Gregoire’s Office Admonishes AG’s Office Over Emergency Contraception Proposal

McKenna won't comment because he refuses to admit he is anti-choice. This is the closest he's come to admitting he is so radical he would even deny a woman birth control.

Back in the days of Dubya, it was known as sue-and-settle. It was used most often to circumvent environmental regulations.

The game was to have an industry group file a lawsuit challenging the regulation, and then the government offers to settle the case out of court … with a settlement agreement that basically acquiesces to the industry's desires. No fuss, no muss, no regulation.

McKenna needs to get his head out of his butt.

I'm really worried for Josh's future. He bends over backwards repeating right wing lies using the phony “moderate” label and the fake “independent” label, and … dum, de, dum dum!

Here is a perfectly clear example of 13th century flat earth-ism being pushed down the throats of the entire state by a MINORITY of 13th century flat earthers – and Robbie boy is going to bat for them!

Enquiring minds wonder, WILL JOSH BE ABLE TO RESCUE HIS FAKE 'MODERATE' CREDS (if he has to tell the truth on our phake “moderate” AG?)

((psst! josh – a national teachers union meeting is in town this week! distract everyone with a union bashing post about Arne's Race To Employ Bureaucrat$ and Con$ultant$!!! )

rmm

I've enjoyed many of your posts, but if you truly think there are not two (or more) sides to every story you are done. Not here, but in life.

Toast.

McKenna is running against Gregoire, which is very smart. She'll be the bete noire example of runaway liberalism for the Republicans this November and he can say that he's been valiantly fighting her.

This issue isn't as much about “abortion” and the hot-button social issues as it is about the basic freedom of a business owner to carry and sell the products he chooses.

Think about this honestly and fairly. What if the state forced Starbucks to ONLY sell “fair trade” coffee? Or what if the state forced a muslim butcher to carry pork?

Whichever comparison you prefer, the government has no business telling private business owners what products they should or should not carry…no matter the reason.

Liberals should side with McKenna on this one.

Earth to Minnick: We have regulated the sale of drugs in this country for more than 100 years now. They laughed at your pie-in-the-sky laissez-faire myth then, and I'm laughing at it now.

What you propose would take us back to the days of quack medicine and faith healing. The manufacture and sale of drugs and medicines had damn well BETTER be regulated!

McKenna has been working hard this year to establish some credentials as a right-winger, probably as a stepping stone to higher office.

Hey Chad – Instead of your parasitic “business” person whining that their community sanctioned enterprise must use its PRIVILEGE to operate from the community for the community –

why doesn't your fearless master of the universe & saver of galaxies go grow his own road or plant his own water or harvest his own nails – he don't need us for nuttin …!!

well, except a LICENSE to sell drugs in the community, which means you don't get to pick and chose your customers out of the community.

What if atheist teachers refused to teach bible thumping kids, or “christian” city electricians refused to run electricity to atheist houses?

Are you THAT f'king stupid?

rmm.

I'm sure the lawyers in question are losing sleep over Gregoire's nonsensical political ploy, done as a sop to her fringe left base.

McKenna has made a legal decision that will save the taxpayers a great deal of money, since the left's position here is dead wrong, legally speaking, and ultimately doomed to fail.

There is a huge difference between “regulating drugs” and requiring private entities to sell ANYTHING.

If I own a gas station, the state can't make me sell tires. If I own a pharmacy, the state can't make me sell any drug or combination of drugs.

Besides the civil rights aspect, it would require most pharmacies to be the size of an aircraft carrier, given the thousands and thousands of different kinds and variations and strengths of drugs out there. Require them to sell ANY particular drug, and you will require them to sell ALL drugs; which is neither practical, cost efficient or even possible.

At the end of the day, I'm struck by Gregoire's and the left's hypocrisy on this issue: with them, the issue of choice is limited only to the stupidity of a woman allowing herself to get pregnant, absent rape. It's this maddening inconsistency that means Gregoire is just playing to her conciousless base instead of either doing what's right or legal.

Kinda like that empty suited, anti-American racist running the White House, suing Arizona over immigration while casting a wink and a nod at Rhode Island who has been doing essentially the same thing, apparently via a governor's executive order, for years…. and without the racist DOJ giving a damn.

It's pretty smart. He's going to lose though. It's on that basis that I kinda wish he'd just do his job and not use our tax money (which, by the way, is sorta limited right now) for his futile political ambitions.

“There is a huge difference between “regulating drugs” and requiring private entities to sell ANYTHING.”

Nah, there's not. Read the law on this issue. It's pretty cut-and-dried. And even that aside, so too is the morality: we're not really for “a pharmacy's right to choose.” We don't want pharmacies having the right to choose to sell addictive drugs to children. Or to withhold drugs from black people. Or whatever. They get the ability to make money off dangerous and highly regulated chemicals, and choosing to go into that business has to come with some responsibility. They need to quit whining about it and do their jobs. Or take up knitting. It's far less dangerous, and thus, far less regulated.

We're for a woman's right to choose about her own body.

Hypocritical? Maybe. I don't really care, though. (Nowadays, no one does. Just because a position's hypocritical doesn't really mean it's wrong.) Forcing pharmacies to sell drugs they don't want to would do far less damage to society than forcing women to have babies they don't want to.

Most of us aren't that absolutist, Chad. It's not “the government has no business telling private owners…” OR “the government has the right to tell Muslims to sell pork.” There's a lot of in-between gray area. Gray area that we can safely enter without compromising our values.

For example, a person can easily take a position that it's not okay for the government to tell a muslim to sell pork but that it is okay for the government to tell a pharmacy to sell birth control meds. It might be a little inconsistent to an absolutist, but a moderate is able to realize the stark difference between telling a muslim to sell pork and telling a pharmacy to sell birth control.

It's similar to how there's a difference between “having a drink every now and then” and “being an alcoholic.”

Additionally, I don't appreciate your slippery slope: we can tell pharmacies to sell this ONE drug and not have to tell them to sell other ones. Requiring them to provide ANY drug is not the same as requiring them to sell ALL drugs. It's not all or nothing. It can be “some things and not others.”

Here's how: if we want to require them to sell other drugs later, that's a conversation we can have later. Right now, requiring them to sell ALL drugs wouldn't make sense.

But telling them to sell this one drug, right now, does make sense.

The pharmacies have been granted a state-sanctioned and enforced monopoly. The public expects, quite reasonably, that this monopoly will be regulated by the state which sanctions it.

If it weren't, the pharmacies would simply not sell generics or cheaper brands and only sell the highest price brands. Most of the people would pay more and suffer more, as has been the case with every previous monopoly granted in all of history.

It is not only reasonable but entirely necessary to make the pharmacies obey the law and provide the drugs listed in the formulary, as the case in point illustrates.

Now here is an enlightened insight into our society and Publicola:

Hypocritical? Maybe. I don't really care, though. (Nowadays, no one does. Just because a position's hypocritical doesn't really mean it's wrong.)

Well the way I feel about it is that we're all hypocrites. All the time. You are, I am. We can try for consistency, and that's probably merited, but unless we acknowledge that we all–almost necessarily–engage in hypocrisy, we're going to be lying to ourselves.

Further, to me, it doesn't really matter. In a debate, simply being a hypocrite does not make you wrong. This is because it's your position we're debating and not your personal “moral integrity” or whatever.

So if you call someone out for sometimes practicing positions or taking actions that seem to disagree with the argument they're making, all you've done is impeach that person. Their position could still be perfectly valid. Even if they themselves don't always follow it.