Women sue Wal-Mart over contraception

Store refuses to sell morning-after pill

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Three Massachusetts women backed by pro-abortion rights groups sued Wal-Mart on Wednesday, saying the retail giant violated state law by failing to stock emergency contraception pills in its pharmacies.

The suit filed in Suffolk Superior Court seeks a court order compelling the company to stock the so-called "morning after pill," in its 48 Massachusetts pharmacies.

"Wal-Mart apparently thinks it is above the law," said Sam Perkins, a lawyer for the three plaintiffs.

A new state law that took effect late last year following heated debate among lawmakers requires all hospitals to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. It also allows pharmacists to dispense the pill without a prescription, but does not require it.

The lawsuit, backed by abortion rights groups Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts and Jane Doe Inc., argues Wal-Mart is violating a state policy that requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines." They are suing to force compliance with the regulation through the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.

"Massachusetts pharmacies are required to stock all medications that are commonly prescribed to meet the usual needs of the community," Perkins said.

Dan Fogleman, a spokesman for Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart, said the company "chooses not to carry many products for business reasons," but he declined to elaborate.

However, in a letter to Perkins regarding the lawsuit, Wal-Mart attorney John W. Delaney wrote that Wal-Mart has "long had the corporate policy of declining to make available EC (emergency contraception) medication, based on, among other things, a view that EC medication is not 'commonly prescribed' and within the 'usual needs of the community."'

Delaney also wrote that if a Wal-Mart pharmacy doesn't carry a certain prescription, the pharmacist is instructed to refer the customer to a different drug store.

He added that Wal-Mart would formally request clarification of the state regulation from Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly or the state's Board of Pharmacy. He said if either directs the company to carry certain products, "Wal-Mart will abide."

Fogleman said Wal-Mart stores in the U.S. state of Illinois stock Plan B, as required by state law. But the drug is not stocked by Wal-Mart in any other state.

The morning-after pill provides a high dose of hormones that women can take up to five days after sex to prevent pregnancy.

Some abortion opponents believe emergency contraception is a form of abortion because it blocks the fertilized egg from being implanted on the uterine wall.

The plaintiffs are Katrina McCarty, 29, of Somerville, Julia Battel, 37, of Boston, and Dr. Rebekah Gee, 30, of Boston. All three were turned away when they tried to buy emergency contraception pills at area Wal-Marts.

The women said they knew they would be refused when they went to the Wal-Marts in Quincy and Lynn and that the action was planned with the abortion rights groups and lawyers.

After being refused, McCarty and Battel went to other pharmacies and got their prescriptions filled. CVS, the state's largest pharmacy chain, stocks the pill at all of its pharmacy locations, as do the state's other major pharmacy chains.

"I did this on behalf of my patients," said Gee, who is completing her residency at Brigham and Women's/Massachusetts General Hospitals in Obstetrics and Gynecology. "Women shouldn't be refused needed medication."

The lawsuit also seeks $25 in damages for each of the three women filing the lawsuit, plus attorneys' fees, which is all they are entitled to under the state's consumer protection law. Perkins has asked Wal-Mart to settle the matter within 30 days

Can I just give a collective "WTF" about this whole story?

Ok, so hospitals are required to carry it for rape victims. Check.
Pharmacies are not required to carry it, but allowed to. Check.
So, some women and anti-abortion groups set up a "gotcha" trap. Check.
They don't get it, as expected, and sue for $25 plus lawyer fees (total: $225075, no doubt). Check.
Somehow this falls under "commonly perscribed medications", according to them. Check.

*head explods*

SI

I don't know that the "gotcha trap" is necessarily that big a deal. If a corporation is violating the law, and you know they're violating it, setting up the "gotcha" just ensures that when you file suit, you have personal testimony rather than "Jane's ignorant slut friends said..."

I don't know that the "gotcha trap" is necessarily that big a deal. If a corporation is violating the law, and you know they're violating it, setting up the "gotcha" just ensures that when you file suit, you have personal testimony rather than "Jane's ignorant slut friends said..."That would be if it was really cut and dry. But this isn't nearly that- this is these people trying to drag the state law, kicking and screaming, over to their side of the argument.

SI

That would be if it was really cut and dry. But this isn't nearly that- this is these people trying to drag the state law, kicking and screaming, over to their side of the argument.

SI

Seems to me like the issue here is whether the "day-after" pill is commonly prescribed medication. If it is, then under state law, Wal-Mart is required to carry it.

These women feel that it is. Wal-Mart doesn't stock it. If they're right, Wal-Mart is breaking the law. That's why they're filing suit.

If the court says "Sorry, ladies," then they're going to be out quite a lot of money unless their lawyers are working on contingency. It's the risk you take, and you'd better hope you're right if you're going to take that risk.

"Massachusetts pharmacies are required to stock all medications that are commonly prescribed to meet the usual needs of the community," Perkins said.

Just to reiterate, that's the key here, is whether the pill in question is a medication "commonly prescribed to meet the usual needs of the community." That's what the law requires, and if the pill falls under that classification, Wal-Mart must stock it, or they're breaking the law.

Stupid law, stupid lawsuit, but even stupider ideology(whether it be their own or in proxy of their customers) behind Walmart's decision to not carry the drug.

I think it's a good law and the law suit has much merit. While I am not sure why this law was enacted, but I assume it was because certain pharmacies/hospitals were not carrying "commonly perscribed" medications and the Commonwealth of Mass. didn't think this was a good idea. Who can argue with that? If your poor and/or sick and your local pharmacy doesn't carry your medication, then what do you do? Get on a bus (and possibily infect a ton of other people)? Hire a cab with money you don't have? I think the state has an interest in seeing that its citizens have "easy" access to commonly prescribed medications.

Ofcourse, the whole thing becomes muddied as soon as abortion enters the picture and, unfortunately, there have been (and continue to be) many instances in which pharmacies refuse to carry the morning after pill or certain pharmacists refuse to fill out a perscription for the pill. I have no issue with pharmacists holding the personal belief that abortion is murder and that by perscribing the morning after pill they are assisting in murder, but your personal beliefs should not get in the way of your job. Your role as a pharmacist is not to use that power to pass moral judgments. The same goes for pharmacies. It's completely inappropriate (and it sickens me). If you can't fulfill the requirements of your job because of a personal belief, than you should find another job.

Now, you have WalMart coming into areas and it forces every local pharmacy, drug store, grocery store, you name it, in a 10 mile radius to shutdown because there is no way they can compete with the monolith. So, WalMart is an excellent target for this lawsuit. The perfect defendant.

I sincerely hope this lawsuit continues and the plaintiffs are successful.

So, you're of the opinion that someone who is pro-life should never, ever be a pharmacist because one day they'll have to confront the decision of prescribing the morning-after pill to someone?

Also, how is the morning-after pill a "commonly prescribed medication meeting the needs of the community"? It's not exactly cold medicine.

Also, how is the morning-after pill a "commonly prescribed medication meeting the needs of the community"? It's not exactly cold medicine.
I think that that is the exact question that the lawsuit is asking. There are many tools that a court can use when interperting the law. The court can look at the policy behind the law. It can look at the legislative history and the debates surrounding the law. It can also look at other instances in which the phrase may occur in the statutes or regulations.

Deciding what laws mean is what courts do on a daily basis. The court will have a lot more resources at its disposal when it makes this determination than we do here.

In before the boxing!

Just to reiterate, that's the key here, is whether the pill in question is a medication "commonly prescribed to meet the usual needs of the community." That's what the law requires, and if the pill falls under that classification, Wal-Mart must stock it, or they're breaking the law.

A new state law that took effect late last year following heated debate among lawmakers requires all hospitals to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. It also allows pharmacists to dispense the pill without a prescription, but does not require it.

Doesn't this end the debate?

Paging Bubba. Paging Bubba. Come in, Bubba.

Ted Kennedy will get behind these women.

I don't understand one thing. It was my understanding that the morning after pill was basically regular birth control pills taken multiple times a day for 3 days. Is there another medication that has come out that is different from this? Or are they taking the BC Pill and renaming it something else? Wal-Mart stocks BC Pills this COULD be a frivilous, stupid law suit.

Regardless of my stand on abortion, if the law requires them to carry it, they need to carry it. But like I said, if they are carrying it in a different form/name then they are complying and the suit is just a publicity stunt.

Ted Kennedy will get behind these women.

Perhaps that's why they need the pill in the first place.

From a doctor-ish site:

Emergency contraception (the morning after pill) works primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation (the process by which an egg matures and is released). In addition, emergency contraception may disrupt fertilization (the joining of the egg and sperm) or possibly inhibit implantation (the planting of the fertilized egg into the womb). Emergency contraception is not effective if a woman is already pregnant, as it cannot terminate an existing pregnancy.

Shorter Terms: Unless you're a fundamentalist, it's contraception. But it's not exactly the same as the BC pill, so that's how Wal-Mart and the like are trying to get around it.

I think Wal-Mart's response to this has been reasonable. Get a ruling from the Attorney General and abide by it.

From a doctor-ish site:

Emergency contraception (the morning after pill) works primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation (the process by which an egg matures and is released). In addition, emergency contraception may disrupt fertilization (the joining of the egg and sperm) or possibly inhibit implantation (the planting of the fertilized egg into the womb). Emergency contraception is not effective if a woman is already pregnant, as it cannot terminate an existing pregnancy.

Shorter Terms: Unless you're a fundamentalist, it's contraception. But it's not exactly the same as the BC pill, so that's how Wal-Mart and the like are trying to get around it.


When a girlfriend of mine about 3-4 years ago needed morning after pill, she went to planned parenthood and was given a month of bc pills and a schedule to take them, I think it was 2 or 3 pills, 3 times a day for 3 - 5 days.

If they are now "packaging" the MO Pill differently, but it's still just the BC Pill, then I don't think Wal Mart is doing anything wrong, and if someone needs their script filled at Wal Mart, the dr should write the script accordingly.

From what I've read, there's two different ways to do the EC. Either the 'Plan B' type of pill, which is I think what is being fought over. It's two or three pills in one day.

The second way is what you've described. It's two different prescriptions so like I said, Wal-Mart can weasel out of not giving out the first type to the loose women. Plus, I'm pretty sure the two or three pills in one shot is more effective than the multiple BC pills method. But, I'm just reding stuff. Calling Eaglesfan27! Answer the white courtesey phone!

From what I've read, there's two different ways to do the EC. Either the 'Plan B' type of pill, which is I think what is being fought over. It's two or three pills in one day.

The second way is what you've described. It's two different prescriptions so like I said, Wal-Mart can weasel out of not giving out the first type to the loose women. Plus, I'm pretty sure the two or three pills in one shot is more effective than the multiple BC pills method. But, I'm just reding stuff. Calling Eaglesfan27! Answer the white courtesey phone!


If it's two different prescriptions, but they do the same thing, then why does it matter which one Wal Mart stocks? If the whole point of the suit is that they are not stocking a "commonly prescribed" drug, but they do carry the alternative/equally effective drug - I don't see that there is a case there.

Like I said, I'm not a doctor. Of course, if we just made it OTC, it'd fix all this BS, but then God would smite us or something. He must not notice Europe or something.

I think that that is the exact question that the lawsuit is asking. There are many tools that a court can use when interperting the law. The court can look at the policy behind the law. It can look at the legislative history and the debates surrounding the law. It can also look at other instances in which the phrase may occur in the statutes or regulations.

Deciding what laws mean is what courts do on a daily basis. The court will have a lot more resources at its disposal when it makes this determination than we do here.

I'm a little new to all this, so I need some guidance...

Is it now when I'm supposed to start railing against "activist judges" who are "legislating from the bench," or do I wait until I lose the court challenge?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Now, you have WalMart coming into areas and it forces every local pharmacy, drug store, grocery store, you name it, in a 10 mile radius to shutdown because there is no way they can compete with the monolith. So, WalMart is an excellent target for this lawsuit. The perfect defendant.

I sincerely hope this lawsuit continues and the plaintiffs are successful.

This is a good point. In most places, WalMart refusing to fill emergency contraception prescriptions is not a big deal, since one can go to Target or a drug store etc. In fact, I view WalMart's stance as one which will cost them business. I chuckle when the WalMart pharmacist (by law) has to tell the patient that she "should go to the Target across the street to get the prescription filled".

Seriously though, in other places, WalMart really has a monopoly; and this restriction to prescription access really could be a problem.

That's what happens when you put vague wording into law. You can almost always guarentee a lawsuit will follow.

A new state law that took effect late last year following heated debate among lawmakers requires all hospitals to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. It also allows pharmacists to dispense the pill without a prescription, but does not require it.

The lawsuit, backed by abortion rights groups Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts and Jane Doe Inc., argues Wal-Mart is violating a state policy that requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines." They are suing to force compliance with the regulation through the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.

"Massachusetts pharmacies are required to stock all medications that are commonly prescribed to meet the usual needs of the community," Perkins said.

A couple observations:

1) From what it says, it doesn't appear that the 'new law' is even in question, so why is it mentioned? Slanted journalism?

The lawsuit argues Wal-Mart is violating a state policy that requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines."

2) Is it a state policy, or a state law? Seems like that is a pretty big distinction.



The plaintiffs are Katrina McCarty, 29, of Somerville, Julia Battel, 37, of Boston, and Dr. Rebekah Gee, 30, of Boston. All three were turned away when they tried to buy emergency contraception pills at area Wal-Marts.

The women said they knew they would be refused when they went to the Wal-Marts in Quincy and Lynn and that the action was planned with the abortion rights groups and lawyers.

"A new state law that took effect late last year following heated debate among lawmakers requires all hospitals to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. It also allows pharmacists to dispense the pill without a prescription, but does not require it."

3) It seems to me that even if they had gone to the hospital, the hospital would not have been required to give it to them since they weren't raped.




After being refused, McCarty and Battel went to other pharmacies and got their prescriptions filled. CVS, the state's largest pharmacy chain, stocks the pill at all of its pharmacy locations, as do the state's other major pharmacy chains.

"I did this on behalf of my patients," said Gee, who is completing her residency at Brigham and Women's/Massachusetts General Hospitals in Obstetrics and Gynecology. "Women shouldn't be refused needed medication."


4) She was able to get it, so how was she refused needed medication?


This just seems silly.

This is why feminism has acquired a bad name; do these women seriously have nothing better to do?

This is why feminism has acquired a bad name; do these women seriously have nothing better to do?

They had sex. What more do you want?

This is why feminism has acquired a bad name; do these women seriously have nothing better to do?

I know. It's terrible. How dare they think a pharmacy should fill a prescription.

I know. It's terrible. How dare they think a pharmacy should fill a prescription.

The lesson of Roe v. Wade is that a lawsuit is a stupid way to try to change policy. Do you honestly think that if abortion had been legalized by the legislatures (as it was, gradually, and ultimately would have been probably everywhere in america) as opposed to the judiciary that it would still even be a debate?

The thing is, the legislature did it's job. It passed the law. Wal-Mart is trying an end run around the law. That's when you go to the courts - when someone or somebody is breaking a law.

As for RvW. Um, yes. As long as the Moral Minority had a grip on the power center of the GOP, it'd be an issue.

Because it would've never been legal in states such as Utah, South Dakota, Alabama, etcetera. There are still around ten to fifteen states that have trigger laws in place from the old days that will make abortion illegal the moment RvW is overturned.

Was it the best way to do it? Nah. But, perhaps waiting until legislatures desegregated would've been the best policy too?

The thing is, the legislature did it's job. It passed the law. Wal-Mart is trying an end run around the law. That's when you go to the courts - when someone or somebody is breaking a law.

As for RvW. Um, yes. As long as the Moral Minority had a grip on the power center of the GOP, it'd be an issue.

Because it would've never been legal in states such as Utah, South Dakota, Alabama, etcetera. There are still around ten to fifteen states that have trigger laws in place from the old days that will make abortion illegal the moment RvW is overturned.

Was it the best way to do it? Nah. But, perhaps waiting until legislatures desegregated would've been the best policy too?

The thing is, legislatures were NOT desegregating - that's the difference. Legislatures WERE legalizing abortion - just not fast enough for some folk's taste. If you think the trend wasn't in the direction of legal abortion in every corner of America, you're stuck in post roevwade thought. Pre Roe v. Wade, every state, as well as congress, was in some way liberalizing their laws.

Anyway, my main point was that lawsuits are seen by most as insensible and a waste of time. If it's a law, let the district attorney handle it - these sorts of lawsuits is what turns most people off to feminists, not the philosophy behind it.

I know. It's terrible. How dare they think a pharmacy should fill a prescription.


They got it at CVS. I go back to my original point, if the pharmacy didn't have the exact same med that is on the prescription, they will usually call the dr. and tell them what they have in stock and see if they can "substitute" another similar/equal medication. It sounds to me like this was a plan concocted to "trap" Wal-Mart...the women admitted they knew beforehand that they wouldn't get the meds at Wal-Mart...so if they knew they wouldnt' get it there, but wanted to get it filled there, why couldn't they just say "Dr, my pharmacy doesn't stock this med, could you prescribe an alternative"?

I find the whole thing frivilous. I think it's a waste of time and when people start bitching about how long it takes for a serious case to get in front of a judge, I think of cases like this and get irritated with the whole judicial system - from lawyers all the way up to judges.

The thing is, the legislature did it's job. It passed the law. Wal-Mart is trying an end run around the law. That's when you go to the courts - when someone or somebody is breaking a law.

As for RvW. Um, yes. As long as the Moral Minority had a grip on the power center of the GOP, it'd be an issue.

Because it would've never been legal in states such as Utah, South Dakota, Alabama, etcetera. There are still around ten to fifteen states that have trigger laws in place from the old days that will make abortion illegal the moment RvW is overturned.

Was it the best way to do it? Nah. But, perhaps waiting until legislatures desegregated would've been the best policy too?


Out of everything in this thread, this one confuses me the most. We don't know if Wal-Mart is doing something outside the law. It's open to interpretation. And that's why it's going to court.

Wal-Mart chose to interpret the law in one way. (and we all know why they did it) Some disagree with that and are filing suit. Nothing wrong with either side. They have a challenge point in the law and we are going to see if that challenge is met.

I think it'll be tough to go against Wal-Mart here. For starters, I'm not sure this really fills a community need. Secondly, Wal-Mart has stated they'll be in contact with the state board and will comply with its wishes.

Doesn't sound especially unreasonable to me.

So, you're of the opinion that someone who is pro-life should never, ever be a pharmacist because one day they'll have to confront the decision of prescribing the morning-after pill to someone?

Also, how is the morning-after pill a "commonly prescribed medication meeting the needs of the community"? It's not exactly cold medicine.
I am sure there are plenty of pro-life pharmacists who keep their beliefs personal and are still able to perform the tasks required by their job: provide medicines to people as prescribed by their doctor. Now, if a pro-life person cannot perform this task because of his/her personal belief, than no, they should not be pharmacists.

I also don't think that anarchists should be police officers, if their personal anarchist beliefs would, for example, preclude them from enforcing the laws as written. On a more personal level, I have serious issues with how the federal sentencing guidelines treat drug offenses. I would have a very hard time enforcing them and therefore should not (and am not) a U.S. prosecutor.

As for the second question, albion already answered it. It's what's at issue in the case.

Out of everything in this thread, this one confuses me the most. We don't know if Wal-Mart is doing something outside the law. It's open to interpretation. And that's why it's going to court.

Bad wording...I meant interpetation. My brain just couldn't come up with the meaning at that exact moment. :-)

Anyway, my main point was that lawsuits are seen by most as insensible and a waste of time. If it's a law, let the district attorney handle it - these sorts of lawsuits is what turns most people off to feminists, not the philosophy behind it.
You expect the District Attorney to look into every little violation of the law?! LOLOL!

The only way things get changed in the US is through lawsuits. DAs aren't going to go after WalMart for this, just like they never went after automakers for dangerous vehicle designs. How did the automobile designs get changed? That's right, numerous lawsuits.

The US doesn't have an Ombudsman to fight for consumers on behalf of the government. The DA usually doesn't give a hoot about these things and are usually occupied with more violent crimes.

It's either lawsuits or create an Ombudsman agency in every state... and fund it enough so things like this will actually be investigated by the state. Even then, you may need lawsuits when the Ombudsman doesn't think something is worth it.

I think the anarchist/cop analogy is a bit flawed. For one thing, an anarchist isn't likely to be a cop, ever. For another, anarchist/cop isn't likely to have a spiritual philosphy that would factor into the clash. If you felt your very soul was on the line because you actively aided another person to do something that you thought was wrong, would you do it anyway?

Put another way, we have conscientious (sp?) objectors for war, many of whom do so out of a religious belief (Quakers, for instance). Why do objecting pharmacists not get the same relief?

I understand that one person's morals are different from another, but you're still talking about essentially making a person do something they don't want to do or else find a new line of work, when 99% of the time what they do is no different from what any other pharmacist does.

The only way things get changed in the US is through lawsuits.

I hope you don't really believe that.

Anyway, my main point was that lawsuits are seen by most as insensible and a waste of time. If it's a law, let the district attorney handle it - these sorts of lawsuits is what turns most people off to feminists, not the philosophy behind it.
Yes. Lawsuits have never accomplished anything ever in this history of the United States.

Put another way, we have conscientious (sp?) objectors for war, many of whom do so out of a religious belief (Quakers, for instance). Why do objecting pharmacists not get the same relief?

Because as far as I know, there is no pharmacists draft. As for the rest, what if I believed like Tom Cruise that depression can't be cured through pills? Can I refuse to give you you Paxil? Or thought you should tough out that broken leg? No Vicodin. Or maybe I thought that you might be cheating on your wife, so no Viagra.

Silly me, thinking courts are the final option instead of the first.

I hope you don't really believe that.
A bit of an overstatement, but for the most part true. Dangerous cars got taken off the roads in the 1970s (Hello Ford Pinto) through lawsuits. It wasn't government intervention or bad press, it was people winning judgment after judgment. Same thing with abestos.

The government usually doesn't care and a little bit of bad press won't scare most big companies. The thing that companies are really scared of are lawsuits.

I think Wal-Mart's response to this has been reasonable. Get a ruling from the Attorney General and abide by it.

I would assume that Wal-Mart doesn't give a crap about any of this. If anything they're probably happy about it (assuming the case gets dismissed). No doubt they've been pressured by Christian groups not to sell the stuff. They had to balance money lost from not selling the pills against money lost from boycotts. Now they can go ahead and sell it in MA and they have a valid excuse to give the Christians when they bitch about it. Sorry, we tried to accomodate you, but we have to obey the law. They can have their cake and eat it too...

A bit of an overstatement, but for the most part true. Dangerous cars got taken off the roads in the 1970s (Hello Ford Pinto) through lawsuits. It wasn't government intervention or bad press, it was people winning judgment after judgment. Same thing with abestos.

The government usually doesn't care and a little bit of bad press won't scare most big companies. The thing that companies are really scared of are lawsuits.

People were actually being harmed by the Ford Pinto, as opposed to people not being able to get what they want when they want it. I don't think there's any way you can convince me that the folks behind this couldn't be doing 1000 times more good if they put their energies elsewhere.

People were actually being harmed by the Ford Pinto, as opposed to people not being able to get what they want when they want it. I don't think there's any way you can convince me that the folks behind this couldn't be doing 1000 times more good if they put their energies elsewhere.
What, you don't think that places where Walmart is the only pharmacy within 30 miles don't have people that are being harmed by this? These folks believe they are doing an ultimate good in helping women have access to the morning after pill. It's not for the women who live in towns with 15 pharmacies. It's for those that only have Walmart.

Of course I can't convince they couldn't be doing more good, because you don't believe in their position!

I think the anarchist/cop analogy is a bit flawed. For one thing, an anarchist isn't likely to be a cop, ever. For another, anarchist/cop isn't likely to have a spiritual philosphy that would factor into the clash. If you felt your very soul was on the line because you actively aided another person to do something that you thought was wrong, would you do it anyway?

Put another way, we have conscientious (sp?) objectors for war, many of whom do so out of a religious belief (Quakers, for instance). Why do objecting pharmacists not get the same relief?

I understand that one person's morals are different from another, but you're still talking about essentially making a person do something they don't want to do or else find a new line of work, when 99% of the time what they do is no different from what any other pharmacist does.
Personally? Yes, I would, because I don't believe in "souls." If I did believe in souls, I wouldn't take a job whose key task could, at some point, force me to actively aided another person to do something that you thought was wrong.

I don't think any of these pharmacists were drafted into the pharmaceutical corps, so I am not sure the parallel with the conscientious (spelling works for me!) objectors works.

As for the rest, I think Jesse's response is spot on.

What, you don't think that places where Walmart is the only pharmacy within 30 miles don't have people that are being harmed by this? These folks believe they are doing an ultimate good in helping women have access to the morning after pill. It's not for the women who live in towns with 15 pharmacies. It's for those that only have Walmart.

Of course I can't convince they couldn't be doing more good, because you don't believe in their position!

Then they should ask for the other medication that Wal Mart does stock, that does the same thing. I would say in this situation, the dr. is at fault...in a small town, the dr is going to know exactly what the pharmacy stocks...if they insist on prescribing something they know their local pharmacy doesnt' have, then they are to blame.

Unless the patient is going to have a negative reaction to the alternate medication, there is NO reason that this should be an issue.

Then they should ask for the other medication that Wal Mart does stock, that does the same thing. I would say in this situation, the dr. is at fault...in a small town, the dr is going to know exactly what the pharmacy stocks...if they insist on prescribing something they know their local pharmacy doesnt' have, then they are to blame.

Unless the patient is going to have a negative reaction to the alternate medication, there is NO reason that this should be an issue.
How do you know the other medication does the same thing?! You are just assuming that it does without knowledge. I assume they are suing because it doesn't do the same thing as the other pill or because there are allergies related to the other pill.

How do you know the other medication does the same thing?! You are just assuming that it does without knowledge. I assume they are suing because it doesn't do the same thing as the other pill or because there are allergies related to the other pill.


No, I have knowledge...I posted above that I had knowledge. Ask any dr, they'll tell you that taking a high dosage of bc pills over a couple days will terminate a pregnancy in the VERY early stages.

edit - here is a website with a chart of EC...I recognize 2 of these as BC pills that I have been on.

hxxp://www.fwhc.org/birth-control/ecinfo.htm

No, I have knowledge...I posted above that I had knowledge. Ask any dr, they'll tell you that taking a high dosage of bc pills over a couple days will terminate a pregnancy in the VERY early stages.
:eek: Does that sound safe to you?! This pill you take once a day for birth control... just take a bunch in a 3-4 day period and that should take care of it. Sounds like very irresponsible advice.

Did you even look at the site? It lists Birth Control pills as EC...

EC is basically a high dose of hormones which affect your uterine lining and force it to discharge, causing a menstrual cycle, and ending a pregnancy. At least read the information before you assume it's wrong. Or better yet, why don't YOU go ask your gynecologist about it? Because I am sure that you as a man, would have had this conversation with him/her, or would have sat there as your friend took 3 bc pills prescribed to her as EC.

Dola:

Here is another site for you to read. It says "Emergency Contraception: The Morning-After Pill

What is it?

Emergency contraception (also known as the morning-after pill) is a high dosage of the birth control pill. It is recommended to be used after sexual intercourse, over a period of 72 hours, to achieve the goal of preventing or ending pregnancy. There are three different ways birth control pills are currently being promoted for this use: progesterone alone, estrogen alone, or both of these artificial steroids together.

These are the same steroids found in the typical birth control pill."

Yeah, I just looked at the site. I'm sorry, but taking 8 pills in 2 days or 40 (:eek: ) for Overette in 1 day does NOT sound safe to me. That is a very large number of pills.

The funny part of the gynecologist comment is that one of the women denied (and suing) IS a gynecologist!

Yeah, I just looked at the site. I'm sorry, but taking 8 pills in 2 days or 40 (:eek: ) for Overette in 1 day does NOT sound safe to me. That is a very large number of pills.

The funny part of the gynecologist comment is that one of the women denied (and suing) IS a gynecologist!

Would you like to tell everyone which active ingredient is dangerous in that quantity and what the potential hazards are?

Yeah, I just looked at the site. I'm sorry, but taking 8 pills in 2 days or 40 (:eek: ) for Overette in 1 day does NOT sound safe to me. That is a very large number of pills.

The funny part of the gynecologist comment is that one of the women denied (and suing) IS a gynecologist!


Yeah, I'd accept that - except that EVERY other pill listed on there has a dose of 2 - 4 pills. Picking the one pill that is clearly a very low dose BC pill and saying b/c of that it's an unhealthy practice is just not really a reason to say that BC is not an acceptable form of EC. Saying that ONE brand of pill isn't a good idea is fine, but other than that - nope.

As for the gynecologist...she clearly has ulterior motives other than the quality care of her patients, and thus, is not what I would consider your "average" gynecologist or doctor.

Another tidbit from the site:

Side Effects

Common side effects for women who use birth control pills for EC are nausea, vomiting, headaches, breast tenderness, dizziness, fluid retention and irregular bleeding. These side effects usually disappear after 1-2 days. Side effects are rare when Plan B is used.

From an effectiveness standpoint, Plan B and multiplied doses of (progesterone-only) birth control pills are of equal efficacy--but it looks obvious that they are not the same thing: Plan B is easier to use and has fewer side effects. If vomiting reduces the effectiveness of emergency contraception, wouldn't you chose the option by which you will be less likely to vomit?

And if it is the exact same thing (though from the side effects on your first page, it doesn't seem like it), then I wonder why there isn't a big hubbub about birth control perscriptions, because they would be able to used in similar fashion. Walmart just bans the "Plan B", though.

Yeah, I'd accept that - except that EVERY other pill listed on there has a dose of 2 - 4 pills. Picking the one pill that is clearly a very low dose BC pill and saying b/c of that it's an unhealthy practice is just not really a reason to say that BC is not an acceptable form of EC. Saying that ONE brand of pill isn't a good idea is fine, but other than that - nope.
Actually most are 8 pills. 4 in the beginning and then 4, 12 hours later. That's a BIG quantity of polls.

As for the gynecologist...she clearly has ulterior motives other than the quality care of her patients, and thus, is not what I would consider your "average" gynecologist or doctor.
Ulterior motives? She said she was doing it for her patients. Why else would she do it? I mean this smearing of 'lefties' with the charge of "ulterior motives" is getting tiresome.

Another tidbit from the site:



From an effectiveness standpoint, Plan B and multiplied doses of (progesterone-only) birth control pills are of equal efficacy--but it looks obvious that they are not the same thing: Plan B is easier to use and has fewer side effects. If vomiting reduces the effectiveness of emergency contraception, wouldn't you chose the option by which you will be less likely to vomit?


And I clearly stated in a previous post that unless you have (or have had in the past) an adverse side affect to one of the medications, and Wal Mart is the ONLY pharmacy in your area, then I don't see why this would be an issue. But saying "I might throw up from this, so why take it at all" is not what most people would think. All medications have some possible negative side affects...

From an effectiveness standpoint, Plan B and multiplied doses of (progesterone-only) birth control pills are of equal efficacy--but it looks obvious that they are not the same thing: Plan B is easier to use and has fewer side effects. If vomiting reduces the effectiveness of emergency contraception, wouldn't you chose the option by which you will be less likely to vomit?
Exactly! All sorts of side effects when taking more than the suggested number of pill as emergency contraception should show that it is more dangerous to use birth control pills in that way and that the EC pill is far safer. Ie, they are not the same thing.

What, you don't think that places where Walmart is the only pharmacy within 30 miles don't have people that are being harmed by this? These folks believe they are doing an ultimate good in helping women have access to the morning after pill. It's not for the women who live in towns with 15 pharmacies. It's for those that only have Walmart.


Where are these places exactly? If a town is so small that it doesn't have a pharmacy, I have serious doubts that it could sustain a Wal-Mart.

This is not to say that I agree or disagree with the main point of this thread, only that "Wal-Mart is the only pharmacy within 30 miles" is a stupid argument.

Where are these places exactly? If a town is so small that it doesn't have a pharmacy, I have serious doubts that it could sustain a Wal-Mart.

This is not to say that I agree or disagree with the main point of this thread, only that "Wal-Mart is the only pharmacy within 30 miles" is a stupid argument.
You have obviously never been to South Georgia ;).

No, but I live in southern Indiana, which is about the same, only with worse accents. :)

By the way, I shouldn't have used the word "stupid" above. That was rude of me. Please accept my apology.

...or Texas, where there might be only one pharmacy in your one stoplight town and if they don't want to give you plan B, the next town is thrity-forty miles away minimum.

By the way, I shouldn't have used the word "stupid" above. That was rude of me. Please accept my apology.
Bah.. no need to apologize. If you thought it was a stupid argument, then let me know about it.

You have obviously never been to South Georgia ;).

Or parts of Iowa from what I've seen. A few towns around here have a Walmart, a general store (usually linked to a gas station), but I'm not sure if they have another pharmacy option. Either way, the problem is that if Walmart doesn't stock it, then other pharmacies may not stock it either. In this case, it isn't a big deal, because they got it in other ways, but I'm not sure that will always be the case.

Or parts of Iowa from what I've seen. A few towns around here have a Walmart, a general store (usually linked to a gas station), but I'm not sure if they have another pharmacy option. Either way, the problem is that if Walmart doesn't stock it, then other pharmacies may not stock it either. In this case, it isn't a big deal, because they got it in other ways, but I'm not sure that will always be the case.

OK, I see that point, but then how is this suit any different than the iPod suit in the other thread? If it hasn't happened, why sue based on the idea that it might happen? Why have a dr. tell her patients to go to Wal Mart when there is a CVS down the street? Why not wait until a dr. prescribes the EC, the patient absolutely cannot take the BC instead, and there is only a Wal Mart in the area? Until that happens, I think this is a frivilous suit.

Either way, the problem is that if Walmart doesn't stock it, then other pharmacies may not stock it either.

That's actually my big problem with this sort of tactic. Just going after Wal-mart because they're the Big Name and not after all the small business mom & pop pharmacies is a political maneuver -- i.e. we'll go after the faceless corporation and not the local folks who might otherwise get pissed off at us and stop supporting our local business. Believe me, I hate Wal-Mart as much as the next guy (okay, maybe an unhealthy amount more than the next guy), but going after one and not the other looks disingenuous to me. It starts to look more like mugging for a camera than legitimately trying to change things for the better.

OK, I see that point, but then how is this suit any different than the iPod suit in the other thread? If it hasn't happened, why sue based on the idea that it might happen? Why have a dr. tell her patients to go to Wal Mart when there is a CVS down the street? Why not wait until a dr. prescribes the EC, the patient absolutely cannot take the BC instead, and there is only a Wal Mart in the area? Until that happens, I think this is a frivilous suit.

Well, it's how class action suits work in America. Basically, one or more plaintiffs gets together and files suit. In the course of bringing the suit, they will have to define a class and get that class certified. In doing so, they have to find a representative plaintiff for the class group that meets certain criteria. So, if the facts described in the article are true (and when writing about legal issues, the media is often wrong), some other class representative will probably be used if the case actually goes forward.

It probably sounds unusual to anyone who isn't a lawyer, but I think it is actually one of the better designed parts of our legal system. It allows lawsuits to correct harms experienced by a lot of different people. And it does so in a pretty efficient (but not perfectly efficient) way.

That's actually my big problem with this sort of tactic. Just going after Wal-mart because they're the Big Name and not after all the small business mom & pop pharmacies is a political maneuver -- i.e. we'll go after the faceless corporation and not the local folks who might otherwise get pissed off at us and stop supporting our local business. Believe me, I hate Wal-Mart as much as the next guy (okay, maybe an unhealthy amount more than the next guy), but going after one and not the other looks disingenuous to me. It starts to look more like mugging for a camera than legitimately trying to change things for the better.

It certainly isn't exclusive with other lawsuits, though. Walmart certainly made itself an easier target by adopting a company policy. Most mom-and-pop operations don't have company policies for the public to see. I'm not saying Walmart wasn't chosen for other reasons (I don't know), but I certainly see perfectly legitimate reasons for making them an initial target.

And there are reasons not to chose Walmart as well. Certainly the quality of lawyers they will face will be MUCH higher.

It certainly isn't exclusive with other lawsuits, though. Walmart certainly made itself an easier target by adopting a company policy. Most mom-and-pop operations don't have company policies for the public to see. I'm not saying Walmart wasn't chosen for other reasons (I don't know), but I certainly see perfectly legitimate reasons for making them an initial target.

And there are reasons not to chose Walmart as well. Certainly the quality of lawyers they will face will be MUCH higher.

Maybe I'm just jaded, but I can't get over the impression that they went after Wal-Mart because that would get their faces in the newspaper rather than going after Mom's Pharmacy, which likely wouldn't. Of course, they could just as legitimately go after Wal-Mart because it would get their face in the paper, which would attract others to their cause. In that case, it's a smart tactic.

All of which leads me to believe that I don't really have an opinion on this matter and I'm just feeling cranky today. Someone could save a bunch of kids from a burning orphanage and I might accuse them of camera mugging.

It's raining here. What can I say?

Also, I'd imagine that it'd be far harder to get a class certified to sue against Mom's pharmacy :D. There would be far fewer people who could join such a class.

IMO, this action will only blow up in the pro-abortionists' faces.

Also, I'd imagine that it'd be far harder to get a class certified to sue against Mom's pharmacy :D. There would be far fewer people who could join such a class.

Everybody has a mom. :)

Except Quiksand, I mean. And maybe Friday, whose mother was a test tube and her father a knife.

OK, I see that point, but then how is this suit any different than the iPod suit in the other thread? If it hasn't happened, why sue based on the idea that it might happen?

The iPod suit is a product defect/personal injury suit. The expectation there is that the plaintiff has suffered some harm. This is a suit to enforce the laws of Massachusetts. There is no need to allege harm. The law is supposed to be followed whether someone can prove harm as a result or not.

I'm a little new to all this, so I need some guidance...

Is it now when I'm supposed to start railing against "activist judges" who are "legislating from the bench," or do I wait until I lose the court challenge?

Thanks in advance for your help.Depends on your personal belief, near as I can tell ;)

SI

I would assume that Wal-Mart doesn't give a crap about any of this. If anything they're probably happy about it (assuming the case gets dismissed). No doubt they've been pressured by Christian groups not to sell the stuff. They had to balance money lost from not selling the pills against money lost from boycotts. Now they can go ahead and sell it in MA and they have a valid excuse to give the Christians when they bitch about it. Sorry, we tried to accomodate you, but we have to obey the law. They can have their cake and eat it too...Bingo. Gotta love how these people just walked right into it, too.

SI

From what I've read, there's two different ways to do the EC. Either the 'Plan B' type of pill, which is I think what is being fought over. It's two or three pills in one day.

The second way is what you've described. It's two different prescriptions so like I said, Wal-Mart can weasel out of not giving out the first type to the loose women. Plus, I'm pretty sure the two or three pills in one shot is more effective than the multiple BC pills method. But, I'm just reding stuff. Calling Eaglesfan27! Answer the white courtesey phone!
It's been a busy day at the clinic and I've been catching up with threads in order of importance to me. So, this is one of the later threads I'm catching up to..

My understanding is that the "Plan B" type of pill has a high level of progesterone and a lower amount of estrogen. It is similar to taking several days worth of BC pills, but is supposed to have less side effects and a signficantly higher efficacy. However, I might be mixing up the ratios of active ingredients as it has been a while since I've done any reading on this subject.

Of course I can't convince they couldn't be doing more good, because you don't believe in their position!


No, I agree with their position on reproductive freedom. I just think Now and the like are very good at alienating people who would like to support them, and this is a perfect example of what I mean.

I have no issue with pharmacists holding the personal belief that abortion is murder and that by perscribing the morning after pill they are assisting in murder, but your personal beliefs should not get in the way of your job. Huh? Think about that for a moment. According to you, my personal beliefs should in no way dictate the manner in which I make my livelyhood or conduct my affairs in such endeavor.

Huh?

Then... um... what do I do with my personal beliefs? Just kinda... sit around and think about them? And hopefully not catch the eye of the thought police by actually letting them guide my life and decisions?





You must be from the People's Republic of Massachusetts, too.

Huh? Think about that for a moment. According to you, my personal beliefs should in no way dictate the manner in which I make my livelyhood or conduct my affairs in such endeavor.

Huh?

Then... um... what do I do with my personal beliefs? Just kinda... sit around and think about them? And hopefully not catch the eye of the thought police by actually letting them guide my life and decisions?





You must be from the People's Republic of Massachusetts, too.If you work for CVS and they sell condoms and you are a big time Catholic, would it be ok for you to hide all the condoms in the back room?

IMO, this action will only blow up in the pro-abortionists' faces.

Yup. Just today, I convinced six pregnant women to have abortions. After all, I missed my quota for babykilling in January. If you miss two months in a row, I don't get my secret decoder ring that will let me in on the The Left hivemind and how will I know to protect queers, babykillers, and pedophiles without it?

Just to reiterate, that's the key here, is whether the pill in question is a medication "commonly prescribed to meet the usual needs of the community." That's what the law requires, and if the pill falls under that classification, Wal-Mart must stock it, or they're breaking the law. Another example of lazy, vague, badly written legislation on Beacon Hill, which will require their activist judges to dictate Commonwealth law, acting as their PC turks, instead of the local electorate.

I cannot wait to get out of this state.

Another example of lazy, vague, badly written legislation on Beacon Hill, which will require their activist judges to dictate Commonwealth law, acting as their PC turks, instead of the local electorate.You do realize that Massachusetts, like every other state in the Union not named Louisiana, are common law states, right? That means the judges deciding what the law means (or dictate as you put it) are doing their jobs.

If you work for CVS and they sell condoms and you are a big time Catholic, would it be ok for you to hide all the condoms in the back room?
I am a big time Catholic and could care less what the heathen (or other Catholics) wrap their dicks with. ;) And I don't really care if they use morning after pills, either. I just don't understand how you can separate your own personal beliefs from your job. If I didn't want to dispense birth control pills, but was a pharmacist, I'd look for a job that didn't require me to. Like... say... WALMART. Unfortunatly that choice would not be an option for me in Massachusetts, would it?

I am a big time Catholic and could care less what the heathen (or other Catholics) wrap their dicks with. ;) And I don't really care if they use morning after pills, either. I just don't understand how you can separate your own personal beliefs from your job. If I didn't want to dispense birth control pills, but was a pharmacist, I'd look for a job that didn't require me to. Like... say... WALMART. Unfortunatly that choice would not be an option for me in Massachusetts, would it?Most people seperate their personal beliefs from their job... it's called having a career.

And Massachusetts is perfectly able to decide what pharmacists in their state, which are licensed by the state, have to do (as a minimum) in their jobs.

I'm going to sue McDonald's for not having the 20 piece nugget boxes anymore. Why should I suffer through two 10 piece nugget boxes when they could just put them in one box?

I've had it. They're done.

You do realize that Massachusetts, like every other state in the Union not named Louisiana, are common law states, right? That means the judges deciding what the law means (or dictate as you put it) are doing their jobs.
Yes, because the law is written vaguely and lazily (imho) and requires them to fill in the grey areas. General Court works like that up here. Pass a token bill to keep my campaign funds rolling in, make it vague enough so that it'll make more lawsuits to sort out the grey areas we were too lazy to spell out, and we're not only off the hook, but we get more contributions from trial lawyers, too.

This law doesn't have to be vague.

Judges should decide the merits of the each side's case, but yes, they are also spelling out what laws are supposed to mean. If a law needs interpretation because it's vague and/or confusing, it's not the judge's fault, it's the legislators.

Most people seperate their personal beliefs from their job... it's called having a career.
And vapid. But it certainly explains a lot of things. If your boss or foreman or board chairman tells you that you must screw or decieve or defraud your clients, customers, patients, whatever, by doing such and such, then you must do it? Because it's your job? And you should separate a silly thing like a personal belief in honesty out of the equation?

Okay. I'm out of this conversation. I kinda get what your saying, but...

Judges should decide the merits of the each side's case, but yes, they are also spelling out what laws are supposed to mean. If a law needs interpretation because it's vague and/or confusing, it's not the judge's fault, it's the legislators.What, like the framers of the Constitution? ;)

Sometimes it is good for a law to be vague. For example, it would be incredibly tedious to have a list of what medications pharmacies would have to stock and every year evaluate again. Better to say "commonly prescribed to meet the usual needs of the community" and have the courts decide on each challenged drug (which won't be all that many)

Most people seperate their personal beliefs from their job... it's called having a career.

If this is true, I say it's the reason so many people have low job satisfaction.

And vapid. But it certainly explains a lot of things. If your boss or foreman or board chairman tells you that you must screw or decieve or defraud your clients, customers, patients, whatever, by doing such and such, then you must do it? Because it's your job? And you should separate a silly thing like a personal belief in honesty out of the equation?

Okay. I'm out of this conversation. I kinda get what your saying, but...Well, I mean if you aren't confortable with what he's saying you don't work there anymore. Same thing here with pharmacists. If you aren't comfortable with the requirements of the job, don't work there.

If what he is telling you is illegal, then report him. If it is simply non-conforming to your ethics (screwing over a customer is done in many jobs), then what else can you do aside from quit?

If this is true, I say it's the reason so many people have low job satisfaction.Most people don't respond too well to others demanding what they must do, but in order to keep a job you have to do what your boss says... if it is illegal or against the professional ethics, you can report him, but if he gets booked, you may not be able to keep a job either (the company folds if he's the big boss).

Well, I mean if you aren't confortable with what he's saying you don't work there anymore. Same thing here with pharmacists. If you aren't comfortable with the requirements of the job, don't work there.

If what he is telling you is illegal, then report him. If it is simply non-conforming to your ethics (screwing over a customer is done in many jobs), then what else can you do aside from quit?
Whew! Okay... we're not that far off then. But personal beliefs are ethics.

If I was a pharmacist that really didn't want to dispense a certain medication, I would indeed seek employment elsewhere. But I'd be out of luck in Massachusetts. But of course, the law is written so poorly that Wal Mart thinks it's okay not to sell the drug, and a few cranky women decide they can't just go to the Brooks or CVS down the road, and suddenly its all up to one person, one unelected person, mind you, the judge, to decide the law for the rest of the Commonwealth.

I've lived here for a long time. That's just the way it is in the Bay State. Doesn't mean I have to like it. And yes, I'm probably moving out in the next year or two. There's still enough of a Tenth Amendment to allow some differentiation in governance from state to state...

I hope...

Most people don't respond too well to others demanding what they must do, but in order to keep a job you have to do what your boss says... if it is illegal or against the professional ethics, you can report him, but if he gets booked, you may not be able to keep a job either (the company folds if he's the big boss).
It's a decision millions of people have to make everyday. I've had to make it, too. In the course of your career, many will be asked to do things that you'd rather not do due to ethics and personal beliefs. They don't have to be illegal things. They could be legal, but dishonest. Like 97% percent of telemarketers offering free vacations and 65% of auto mechanics telling you your car is in worse shape than it actually is. And for a lot of people, sure, selling something that (in your mind, Catholic, Mormon, Christian, Moslem, or otherwise) kills babies.

But I'd be out of luck in Massachusetts. But of course, the law is written so poorly that Wal Mart thinks it's okay not to sell the drug, and a few cranky women decide they can't just go to the Brooks or CVS down the road, and suddenly its all up to one person, one unelected person, mind you, the judge, to decide the law for the rest of the Commonwealth.That's how it usually works in every state ;). And unelected judge decides the law, because we live in a common law system (except in Louisiana).

And classifying them as a "few cranky women" is interesting. Heaven forbid if they feel this is an important civil rights issue for all women.

Again, I have nothing against Wal Mart or people that want to buy birth control there. My beef is with Beacon Hill and their vague and poorly written legislation and over reliance on an already overbooked, straining court system. There are such a thing as bad laws. And not on moral or ethical or political grounds. It happens all the time up here.

And classifying them as a "few cranky women" is interesting. Heaven forbid if they feel this is an important civil rights issue for all women.
LOL! Good point. ;)

And classifying them as a "few cranky women" is interesting. Heaven forbid if they feel this is an important civil rights issue for all women.

Just wondering how access to mulitple forms of EC is a "civil right"...does that mean that prior to the 60's (when the pill was launched and mass marketed) all women's civil rights were being violated by the absence of such a medication? Or that until the mid-90's when the "morning after pill" was first talked about/explored, our rights were being violated then also?

Just wondering how access to mulitple forms of EC is a "civil right"...does that mean that prior to the 60's (when the pill was launched and mass marketed) all women's civil rights were being violated by the absence of such a medication? Or that until the mid-90's when the "morning after pill" was first talked about/explored, our rights were being violated then also?You do realize that a contraception case (Griswold v. Connecticut) was the case that established a "right to privacy".

The civil rights argument is that women have the right to control their bodies and after the introduction of contraceptive pills, having (mostly) men decide to deny them to women is depriving them of their civil rights.

If the pharmacists were denying Viagra to Muslim men would that be a civil rights violation?

Point being, it's a right to not have the pharmacist decide what is best for you when Massachusetts has a law that they believe says that Walmart must stock that pill. If the law is on the womens' side, then Walmart is deciding for the woman what they should take by violating the law in not carrying the drug.

Just wondering how access to mulitple forms of EC is a "civil right"...does that mean that prior to the 60's (when the pill was launched and mass marketed) all women's civil rights were being violated by the absence of such a medication? Or that until the mid-90's when the "morning after pill" was first talked about/explored, our rights were being violated then also? Screwing without consequence is a woman's civil right! And those people that want to assign rights to all those unborn babies are just fascist zealots!

I do think it's ironic that I'm losing my right to kill myself by cigarettes by the same people that would fight for my right kill myself by euthanasia after I've already gotten cancer.

Screwing without consequence is a woman's civil right!I know you are being silly, but actually, yes. Right to privacy is a very big civil right.

Yes. I am being silly. But I don't think it's silly for some people to believe that unborn children have rights, too. I don't think it's crazy. I don't think it's extreme. I don't know how I feel about the issue itself, but I'm amazed at how successfully marginalized the right-to-life movement has become.

But... anyway... back to football!!!!

Yes. I am being silly. But I don't think it's silly for some people to believe that unborn children have rights, too. I don't think it's crazy. I don't think it's extreme. I don't know how I feel about the issue itself, but I'm amazed at how successfully marginalized the right-to-life movement has become.

But... anyway... back to football!!!!I don't think anyone is really saying it is silly in this thread, just that these women have a seperate belief and it is a valid belief in what womens' civil rights are.

Football *thumbs up*

Well, I'm probably the biggest feminist (sp?) on the board - even including the women, but that is what happens when you're a socalist babykilling criminal-freeing pinko commie. :-)


EDIT: Should probably add in here -> SARRRRRRRRRRCASM!

If the pharmacists were denying Viagra to Muslim men would that be a civil rights violation?Just wanted to point out that this is a bad comparison. You're asking a hypothetical on if it would be a civil rights violation if a store refused to sell to a person of a certain religion while implying the store sells to everyone else.

In this case, Wal Mart doesn't sell to anybody. They just simply do not carry the product at all. Two different things.

A more appropriate hypothetical question to ask is "If the pharmacists refused to stock and sell Viagra to anyone who had a prescription for it, would that be a civil rights violation?"

Well, I'm probably the biggest feminist (sp?) on the board No! You can't be the biggest anything-you're-not-sure-how-to-spell on any board!

(But you did guess right. ;))

Point being, it's a right to not have the pharmacist decide what is best for you when Massachusetts has a law that they believe says that Walmart must stock that pill. If the law is on the womens' side, then Walmart is deciding for the woman what they should take by violating the law in not carrying the drug.

The law doesn't say they have to carry that pill, it says they need to carry the pills that are "commonly prescribed". I am sure in the end Wal Mart will end up carrying this pill, and that is fine - I really don't care either way...my problem with this suit is that it's not even clear if there is demand for this product in that area, and the way it was brought about "I knew I couldn't get it there, but I went there just to make a point" kind of thing. I think it was sneaky and devious and underhanded.

Personally I think a private business should be able to stock (or in the case not stock) whatever the hell they want.

I'd agree, Greyroofoo, until that business has an IPO. Then, as a public company accepting public money (albeit through private shareholders) and receiving public kickbacks via tax breaks, then they have to comply with the law of the states in which they choose to do business. The Wal-Marts of the world can't (and shouldn't) have it both ways.

dola...

Not that I'm suggesting Wal-Mart is or isn't at fault here (if there is any fault in this business decision). Bottom line is that if you're a publicly traded company and want the benefits of that, you can't set a company policy that (potentially, at least) openly violates state law and not expect to be called on it by somebody.

dola dola

I'm feeling much more rational now. My hatred of all things Wal-Mart is coming to the surface. :)

I'm amazed at how successfully marginalized the right-to-life movement has become.Marginalized? In America? You've got to be joking. Seriously. This ranks up there with the whole Christian persecution thing. Come on! Who is in the White House again? Who controls the Senate? Whose grip is tightening around the Supreme Court? If this is marginalization, I wish liberals were being more marginalized!

Personally I think a private business should be able to stock (or in the case not stock) whatever the hell they want.Like fully automatic rifles? Gernade launchers? (I know WalMart stocks rifles, but I am not sure about handguns. That may be illegal too.) Of course not. It's against the law to stock those, just as it is against the laws of Massachussetts for a pharmacy not to stock commonly perscribed medications.

A better example may be alcohol. Should a WalMart be able to sell alcohol in a dry county? In other areas only liquor stores can sell certain types of liquor. Should WalMart be able to sell any and all types in spite of that law? No. Of course not. Stores simply do not have the right stock whatever they want to stock. If they want to do business in a state, county, or whatever, they have to abide by the laws of that jurisdiction. In some instances that means not being able to stock what you want (and others, apparently, it means stocking something you may not want to).

Stores simply do not have the right stock whatever they want to stock.I think Greyroofoo knows that, considering that his statement was how he felt things should be. He didn't say that that's the way they are.

Should a WalMart be able to sell alcohol in a dry county?Taking his statement and applying it to this question, what he was saying was that there shouldn't be any "dry counties" to begin with.

well perhaps I put my words a bit strongly, but what I meant was that stores shouldn't be forced to stock anything. I was hoping people would infer that I wasn't implying that stores should be able to sell stuff that's illegal.

I personally don't understand why these women can't just shop somewhere else

Personally I think a private business should be able to stock (or in the case not stock) whatever the hell they want. Pharmacies and hospitals fall into a special class though. For example, hospitals must provide service to anyone seeking emergency care even if the cannot pay. Pharmacies are also providing essential services. Due to regulations governing pharmacies, there may be significant legal barriers for competitors to enter the market. In exchange for facing reduced competition as well as a governmental seal of approval via its license, Walmart and other pharmacies, have to give up their rights to choose what medications to stock.

Walmart adds further problems due to its vast size and ability to sell merchandise at prices competitors cannot match. The law in <st1:state w:st="on"><st1></st1></st1:state><st1:state w:st="on"><st1> Massachusetts</st1></st1:state> is just insuring that residents have access to legal medications that their doctors have prescribed. <o></o>

I'm going to sue McDonald's for not having the 20 piece nugget boxes anymore. Why should I suffer through two 10 piece nugget boxes when they could just put them in one box?

I've had it. They're done.Damn straight :D

SI

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060303/ap_on_re_us/wal_mart_contraception

By MARCUS KABEL, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 41 minutes ago



Officials of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced Friday the company will reverse its earlier policy and stock emergency contraception pills in all of its pharmacies effective March 20, saying the giant retailer could not justify being the country's only major pharmacy chain not to carry the morning-after pill.

The announcement comes after Massachusetts last month ordered the world's largest retailer to stock the so-called Plan B pill, following a lawsuit by three Boston women against Wal-Mart.

Illinois also requires pharmacies to carry the prescription drug, and those are the only two states where Wal-Mart has so far stocked emergency contraception.

"We expect more states to require us to sell emergency contraceptives in the months ahead," said Ron Chomiuk, vice president of pharmacy for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart.

"Because of this, and the fact that this is an FDA-approved product, we feel it is difficult to justify being the country's only major pharmacy chain not selling it," Chomiuk said in a statement.

Chomiuk said the company will maintain its conscientious objection policy, which it said is consistent with the tenets of the American Pharmaceutical Association. The policy, except where prohibited by law, allows any Wal-Mart or Sam's Club pharmacy employee who does not feel comfortable dispensing a prescription to refer customers to another pharmacist or pharmacy.

Wal-Mart has more than 3,700 pharmacies in the United States, it said.

It has previously said it "chooses not to carry many products for business reasons," but has refused to elaborate. A Wal-Mart lawyer in the Massachusetts lawsuit said the company did not believe that emergency contraception was commonly prescribed or within the "usual needs of the community."

Plan B contains a higher dose of the hormones in regular birth control pills. It cuts the chances of pregnancy by up to 89 percent if used within 72 hours of unprotected sex. The earlier it's taken, the more effective it is.

If a woman already is pregnant, the pills have no effect. They prevent ovulation or fertilization of an egg; they also may prevent the egg from implanting into the uterus, the medical definition of pregnancy, although recent research suggests that's unlikely.

Some abortion opponents oppose emergency contraception because it blocks fertilization of an egg or because they believe it can block the fertilized egg from being implanted.

National women's and family planning groups called on Wal-Mart to change policy and start stocking emergency contraception pills in its pharmacies after the Boston lawsuit filed Feb. 1.

The groups, including the National Organization for Women, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood and the National Council of Women's Organizations, said Wal-Mart did not have the right to overrule a doctor's prescription of emergency contraception for a woman.

Connecticut added pressure Thursday when Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said the insurance plan for 188,000 state employees and retirees should no longer cover prescriptions at Wal-Mart unless the retail giant agrees to stock emergency contraception pills.

Wal-Mart's critics welcomed the change.

"We commend Wal-Mart for taking an important first step towards allowing women access to safe and legal medication," Andrew Grossman, executive director of union-backed campaign group WalMartWatch.com, said in a statement.

WalMartWatch.com said Wal-Mart should now look at changing what it claimed were other business practices that harm women, including inequality in pay and promotions that are alleged in a class-action federal lawsuit against the retailer pending in San Francisco. Wal-Mart has denied those allegations.

I'm really going to enjoy the fallout when it turns out these high dosages of hormones in these pills actually cause cancer or something, and Wal-Mart gets sued for that.

Wal-Mart should have stuck to their guns and fought a ridiculous lawsuit like that. All it does is encourage snake-like behavior like the women who filed this initially to do it again.

Classy, fellas.

Classy, fellas.

I'm not saying I want that to happen. Only that it's going to be amusing if it turns out that people fought for Wal-Mart to carry this stuff, despite some scientific uncertainty over its safety on human subjects, only to discover a few years hence that, oops, maybe that wasn't such a great idea.

It's one thing to crusade on an issue. It's quite another to do so with reckless disregard for what the consequences of actually winning your crusade might be.

This isn't demanding nutritional information be printed on a fast food menu. This is demanding that a product be made available whose long-term impact is murky, and will frequently be used by people who are probably below the mean in terms of educational level.

That's not a recipe for Happy Fun Times.

Aside from the whole "abortion is murder" thing, this sort of pill promotes irresponsibility. Walmart had a chance to stand up and say "we choose not to carry this product" and stand by their decision. This really sets a poor precident, and encourages this sort of behavior from the pro-choice group.

Walmart had a chance to stand up and say "we choose not to carry this product" and stand by their decision.

Not if they truly are required by state law to stock it. This wasn't a matter of customers complaining and Wal-Mart caving. This was a matter of the law potentially not being on their side, and their acquiescing to that.

Not if they truly are required by state law to stock it. This wasn't a matter of customers complaining and Wal-Mart caving. This was a matter of the law potentially not being on their side, and their acquiescing to that.
But now whether that law applies to this item won't be challenged, which it really should be. The law should not apply to an abortion pill. It's not, and should not be a "commonly perscribed item".

But now whether that law applies to this item won't be challenged, which it really should be. The law should not apply to an abortion pill. It's not, and should not be a "commonly perscribed item".

They also didn't reach the decision unilaterally. They had discussions with the state attorney general, which I'm certain were fairly relevant to the outcome.

But now whether that law applies to this item won't be challenged, which it really should be. The law should not apply to an abortion pill. It's not, and should not be a "commonly perscribed item".And your medical degree is from... ?

And your medical degree is from... ?
It doesn't take a medical degree. It's common sense. Commonly perscribed medication is akin to medication designed to deter or assist the fight against diseases -- blood pressure medicines, heart medicines, insulin, ect. Certainly medicine designed to abort fetuses should not be a "common medicine".

It doesn't take a medical degree. It's common sense. Commonly perscribed medication is akin to medication designed to deter or assist the fight against diseases -- blood pressure medicines, heart medicines, insulin, ect. Certainly medicine designed to abort fetuses should not be a "common medicine".Why not? I bet more people take abortion pills or birth control pills than some of the pills they have in some of these pharmacies. Yeah, it's common sense. Commonly perscribed medicines are those that are perscribed commonly. I don't see "designed to deter or assist the fight against diseases" in the definition of the word "common".

Hell, if they can carry Viagra, they can carry the morning after pill.

It doesn't take a medical degree. It's common sense. Commonly perscribed medication is akin to medication designed to deter or assist the fight against diseases -- blood pressure medicines, heart medicines, insulin, ect. Certainly medicine designed to abort fetuses should not be a "common medicine".The morning after pill is not an abortion pill. It's primarily functions by preventing conception (RU-486 on the other hand is an abortion pill). However, it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, but, as I said, that is not its main goal. And under absolutely no conditions does taking the morning after pill result in the abortion of a fetus (fetus =/= zygote).

The morning after pill is not an abortion pill. It's primarily functions by preventing conception (RU-486 on the other hand is an abortion pill). However, it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, but, as I said, that is not its main goal. And under absolutely no conditions does taking the morning after pill result in the abortion of a fetus (fetus =/= zygote).

And to add to this, the pill operates in the SAME manner as a normal birth control pill. So, unless you believe that all birth control pills are immoral (as some do), using rhetoric calling this an abortion pill is just inflammatory.

I don't know that the "gotcha trap" is necessarily that big a deal. If a corporation is violating the law, and you know they're violating it, setting up the "gotcha" just ensures that when you file suit, you have personal testimony rather than "Jane's ignorant slut friends said..."

But there was no broken law here. Just a freaking cry for attention by some idiots who feel that they can bully people into their views. They are nothing than pond scum out for attention.

But there was no broken law here. Just a freaking cry for attention by some idiots who feel that they can bully people into their views. They are nothing than pond scum out for attention.
No law broken here? Well, the State of Massachusetts disagrees with you. As for your next two sentences, well I've got this to say, you [THIS PART OF THE POST LEFT INTENTIALLY BLANK]. (Like my mama once said, if you aint got nothing nice to say don't say anything at all. ;) )

I reiterate. Just a bunch of idiots trynig to get attention and hoping to bully others into their belief. If a company doesn't want to sell something, that company shouldn't have to sell something. We're not talking about something that cannot be found elsewhere. Hell, I was hungry for Prime Rib the last time I was at Wendys and they didn't have it, maybe I should sue.

dola: What the hell ever happen to feraking common sense? It's not like the issue was that this is not available anywhere and the group was looking to pioneer making it available. It's called supply and demmand. If there is enough demmand for that product than Wal-Mart can make their own judgement on if they should sell it.

I reiterate. Just a bunch of idiots trynig to get attention and hoping to bully others into their belief. If a company doesn't want to sell something, that company shouldn't have to sell something. We're not talking about something that cannot be found elsewhere. Hell, I was hungry for Prime Rib the last time I was at Wendys and they didn't have it, maybe I should sue.

Nice straw man. There's a difference between the food a restaurant chooses to serve, and the medication a retail outlet is required by state law to carry and provide.

Wanna try again and see if you can construct a more relevant analogy?

No law broken here? Well, the State of Massachusetts disagrees with you. As for your next two sentences, well I've got this to say, you [THIS PART OF THE POST LEFT INTENTIALLY BLANK]. (Like my mama once said, if you aint got nothing nice to say don't say anything at all. ;) )


dola dola: Wow, judges in Massechusetts not having a clue, there's a big surprise. They should spend more time enforcing the current laws and less time trying to legislate from the bench. That's why we have seperate branches of government but these idiot judges feel that they are above the laws of our government anymore and think that they can just create their own laws by radically interpretting current laws.

Nice straw man. There's a difference between the food a restaurant chooses to serve, and the medication a retail outlet is required by state law to carry and provide.

Wanna try again and see if you can construct a more relevant analogy?

Yeah, the freaking law stated that ONLY hospitals were required to carry it. END OF FREAKING QUESTION. GOTTA PROBLEM WITH LOGIC 101?

Yeah, the freaking law stated that ONLY hospitals were required to carry it. END OF FREAKING QUESTION. GOTTA PROBLEM WITH LOGIC 101?No. The law in question said that pharmacies have to stock all commonly prescribed medications. In this case, the court was going to have to make a judgement on whether or not emergency contraception pills qualified.

No. The law in question said that pharmacies have to stock all commonly prescribed medications. In this case, the court was going to have to make a judgement on whether or not emergency contraception pills qualified.


A new state law that took effect late last year following heated debate among lawmakers requires all hospitals to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. It also allows pharmacists to dispense the pill without a prescription, but does not require it.


If it was considered a commonly prescribed medication, there would have been no need to add the clause allowing pharmacies to decide for themselves.

Again, it's attention seeking idiots who were looking to bring up another waste of time lawsuit. If they really wanted to change the law, then go to legislature about it and get it changed to all places must carry it.

The lawsuit, backed by abortion rights groups Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts and Jane Doe Inc., argues Wal-Mart is violating a state policy that requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines." They are suing to force compliance with the regulation through the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.Read the next line in the article. The law you quoted only says that pharmacists can dispense the pill without a prescription.

If it qualifies as a commonly perscribed medication, a completely seperate issue, Walmart must stock the pill and dispense it to anyone with a prescription. They were not stocking the pill and thus might be in violation of state law. The lawsuit was to determine that and not to force them to dispense the pill to anyone without a perscription.

I confess to being stupid enough to actuall read this thread... so strike one against me there.

But why on earth try to inject any reason into it? That's obviously not working. I'll just let that one sail by rather than taking strike two.

Yeah, the freaking law stated that ONLY hospitals were required to carry it. END OF FREAKING QUESTION. GOTTA PROBLEM WITH LOGIC 101?

Not at all. The problem is, I don't believe you've been to class lately, so I'm trying to help you catch up.