Disingenous headline in the Times (USA)

[mcduffy]

The highest-rated comment states that it's women's rights being protected though

Trump judge blocks laws that protect trans rights

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2ec03c3c-06b2-11ed-a986-fc91b4ad48f0?shareToken=0ddefa0ca0235b0e59a64be5531c6144

Can’t read the comments on a share token - but in terms of the substance of the legislation these Rep States are pushing, there’s a follow on threat to lesbian and gay protections too.

Yes, some of the measures are specifically about Trans / women’s rights issues (eg the sports and locker room directives they’re looking to overturn), but gay marriage is also on the radar. That doesn’t mean I disagree with pushing back against Biden’s policies in these areas, but it’s concerning to see that it won’t stop there.

I still find the hypocrisy of Justice Thomas’ opinion (post Roe) galling - he called out other legislation (eg gay marriage) which relied on the same judgement, but conveniently neglected to mention interracial marriage, which also relies on the same interpretation of the constitution.

Which had absolutely nothing to do with his being black and married to a Caucasian woman 🙄

Wtf 1st they remove the right to an abortion now their coming for contraception.
Welcome to the United States of Gilliad

I would have thought contraception was a must, given they don't want abortions. You know, prevent sperm and ova meeting in the first place.
But no, they actually want women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.

There’s a batshit “Christian” pressure group over there that states that being forced to carry their rapist’s baby to term would help a raped mother get over the trauma!

I don’t think Attwood went far enough in reflecting what some men and women are prepared to inflict on the general population of women, in the guise of religion.

The first comment was
"So in other words, they're protecting women's rights. Good for them."

They appear to have removed all comments now…

I saw on Twitter the other day that Walgreens, a huge chain of drug stores, allows its employees to refuse to fill women's prescriptions for conceptives if it goes against their principles.

Some insurance companies only allow their insured to get their prescriptions filled at Walgreens.

What a frightening and bizarre country the USA is

There’s a good article about Conscience Based Exemptions in the UK - from 2015, though tbh I think it’s too soon for Journal articles to reference, even briefly, the impact of the repeal of Roe v Wade.

It’s Dr Julie Cantor JD MD who is mentioned in the article I linked to above as being concerned about “conscience creep” in medicine in the US. They lack the same kind of structure the UK has (which is not without its own issues) to protect patients & that’s why the repeal has emboldened some individuals to move beyond anything they’d previously have done.

I grew up knowing which GPs would prescribe contraception (full stop, I mean, not just the morning after pill) & which chemists would dispense it. This business in the States though, complicated by insurance networks & without inbuilt protections… it’s only going to make an already wretched situation worse. They’re even refusing wee girls their arthritis medication in some places because it’s a potential abortifacient - though sometimes that refusal comes from a prescriber terrified they could [both] be prosecuted should a woman taking it have a miscarriage rather than their believing it to be morally right & just.

684 comments, I think maybe only subscribers can see them

It won't be generic "staff" but a trained HCP / pharmasist who is doing the dispensing. (The UK has similar specific exception in abortion legislation). The right to conscious objection is an important principle when it comes to employer/employee relations and society in general.

The dilema of just because we can, should we is the basis of a lot of specific rights in the US Consitution. The States were themselves formed by various groups who wanted to create their own rules rather than follow existing ones.
Faith pratice has first amendment consitutuonal protection in the USA so Walgreen are respecting their staff's right to work and have a belief. The problem is if Walgreen management don't rank the service provision as a right for the customer to have a different belief.

If the employee needs reasonable adjustment and the employer decided to accommodate the adjustment, rather than remove the employee on grounds of being unable to preform the role, it is the responsibility of the employer to ensure that that part of the role is transferred to another employee.

Long way to say they need to ensure that they employ 1 staff member per shift to dispense birth control.

The same conflict arises when the HCP is providing care. Either sex can provide personal care but should the employer accomodate the HCP without taking account of the individual receiving care.

In the US positive discrimination legislation, has never been "popular" from maternity to collage places. Even the idea (post covid) that all should have a right of access to basic health care is not popular. Health care (premium payments) as an employment benefit provision is a high cost which can vary by employee.
Insurance companies are allowed to health check an individual and then adjust (charge more for) the premium.

I’m a subscriber…