Walgreens can refuse prescriptions based on morals

https://www.12news.com/article/news...ll-prescription-to-end-pregnancy/75-567017651


According to Arizona law,

"A pharmacy, hospital or health professional, or any employee of a pharmacy, hospital or health professional, who states in writing an objection to abortion, abortion medication, emergency contraception or any medication or device intended to inhibit or prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum on moral or religious grounds is not required to facilitate or participate in the provision of an abortion, abortion medication, emergency contraception or any medication or device intended to inhibit or prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum..."

The pharmacist did forward her prescription to another Walgreens that filled it for her. But meanwhile, her post has gone viral.
 
Thefuckswrong with you. the bakery who refused to make a gay wedding cake. Supreme court sided with them too.

they were ANTI GAY?

no they werent

they offered them ANY READY cake there, they however didnt want to USE THEIR ARTISTIC DESIGNS on something that they were morally againt

and BTW, FUCK YOU FAG!
 
they were ANTI GAY?

no they werent

they offered them ANY READY cake there, they however didnt want to USE THEIR ARTISTIC DESIGNS on something that they were morally againt

and BTW, FUCK YOU FAG!

I'm not the one with the red-rotten asshole!
 
Aren't pharmacists licensed, and doesn't the license spell out situations like this. Usually, as a condition of licensure, you are strictly forbidden from stuff like this.
 
Aren't pharmacists licensed, and doesn't the license spell out situations like this. Usually, as a condition of licensure, you are strictly forbidden from stuff like this.

did you also fucking NOT READ the law there

as posted at least THREE times here?:rolleyes:
 
so fuck the law, right?

According to Arizona law,

"A pharmacy, hospital or health professional, or any employee of a pharmacy, hospital or health professional, who states in writing an objection to abortion, abortion medication, emergency contraception or any medication or device intended to inhibit or prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum on moral or religious grounds is not required to facilitate or participate in the provision of an abortion, abortion medication, emergency contraception or any medication or device intended to inhibit or prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum..."


But hey

Kick Sanders outa teh Red Hen
for teh TATOOED THUGS taht didnt read teh fucking law

here it is
 
The pharmacist did forward her prescription to another Walgreens that filled it for her. But meanwhile, her post has gone viral.

Viral? We don't do viral in the USA. Ask Twitter and FB.
 
It has nothing to do with their judging.



No, you are.

Let me just make it easy and simple: you do not understand why.

You need to have respect for the person who does not want on his/her conscious that they facilitated something against their beliefs. Period.

But you can't respect that; coz you have no clue. Who else would choose to leave freedom and go live with the degenerates.


A bit gross your posts in here. But i know its only coz ur clueless.
So you'd have no problem if some gun control types got a job at a gun store and then refused to sell anyone guns. I guess the owner of the gun store would have to respect their morals and not fire them.
 
Well sure. Refusing service the a white republican in morally acceptable. :)


Because they are the ones who are doing the discrimination and committing the hate crimes, setting our country back, you ignorant buffoon.
 
well, it was inevitable before NonSquirting CuntAlgo weighs in
 
So you'd have no problem if some gun control types got a job at a gun store and then refused to sell anyone guns. I guess the owner of the gun store would have to respect their morals and not fire them.

Like i told silver gurl:

When it's something your atheist behind riding your shoulders isn't able to understand, better keep your wise-ass analogies for the subjects that you do.
 
Like i told silver gurl:

When it's something your atheist behind riding your shoulders isn't able to understand, better keep your wise-ass analogies for the subjects that you do.

So either explain it or tell us if you'd have a problem with it instead of dodging it. Looking forward to your response.
 
The law, as has been cited, is pretty clear that that particular pharmacist was within his rights. It just sounds like a Walgreens issue that was covered--the prescription was filled by another Walgreens--but could be handled better for Walgreens' own good. Walgreens should know which pharmacists won't do what within the law and have the fix figured out--having a pharmacist there who will do it or have an arrangement for another Walgreens to do it and send it over, not making the customer go someplace else. Not even get into it with the customer on why it isn't available right there, right then.

A pharmacist who has such boundaries, though, should expect not to be fully useful in his job and for that to be taken into account on his progress and recompense in the system.
 
Back
Top