Comic strip created by Debbie Jenkinson and Eoin Ryan, coinciding with a petition (at link below) on the issue of ‘conscientious objection’ to emergency contraception in Irish pharmacies by Real Productive Health.
Sign here
Also: Let pets into shops.
Thanks Eoin Griffin
Sponsored Link
Why does your conscience only get legal rights if you say it comes from a religious book?
if pharmacies are private entities why should they be obliged to stock a certain product type?
The logic is weird..
Let’s ram our doctrine down everybody’s throat.
Grand, so private businesses can start banning Catholics, right?
“Let’s ram our doctrine down everybody’s throat.”
Also, doctrine is a weird word for asking a pharmacy to stock pharmaceuticals.
if we can ban other protected groups like travelers and gay people then fire away ban Catholics.
If we can’t then don’t ban catholics either.
I’m on for equality .
the point clearly is – if a shop doesn’t want to stock a product why should it be forced too.
I think you know what doctrine i mean – this progressive liberal march or my favorite label “culturial marxism” where everything is permitted and free so much so that dissenters are forced into allowing it .
“If we can’t then don’t ban catholics either.
I’m on for equality .”
Right. So if a Catholic can ban me from getting the medicine I need, I can ban him from even entering my shop. Equality. I think we need to have Catholics banned from everywhere if they’re so keen to ram their views down our throats.
“think you know what doctrine i mean – this progressive liberal march or my favorite label “culturial marxism” where everything is permitted and free so much so that dissenters are forced into allowing it .”
Ah, so you mean the fictional concept invented by conservatives to help validate the narrative that they’re being oppressed when people try to stop them from oppressing the rest of us.
Because it’s a state-mandated provider of vital health care, and the state is within its rights to set standards and conditions on that provision, that’s why.
if you say so, though it’d make a change from everything being banned and prohibited and available only to the rich and powerful under conservative religious regimes.
If they want to, yeah
If they have a contract to provide services to the HSE, they should do so.
I don’t think “my beliefs excluded me from doing Y at my work” is a valid excuse when you are serving members of the public. It’s your job, so do it.
If I, say, worked in a bookshop and someone approached me to buy a Bible or Torah, do I, as an atheist, have the right to refuse to sell it, based on my personal feelings/beliefs on the matter?
You would have that right, but you would not have the right to not have everyone look at you funny for doing it, including many of your fellow atheists. Given the comparative differences in terms of access and urgency and health implications, however, you might be regarded as a bit of a contrary weirdo rather than an actual bastard, as a person who refuses to provide the morning-after pill would be.
I think not because atheism isn’t counted as a “religious belief” (or lack of)? But if you say were Baha’i and refused to sell a Koran or whatever because of your beliefs, that’s fine.
It’s like those cake people in Northern Ireland. You have a business that sells cakes, so sell them. Or don’t have a business.
I also like how bigots cite their religion as a reason for their discriminatory behaviour, as if they had no choice, but then they seemingly do have a choice to serve people who eat shellfish or wear different kinds of fabric at once and if they *really* were just following religious teachings about Dza Gays, they’d be calling for them to be executed as well…but they’re not…because they’re dishonest cowards.
I think its more disingenuous when people refuse service based on religion or whatever but scream about religious persecution of Christians on the other hand because someone isn’t allowed to wear a cross for safety reasons at work.
Whiny babies. And it doesn’t help the debate about where the line is for religious vs human rights.
Aye. I was thinking about the annual War on Christmas over in the states just there. It’s not fair that people are ignoring Christianity but Christians should get to ignore everyone.
Religion, to me, seems like the mirror, or sounding board, with which your personal feelings /fears/beliefs can be reflected in a way that validates them. So ignoring the aspects of it which you dislike is as much a part of it as anything else.
Religion isn’t simply a mirror: too many lives have been distorted and damaged by it. Doctrine does have a force to shape people, and change them.
“Religion, to me, seems like the mirror, or sounding board, with which your personal feelings /fears/beliefs can be reflected in a way that validates them.”
I think that’s the case with most things, to be honest. Everything is projection. But yeah, if you’re an insecure, angry little tosser, your religion is probably going to be a hateful one. If you’re a lovely person, your religion will probably be about loving and acceptance.
you have the right not to stock those books.
fire away!
And you have a right not to use the morning after pill. You have no right to stop me from doing it though.
Should private entities be exempted from public pressure and criticism if they refuse to provide an important service for reasons many find kinda stupid and even offensive?
Fine. As long as they opt out of medical card patient treatment, drug schemes and the like – if they want to be totally private, standalone entities, let them, there’s nothing stopping them.
But if they want to be an arm of healthcare provision in this state by taking money from the HSE you treat everyone equally – you play ball and leave your superstitions at home.
I hope the legislation stays solely because it infuriates a certain type and I enjoy that.
and what would that certain type be, troll?
Women in need of health care.
The gradual gnawing away of people’s person freedom is being spearheaded by so called Liberals. I don’t agree with conscientious objectors but they have the right to object. We need to stand up to this passive bullying.
Passive bullying. A great way to describe these chemists and cake sellers.
They have the right to object all they want. Do they have the right to deny a woman’s health care needs? Access to contraception is a right and a kind of freedom, too, after decades of banning and prohibition for religions reasons. Who’s the bigger bully, the zealot who turns away a woman in a desperate situation or the people who criticise the zealot?
Yes, they have the right to object as we all do. But, and especially in this case, they are providers of a service that is contracted to the State – therefore they have to provide the (legal) services they are contracted to not just those they feel like. Pharmacies are a big part of the health service and people should be able to use them as appropriately legislated for.
The RCC has conducted passive bullying since its’ inception, you going to have a go at the RCC for that too?
And deflect with classic whataboutery
Considering Eamon’s record here and his position in defence of the RCC in interfering, and the RCC’s encouragement of shaming (ie passive aggression) women over hundreds of years, in matters that are secular, I think it is very much valid to point out the hypocrisy of his position, thank you.
I loath the RCC church as much as I do liberals. Both sides on the same extremist coin. And by the way hipocracy is not an ignoble condition.
If you’re equating Liberals (which I’m guessing is just a name you use to describe anyone you don’t like) with the child raping Catholic Church and using the word ‘extremist’ to describe them, all you’re doing is telling everyone you’re an idiot.
Tell you what, if in doubt, go with the ones favouring people’s access to health care, whether it’s priests and nuns running clinics in slums or liberals calling for women to be allowed to buy contraception as and when they need it without fear of judgment or refusal.
And above me the column of “Shrieking secularists” of which Fry, the famous atheist spoke. Ye gather like flies around poo whenever theres a priest/believer to be harassed or bullied. But you are a transient thing, like a small plague. You shall pass.
Like gizzard stones, we all pass, Tony. I like how the thing is so indefensible you have to attack the critics as shriekers, and how you generalise the deniers of health care as believers but erode the existence of the people denied.
If you don’t want to dispense medicine, then don’t get into the medicine-dispensing business.
It’s a lovely little comic, by the way. The last frame reminds me a lot of Posy Simmons.
I wonder on what grounds, exactly, they’re refusing to provide it? If they’re arguing that it constitutes an abortion, then a) it doesn’t and b) by that logic so do IUDs, I presume they won’t stock those either?
Some people do consider it an abortifacient – which just goes to show what they know about biology. See Republicans like Ted Cruz.
If someone tries to take my Mirena off me I’ll actually rip their ears off and stuff them up their nose.
Ye have been warned.
You could use them as diaphragms – no use letting them go to waste
As much as I’d be for a bakery to make or not make whatever cake they want to, I think this case is fundamentally different. A ‘conscientious objector’ pharmacy is ostensibly providing an emergency service for the community until someone turns up, expecting to avail of the service, and is told that no, they don’t actually provide the morning-after pill.
So perhaps such pharmacies should be obliged to make themselves known, maybe within their signage and advertising. Given they choose to voluntarily-restrict what they offer to the public, they could describe themselves as a ‘restricted pharmacy’.
I’d suggest a cross too but from what I’ve seen, they all have crosses already….
And if they are the only pharmacy in a small village (also the *shame*)? Doesn’t work for rural women who arguably are disadvantaged more by such behaviour.
I’d put ‘self-imposed’ before ‘restricted pharmacy’.
Otherwise it sounds like restrictions are foisted on them when it is they who are foisting a reduced service on the public.
I like the way liberals want everyone to behave as they are told, and then champion the rights of individuals to be treated differently. Liberals love freedom, as long as its compulsory.
Yeah, freedom to deny someone else’s freedom isn’t freedom. Conservative idiots never seem to get this. They just want to paint themselves as the poor downtrodden victims. ‘You’re oppressing me by stopping me from oppressing you.’ Absolutely stupid argument.
I don’t see how not offering a product or service can be claimed as being oppressive.
But it is clear that forcing somebody to provide a product or service is oppressive.
What if this pharmacy is in rural Ireland, it’s the only one for miles, and she has no access to transport or funds or time to be able to go to another town?
And again, it comes down to if they are contracted to provided services to the State, they should have to provide them, particularly in the above situation. It would be different in Dublin or any bigger town or city where women would have options.
If they are not contracted by the state, do you agree that its none of your business whom they serve what to?
Well since almost all pharmacies in Ireland are contracted to the State, that would be a tiny tiny figure. And as I say, there could be other circumstances that need to be consider as well – location as above should be considered as well.
Surely all businesses are eager to know what consumers think of the manner in which they conduct their business?
“I don’t see how not offering a product or service can be claimed as being oppressive.”
I have a right to medication. You are supposed to provide me with medication. If you deny me my rights because it offends you, you are oppressing me. Me demanding you provide me my legal rights is not oppressive. That’s just an intellectually offensive lie told by bigots to help them convince themselves they’re not really bigots.
It’s a kind of petty, nasty, bullying, squinting window oppression. Imposing conditions and standards on businesses is fairly standard, ob the other hand, and if they are providing a service on behalf of the state, they have no room to complain if the state intervenes when they refuse to do so.
If you can’t see this then you are clearly not a person who has ever found themselves in need of emergency contraceptives, or you lack the ability to emphasise.
Pharmacies must be forced to provided these services. Individuals are free to conscientiously object in their own lives. People who require contraceptive services should not be denied this because of another’s private beliefs. It is morally wrong.
Forcing people to do things is not a great place to start
Yup. Forcing your religious views on someone by denying them the medication they need is a really terrible place to start. Good lad.
If they will not comply then they should be forced, by the law of the land, to cease denying people access to vital healthcare services.
Do you not think contraceptives are a vital healthcare service?
And you realise that down in Ballyboghole there might only be one pharmacy for miles? It is imperative that pharmacies tend to the needs of ALL patients. Not everyone can pop into Boots like I can here in Dublin.
Denying people vital health care is where this started.
Your selfish and competitive compassion smells of vindictive revenge. Its nasty and narrow and divisive. All the things you think you’re not.
That was for the dripping bit of excitement
“selfish and competitive compassion”
LOL. You’re literally incoherent with rage.
Its true though. You’re exactly who Fry was talking about.
‘That Moyest,’ Fry was heard to remark, ‘He’s a right shrieker, he is.’
If it was Fry who used the term ‘selfish and competitive compassion’ then I’m pretty comfortable disregarding everything he says as the rantings of some randomer who’s barely literate.
How is it vindictive or vengeful to want women to get full access to health care?
It’s all in the way you do it. You can’t force people to act in a way that compromises their rights to free expression.
You can, potentially, if that comes into conflict with another person’s rights. You do not have the right to deny another person a vital service – you certainly don’t have the right to do so without coming under intense scrutiny and criticism.
I think thats the key to liberalism. you have to force people rather than coax them. Freedom at all costs!!
Whereas the withholding of vital health care from a person is the sort of arbitrary exercise of power over those in vulnerable positions that conservative religious regimes excel at.
“you have to force people rather than coax them” could also be applied to people denying access to abortion and the MAP.
You know that “liberals” don’t really mind being called liberals right? It’s kinda what we are into.
Liberal is becoming a filthy word except in the decreasing circles in which it is worn as a badge of honour. Sanctimonious self righteousness parading as empathy. Stephen Fry has called it right on this one.
“Liberal is becoming a filthy word except”
It’s been a filthy word with self hating conservatives for years already. For normal people, it’s a word meaning open mindedness.
The use of “liberal” as a point is generally the sign of someone who doesn’t have a valid argument to make, it’s dog whistle. Like people who say Tory.
And Stephen Fry is fairly sanctimonious and self righteousness himself. He’s stomped off because people thought he was unprofessional. But it’s Twitter and that’s not actually news.
Ah, Don. He’s a gay atheist! he’s perfect for yourself Moyest and Nigel. Why are you dumping him now. Mind you, I see you are all turning on Tatchel now- for homophobia no less…. At least you three have each other to liberate from blah blah
If nothing else, I think we can see that Digs and Tony are the same person unless there really are two people simultaneously reading Broadsheet and having nervous breakdowns so bad they are speaking gibberish.
I’m glad you’ve managed to keep this to the rather important point of health care provision versus personal religious conviction rather than wandering all over the place like a drunk trying to pick a fight with an office chair on a stormy crossing to Wales.
Who’s we?
Tony, you are the one who keeps bringing him up, though what he has to do with access to the MAP in Ireland I’m not sure. But, no I tend to value people’s opinion on what they say not on whether they fit some “liberal” tick box for me or not. I think Stephen Fry has done wonders for LGBT people in the UK and for comedy and is doing the same for mental health, which is super super important. Do I think he was a knob the other night? Completely, and he has gone and has a little strop about being call out on it.
It may also surprise you that I don’t agree with no-platforming (although that isn’t what happened to Tatchell, who again has done wonders but again has been a bit of a knob). People’s idea’s should be challenged with lovely lovely facts about the reality of the world.
Now, you seem pretty angry today – take 3 deep breaths in and out, in and out
But she did look like a bag-lady, and everyone laughed. Except the sanctimonious haters like yourself waiting to pounce. I love the way ye are attacking Tatchel now. And yes he was no platformed by another liberal bigot. Where will it end? You and Moyest swapping clothes?
So: women being denied health care due to religious views of the provider: any further thoughts?
I’d watch it back – people didn’t really laugh, they were kinda shocked he said it.
yes, I personally, drove Stephen Fry off Twitter by thinking “Oh, what a knob”. My thought waves are that strong that they went across to London and into his head and he got sad and quit Twitter. I also thought Tatchell was being a bit silly and got him no-platformed again THROUGH THE POWER OF MY MIND! BEWARE TONY OR YOU ARE NEXT AND I WILL HEX YOU AND MAKE YOU VOTE GREEN!
I think we also need to take into account that Stephen Fry quits Twitter on an almost monthly basis.
Oh.. I thought my hexing was working
*adds extra frog to cauldron*
Well he doesn’t believe in magic, so it’ll only work for a short period of time.
http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/
Conservatives – small government and freedom until its about my uterus then ALL THE GOVERNMENT AND NONE OF THE FREEDOMS!
Also, they are obsessed with butt sex
I’m not sure that a simple “liberals versus non-liberals” works here. There is a clear conflict of rights, between the pharmacist’s right not to stock certain products, and the customer’s right to avail of them. Both have their merits, but a compromise has to be found.
In this case, I would suggest that the pharmacist has a duty to supply whatever medicines are only available in pharmacies. That way an individual pharmacist can’t choke off the entire supply. Is that fair?
Thats is disappointingly simple and effective. No more shrieking from Don now?
lol the only one shrieking is here is you Tony and your massive hard on for Moyest
Now, come back and talk to the adults like an adult
Having a simple solution and implementing it are two different things. I hope for plenty of shrieking until it’s sorted. And if it bothers you, I also hope you never have to turn up in fear and desperation at a pharmacy only to be turned away by a supercilious zealot who thinks you’re a fallen woman, then you might appreciate having someone to do a bit of shrieking on your behalf.
Ah the empathy Nigel. If it wasn’t for the fact that’s it’s wrapped in hate, I’d buy it.
Nothing to do with empathy, nothing to do with hate. If you’re going to go denying someone vital health care, you’d better have a damn good reason, and that reason just isn’t good enough.
About 25 years ago, a girlfriend of mine went to the doctor to get an emergency prescription for the morning after pill. She was about 19, & she didn’t go to her own doctor as she was quite embarrassed.
The doctor she went to refused the prescription, & pretty much told her she was a slut.
Can’t believe there are crucial pockets in Ireland in 2016 where this attitude still gets oxygen.
My wife and I have a similar story (though it was abut 18 years ago). We used protection but were worried that the condom had split. We spent a full day travelling from the Well-Woman clinic to various doctors trying to find one that would provide the prescription. The one who eventually helped us gave my wife a lecture about being more careful – even though we were quite literally being careful.
In fairness, there’s nothing wrong with a doctor telling you to be more careful. I would expect them to do that even today. It doesn’t signify any objection to giving out the morning after pill.
If they object so much to providing healthcare perhaps they can object by getting out of the healthcare system generally. It’s no different to them refusing to provide antibiotics because it’s interfering with god’s plan or something.
What is it with liberals? Vote with your wallet. Don’t rabble-rouse, it’s vulgar and damn your eyes, undemocratic to boot.
Such bad taste, to draw attention to people denying others health care because their religious convictions are more important than other people’s medical needs!
High five. Winners don’t beg for society to change. That’s loser talk, for ill-dressed people on yellow posters with red stars and the shouting.
Which is all fine and dandy when there is a choice of pharmacies available. Pointing out a flaw in an argument is not undemocratic nor is it rabble rousing, It’s pretty much the most democratic thing you can that isn’t voting. Also, the private business argument doesn’t work here. Pharmacists are licensed to provide healthcare, if they’re not providing it, they’re not doing their job and should no longer have a license.
Someone has a writing credit for this three-panel comic strip?
“Woman approaches pharmacy.
Sees sign in window.
Close-up of neutral face.
End”
Put my check in the post.
Don’t you just hate it when people more talented than you achieve stuff that you could have achieved if only you’d thought of it and done it first?
Alan Moore is known for insane levels of detail in his scripts. For all you know the writer determined every single detail of all three panels.