I don't know about anyone else, but I just Can. Not. Grok. WTF is going through these wankers' heads. If you made it through Pharmacy School without realizing that it's your friggin' job to dispense any medication that a doctor prescribes (whether you agree or not) there are one of two possibilities:
- You're too stupid to be trusted with anyone's well-being and need to spend the rest of your career working where the beep tells you when to flip the burgers.
- Your opinion of your own judgment is much, much too high (in which case you had better hope that the Bush Junta gets another four years under McCain...and do try not to miss the flight to occupied Tehran).
And it's not even a question of purity of intentions. Let's take Christian-based convictions out of the mix: How different is it, really, from, say, a Scientologist pharmacist deciding that you don't really need those anti-depressants and then disavowing all responsibility when you take a swan-dive from the overpass? Is your computer repaired by the Amish? Would you hire a pacifist as a bodyguard? I don't think so. So why is it even remotely tolerated when someone allows private conviction to trump professionalism with no accountability whatsoever?
Oh, but that's different, the mainstream Christian would argue. We all know what nutters the Scientologists are. Christians aren't like that.
Sorry, but anyone who talks to people in the sky is not 100% reality-based. And as such, should not be making life decisions for me. Now, if the Believer in question can firewall her/his faith and her/his profession, that's simply the hallmark of a healthy adult mind, and I certainly have no problem with that kind of faith. However, weak and immature minds that can't trust the strength of their own faith without attempting to force the rest of the world to conform to it are a problem. And not an insignificant one, particularly given the "head of the fish stinks first" example we've suffered under since 2001.
And it's well past time that America faced up to the problem that we've given the latter sort too much say in how things are done.
For all that we wring our hands about the repression and brutality done to women in the name of sharia, why is it that we can't collectively look in the mirror when flagrant human rights violations (and denying someone the medication prescribed for her/him is a human rights violation--I don't care if it's contraception or painkillers or what) happen here? Why do we consider lashing a gang-rape victim in Saudi Arabia so very barbaric when we have self-appointed imams in this country enforcing sexist double-standards that took a century and more to legally dismantle? I used to think that the claim "If men could have children, abortion would be a sacrament" was a quasi-hysterical statement. After twenty-plus years of the Religious Right anointing itself the arbiter of not only private mores but also public policy, I'd argue that the claim is an understatement.
If Noesen wants to refrain from using contraception behind his own bedroom door, that's for him and Mrs. Noesen to discuss. I have nothing to say about it, although I firmly believe in Zero Population Growth. But for him to make that decision for other people--particularly younger, more vulnerable members of society--justly earns him the rebuke and loss of livelihood. As Dearest remarked, it would be no different from a police officer selectively enforcing the law (rather like our President) based on her/his own beliefs. No one forced him into his profession any more than anyone forced you or me into ours. If we felt we were being called on to do something immoral, we would, I hope, do the honorable thing and resign instead. And we would, for Pete's sake, have the good sense not to go into any profession that would give us moral qualms in the first place. So the question becomes, "Where does this @$$#@+ get off cherry-picking and still expect to stay employed?" Good luck trying that at work tomorrow. Let me know how the cooking at the soup-kitchen is.
Understand that I am normally quite suspicious of the Slippery Slope type of argument. But the regard for religious conviction has grown completely out of proportion to the value of the values that allegedly underlie them. Particularly when those [cough]"values"[cough] involve controlling others' behavior far more rigidly than one's own.
Bottom line: No Free Pass for Religion. If values are to be part of public debate and public policy, those values must stand on their own merits, not on what some God-botherer takes upon himself to decide is one-size-fits-all morality for all time. Simply cracking a history book will show the results of such pig-ignorant presumption. Not to mention amply demonstrate that the "timeless" word of the Almighty has been very variously interpreted over the centuries. That fact alone should be enough to damn any further attempts at theocracy. But it seems to be a hallmark of theocrats (and their posse) that if--if--they can be bothered to regard history at all, it is cherry-picked and airbrushed into pulp fiction. After all, who else would give us centuries upon centuries of European-looking Marys and Jesuses? Namely the sort of people arrogant enough to create God in their own image. 'Nuff said.
And though I'm sure that the Wisconsin ruling is not the end of the issue--IIRC, there's a similar case pending in Illinois--I'm very happy that someone had the cajones to slap down such an arrogant abuse of power. If this encourages like-minded sexist wankers currently in Pharmacy School to switch majors, it can only be a better world for it. If you're truly that devout, attend the seminary and stay the @#$%^&* out my world.
