DEAR STRANGER: In his piece on the pharmacy controversy ["The Drug War," June 8] Josh Feit states that if the Board of Pharmacy's proposal is enacted, Washington will join Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Dakota as the fifth state that allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense prescriptions for reasons of conscience.
In fact, numerous other states have enacted broadly written conscience clauses protecting health-care providers, including pharmacists. These states include Florida, Illinois, Maine, Tennessee, and Washington.
That's right, Washington. Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Northwest Women's Law Center, and the other special-interest groups who would strip pharmacists of their rights of conscience have ignored the fact that Washington State law already contains comprehensive conscience protection for all health-care providers. RCW 48.43.065(2)(a) and RCW 70.47.160(2)(a) provide: "No individual health-care provider... or health-care facility may be required by law or contract in any circumstances to participate in the provision of or payment for a specific service if they object to so doing for reason of conscience or religion. No person may be discriminated against in employment or professional privileges because of such objection." Pharmacists are health-care providers according to Washington law.
The Board of Pharmacy cannot enact a rule that is inconsistent with Washington law.
Theresa Schrempp
JOSH FEIT RESPONDS: It's true, there are broader conscience clauses in Florida, Illinois, Maine, and Tennessee that may apply to pharmacists, although those clauses have not been tested. In my article, I listed Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Dakota because they are the only clauses on the books that explicitly pertain to pharmacists.
Washington is not included on the list of broader "conscience" clauses because the RCW you refer to was drafted as part of Washington State's insurance-industry reform, and both the state insurance commissioner and state attorney general have found that the rule only applies to insurers. And even then, if insurers refuse to pay for a treatment, the insurance commissioner ruled that they cannot discriminate against a woman's right to abortion or to use contraception (RCW 9.02.100), and must provide an alternative—or the employer must cover the costs. More to the point, pharmacists are not part of insurance plans, and so the rule you cite doesn't pertain to them.
Finally, please point me to the Washington law that identifies pharmacists as health-care providers.
KNOCKING 'RIVET'CHRISTOPHER FRIZZELLE: If you really think Rivet is bad, stop writing about it ["Nightstand," June 1, June 8, June 15]. I don't get the personal vendetta. Did Rivet turn away a submission from you or something?
I believe Rivet is a great mag. Since I am pretty secure in that belief, I don't feel the need to put it in print over and over again—like three weeks in a row, for instance.
Ripping on Rivet won't help you get published there. Just like throwing sticks at someone cute won't get you a date.
Molly
FRIZZELLE RESPONDS: Dear Molly, I have never sent a submission to Rivet, BECAUSE IT SUCKS! All the best, Christopher.
LOVE YOUR KINKTO THE EDITOR: I'm finally getting around to writing to let you know, after years of pickin' up the latest Stranger every Thursday morning, the first and sometimes only pages I flip to are, in order, Control Tower and Savage Love.
It's sometimes the only kinky contact I can make midweek, a reassuring touch of reality, humor, tough love, and freedom of spirit.
Hats off and loads of gratitude to Mistress Matisse and Dan Savage for sharing their insights (and a respectful kiss for each of the Mistress's feet). Please know that what you have to say is appreciated by many, including me!
Leopold
LOVE YOU, TOOYour article regarding Anthony Bourdain ["The Hardest Working Man in Food Business," Hannah Levin, June 8] proves once again that The Stranger is the ONLY newspaper in town. The stupid Weekly did a little blurb about Bourdain but failed to mention his book signing.
Suz
APPETITE SUPPRESSANTEDITOR: I love The Stranger. Your reviews of all kinds tickle my heart and make me cry. With the glaring, glaring exception of your food writers. Why do your impeccable standards of snarky witticisms and intelligent commentary suddenly stop short at your food writers? SNORE... FEST...
Jada Bilchy
CORRECTION: The natural blonde is not in danger of extinction as reported in last week's Bar Exam. This myth, dating from the Civil War era, was recounted recently as fact by BBC News. Bethany Jean Clement regrets the error on several levels.
