At some point Rossi will be required, I hope, to sit down and provide real in depth answers to just where he stands on this issue as well as his stands on choice, teaching of creation (intelligent design) in public schools, stem cell research, gay rights and the rest of his religious right agenda. The people have a right to know how out of step he is with a majority of Washington's voters.

In Rossi's prior attempt at higher office, the press avoided asking these questions and demanding clear on the record responses while repeatedly blathering about how Dino's opponents were trying to "paint" him as having right wing views. All the while Rossi was getting strong support from those who would only support him after gaining a back room understanding of where he was on each of these issues.
This time I hope the press (in general) does its job.

Gee Dave, two posts in a row referencing Fruitin, you'd almost think he was someone of importance, rather than a fringe whack-job.

If Rossi and his minions think that any remotely anti-choice position is going to help him in Washington, then he is campaigning in the wrong state. Maybe he should move to Texas (and Fruitin too).

David - Please please please don't just "hope" when it comes to Rossi. If he begs off answering questions it's because he knows that his real views make him unelectable in Washington. And that's a story too.

And it's a return to his nearly-successful strategy of running as a faux-moderate last time around.

It's the presses job to push, and if Rossi is evasive, to report that. I feel the same about Gregoire, but you're clearly giving Rossi a free pass here.

I support Rossi's and the court's position on this. And I highly disapprove of Gregoire's threats made to the pharmacy board. A store owner should sell what they want to sell. Stop the threats, ms Gregoire.

Personnaly I think that if a Doctor prescribes something then the Pharmist should fill it! Still trying to figure out the problem with Plan B tho.
Why can't a woman go to her Doctor get a prescription for the Pill and put it in Med Cabnet and use when needed?? Does it have a Shelf Life? I asked Senato Murrary this same question and got No responce as she was so in favor of requiring that the Plan B pill should be issued the next morning and not have on hand.

Rossi is pro-choice for pharmacists.

The pharmacist does not work for the doctor. He works for the pharmacy owner, and if the owner doesn't choose to sell a product, he shouldn't be forced by the government to do so.

What's the problem with plan b? If the woman is pregnant, it aborts her child. Doctors aren't required to do abortions. Neither should pharmacists be.

The Governor's position in needlessly cruel and confrontational, and serves as an example of how special interest politics clashes with good public policy.

Not included in the post is the back story of how the Pharmacy Board initially protected the freedom of conscience of pharmacists and the pressure then put on Gregoire by special interest groups to compel them to reverse that decision. Normally the story of a Governor invading the decision making process of an independent body would be seen as offensive.

For almost everyone in our state who is pro-choice we can both support a woman's right to choose and a medical professionals right to choose not to perform an act that offends their deeply held personal beliefs. As a defender of reproductive rights I see the hypocrisy in taking away a pharmacists right to choose.

Travaille, I think age of the medication and its cost are an issue. Just as we count on the freshness of milk in the dairy section we should as a society expect easy access to medication managed by a pharmacist and while a person might buy this pill to have it on hand, unfettered access is a better plan.

Nice job bastardizing the term pro-choice. Now I'm comfused.

Pro-choice = supporting the right to choose.
Pharmacsist and others losing their right to choose is ANTI-choice. I'm consistently pro-choice, you're violating a person's most deeply held beleifs without any good cause.

Ehem...pot calling the kettle black, Particle Man.

Let me help you. Why not use more clear terminology:
Pro-abortion-choice for mothers.
Pro-conscience-choice for medical professionals.

That should help the debate a great deal. Let's not hide what we believe.

Pro-Choice = supporting the right to choose.

You (PM) = ANTI-choice and therefore a hyprocrite.

I am consistent, sincere and my policy preferences will protect a woman's health and right to choose without insulting the beliefs of a medical professional.

Most people in Washington will defend choice, but ask them if they themselves would want to be FORCED to participate in an abortion and they will recoil in horror.

Pharmacists are licensed by the state to fill prescriptions issued by doctors who are licensed to practice medicine. A pharmacist that refuses to fill a valid prescription should have their license revoked. If you have a personal belief that prevents you from doing your job, get another job. This is just another backdoor attempt to force Christian beliefs on the population as a whole. Would you allow a white supremacist paramedic to refuse treatment to a black man? It's against his personal beliefs.
Postman,
If Rossi refuses to discuss issues like this himself, why not just print the refusal instead of allowing him to insulate himself with a spokesman. The same should go for the governor.

Just then I saw a flash of light and I was saved. Thanks guys.
Gosh oh my, I see things so clearly now.
Govenment must step in and direct private matters for all woman and should step back and let pharmacists guide the lost amoung us.
Bla bla blabla....dogma.....

PM: You fail to read my comments, I support abortion rights. Government should neither invade the decision making of women or pharmacists.

JamesB, you ignore what has actually taken place. In the status quo ante phramacists had the right not to stock all but a handful of medicines and therefore the right not to fill almost every perscription. They retain this right today.

A doctor had and retains the right not to write a script for Plan B.

This is another instance of abortion policy being dictated by the extremes.

It is only becuase abortion foes and abortion rights groups need to contuinually prove thier worth to their donors and constantly keep the fight over abortion in their poltical campaigns and fundraising campaigns that good public policy has been twisted in this case. In this instance the blame falls almost entirely with the Governor and her special interest backers.

Plan B is now an over the counter drug under federal law, so while the principles at stake are important, it lessens the real-world impact quite a bit.

The most practical effect of the suspended WSBoP rules, that I can tell, is that pharmacies were required to stock medicines to "meet a community's needs." This is obviously a fairly nebulous standard.

I know a pharmacist who is opposed to Viagra on religious grounds, so I suppose the pharmacist can now refuse to dispense Viagra and other ED medications. This will doubtless cause some anxiety among Republican House members, who seem to need them for after hours committee meetings, but fair is fair. Funny how the religious extremists only focus on women's medicines, because it's pretty clear to me that a medically induced erection is against the will of God.

This isn't about abortion, because Plan B is not abortion, no matter what the extremists wish to cook up in their fevered imaginations. Fuiten and his ilk don't get to define medical care for my family members, or anyone else for that matter.

This attack on reproductive health is about controlling women and enforcing pregnancy. Rossi just made a big, big mistake here. People are sick and tired of the Republicans claiming to be the party of freedom and then sticking their noses into people's private business.

Personally, I don't agree with statements made sometimes that pharmacists who have religious objections to birth control should just get a different job. The rules that were crafted in this state after extensive public input seemed to be a reasonable compromise, but of course the extremists had to go to court to keep their pet political issue alive. I'm no lawyer, so I have no idea what will happen, but it's pretty typical for the religious right to never accept a reasonable attempt to accommodate them. Everyone has to kow-tow before their bizarre anti-science lies or they raise a stink.

I hope they lose badly in court.

For once, stilwell and I are, at least, partially, in agreement.
.
It's not about abortion. To me, that issue has no impact on the Plan B decision.
.
Privately owned pharmacies are no different than any other business. They no more need to justify their decisions as to what they will or won't sell then Safeway has to justify their decision not to sell snake meat.
.
If a store wants to sell something, as long as it's legal to sell it, then they should have that right.
.
If a private pharmacy doesn't want to sell something, regardless of the reason, then they should have that right, as long as they treat everyone equally.
.
Do we require all pharmacies to carry every medication known to medical science? Of course not.
.
Well, why don't we? If someone has the state-mandated right in a private pharmacy to get the morning after pill, then how is that they wouldn't equally have the state-mandated right to demand the delivery of any medication or any other product? For any reason?
.
"The rules that were crafted in this state after extensive public input seemed to be a reasonable compromise." And what compromise was that?
.
"...individual druggists could avoid filling prescriptions that conflict with their personal beliefs -- but only if the patient is able to get a lawful medication without leaving the pharmacy."
.
For an owner of a pharmacy opposed to this or any other medication, this is, of course, no compromise of anything. The court agreed. It's pretty typical for left-wingers to support a nonexistent compromise of anything as long as it supports their agenda.
.
They will win easily, if common sense prevails. Your "hope" is going to go unfulfilled. As it should.

But stilwell one can not fathom the limiting of access to viagra since this protects the right of all men to procreate at will and until the effects subside.
I still say that you should run for office in 08.

Can a Scientologist in good conscience become a pharmacist? Can a good Christian in good conscience dispense any type of birth control prescription? The license requires service to the public. If the pharmacist cannot live up to the service requirements of the license, they should lose their license.

Michelle - Plan B is not an "abortion" prescription, it is a contraceptive just like condoms, the pill, etc. If a pharmacist sells those, then he/she is being hypocritical in not selling Plan B.
Also in general, this is about the freedom of choice for consumers and it goes beyond Plan B. Pharmacists should not be allowed to deny necessary prescriptions for their own personal beliefs. A person does have the right to make a living, but they also get to choose the profession they enter into. While options in an urban area might not be an issue, it is in rural areas of our state. A person who lives in rural area, and only has one option for a pharmacist, should not be denied a necessary prescription. There are cases in the State where prescriptions, not just Plan B, have been denied by pharmacists using "moral" judgments on the people coming into the store. Other professions do not get to use moral judgments on who they will or will not serve, pharmacists should not be allowed to do it either.
Lastly, the Constitutional right to freedom of religion is two-sided - the free exercise clause and the establishment clause. The government cannot tell a person how they can or cannot practice her/his religion unless that practice imposes a religious belief onto another person or group of people. If the government does not step in and take some action, then they are condoning one religion over another and is in effect establishing a specific religion. So when these cases arise the question that must be asked is "Am I imposing, or is this person imposing, her/his religious beliefs onto another person?" If the answer is yes, then the court hasn't upheld the practice.

For many, plan B IS abortion. Among other things, the manufacturer states that it can block implantation of a fertilized egg. By the time it implants, such a zygote contains hundreds of cells, 100% of the DNA for the child that will form, and is dividing rapidly.

The right to abstain from participating in what one believes is an abortion is available to all other health care providers. It wasn't an issue for pharmacists until Gregoire strong-armed the pharmacy board into changing the status quo.

At some point the right of conscience may have to yield to a degree, when balanced against other rights. But here the issue is NOT birth control, or erectile disfunction. It is terminating a life (in the eyes of a substantial portion of the population). I'd say the court appropriately ruled that the right of conscience prevails.

The argument that as many as 50% of fertilized eggs don't implant, so God must be the biggest abortionist of all, is nonsense. Probably well over 50% of stage 4 cancer patients are going to die soon; that doesn't mean we can compel a health care provider to give them a fatal dose of narcotics against the provider's conscience. Allowing a natural death and inducing it are far different things to most people.

T - that is not what the FDA says:

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2005/NEW01223.html

Until someone can label it "abortion," which it cannot not legally be called, then this is a contraceptive. This is a legal question, not a moral one.

Forgive me for being dense, but what specifically in that FDA statement contradicts anything I said in my post?

The manufacturer states that it may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting:

http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/AboutPlanB/HowItWorks.aspx

You are welcome to call that contraception; many, many people call that abortion.

"[Rossi] believes that pharmacists should not be forced to do something that is against their conscience or religious beliefs"

I wonder if he would extend this leniency for personal discretion in formal public duties to soldiers who are now opposed to the war? I can hear him now: "i'm not running for general of the army" but my point is would he support a double standard when a liberal issue compels someone to avoid their public duty? what if a unitarian christian judge felt that a gay couple should be granted a marriage license?

as an aside, i suppose the soldier scenario is a poor example since in the most relevant local example of watada, he insists he is not refusing service because he is personally opposed to the war but believes he is legally obligated to not fight from the precedent created by the post WW2 war trials.

as to the pro-choice debate above... "pro-choice" is simply a catch phrase for the political view that women deserve reproductive freedom and should not be subjected to state enforced child bearing - particularly in the instances of rape, or when the health of the woman is threatened. of course "pro-choicers" do not believe that people deserve the freedom to choose to restrict someone elses freedom, or choose to assult another citizen, or choose to bomb a school, etc. pharmacists provide a public democratically regulated service for our communities and they are free to choose another profession if they cannot fulfill the duties of their position.

Upchuck...like many of the other people who post here, these people were pharmacists BEFORE Gregoire manipulated the regulatory process and forced them to sell something against their conscience.

And are you really equating assault and bombing a school with refusal to dispense a drug that terminates what many believe to be life?

Finally, the "state regulated / licensed" thing is bogus. You can't legally cut hair or paint toenails in this state without a license; every single business in the state has to have a license. If this were a true public health or safety issue, then the state itself should get into the business of dispensing drugs.

T, I was clarifying the notion that the "pro-choice" label need not be interpreted literally or applied universally.

I'll believe this is actually about religious conscience when a religious pharmacist starts requiring men to provide a marriage license and a signed, notarized letter from their wife to obtain Viagra. Fornication is a sin and so is adultery.

And Hinton, I'll reciprocate by seeing your point about forcing a business to sell something it doesn't want to sell. It's worth considering that point further. I don't know offhand how a rule is crafted that takes that into account, I guess we'll see what happens in court.

The point is the Federal Government, headed by President Bush, calls this a contraceptive. So if you want to make your point about "abortion," then please bring in all other contraceptives into question because condoms, the pill, or any other contraceptive out there would then come in your moral questioning. All of them aim to prevent a pregnancy, they do not actually make the body abort a fetus. My argument is not a moral one, it is a legal one. And unfortunately, the only good arguments on this subject will be based in the law because that is where true justice is found.

There is a major distinction between Plan B and condoms or Viagra. Plan B can stop the development of a fertilized egg--the other two don't. A tremendous number of people believe a fertilized egg is a life before it implants in the uterus.

As for BC's statements that the only good arguments will be based upon the law, I have two thoughts:

1. What is the basis of the law? Can the law ever be wrong?

2. Right now, "the law," in this case the federal judge, arrived at a result that you don't like. Does the law always produce "true justice"?

T: this is from the website you linked:

Remember that Plan B® is not RU-486 (the abortion pill). Because Plan B® is used to prevent an unplanned pregnancy, it will not work if you're already pregnant. If you take Plan B® and are already pregnant, it will not affect your existing pregnancy.

As for the "tremendous number of people who believe a fertilized egg is a life before it implants in the uterus", there are also a whole lotta people who believe that anyone who's not a Christian either needs to be converted or is simply damned for eternity.

Bottom line: there is a scientific, medical determination about what constitutes the state of pregnancy. Jim Ramseth's and Dino Rossi's personal religious beliefs have nothing to do with medical science.

I think it's great that someone finally got Rossi on the record about something. Hopefully, the media will do its job in the next year and not let him wriggle and slide like a fish around all the other issues Washingtonians care about -- ya know, besides taxes-this-and-taxes-that.

For those of you arguing for the rights of the pharmacist.

I have a medical problem that requires me to take medication daily. This obviously requires going to a pharmacist. I went in to gt my prescription filled, and I was asked for my license to prove I was the same name. Then I was even told that it could not be filled because they didn't believe that someone at my age would have the disease I do.

Is this "pro-choice" for a pharmacist? Do they have the right to deny me any medication? Or is it just Plan B that I can't have?

Nicole, what I've learned recently is that people are stealing health insurance cards and pretending to be the person on the card to get free medicines. Like other areas of $$, people are getting very creative about scamming for pharmaceuticals and the druggist is by law required to take note of suspicious prescriptions from people. They are required to take note of drug seekers, etc. So there was obviously something about you that gave them pause. Doesn't mean you are personally doing anything wrong, but they are required by law to be careful about being scammed by people who should not have said drug, etc.

I do not support the right of pharmacists "right" to refuse Plan B to patients. First, if they can refuse to dispense a drug based on their moral beliefs, what is to stop them from dispensing antiretroviral drugs to HIV positive gay man because homosexuality is a "sin against God?" Furthermore, a patient who needs Plan B is under a tight time window to prevent a pregnancy. If a pharmacist refuses, there is no guarantee she will be able to get to another one in time to stop a pregnancy. Then she will potentially be facing a REAL abortion as defined by medical law.

The anti-choice forces keep trying to move the goalposts back. It is not enough to outlaw abortion, now birth control can be restricted as well. What is next?

As for Rossi, he has politically shot himself in the foot. His social view are completely out of step with Washington state. And if we are asking him questions, someone should ask him if he would have signed the gay and lesbian anti-discrimination bill and domestic partner bill that Gov. Gregoire signed.

What a great thread!
As for Rossi's political move, I agree he's shot himself in the foot and is "completely out of step" with Washington's State's social culture. I don't know which paints him in a worse light - his actual position on the matter, or his lack of political savvy in handing it to democrats on a silver platter.

Is Dino really that out of step? I personally don't really care--I think Gregoire's generally done a good job other than on this issue--but the political pulse of Seattle doesn't reflect the state as a whole.

Plus you've got people like "Pro-choice" up above who (IMHO) have the most intellectually consistent viewpoint on this issue. I'm guessing a Gregoire voter, but not because of this issue.

As for the prior posters, the slippery slope argument is pretty lame. First, are there any documented cases of a pharmacist refusing to dispense HIV medication? To show such a lack of compassion would run against any faith system that I've heard of. Second, let's take the slippery slope the other way. If pharmacists are forced to dispense Plan B (the only drug at issue here), should they be forced to dispense RU-486 if it were to be lawfully prescribed?

Some of the posters here still believe that us Hicks drive a horse and buggy, bathe once a week, and only go to "town" when the hens quit laying.

But in all reality if you need to see a Doctor to obtain the prescription, you are going to have to Drive to a city to see one, and there you will find a pharmacy or two or three or four.

Remember, Wal Mart, K mart, Rite Aid,Safeway and so on all have pharmacies.

The goverment should not have the right to tell you what you can or not stock your shelves with. Just like Roe vs Wade tells us the woman has the right to choose.

But how many times have you visited a pharmacy and they don't have the drug until the next day? It happens quite often at Safeway here, so can I sue them because they don't stock every drug, everyday?

The Political Pulse of Seatlle is just that. Pure politics. Not a pulse for the entire state.

I need to dump my bath water now........

Who's just talking about the pulse of Seatle, or just western Washington for that matter? An angry man wanting to restrict a woman access to her doctor prescribed medication - regardless of it's purpose - may be a little too new wave for many conservative traditionalists. In any event, unless it's generated some contributions or support we're unaware of, Rossi needlessly jumped into an issue he could have reasonably stayed out of for a while while he watched the political climate evolve.

I think it is a wonderful idea for Republicans to embrace the Pro-Life position without question. I'm pleased to see Rossi fall into line with all of the others on the far Right. It's proven to be such a winning formula in the past, I can see why the politically astute would want to latch onto it immediately.

I also think it's a very wise political strategy for Rossi and other Republicans to closely identify with the Bible-thumping Holy Rollers at every available opportunity. After all, the Rapture may be just around the corner and you need to be ready.

Interesting philosophical debate, I guess. But I'm with Boo: the major point here is that Rossi took an right-wing anti-choice position and thinks he can refuse to discuss it. Not a promising start for his fledgling campaign.

Looking over the news accounts and reading the Rossi approved language in his employee's statement, I find it interesting that Dino attempts to paint the Governor's position as extremist while suggesting laughingly that Rossi is some sort of moderate on this issue of reproductive rights.
Honestly, Dino would have us beleave that Governor Gregiore is going across this state lobbeying women and young girls to go get abortions. This is absurd.
Mr. Rossi is no moderate on this issue. For years, he could be found staffing the pro Life table at his local church and if he were to become the Governor he would take every action even remotely within his power to regulate woman's access to reproductive health care.
No doubt, Rossi's very conservative views in this area, and in opposing stem cell research and in supporting the teaching of creationism (by whatever name) in public schools, will gain him huge dollars from across the nation.
As voters, we must not be fooled into thinking that Dino's careful use of language makes him any less extreme in these areas. His views and the commitments he has made clear to the religious right on these issues are very simply, out of step with the vast majority of folks in this state.

"His views and the commitments he has made clear to the religious right on these issues are very simply, out of step with the vast majority of folks in this state."

Would that "vast majority" be something over 50%, like maybe about 200 votes........

It will be interesting to see how Rossi will continue to fight for the views of a few special interest pharmacists against the greater interests of the public. I wonder if that approach will encompass all of his campaign positions.

No oneside, it would be more like 60%. Over 10% of those who voted last time were fooled by the Rossi BS machine and such will not be the case this time.
By the way, I notice that you do not take issue with where I said Rossi is on these issues.

PM,

Why would I take issue with any "opinion" you have, no matter how twisted it is, such as using the word "extreme".

Thank you Dino!!!!!

Funny, the pharmacy board gave the pharmacy board the right to follow their conscience. Then Gregoire, with a major push from NARAL and Planned Parenthood threatened the board with loss of their jobs if they did not reverse their position. Coercion and money prevailed.

What is funny to me is that the Morning after pill does not even need a prescription. This is not an issue between Dr. and patient. Anyone can walk into a pharmacy, hospital, clinic, etc and ask for the pill. There are many many choices available to those who want the pill.

We must all shop around for products we desire. I do not expect Nordstrom to carry milk....

Poor Becky. She still doesn't understand that the real issue is whether or not a pharmacist agrees to stock the contraceptive in the first place...

shoephone,

What are you talking about?
There is no agreement required of a pharmacist to stock the morning after pill.

And by the way, what do you folks on the other side of this debate believe is the role of the parmacist anyway? Do you believe they are clerks for the doctor? The state? Someone suggested above, "why not just have state run pharmacies?"

The fact is, that a pharmacist is a health care professional, with specialized skills in the area of medicine. There's a reason that the doctor doesn't dispense the drug directly. Those of you who say these issues are best decided between a woman and her doctor, are perhaps unwittingly arguing against the need for pharmacists in the first place.

I think most folks are smart enough to realize that "pharmacists of conscience" is bogus. The real agenda is to reduce (or eliminate) the avaibility of this drug. As demonstrated with their success at reducing willing abortion providers - once a pharmicist MAY refuse to dispense the drug, activists will try to persuade ALL pharmists to stop supplying the drug. Pickets, death threats, hassling customers...that's what they're setting the ground work for.

JimD - Most folks ARE smart enough to realize that, but we're dealng with the fringe elements on this one. For those individuals, it may be instructive to read the entire Pharmacists Code of Ethics

http://www.uspharmd.com/rxcode.htm

with special emphasis on the following point:

IV. A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in professional relationships.

A pharmacist has a duty to tell the truth and to act with conviction of conscience. A pharmacist avoids discriminatory practices, behavior or work conditions that impair professional judgment, and actions that compromise dedication to the best interests of patients.

shoephone,
I'll hope the fringe element will read read "conviction of conscience" in the context obviously intended. BTW, I'm also hoping to win the megga-ball super-duper jackpot lottery.
But it's a good read for those who want to educate themselves.
Thank you for the reference.

I am very pleased that Dino will be running for governor and he has the courage to speak truthfully. I did not vote for Dino previously, as I did not know if he was like all other politicians who simply say what people want in order to get into office. I will be voting for him this time.

I find it amusing, to say the least, that if Dino Rossi had any material worth voting for between his ears, he would not announce his candidacy under the Republican party. {What kind of a name is Dino anyway? Like in Dino-saurus (Dino is the translation for terrible.) which does not even inspire anyone to think of taking his name as any good.}

The truth is now out with his announcement that he has nothing between the ears, as anyone running under the Republican party logo has got to be nothing less than a liar, an abettor to criminal acts, or one with no conscience of what has happened to this country and the world under the Republican party over the last 7 years. It is despicable what the Republican party has done. Yet, Dino the terrible must think it is OK.

Dino, if you knew Spanish, I would say that your face certainly looks like that of a "baboso de primera calidad". Translation: a drooling demented imbecile of the best quality.