So, what's all this fuss about Plan B and the Governor's meddling?

Plan B, aka "the morning after" pill has become something of a hot button for the left as they require every pharmacy to stock and dispense it, and everyone working in a pharmaceutical situation to support that effort... whether they're opposed to the concept, the method or the drug.... or not.

I have major problems with most of what the left stands for most of the time anyway. But I am opposed to their position on this for the simplest of reasons:

Government has no more right or ability to require pharmacies to carry this, or any other drug, than they do to require gas stations to, say, sell tires.

In the article in the paper this morning, Judge to rule on Wash. pharmacies selling Plan B, we're told:

Washington requires pharmacies to sell any drug that's in demand.

Obviously untrue, "in demand" is so nebulous as to be worth very little in terms of a definition... but taking it a step further, if the state truly enforced such a rule on all medications, then it's likely that every pharmacy would be the size of an aircraft carrier.

The politics of this are frightening to some, and angering to many.  I, for one, don't have to get to the morality of this issue before I am opposed to government interference in the private sector; a firm adherent to Jeffersonian governmental philosophy ("That government is best which governs least," or words to that effect... or was it Adams?  No matter.) I believe that, like Obamacare, if government can force a private entity to sell any product, medication, type of vegetable, color of paint, brand of carburetor, type of wrench... then we will see the end of the free market.

Most of the arguments I've seen on this issue are what I refer to as "political-emotional" based, instead of "logical-free market" based.  That is, those on the left who support all forms, varieties and ages of abortion demand that conscience not be allowed to enter into the issue (As if they would be perfectly fine with being forced to do something at work that their morality opposed... whatever that might be.)  Those defending that position cover it by taking this tact:

The state argues that the rule is constitutional because it applies to all drugs and promotes the timely delivery of medicine that becomes less effective as time passes.

Of course, as previously mentioned, it does not apply to "all" drugs; an "all drugs" pharmacy would be so big it would, rhetorically speaking, have it's own zip code because of the tens of thousands of drugs out there.

The "effectiveness" argument is irrelevant, since almost every drug in the inventory can be argued to be "less effective as time passes," either taking the drug (A matter of drug tolerance) or not taking the drug (A matter of disease progression.)

To defend a factually inaccurate position is to defend a weak position that casts doubt on the entirety of one's argument.

Those on the right oppose any form of what might be construed as "abortion."

Ralph's Thriftway in Olympia and two licensed pharmacists sued in 2007, saying that dispensing Plan B would infringe on their religious beliefs because it can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.

Again, this is a political-emotional position, weakened by rhetoric (Kind of like Rick Santorum's candidacy of late, come to think of it) and overly complicated by a debatable issue steeped in the pro-life, pro-choice positioning that has been just one of the many divisive issues weakening us.

Those on the left demanding this, fail to tell the truth as to their motives; those on the right overly complicate the matter and cost themselves support from the center by hoisting this issue on an emotional, moral point... that clouds the rest of the issue.

The state's position is no more Constitutional than Obamacare.

The government, via Obamacare, proposes that we be forced to buy health insurance.

The government, via the Governor, who tried to ram this through by threatening the Pharmacy Board, proposes that private entities sell a specific product.

These are simple positions, simply stated:  The state is demanding, by expanding their power, the right to determine what pharmacies sell.  The power to force the sale of a product also seems to carry the inherent power to curtail the sale of a product.

The plantiffs in this case are resisting this, but doing so on moral grounds, instead of market grounds.  The government is pushing this, but on political grounds instead of legal grounds.

The idea that someone who had a sexual encounter might be inconvenienced by going down the street to another pharmacy carrying this product does not over arch the right of a private entity to sell what they want... or require someone working in a private pharmacy opposed to this to refuse to dispense it.

Here's what I believe the state can require:

I believe it can require the carrying and dispensing of Plan B products in state facilities that dispense drugs.  I believe they can require state employees to dispense this drug.

But I believe that because the employees working for the state in the pharmaceutical realm will know that dispensing this drug is a condition of their employment:  don't want to deal with it?

Then work somewhere else.

But until private pharmacies are required to operate under some sort of convenience rule, this is none of the state's business.

Don't like that a private pharmacy doesn't carry Plan B?

Then go somewhere else.

Just sayin'.