Friday, February 25, 2005
The pharmacist vs a woman's right
Currently, in the state legislature, a bill has been approved that would allow pharmacists the right to deny to full a particular perscription if it violates their own personal code.
But leave it to state representatives to make sure that the woman's right is not over-run by some religious zealot.
But to reiterate the point, there should be no reason why a pharmacist should not be allowed to practice his beliefs as long as it does not interfere with company policy. When you work for a company, you sign a contract that states that you will follow its regulations and requirements, some of which include filling a perscription you yourself have moral qualms with.
But it is not the right of the state to dictate that you must disregard your own freedoms of belief, your own right to your religious (or secular) belief on the matter.
The state effectively forces individuals, pharmacists to perform against their own beliefs, religious or otherwise. This is no more moral than subjecting a woman to getting an abortion or not allowing her a "choice" when it comes to getting some form of birth control.
The only thing I am left wondering about are the pharmacists who work for companies who require them to dispense a medication regardless of personal beliefs. Does the bill override this personal contract?
With all the talk about putting the "morning after" pill over the counter, another issue regarding pharmacists has arisen, mainly that of whether a pharmacist should be allowed to exercise his personal beliefs at his job. In other words, should he be allowed to dispense medication that he, personally, has a problem with, medication like the "morning after" pill and RU-486.
Currently, in the state legislature, a bill has been approved that would allow pharmacists the right to deny to full a particular perscription if it violates their own personal code.
But leave it to state representatives to make sure that the woman's right is not over-run by some religious zealot.
"Rep. Ted Downing, D-Tucson, said the legislation remains unacceptable because it is designed largely to deal with the views of one religion that finds abortion unacceptable."
But to reiterate the point, there should be no reason why a pharmacist should not be allowed to practice his beliefs as long as it does not interfere with company policy. When you work for a company, you sign a contract that states that you will follow its regulations and requirements, some of which include filling a perscription you yourself have moral qualms with.
But it is not the right of the state to dictate that you must disregard your own freedoms of belief, your own right to your religious (or secular) belief on the matter.
The state effectively forces individuals, pharmacists to perform against their own beliefs, religious or otherwise. This is no more moral than subjecting a woman to getting an abortion or not allowing her a "choice" when it comes to getting some form of birth control.
The only thing I am left wondering about are the pharmacists who work for companies who require them to dispense a medication regardless of personal beliefs. Does the bill override this personal contract?
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:15 PM | |
On turning the halls of learning into a government agenda
The recent article in the Arizona Daily Star indicated the dismay of one physical education teacher when she found out that schools in Arizona do not require PE at all grade levels because it was opted out of in favor of--guess what!--learning math.
Geeze. When over half of the students who take the AIMS test fail at least one portion of it (when I took the test, there were three portions: reading, writing, and math) and a majority of those failing math, I wonder what is more important? Organized physical activity or trying to understand the basics of ratios and polynomials.
But what never surprises me is the fact that the state government continues to push educators to change their responsibilities from educator to health care management. After all, the state's newest recommendations suggest that "that health care providers and schools measure and track body mass index, an indicator of being overweight or obese in children and adults, and educate them on what it means."
As far as I knew it, schools were a place of learning--not a gym or personal trainer. But this highlights a trend, a trend where public schools are used to poromote government agendas, a place where agenda and propaganda come before learning.
School isn't solely for the purpose of learning. Rather, learning is just one goal of this generation's schools. Other goals include health care, dietary needs, cultural sensitivity, etc.
It's time the state should stop looking to schools as a means to advance their agenda and start looking at them as a way to educate. But that will never happen--at least not until the state stops running schools.
There has been a disturbing trend among government officials that has been occurring over the past decade. In the past decade (at the very least), state officials have been far more apt at using schools as a place to advance their agenda over learning.
The recent article in the Arizona Daily Star indicated the dismay of one physical education teacher when she found out that schools in Arizona do not require PE at all grade levels because it was opted out of in favor of--guess what!--learning math.
Geeze. When over half of the students who take the AIMS test fail at least one portion of it (when I took the test, there were three portions: reading, writing, and math) and a majority of those failing math, I wonder what is more important? Organized physical activity or trying to understand the basics of ratios and polynomials.
But what never surprises me is the fact that the state government continues to push educators to change their responsibilities from educator to health care management. After all, the state's newest recommendations suggest that "that health care providers and schools measure and track body mass index, an indicator of being overweight or obese in children and adults, and educate them on what it means."
As far as I knew it, schools were a place of learning--not a gym or personal trainer. But this highlights a trend, a trend where public schools are used to poromote government agendas, a place where agenda and propaganda come before learning.
School isn't solely for the purpose of learning. Rather, learning is just one goal of this generation's schools. Other goals include health care, dietary needs, cultural sensitivity, etc.
It's time the state should stop looking to schools as a means to advance their agenda and start looking at them as a way to educate. But that will never happen--at least not until the state stops running schools.
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:00 PM | |
State tries to alter lifestyles
First school districts (and now the state)removed the sugary foods from the school lunchrooms (which has proven to be relatively ineffective, considering that schools, like any other marketplace, will form alternative markets if the demand exists for the banned product [A Constrained Vision]). Now they want to start building lactating rooms and educating the public about eating healthy.
Now who, for one, doesn't know that a diet consisting of carbonated beverages and skittles is unhealthy? Who for one doesn't know that prepared foods tend not to provide the most adequate nutrition? Who for one doesn't know that exercising is good for them?
It is not so much a need for education, but a need for a lifestyle change. People need the time, the energy, and the desire to exercise and eat healthy. In America, it is the people with the most disposable income who are the healthiest.
Why? Because they can afford for their women to go to the gym every day, to serve healthy food, and to make sure that their kids don't veg out in front of the television while they have to work.
It's a lifestyle change, and the government cannot provide that needed change. Nor should it try. After all, it is not in the realm of government to dictate what is needed.
State legislators have a knack at trying to make us "better." This time, instead of trying to make our students more educated, they have decided that it is about time to make us all healthier.
First school districts (and now the state)removed the sugary foods from the school lunchrooms (which has proven to be relatively ineffective, considering that schools, like any other marketplace, will form alternative markets if the demand exists for the banned product [A Constrained Vision]). Now they want to start building lactating rooms and educating the public about eating healthy.
Now who, for one, doesn't know that a diet consisting of carbonated beverages and skittles is unhealthy? Who for one doesn't know that prepared foods tend not to provide the most adequate nutrition? Who for one doesn't know that exercising is good for them?
It is not so much a need for education, but a need for a lifestyle change. People need the time, the energy, and the desire to exercise and eat healthy. In America, it is the people with the most disposable income who are the healthiest.
Why? Because they can afford for their women to go to the gym every day, to serve healthy food, and to make sure that their kids don't veg out in front of the television while they have to work.
It's a lifestyle change, and the government cannot provide that needed change. Nor should it try. After all, it is not in the realm of government to dictate what is needed.
posted by Laura Keslar at 10:54 AM | |
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Damn you white males!
"Reyes said it is difficult for women to succeed in fields largely dominated by white males."
The article goes on:
Personally, that "toxic environment" created by men can be remedied. It is called air freshener.
Far more seriously, though, just because women score equally as well as men in their studies, is it not possible that other factors contribute to the lack of women in sciences, Ph.D. or otherwise?
It is possible that women simply prefer people and animals, which could explain why more women are in the social sciences and biological sciences. In fact, there was a study conducted that used newborn infants (in other words, humans who lacked socialization). It was found that male infants typically preferred mechanical objects over those that resembled humans; likewise, female infants typically preferred those much more personal, familiar, human objects over the mechanical ones.
While this does not explain it all, it is one possible partial explanation. But as long as people continue to curse men as creating "toxic environments" and accusing them in general of preventing women from achieving success in academia and science, women will never reach the point they wish to achieve.
Wildcat: Women in UA engineering, sciences still outnumbered
Have you ever thought that it was the evil white males who have been keeping women down and out of sciences? Well, Marie Reyes of the Southwest Institute for Research on Women believes it is so:
"Reyes said it is difficult for women to succeed in fields largely dominated by white males."
The article goes on:
"Reyes said undergraduate women score as highly as men in their studies, but do not pursue higher degrees. She said some women feel discouraged by the "toxic environment" created in lecture classrooms comprised mostly of white males."
Personally, that "toxic environment" created by men can be remedied. It is called air freshener.
Far more seriously, though, just because women score equally as well as men in their studies, is it not possible that other factors contribute to the lack of women in sciences, Ph.D. or otherwise?
It is possible that women simply prefer people and animals, which could explain why more women are in the social sciences and biological sciences. In fact, there was a study conducted that used newborn infants (in other words, humans who lacked socialization). It was found that male infants typically preferred mechanical objects over those that resembled humans; likewise, female infants typically preferred those much more personal, familiar, human objects over the mechanical ones.
While this does not explain it all, it is one possible partial explanation. But as long as people continue to curse men as creating "toxic environments" and accusing them in general of preventing women from achieving success in academia and science, women will never reach the point they wish to achieve.
Wildcat: Women in UA engineering, sciences still outnumbered
posted by Laura Keslar at 5:29 PM | |
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Who is on the $10 bill anyway?
According to Jane Arizona from Arizona Congress Watch, J.D. Hayworth is trying to get Ronald Reagan's likeness on our $10 bill. However, all you Reagan-ophiles will be sadly disappointed that currently, there are no cosponsors.
posted by Laura Keslar at 4:55 PM | |
Monday, February 14, 2005
Happy Valentine's Day
And thanks to Desert Rat for the reminder.
Like the year before, I completely forgot that it was Arizona's birthday until the eleventh hour. So, I suppose I shall celebrate the Anniversary of Arizona's Statehood.
And thanks to Desert Rat for the reminder.
posted by Laura Keslar at 8:58 PM | |
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
It's expected
I should come as no surprise though, considering that the high school I attended had both students and teachers agreeing that the right to assemble should be abolished since it was useless.
Sadly, more than 100,000 students from 544 schools have a faulty view of the American Constitution. In fact, approximately 50% of said students believe that the government should censor newspapers. (From Kieran Healy's Weblog, High-School Autocracy)
I should come as no surprise though, considering that the high school I attended had both students and teachers agreeing that the right to assemble should be abolished since it was useless.
posted by Laura Keslar at 3:05 PM | |
