Women sue WalMart for not carrying "morning after" pill

[sterlingice]

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

[sterlingice]

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

[SackAttack]

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..."

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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.

[SackAttack]

"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.

[ThunderingHERD]

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.

[Honolulu_Blue]

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.

[Wolfpack]

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.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

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.

[WSUCougar]

In before the boxing!

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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?

[miked]

Paging Bubba. Paging Bubba. Come in, Bubba.

[rkmsuf]

Ted Kennedy will get behind these women.

[oliegirl]

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.

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Ted Kennedy will get behind these women.

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

[Jesse_Ewiak]

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.

[CamEdwards]

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

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

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.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

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!

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

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.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

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.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

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.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

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.

[Ryche]

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

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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.

[st.cronin]

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

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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?

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

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?

[Jesse_Ewiak]

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?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

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.

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

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.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

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.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

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.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Originally Posted by TroyF

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. :-)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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.

[Wolfpack]

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.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

I hope you don't really believe that.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

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.

[st.cronin]

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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...

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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!

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

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.

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

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.

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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