Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

AG Wannabe Reagan Dunn Defends His "Personal" Views on Denying Women Access to Contraception

Posted by on Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Reagan Dunn, current King County Council member and candidate for state Attorney General, seems to be backpedaling as fast as his arguably lazy legs can carry him away from statements he made last weekend supporting pharmacists' rights to refuse women access to Plan B and other forms of birth control.

I'm a little late to the game on this story (VACATION, WOOT!), but it's an important one and maybe you've missed it, too, so here's the backstory:

During a radio interview (around the 29-minute mark) in Bellingham on Saturday morning Dunn said that, “if somebody has a legitimate religious and moral objection to selling something like the morning after pill they ought to have the right not to sell it if they so choose." Because women can just stop ovulating—or keep their damn legs closed until God opens them on their wedding nights—if they don't want to get pregnant.

In 2007, the Washington Board of Pharmacy unanimously approved two rules requiring pharmacies to do their damn jobs—i.e., promptly fill prescriptions on site. However, a family-owned pharmacy in Olympia and two pharmacists filed a lawsuit against these rules and won. The state AG's office—the position Dunn is now running for—has appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

But instead of standing up for Washington women, Dunn cited the "religious liberty of the Constitution of the United States and the state of Washington" in support the rights of a few narrow-minded, crucifix-clutching pharmacists. “I hope they win," he added, immediately rousing the ire of pro-choice groups across the state.

“It is incredibly disappointing that a candidate for Attorney General—the very office charged with defending the Pharmacy Board rules in court—would come out in such strong opposition to patient access at the pharmacy counter,” said Jennifer N. Brown, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Washington. Unsurprisingly, NARAL is backing Dunn's opponent, Bob Ferguson, for AG (as is the SECB).

Anyway, that was Saturday. Today the brings the fresh news, courtesy of the Seattle Times, that Dunn's anti-choice comments were totes misunderstood—he's not publicly against granting women equal access to contraception; he's only privately against it:

[Dunn] was speaking about his personal views, not his approach as state attorney general. As attorney general, he said would support the state’s appeal to the 9th Circuit, and his office would make the best arguments possible.

...Alison Mondi, a spokeswoman for NARAL, said she’s glad Dunn says he would stand up for Pharmacy Board rules.

“I still find it concerning,” she added, “that his personal views are not in line with the Pharmacy Board and what a majority of Washingtonians support in terms of protecting patient access at the pharmacy counter, and it calls into question how vigorously his office would defend the rules.”

Dunn's explanation is horseshit. Mondi's right—Washington women have a lot to be concerned about if Dunn wins naps his way to victory this November.

 

Comments (11) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Urgutha Forka 1
Fuck religious and moral objections.

I have a moral objection to the endless warmongering this country (mostly republicans) engages in. I demand that I be excluded from paying taxes to fund any wars. See how well that works?

If those extremist religious fucks want to live in this integrated country, then they'll fucking do what we the people tell them to do. If they don't like it, they can vote on it, and if they lose the vote, then they can go shut the hell up. Period.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on August 1, 2012 at 12:18 PM
Pick1 2
Can anyone point me to some articles that might be pro-Dunn? I know it sounds crazy, but I really want to find out of this guy does anything that isn't really, really, really stupid.
Posted by Pick1 on August 1, 2012 at 12:19 PM
mrbarky 3
American Taliban. And these are the people always screeching about the dangers of Sharia law.
Posted by mrbarky on August 1, 2012 at 12:26 PM
4
"Fresh news" from the Seattle Times? More like reported by PubliCola more than two days ago.

http://publicola.com/2012/07/30/ag-candi…
Posted by CloserReader on August 1, 2012 at 12:36 PM
5
What about the religious people who think all medical intervention is sinful? Will we support them if they refuse to sell band-aids or cough medicine? Where does it end? If these people want church and state to be working together they need to move to another country because one of the reasons America was founded was to end that problem.
Posted by jelly on August 1, 2012 at 1:11 PM
6
Sure, they have an absolute right not to sell you a legal product, prescribed medication no less. Their employers also have an absolute right to shit-can their worthless asses. See how that works?
Posted by keshmeshi on August 1, 2012 at 1:19 PM
Allyn 7
Why is it so hard for them to see that they have the right to their religious beliefs that preventing egg-meets-sperm-meets-uterine-wall moments is evil, but that if their religion prevents them from doing their job, maybe they should find another fucking job.

Or another religion.
Posted by Allyn on August 1, 2012 at 1:52 PM
8
Religious freedom is only guaranteed to the point where it infringes upon the rights of others. That is why I can't believe they won in court. The Ninth Circuit will overturn on appeal but this is just another stupid misinterpretation of the 1st Amendment and the rights that it does guarantee.

It does not guarantee you the right to deny another person access to a legally prescribed medication.

It does not guarantee you the right to refuse service to someone because of their sexual orientation.

It does not guarantee you the right to do anything or refuse to do anything that harms or hinders anyone in the pursuit of lawful behavior and activities.
Posted by tchristi on August 1, 2012 at 3:00 PM
9
Unfortunately, their defense is that if they don't fill the prescription, there are other pharmacies that will. Therefore, they're not literally refusing you medication.
Posted by sarah70 on August 1, 2012 at 3:15 PM
sperifera 10
That should read "narrow minded, crucifix-clutching pharmacists" THAT ARE LICENSED by the STATE. You know what? You wanna get a license to be a pharmacist? Fine. These are the rules that you play by. Don't go trying to change the rules after you agree to them, but then, that does almost always seem to be a RW douchey way of doing things.

I've always been of the opinion that Ralph's Thriftway in Olympia et al should either HAVE to fill ALL prescriptions as written, or go away. We have a history of supporting women's rights in this state, and if they don't like it, they can get out of the fucking drug business.
Posted by sperifera on August 1, 2012 at 8:16 PM
lostboy 11
"If somebody has a legitimate religious and moral objection to selling something like the morning after pill …"

…then they have the absolute right to not be a pharmacist.
Posted by lostboy http://plus.google.com/104883658551712008719 on August 1, 2012 at 11:56 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy