Published: April 12, 2005
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. [WHAT FUNDALMENTALIST BULLSHIT IS THIS What the fuck is next? What about Muslim wait-persons who wants to refuse to serve pork.]
(Senator) Rick Santorum
(Senator) John Kerry Washington, April 7, 2005
The writers are, respectively, Republican of Pennsylvania and Democrat of Massachusetts.
Just goes to show you NEVER TRUST A SKULL AND CROSSBONES MAN Kerry just fucking tanked and he can go to hell in 2008… before even better.
The floor show Kerry put on yesterday at the Bolton Hearing should win him an Oscar. Imagine all that heat going against Bolton (who everyone knows is going to be confirmed anyways) when he had already penned this crap with the sickest wingnut of the bunch Santorum (which we will have to live with for years).
I NEVER liked Kerry and NEVER will.
Way to go Kerry…
While Kerry is helping to erode the separation of Church and State … why not just repeal the Civil Right Bill for good measure.
My God even LIEberman has not gone this far…
Hmmm…
So if I belonged to Rev. “God Hates Fags” Phelps Church of the Hateful then I could legally discrimiate against those fags and I guess those Blacks too…since they are also against my religious convictions.
What a fucking asshole.
I agree that this is just bullshit, where does it end? What the hell is Kerry thinking. This is just completely wrong.
with this compromise?
Are you assuming this will make lines longer?
Or are you just opposed to the precedent it sets?
with this compromise is that the vast majority of pharmacies never have more than 1 pharmacist on duty at a time, so it essentially giving bipartisan cover to pharmacists who refuse to dispense for religious reasons. So while it sounds very reasonable on the surface (and it does to people who are not intimately aware of how retail pharmacies operate), the reality is that it does absolutely nothing to address the problem of pharmacists denying care to their patient-customers for religious reasons.
well it sounds to me like if there is no other pharmacist on duty, then the pharmacist on duty will be obligated to dispense the medication. Are you reading it differently? And how so? I am one of those not familiar with retail pharmacies.
and I agree with Ductape that Santorum is selling out.
But I don’t see how such a law would have any effect on a woman’s ability to get her medication.
It might cause a pharmacist to make someone wait until the other pharmacist gets back from lunch, but, strictly speaking, that would be against the law.
To me, the issue is the precedent it sets.
What precedent does it set? The faith-based decisions in secular jobs being codified?
Did Kerry just slap the face of the Michigan(?) Democratic governor who jsut told the pharmacists in the state to stop the shenanigans and dispense to everyone or leave their jobs…
Looking closer, it could be read that way as well. But what about those small towns where there is only one pharmacy and one pharmacist to choose from? Then what?
Do you think the pharamcist’s personal eliefs are more important than the woman’s right to healthcare?
As a pharmacist, I think it’s reprehensible that the refusal to dispense is being condoned. As Ductape said, people with cultural taboos about touching women they aren’t related to don’t ususally become pedicurists. If someone can’t provide appropriate, prescribed medical care to their patient-customers because of your religious beliefs, maybe retail pharmacy isn’t a reasonable career choice.
But what about those small towns where there is only one pharmacy and one pharmacist to choose from? Then what?
But that’s just the thing that this bill would prevent, if I am reading it properly, which there is no guarantee of.
It sounds like that if the above was the case, there would be no protection in law for the pharmacist who refused to fill the prescriptions, if they are the only person in that pharmacy. They would not even be allowed (if I am reading it right) to refer someone to a different pharmacy… they have to fill the prescription where it is given.
Then again, I may be too hopeful that there really is sense in the bill ;).
the only way a pharmacist could refuse service is if another pharmacist is there to provide service.
If there is only one pharmacist, he has to provide the medication. This would include lunch breaks and sick days, or whatever else might cause there to be only one pharmacist available.
Basically the law has no intended effect on the fulfillment of prescriptions.
But it is a stupid law. And part of the reason it is stupid is that it has no effect.
So, it just creates a precedent for legal refusal of normal job obligations for religious fruitcakes.
Some European nations use laws like this for Muslims, while we generally resist that temptation.
Would this law override state laws that say, in effect, that the pharmacist has no obligation to fill the prescriptions at all, if they conflict with their beliefs?
is in the process of passing legislation that would empower all medical personnel to refuse treatment to anyone whose sexual preference displeases the practitioner.
Add this law, and Michigan lesbians with fibroids are out of luck twice.
How would they be out of luck twice?
There is obviously something others are seeing that I’m not seeing. To my mind, what this law would do is override the Michigan state law and require the pharmacists to provide the medication… if another pharmacist is on duty, they can do it; if not then whoever is on duty must, regardless of their beliefs.
law, but in the case of Michigan, if they pass that, our fibroid-afflicted lesbian might not even be able to get a prescription in the first place.
The Michigan law would allow doctors to refuse to treat her, if her being a lesbian displeased them.
You know, I remember hearing about cases (oral contraceptive prescription refusal) like this back in the early 1990s, when I was graduating from pharmacy school. Then, it was considered bizarre behavior on the part of the pharmacist, and not to be taken seriously. I guess the biggest difference today is the growing amount of influence the uber-religious groups have on our legislation. I agree with you about the precedent it sets.
It is the same type of discrimination as putting too few voting booths in African American neighborhoods. Yes, they have the right to vote but we will make it as unconfortable as possible in hopes that they give up.
So what are women to do? Bring a cop with them each time. Carry around a video tape.
This is pure discrimination and harrassment.
Why are we talikg about just women.
Can pharmacist refuse to fill Viagra prescriptions for men? If God wanted a man to get an erection he would have one naturally, who are we to contradict the lord.
I hope that this is Kerry’s last term period the man has lost the plot of public service.
Now, I can be legally discriminated against thanks to my chicken shit Democratic leaders…
AND… it sets a NASTY precedence…
for one define “religion convictions”…
an individual who strongly believes that women simply do not have the same rights to reproductive and sexual choice as men.
Why should this individual be forced to dispense contraceptives to a woman just because the other pharmacist has gone to lunch, or is out sick?
Why should such an individual be obligated to stand idly by and watch as his fellow pharmacist dispenses medications that according to his beliefs, constitute an affront to God himself?
Putting him in this unconscionable position is risky, not only for his own immortal soul, by making him a complicit and an accomplice to sin, it also endangers the innocent man waiting to have his Viagra prescription filled, as the devout and righteous pharmacist might be so filled with anguish that he makes an error.
Once again, Santorum has shown himself to be a man weak in both principle and doctrine. By his failure to stand fast to a measure that prohibits the production and sale of so-called medications that not only have side effects that are dangerous to women’s bodies, but encourage them to be lewd, wanton Jezebels who shirk their duty to produce the troops that will be needed for the long-term war on terror.
Now if the ladies will forgive the presumption, let’s look at it from the point of view of a woman who believes just as strongly that which medications she takes, and what she does with her body, is up to her and her alone, in consultation with her physician.
Why should this woman have to wait an hour for her medicine?
Why should she have to drive 30 miles to get it, now that Wal-Mart is the only pharmacy in her community, and it is staffed by Theocrats.
Would it not make more sense to appropriate funds to retrain these pharmacists for employment more suitable to their beliefs and less potentially hazardous to the health of your sisters and daughters?
There are Orthodox Jewish men who believe it is a sin to touch women they are not related to, even to speak to them more than necessary.
They tend not to choose careers as pedicurists.
Perhaps these pious pharmacists could seek counsel from them on matters of choosing an appropriate profession for one’s faith?
That affords him or her the right to buy it affords him or her the right to not have to sell it to you.
The bill clearly states that the medication must be given by someone.
If anything, this is a victory for women as their right to have their medication despite the religous views of the pharmacist has now been clearly defined. Pharmacists who fail to accomadate women seeking birth control (or anyone else seeking any form of medication which may conflict with the beliefs of a pharmacist) can now be legally punished.
I think the woman who’s case ionspired this law would be mighty pleased.
There are no victims here.
Chalk up another win for freedom and personal choice.
There are no victims here.
Uh… yeah there is!!!
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
What isn’t clear about that?
If you try to fill a prescription, and the pharmacist refuses, and there is no one else to fill it, now there is a law that the pharmacist is in breach of. This has bearing in a court of law.
Prior to this, there was no law requiring the pharmacist to fill the prescription. It was a gray area. Because it was a gray area, a woman was denied her birth control medication. When this happened, as there was no law, there was no basis with which to discuss the matter in a court of law. So what happens? The woman is victimized.
Now consumers know what to expect, and pharmacists and pharmacies know what is expected.
The bill clearly states that the pharmacist ONLY has the right to refuse the medication if there is no other pharmacist on duty. Anything else, and they will be opening up a legal can of worms that they are best making arrangements to not have to deal with.
This advances the right of citizens to make conscious choices about their actions and practice greater freedom of choice in the conduct of their business. For that reason, I am all for it.
Any bill which increases the range of personal choice for a citizen has my full and unrelenting support.
The time for sticking our heads in the sand has long passed. This is not rocket science and you know as well as all the wingnuts who are drooling to pass this legislation that this is the tip of the iceberg of eroding personal freedoms.
How many woman will be denied access will increase dramaically cuz now the law says it is fundalmentally oky to discriminate. Most people do not look at the fine print.
This is not a compromise it is an erosion of a civil right and Kerry knows that but he is too busy trying to curry facor with wingnuts like Santatorum.
The only way for a woman to ensure to be service is to bring the local pharmacist to court if she is not served… this is harrassment to the extreme.
Kerry is a spineless git for promoting yet another erosion of civil liberities.
This is actually a brilliant way to provide the framework to protect businesses, consumers, and employees by clearly defining what is expected, and what is expected is for the patient to get their medicine.
Or is it that even when women win, they’re still victims?
So you are saying the only way a waoman can ensure the be sold birth control is to hire a lawyer and take her small towm backwards pharmacists to court.
So instead of spending the thirty buck for her refill she now has to pay a lawyer 30, 000 dollars to ensure her civil rights… and you see nothing wrong with this.
Why couldn’t Kerry just stand up like a man instead of rolling over
The emergency rule takes effect immediately for 150 days while the administration seeks a permanent rule.
“Our regulation says that if a woman goes to a pharmacy with a prescription for birth control, the pharmacy or the pharmacist is not allowed to discriminate or to choose who he sells it to,” Blagojevich said. “No delays. No hassles. No lectures.”
Kerry is a wimp.
I’m saying the fear of the 50,000 the woman would win in a lawsuit, the incalculable loss created by bad press, and the direct loss in business that adopting such a boneheaded policy would ensure is what’s keeping the pharmacists honest.
This gives any patient denied a prescription the start of a legal leg to stand on. Without it, there is nothing.
I also appreciate the rights of the pharmacists in this situation. I don’t like to see anyone’s freedom of choice to be infringed upon, even if it is in my own interest.
THAT is the thin side of the wedge, IMHO.
Ah…no
Bush just sign into law a landmark Bill a bill that will curtail multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuits against companies I remeber this because it was the same day that the FDA approved to return Vioxx to the open market.
You see this is what happens when we keep chipping away at those pesky laws… pretty soon the whole damn thing gives way… to fascism.
When I think of facism, I think religous freedom and a woman’s protected right to birth control.
Actually, when I think of facism, I think of laws forcing me to do things that are against my most cherished beliefs “for the greater good”.
forcing me to do things that are against my most cherished beliefs “for the greater good”.
You mean like… giving up my civil liberties because some fundalmentalist jokers to over the government and decided that the US should be a theocracy?
That Sanatorum knows what is best for me in my bedroom than I do and that with the aid is weak assed Democrats like Kerry he will enforce his relgious beliefs over me.
When did we become the United States of Iran?
What part of “so long as another pharmacist is on duty and would dispense the medications” dpn’t you understand?
The only time they get to refuse is when there’s somebody else to do it for them.
It seems pretty clear cut.
The same part where it says in Ohio that African Americans were to recieve equal access to voting booths in Ohio. But we all know what the truth is.
Yes, you have the right to vote or to get medication.
However, it is up to the serendipity of the Secretary of State or the pharmacist on duty to render such service.
Yes, you can vote … if you can find your voting poll and are willing to waiting eight hours in line.
Yes, you can buy the pill… if you are willing to be legally discriminated against and subject your self to the will of a backwards assed wingnut pharmacist…
Legal rights to sue have already been taken away
…what part of this don’t you understand?
Forget hiring a lawyer, that’s a myth that lawyers take cases of anything related medically unless you already have lots of money.
I can tell you from direct experience when denied correct care(with medicare and medical) that left me so crippled up I could not cut my own food or walk which I thought was a permanent state…and no lawyer would even talk to me or listen to what I had to say. One woman lawyer finally told me over the phone that the lawyers/doctors played golf together and I’d have to go to L.A. and hope some lawyer would take case for free in case they would win but that was not likely as cases go against defendant 99% of the time. She also said she would deny saying that. This also included the ACLU who said they didn’t do medical as their was no profit or point or they were just to busy. There’s much much more to this story but that is part of my point on suing.
So some poor woman if she is denied any rights/pills just isn’t going to be able to sue period.
bill clearly states that the medication must be given by someone.
So who is going to enforce this… does this mean I have to bring a police officer with me every time I want to refill a prescription for the pill…
This is just sick and Kerry has no shame.
the details of the law are not provided.
But, it clearly states that the following:
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.
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.
In combination, this means that the law protects women against any attempt to refuse them service.
And it protects an employer from having to tolerate a pharmacist who won’t fulfil their duties. Basically, it tells the owner that their employee can refuse to provide that service only if someone else is there to pick up the slack.
It’s an incredibly dumb law, but it is not discrimatory towards women. If anything, it protects them.
Suppose you own a small drugstore in Dominionville. You do not have a large pool of candidates from which to choose when staffing your pharmacy, and you cannot afford to hire more than one pharmacist.
The available candidates refuse to dispense contraceptives.
Now Wal-Mart, who will soon be rendering your dilemma moot, has a policy on this subject, which appears to be the basis of this law. Surprise!
Wal-Mart’s policy is the same as the law, with one extra provision: if there is no godless enabler of feminine promiscuity on hand to dispense the devil drugs, Wal-Mart staff are obligated to refer you to another pharmacy.
Depending on where you live, that pharmacy may be 70 miles away, thanks to Wal-Mart’s assertive entrepreneurship, but you are empowered to make that drive, if you have an automobile, and if you do not, you have the freedom to take Greyhound or walk.
As you point out, in some situations, the law does nothing. In others, however, it begs and bleeds to be revised to clarify things one way or the other.
Pharmacists cannot write prescriptions. All medications are prescribed by doctors, and it is the pharmacist’s job to fill them. Whether they agree with the diagnosis or the medication prescribed, or whether their reasons for so doing have to do with religion or dislike of a particular company, or because when their Aunt Mina had that problem her doctor prescribed Butol and said Futol was no good.
So if legislation is needed, it should make that plain. Pharmacists fill the prescriptions as the doctor orders.
If they cannot, for whatever reason, do that, under no circumstances should they be forced to become pharmacists.
Someone mentioned Muslims serving pork. This is not a problem, because any Muslim who sincerely believes it would be sinful for him to serve pork will not work in a restaurant that serves it. If he believes it is sinful to serve any non-halal meat, same thing.
Nor will you find vegetarians working in a butcher shop.
This has not been a problem with pharmacists either, until very recently, coincidentally about the same time that certain politicians decided to get serious about curtailing America’s sinful wild women.
This law that appears to do nothing does quite a lot, as I believe will come clear as events unfold.
But that is not what this legislation is. If that were walmart’s policy, they would be in violation. For a small pharmacist, it would be suicide to take such a stance.
This is paranoia politics.
The law gives the pious druggist only half a loaf, while tempting him with the whole.
If you are old enough, think back to the days when contraceptives were young. Many people disapproved of them, and the Catholic church condemned them, but pharmacists, even Catholic pharmacists, filled the prescriptions.
Now because of some US domestic political movements, and a few cases of pharmacists suddenly realizing they could no longer bear to commit this sin, it has become a political issue.
So it is politics all right, hardly paranoid.
When you are standing on a train track, and hear a loud roaring sound, that is not paranoia.
There is clearly a grassroots movement to deny women their contraceptives amongst the far-right, if you want to phrase it like that.
Should we ignore that and let pharmacists continue to make frontline decisions about patient’s rights to recieve medicine with no legal framework?
What a lot of folks seem to be missing is that this bill would make a precedent establishing case possible. It states the terms of the engagement when faith conflicts with the performance of one’s job. With the current situation, there is no way to determine the extent of liability or obligation.
I’m not one for approving of legislation, but this seems like a rather ingenious way to set up the groundrules for a piece of landmark legislation.
enthusiastic about the physician’s freedom to quietly dispense certain medications to his patients in the office, thereby depriving the pharmacy of a stream of revenue. Contraceptives are refilled every month.
You can rant and rave all the live long day about ideaology and values.
When the gate comes down and the doors get locked, it’s the cash register that the owner of the pharmacy is worried about. Any employee that is turning away recurring revenue as reliable as half the population’s monthly hormone therapy won’t be pushing pills long in my brick and mortar rentsucker, I tell you what.
I don’t have a problem with this either, especially if it overrides the state laws which some have or are attempting to put into effect, that pharmacists neither have to dispense prescribed medication nor do they have to return the prescription or have someone else fill it.
If I am in need of medication, it doesn’t especially matter to me whether one pharmacist gives it to me, or a different pharmacist at the same place. Either way, I wind up with what I need. With the state laws, people can be sent away with nothing and no recourse.
So, hopefully this bill (from the wording I see here) will prevent that, and actually help people. If there is no alternate pharmacist on duty (from what I can tell from the bill) then the one that is there will have to dispense the medication regardless of their beliefs.
I don’t know. From what I read, it doesn’t actually state whether the pharmacist would be required to violate their religious beliefs and dispense the prescription if they were the only pharmacist on duty, does it? For what it’s worth, I’m a pharmacist, and think that these pharmacists have an obligation to work with patients and doctors to provide the highest level of pharmaceutical care, regardless of their personal beliefs. If they don’t want to do that, they should go work in the pharmaceutical industry where they don’t have to dispense medication…
I guess time will tell, but if Santorum’s name is on anything, it’s usually horrendous.
I agree with you, on Santorum’s name on anything, sigh. That does give me pause, but from the wording it does sound to me like they are saying:
“I feel your pain, now do your job”.
I guess that, if it is actually as stated, I wouldn’t have a problem supporting this as long as it overrides state laws that attempt to make it so that there is no obligation to fill prescriptions at all.
Well, I hope you are right, and I’m just being cynical. I wonder if the bill includes any recourse for people who are denied prescriptions?
I don’t know. What recourse do people who are denied prescriptions have now? Lawsuits?
I was wondering if it would then be considered a crime to refuse to dispense. What have they been doing up till now, suing for medical malpractice? IANAL, but it seems like that wouldn’t be a very successful approach without proof of causing harm to the patient.
but I think this is important.
Listed below are two things: the Congressional Record when S 677 was introduced, and second, the actual legislation.
I would have to do a much more in depth analysis, by pulling the Civil Rights Act provisions which would be amended, and then taking a look at it, but from a quick and dirty reading of the actual legislation, I do not see language which supports the statement made in the NYT letter and the CR to the effect that patients’ right to receive their prescriptions would be protected.
By 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): *
*S. 677.
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; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator KERRY and appreciate the work he has done on this bill over the years. I am also pleased to have a number of Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. The bill we introduce today is intended to ensure that employees are not forced to choose between their religious beliefs and practices and keeping their jobs. It recognizes that an individual’s faith impacts every part of their life, including the many hours spent in the workplace.
America is distinguished internationally as a land of religious freedom, and it should be a place where people are not forced to choose between keeping their faith and keeping their job. This simple proposition is why we are re-introducing the Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA), which provides a balanced approach to reconciling the needs of people of faith in the workplace with those of employers.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was meant to address conflicts between religion and work. It requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious needs of their employees so long as it does not impose an undue hardship on the employer. The problem is that our federal courts have essentially ruled that any hardship is an undue hardship and have thus left religiously observant workers with little or no legal protection.
WRFA will reestablish the principle that employers must reasonably accommodate the religious needs of employees. This legislation is carefully crafted and strikes an appropriate balance, respecting religious accommodation while ensuring that an undue burden is not forced upon employers. WRFA is also careful to ensure that the accommodation of an individual employee’s religious conscience will not adversely affect the delivery of products or services to an employer’s customers or clients. (Emphasis mine)
The balance that this legislation seeks to establish is evident in the broad spectrum of groups supporting this bill, including the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Council of Churches, the North American Council for Muslim Women, the Sikh Resource Taskforce, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, the American Jewish Committee, Agudath Israel of America, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and many others.
America is a great nation because we honor not only the freedom of conscience, but also the freedom to exercise one’s religion according to the dictates of that religious conscience. This fundamental freedom is protected and strengthened in this legislation by reestablishing an appropriate balance between the demands of work and the principles of faith.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be printed in the RECORD after my statement. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
S. 677
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–
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.
This is why I do not want to give an inch on pro-choice.
Does any one else find it creepy that they are infact using this li’l ole benign bill to rip in to the heart of the Civil Rights Act of 1964… is there anything sacred anymore?
What this seems to say is that an employer must make reasonable accomodations to protect the employee’s observance or religious beliefs. Therein lies, I think, the problem.
What is a “reasonable accomodation”, and what impact would that have on a customer? If there is a pharmacy across the street that will dispense, but at higher cost, does referring the patient there constitute “reasonable accomodation?” Etc., etc.
I think that this will raise a host of queries that would ultimately have to be solved by litigation, which would seem to be a complete waste of time.
You don’t want to dispense medicines as prescribed by the patient’s doctor? Fine, find another profession.
You mean, just like the state of Ohio claims they made a reasonable accomodations to ensure the voting rights of African Americans in the state. YES, Blacks had the right to vote… if they could find their voting poll and stand eight hours in line.
and go right for the pocketbook. I am not sure what this legislation says (as Wayward Wind points out, it doesn’t seem as clear as Kerry makes it). But anyway, there will be more and more, both nationally and on the state level, both denying the rights of women and of gays and lesbians, as Ductape reminds.
So, I say we start a list of Medical Professionals Against Women and Civil Rights (or maybe something with a catchier title 😉 and list the pharmacies and stuff that do not require their pharmacists to supply prescription medication and also the doctors/hospitals that refuse to treat gays and lesbians. And also list the ones in the same area that do.
If you can’t beat ’em, bankrupt ’em.
This is not just about woman although that is the most obvious point right now.
If my understanding of Scientology is correct on the issue of psychiatrists, they do not believe in them and think they are not doctors and do not believe in medications for so called ‘mental illness’. Now I don’t know how many Scientologists are pharmacists but this might give them the incentive to go into this as career job. Thus could they then refuse to fill every single prescription that is for depression, bi-polar, schizophrenia, and many more mental illnesses?
I believe many Seventh Day Adventists are quite fanatical on healthy eating therefore if you come in with a prescription for say a cholesterol drug they could refuse to fill it couldn’t they as they would think you should just eat right and that prescription is wrong.(I happen to know someone who thinks diet alone will cure cholesterol and refuses to get any drug for this and the diet alone continues not to completely do the job as there two kinds of cholesterol)
Yes I know it’s been mentioned that the bill might actually protect women but it seems to me that this opens the door to have a concentrated effort from the wingnuts to flood the schools to become pharmacists and cause all kinds of havoc with all kinds of prescriptions being denied for dozens of various illnesses..if it doesn’t agree with their particular religion. Sounds like this could lead to impending chaos to me.
I am not violently angry at Kerry although my opinion is is that this whole thing has not been thought through by him thus I think he’s being a real dumbass on this particular bill.
All good points. It should be gender neutral. Maybe something as simple as:
::If you think your doctor knows best
These pharmacies don’t want your business.
These ones do.
that it is rants like this that made me leave dkos. i really can’t take all the vitriol and raw hatred of someone (in this case Kerry) or something that breeds flame wars and garbage comments.
There is so much more for me to say on this diary, but I am going to let it go, as I let go of the anger when I left dkos for my new home away from home – here.
There is no reasonable excuse for Kerry to aid and abet a wingnut like Sanatorum, of all people and to attack womens civil liberties.
In this case Kerry deserve any and all vitrol I can muster.
And to think, Helen Gahagan Douglas was “found to have voted with” Vito Marcantonio.
In the House, Douglas was a thoughtful and consistent New Deal Democrat, who worked tirelessly for liberal programs. A member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and an alternate delegate to the General Assembly of the United Nations, she was heavily involved with postwar foreign relations. She was also a strong proponent of domestic programs such as price stabilization and rent control. For California she was a forceful advocate for federally controlled oil drilling and protecting the water rights of small farms. She served in the House for three terms until 1950, when she sought the Senate seat held by Sheridan Downey.
…
Vito Marcantonio defied the truism of American politics that in the United States a radical politician has only two possible fates: defeat or co-optation. Marcantonio was the most electorally successful radical politician in modern American history. And from his first term when he proposed “reopening and operating shut-down factories by and for the benefit of the unemployed producing for use instead of profit,” until his last, when he cast the only vote against the Korean War, his commitment to radical politics never wavered. Unfortunately, to date, the remarkable story of this memorable man remains little known.
.
What made Marcantonio utterly unique among all other congressman was his insistence that the Communist party was an “American political party operating in what it considers to be the best interests of the American working class and people.” When the party or individuals associated with it came under attack, no one more ardently or effectively came to their defense.
Marcantonio’s connection with the Communist movement released a firestorm of opposition. The press campaign intended to discredit Marcantonio, in its scope and the extent of its vilification, has perhaps been unequaled in the entire history of New York City politics. In 1944 his district was gerrymandered to include Yorkville, an area south of East Harlem whose major ethic groups.expressed hostility to left politics. The Wilson-Pakula Act of 1947 prevented him from entering the major-party primaries, thereby necessitating his running solely on the American Labor Party line at a time when it was almost universally identified as Communist controlled. And ultimately in 1950, he was defeated by the “gang up,” a coalition candidate of the Democratic, Republican and Liberal Parties. Only the “gang up” could allow Marcantonio’s relatively poor showing in Yorkville to overcome the undying loyalty of his East Harlem bastions.
Marcantonio was able to overcome this opposition in large part because his Italian-American, Puerto Rican, and African-American constituents viewed his as an articulate tribune of the people advocating for those who had been left out of the American Dream. Perhaps more pertinently because he lived among them, shared their lives, and personally tended to their problems, he achieved a legendary, even saintly, status. Many recalled his reaching into his pockets to help those facing eviction or in need of school clothing for their children. When I queried an old time resident if anyone in East Harlem opposed Marcantonio, she asked: “Didn’t people oppose Christ when he walked the earth?” A Puerto Rican woman who wrote Marcantonio requesting “a small turkey for my children” stated: “You are the bread of the poor people.”
thank you for confirming that you are obnoxious enough to completely ignore in the future. i will make note of that.
Uh…
if you think it is not “obnoxious” for Kerry to discriminate against women… then be my guest and ignore me all you want. There are certain things one can not tolerate or be quiet about…particulary since this person wanted to be President.
You left out the part about the individual who made the “was found to have voted with” accusation. Now, he was a real piece of work.
both are there
Richard Nixon. His opponent in the California Senate seat race in 1950 was Helen Gahagan Douglas. Both had served in the House of Representatives. Nixon and his campaign circulated the meme that Douglas was “found to have voted with Vito Marcantonio”, ignoring the fact that both Douglas and Nixon voted numerous times with Marcantonio on procedural votes.
there sometimes have to be comprimises. Mr. Kerry was not the only one to sign on with this bill. Please note our most likely next dem candidate for pres signed it too, Ms. Clinton. I don’t necessarily agree with the wording on this bill but here we had a case of two peoples rights and the language in this bill really protects the woman’s rights at all costs and the wing nut pharmasist MUSt fill the prescrition if and when there is no one else there to fill it. Otherwise he would be in violation to this bill.
Legalizing discrimination and chipping away at the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not the best way to protect women’s civil liberties.
This is a small battle in a major campaign to eliminate a woman’s right to reproductive choice. It looks like Kerry fell into this trap. For those of you who believe that a woman should have rights to reproductive choice, we really need to investigate who is behind this campaign.
I just want to add that this law does not just pertain to a woman’s right to reproductive choice.
ACLU Letter on the Harmful Effect of S. 893, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, on Critical Personal and Civil Rights
Over the past 25 years, employees have brought an array of claims for employers to accommodate religious practices that would have resulted in harm to critical personal or civil rights. If WRFA had been law, the following rejected religious accommodation claims could have been decided differently:
police officer’s request to refuse to protect an abortion clinic,
another police officer’s request to abstain from arresting protestors blocking a clinic entrance,
social worker’s decision to use Bible readings, prayer, and the “casting out of demons” with inmates in a county prison, instead of providing the county’s required secular mental health counseling,
state-employed visiting nurse’s decision to tell an AIDS patient and his partner that God “doesn’t like the homosexual lifestyle” and that they needed to pray for salvation,
delivery room nurse’s refusal to scrub for an emergency inducement of labor and an emergency caesarian section delivery on women who were in danger of bleeding to death,
two different male truck drivers and a male emergency medical technician request to avoid overnight work shifts with women because they could not sleep in the same quarters with women,
employee assistance counselor’s request to refuse to counsel unmarried or gay or lesbian employees on relationship issues,
hotel worker’s decision to spray a swastika on a mirror as a religious “good luck” symbol,
private sector employee’s request to uncover and display a KKK tattoo of a hooded figure standing in front of a burning cross,
state-employed sign language interpreter’s request to proselytize and pray aloud for her assigned deaf mental health patients, and
retail employee’s request to begin most statements on the job with “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.”
We do not have that one in blue, might I suggest that Madam would look quite fetching in the lavender?
Thanks, Hausfrau. I know it is a serious subject, but there is nothing like starting one’s day with a cardio-friendly belly laugh and coffee spew! 😀