all suggests that the arguments used in favor of the conscience clause are fundamentally dishonest..."

Let me amend that statement, since it appears that there are also some serious misconceptions at work in your argument. Please understand that we're talking about *contraception*, not abortion. As 10:09 points out, the morning after pill is emergency *contraception*--as in, prevents pregnancy from occurring. It's the functional equivalent of a condom. And please consult 10:01's comments up top: "In 2003, McDonnell voted to pass a bill to allow health care professionals to refuse to dispense birth control pills without fear of disciplinary or legal action." Birth control pills. As in *contraception*. So let me amend my statement: arguments in favor of the conscience clause are either fundamentally dishonest *or* based on ignorance of scientific fact.

Now if you're not dishonest and you're not an ignoramus, please explain why the logic of the conscience clause should not apply to (a) anybody else besides pharmacists, or (b) any moral concerns about medical treatment besides contraception.

I'm saying that the real issue here is whether you should have the power to make it harder for other people, besides yourself, to have access to contraception. If you have a moral objection to contraception being available to other people, then that's a debate we should have in the open--and not cloaked in misleading rhetoric. I'd just be very surprised to find any sexually active law student who has an *honest* moral objection to contraception.

I like how Deeds' advertisements touted the fa...

2009-11-04T10:51:41.092-05:00

I like how Deeds' advertisements touted the fact that he was going to regulate the market, and criticized a McDonnell as a deregulator. Who doesn't want more government intervention in the market? I know I hate freedom!

2009-11-04T10:37:49.681-05:00

This comment has been removed by the author.

10.09: Some would disagree with you. Some would a...

2009-11-04T10:26:23.174-05:00

10.09: Some would disagree with you. Some would agree that it is not technically abortion, but is still morally questionable. Planned parenthood even admits that it could prevent a fertilized egg from maturing:

"The hormones also thin the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus."

Can't we just agree that people disagree with the morality of the drug and allow people the freedom to follow their belief (it seems like we have some kind of law that protects that ... maybe the first amendment or something), rather than having someone force you to distribute something you think is morally wrong?

this election came down to Wake Forest Law vs. Reg...

2009-11-04T10:24:17.945-05:00

this election came down to Wake Forest Law vs. Regent Law. Regent won.

Yay! The good guys won!

2009-11-04T10:13:02.759-05:00

Yay! The good guys won!

Not to mention that it appears most of these poste...

2009-11-04T10:09:48.859-05:00

Not to mention that it appears most of these posters are guys who have no idea what birth control, or the morning after pill, are and how they work. Newsflash: Morning after pill does not equal abortion! At all! In any way! Whatsoever!

The previous 4 posters are the same person.

2009-11-04T09:23:10.134-05:00

The previous 4 posters are the same person.