Wanted - Pharmacists Without Moral Conscience

As reported in the July 22 Columbian, Pharmacy board reconsiders "refuse and refer" stance, the Washington state pharmacy board is re-evaluating, under pressure from the Governor, their policy "that allowed pharmacists to refuse filling a prescription if they have personal objections."

In their July 25 editorial, In Our View - Change of Heart?, The Columbian editorial board concluded:

"the solution is simple: Make druggists fill prescriptions. Pharmacists know the nature of the work when they enter the profession. If they don't like some aspects of connecting physicians and patients to legal drugs, then they should find other work and let nonpartisan, apolitical pharmacists do the work that the public needs and expects."

My friend and mentor, Jerome Wernow, is Executive Director of the Northwest Center for Bioethics responded to the editorial board:

I read your paper's editorial on the 'incorrect' decision of the WSBP regarding the pharmacist's right to opt out of dispensing abortifacients should they find it morally repugnant. This has been a prerogative of the profession in the US since the Church Amendment of 1973, the APHA ethical standard since 1998, and in the history of the profession an option since the Hippocratic Code 400 BCE, and that is long before NARAL imposed their will to power on an honorable profession. I wonder if the confusion isn't really caused by abortion advocates who desire to drive anyone out of their health care profession who defy their politically created structures.

Dr. Leo Alexander warned of such intolerance in his classic 1949 New England Journal of Medicine addressing his findings in the Nuremburg trials. The article is well worth reading even if you do not agree with my dissent against your position.

As a bioethicist and pharmacist, I question your understanding of the ethical issues and the facts regarding Plan B contraception. Would you or one of your editors would be open tod iscussing the issue face to face for the purpose of presenting adifferent point of view about the history, professional standards of pharmacy practice, and politic surrounding conscience clauses?

Professionally,
Jerome R. Wernow Ph.D., R.Ph.
Executive Director
Northwest Center for Bioethics

As of this writing, the Columbian editorial board has not responded to Dr. Wernow's invitation.

State Supreme Court upholds Washington polygamy ban

The Washington State Supreme Court today upheld the state's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Media reports continue to call this a ban on gay marriage. See the following headlines:
The New York Times, "Washington Court Upholds Ban on Gay Marriage"
The Columbian (Vancouver, WA), "State Supreme Court upholds Washington gay marriage ban"

Of course, since DOMA says marriage is between a man and a woman, polygamy is also banned. But, of course, most same-sex advocates as well as the media have no problem discriminating against those relationships. So in the interest of equality here are some excerpts from the article*, “State Supreme Court upholds Washington polygamy ban”:

====
“For her part, the governor offered support for extending marriage-like civil rights and protections to [polygamists], saying the current arrangement amounts to discrimination.”
====
“The [polygamists] who sued to overturn the [DOMA] law were dismayed at the ruling, but some said there would still be a push for polygamy marriage rights in the Legislature.”
====
“Justice Mary Fairhurst said the majority improperly bowed to public opinion by upholding the [polygamy] ban. ‘Unfortunately, the (majority) are willing to turn a blind eye to DOMA's discrimination because a popular majority still favors that discrimination,’ Fairhurst wrote.”
====
King County Executive Ron Sims, who helped foster one of the original lawsuits by [polygamists] seeking to marry in Seattle, said his next step would be to push for civil unions.
====
[Fifty] states have laws banning [polygamy] or limiting marriage to between a man and a woman.

*Excerpts based on The Columbian article linked above. Only the names [of gay marriage replaced with polygamy] have been changed. Only the credibility of the media and same-sex marriage advocates have been harmed in the making of these excerpts.

and this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.'

Michael Medved has an excellent column in today's USA Today titled "Faith and nationalism: Indivisible in America".

Medved reminds us that many of our country's most patriotic songs, such as The Star Spangled Banner (1814), America, The Beautiful (1913)*, God Bless America (1938)*, The Battle Hymn of the Republic, My Country, 'Tis of Thee (1831)*, "inconveniently and conspicuously mention God and his special blessings for America".

These songs mention God, not in passing, but in reverence of who He is and the blessings that He has bestowed upon this country. In other words, these songs reflect the Judeo-Christian pillars upon which this country was built.

Medved goes on to say:

"Defenders of secularism might argue that we will enjoy a brighter, better future by severing the associations between faith and nationalism, but they shouldn't attempt to mischaracterize the past — or to suggest that they're returning us to an era of absolute church-state separation that never existed. " (emphasis mine)

*Site includes MIDI sequencing of the hymn.

Truth is Bizarro-er than Fiction

Yesterday's Bizarro comic strip takes an unwarranted and intolerant shot at the Boys Scout.

The one panel comic shows a news commentator reading a news item:

"Scientists announced today irrefutable proof that sexual orientation is genetic. The Boy Scouts announced today the exclusion of kids with good grades in science."

First, there has never ever been a study that has shown sexual orientation is genetic. I encourage anyone that believes otherwise to produce a study that has. Not a media headline or a reporter filed story but an actual study. Not a single study has drawn such a conclusion. In fact, sometimes the studies explicitly state NOT to draw that conclusion. That does not stop those that need the genetic evidence to support their agenda to use those studies as propaganda.

Second, if "irrefutable proof" of a genetic cause for sexual orientation were determined does one actually think the Boy Scouts would bar "kids with good grades in science"? Just because the Boy Scouts organization says homosexuality does not aligned with their leadership values?

Perhaps Bizarro comic author Dan Piraro could use these ideas in the future:

- ridicule the NAACP for refusing to allow KKK members as NAACP leaders.
- ridicule the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) for not allowing their leadership to consist of persons that do not hold HRC values.
- ridicule the HRC for twisting scientific studies for the purposes of their own agenda. For example:

"Scientists announced today irrefutable proof that sexual orientation is NOT genetic. The Human Rights Campaign announced today the intolerance and bigotry of kids with good grades in science."

That would be closer to the truth. In this case, truth is more Bizarro than fiction.

House Rejects Amendment Banning Polygamy

- USA Today: "House rejects measure on polygamist marriage"
- New York Times: "House G.O.P. Lacks Votes for Amendment Banning Polygamy"
- Seattle Times: "House rejects polygamy ban"
- The Columbian (Vancouver, WA): "House rejects proposed constitutional ban on polygamist marriage", page A2

Of course, the preceding headlines were never published. Instead, these paper's headlines read:

- USA Today: "House rejects measure on same-sex marriage"
- New York Times: "House G.O.P. Lacks Votes for Amendment Banning Gay Marriage"
- Seattle Times: "House rejects gay-marriage ban"
- The Columbian (Vancouver, WA): "House rejects proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage", page A2

The Federal Marriage Amendment (House Resolution 56) reads as follows:

"SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a
man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor
state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the
legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

If marriage is limited to a man and a woman then polygamy and plural marriages (polyamory) would also be excluded. So why do the headlines not state that. Because most same-sex marriage advocates have no problems banning polygamy and polyamory. That discrimination is perfectly fine with them.

So they create headlines that try to paint a particular group as being targeted; as victims. In fact, Rep. Barney Frank said proponents of the amendment are motivated by “a dislike of those of us who are gay and lesbian.”

If that is true then proponents must also be motivated by a dislike of polygamists and polyamourists.

Of course, Rep. Frank and all those who cry for marriage equality don't actually care about marriage equality. They care about elevating homosexual relationships to the same level as heterosexual relationships.

The phrase "Marriage equality" is just an appealing sound bite designed to draw the masses to their side without actually revealing the true objective of same-sex marriage advocates. Or for that matter, revealing the bigotry in their own hearts.

Bombay bombing

Anyone that denies the pure evil of the ideology the world is facing received another punch in their collective guts in light of yesterday's Bombay train bombings which has killed 200 so far. I've spoken to this before in "The Time That Is Given to Us" including relaying Dennis Prager's observations of what faces the survivors.

While no one has yet claimed responsibility and the investigation is just starting, the Indian government suspects the perpetrators are Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, a Kashmiri militant group. According to the article, however, "former senior intelligence official, Ajit Doval, said the blasts were too sophisticated for the Kashmiri groups to have carried out on their own." Doval continues:

"This is the work of groups which are targeting India as a whole and are not Kashmir specific and are pursuing the larger jihadi agenda," said Doval, who maintains strong contacts in the intelligence community. "They are targeting countries and societies, particularly democratic ones, which they consider to be the antithesis of their version of Islam." (emphasis mine)

That is what we are fighting. Those that want to destroy those "they consider to be the antithesis of their version of Islam". New York, Washington D.C., London, Bali, Madrid, Bombay, Afganistan, and Iraq not to mention targeted individuals like Dutch film director Theo Van Gogh (who was killed for denouncing Islamist oppression of women), and Muslim riots over their dislike of cartoon dipictions of Mohammed are evidences of the radical ideology we face. Thankfully, most Muslims do not hold to that radicalism.

For the ones who do, civilization has only two options before us. We can fight this ideology and crush it. Or we can forgo freedom for their "version of Islam". Democracy or Sharia law. Freedom or tyranny.

I pray that India will be strengthened in their time of trial, that the survivors and their families will find comfort, that those who are filled with fear from these attacks would find peace, and resolve to the good people of this earth to stand against this evil.

Barak Obama and Universal Values

Democrat U.S. Senator Barak Obama wrote an interesting piece in today's USA Today titled "Politicians need not abandon religion". Obama writes:

it's wrong to ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square. Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Martin Luther King Jr. — indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, they also used religious language to argue for their cause. To say men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality.

Obama identifies something that few at his level in the Democrat party will publicly state about our history, about personal morality, and about the definition of law.

While this is true, Obama makes another pertinent observation along with an example:

... democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason.

If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Obama touches on a very important principle in the first part of his assessment but his example of application fails to heed his own implications. Universal values depend on certain absolutes being in place to which we are all subject regardless of whether everyone holds to those values or not.

Martin Luther King recognized this in the fight for civil rights. He unashamedly pointed to the objective standard of the value and dignity of man (regardless of skin). This standard King reminded us existed not because any human being recognized it but because "Our Hebraic-Christian tradition refers to this inherent dignity of man in the Biblical term image of God."

King then went on to say:

This idea of the dignity and worth of human personality is expressed eloquently and unequivocably in the Declaration of Independence. "All men,” it says, "are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Never has a sociopolitical document proclaimed more profoundly and eloquently the sacredness of human personality. ["The Ethical Demands For Integration"]

King's and the Founder's biblical worldview adhered to a "universal" (i.e. objective) truth regardless of what other's - religious or not - held. This is the point that must be true for Obama's foundational premise to be valid. If there is a God who created all of us and the world in which we live then there is a design to that creation; certain truths that exist even if not one human being recognizes or adheres to those truths.

This is why King's civil rights movement made progress. It recognized a truth about the way the world is designed and appealed to it even to the point of using religious language because the only way the truth makes sense is by pointing back to God.

King knew that it is the God of the Hebraic-Christian tradition which gives us value. Not the color of our skin, not our ethnicity, and not whether we are inside or outside the womb.

Legislating from the Bench

This week the top courts in New York and Georgia ruled that laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman are constitional under their states' Constitutions. I've linked the stories:
N.Y. Top Court Rules Against Gay Marriage & Ga. Top Court Reinstates Gay Marriage Ban

I've commented on this issue extensively in published editorials ("Homosexual marriage goes against natural law", "Same-sex marriage forces society to approve of homosexuality", and "Opposing same-sex unions isn't bigotry") and in responding to particular questions so I will just respond to the dissenting judge's comments in the NY court:

In a dissent, Chief Judge Judith Kaye said the court failed to uphold its responsibility to correct inequalities when it decided to simply leave the issue to lawmakers.

Kaye noted that a number of bills allowing same-sex marriage have been introduced in the Legislature over the past several years, but none has ever made it out of committee.

"It is uniquely the function of the Judicial Branch to safeguard individual liberties guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, and to order redress for their violation," she wrote. "The court's duty to protect constitutional rights is an imperative of the separation of powers, not its enemy. I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep."

The purpose of the judiciary is not to fix society. It is not to "correct inequalities." That's the role of the legislature, the elected representatives who pass laws. The purpose of the judiciary is to render judgment based upon the Constitution they took an oath to uphold. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The judge reveals that she neither respects her oath or the Constitution of the State of New York.

Independent Indifference Day

I attended the Independence Day parade in Ridgefield, WA yesterday. This parade has become an annual occurrence for my family. It is a small town parade (plenty of tractors, the Mustang club, politicians, town little league teams, even two F-15 fighter jets doing a fly-over). It is a fun experience of small town American celebrating its patriotism.

Yet, one thing bothered me.

As the Honor Guard presenting the colors passed us, maybe half the people that lined each side of the street actually stood in honor of our national symbol. Most people were clapping (even the ones siting). But very few actually stood at attention. I noticed the same thing the year before.

Growing up, whenever we watched a sporting event (or anything) where the National Anthem was played, us kids were required to stand. We were to show respect to the flag at all times.

I don't know why people didn't stand. Laziness, apathy, indifference, ambivalence? Maybe they weren't taught how to respect the flag; the symbol of our liberty. The symbol of those who died so that we could have a day off to sit on the side of a street with indifference as the Stars and Stripes passed by.

America the Beautiful

Today marks the 230th anniversary of the founding of these united States. One of the most beautiful songs acknowledging this country's blessings is America the Beautiful. The contemplative nature of the words combined with the melody make a truly inspiration experience.

Have a Happy and Contemplative Independence Day:

America the Beautiful
Words by Katharine Lee Bates,
Melody by Samuel Ward

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern impassioned stress
A thoroughfare of freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife.
Who more than self their country loved
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine!

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for halcyon skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the enameled plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till souls wax fair as earth and air
And music-hearted sea!

O beautiful for pilgrims feet,
Whose stem impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till paths be wrought through
wilds of thought
By pilgrim foot and knee!

O beautiful for glory-tale
Of liberating strife
When once and twice,
for man's avail
Men lavished precious life!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till selfish gain no longer stain
The banner of the free!

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till nobler men keep once again
Thy whiter jubilee!