Well, I could have told you that, but for a completely different rationale...
However, there reasoning stems from protecting the personal convictions of pharmacists who enter their careers with the desire to promote life, not destroy it. On the flip, the article indicates that the ban is unconstitutional for the listed reasons:
"discriminates against women"
Counter argument: it doesn't discriminate against women as much as it treats humans all the same: Men, can also receive birth control chemicals, but it is a lot less likely and a lot less effective. In that respect the article singles out one population without regard to the other - that I perceive as near discriminatory than the ban is. The ban indiscriminately protects the very humanness that these "vigilante pharmacists" feel contraceptives destroy.
"violates the right to privacy"
Counter Argument: I must admit, I can not see how refusal to supply a product violates the right to privacy. Unless they are referring to the privacy that is negated after a pregnancy begins to show that the participant took place, or had a part in irregardless of will level, in the act of intercourse. Personally, I would have to say that such a physical occurrence should not be considered an issue that necessitates privacy. Guess I am just hazzy here.
"contradicts 40 years of Supreme Court precedent establishing access to birth control as a fundamental Constitutional right."
Counter: I do not know their rationale here for declining legal precedent, particularly being that UW is a public institution. Irregardless, it is not uncommon for precedents to be overturned.
just my two-cents... As for my opinion on emergency contraceptives... I'm not sure I agree with them. I will agree insofar as they are assured not to destroy a unionized conception: ie, the drug is administered in such a time as that contact of the gametes has not been made. Though, of what I know of contraceptives and birth control pills is they impair implantation, not sperm-membrane penetration. Hence, are equivalent to an abortion procedure.
As for the usage of contraceptives as a hormonal balancer, not in unison as a birth control measure; I can see no reason why they shouldn't allow this, but in honor of a non-discriminatory outlook, I guess they decided to do away altogether, and blanket ban as a measure of sparing the privacy of individuals.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 06:18 pm (UTC)From:However, there reasoning stems from protecting the personal convictions of pharmacists who enter their careers with the desire to promote life, not destroy it. On the flip, the article indicates that the ban is unconstitutional for the listed reasons:
"discriminates against women"
Counter argument: it doesn't discriminate against women as much as it treats humans all the same: Men, can also receive birth control chemicals, but it is a lot less likely and a lot less effective. In that respect the article singles out one population without regard to the other - that I perceive as near discriminatory than the ban is. The ban indiscriminately protects the very humanness that these "vigilante pharmacists" feel contraceptives destroy.
"violates the right to privacy"
Counter Argument: I must admit, I can not see how refusal to supply a product violates the right to privacy. Unless they are referring to the privacy that is negated after a pregnancy begins to show that the participant took place, or had a part in irregardless of will level, in the act of intercourse. Personally, I would have to say that such a physical occurrence should not be considered an issue that necessitates privacy. Guess I am just hazzy here.
"contradicts 40 years of Supreme Court precedent establishing access to birth control as a fundamental Constitutional right."
Counter: I do not know their rationale here for declining legal precedent, particularly being that UW is a public institution. Irregardless, it is not uncommon for precedents to be overturned.
just my two-cents... As for my opinion on emergency contraceptives... I'm not sure I agree with them. I will agree insofar as they are assured not to destroy a unionized conception: ie, the drug is administered in such a time as that contact of the gametes has not been made. Though, of what I know of contraceptives and birth control pills is they impair implantation, not sperm-membrane penetration. Hence, are equivalent to an abortion procedure.
As for the usage of contraceptives as a hormonal balancer, not in unison as a birth control measure; I can see no reason why they shouldn't allow this, but in honor of a non-discriminatory outlook, I guess they decided to do away altogether, and blanket ban as a measure of sparing the privacy of individuals.