home

Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pill

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:16:47 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Wal-Mart did a turnaround today and announced all company pharmacies will carry the morning after pill (Plan B birth control.)

However, it will allow its pharmacists who morally object to providing the pill not to have to dispense it. They can either refer the customer to another pharmacist or if none is available, to a nearby store.

Why do pharmacists get to refuse to provide the pill? Do supermarket cashiers get to refuse to ring up meat because they are vegetarians? If the drug is legal, they should have to provide it-- or find another job.

< Convicted Lawyer Lynne Stewart Battling Cancer | '20th Hijacker' Recants, Alleges Torture at Guantanamo >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pill | 44 comments (44 topical)
    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#1)
    by BigTex on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 10:49:34 PM EST
    Short answer, 1st Amendment/Title VII. Longer answer Why is this any different than a doctor being able to opt out of providing an abortion? The Supreme Court set up guidelines where physicians et al don't have to provide an abortion. Even planned parenthood's web page acknowledges that emergency contraceptives will prevent feltilized ova from attaching. That in religous terms is an abortion. So long as the law is being followed, why shouldn't the pharmicists be allowed to rest on their rights granted by the Court?

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#2)
    by roy on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 10:49:57 PM EST
    Before the discussion gets underway, I'd like to make a suggestion. If you're going to state your opinion on what people should be required to do, please clarify whether you mean it as a legal requirement. i.e., I think pharmacists should sell the drug, but not be required to by law. Stores should fire anybody who refuses to sell the drug, should be legally allowed to do so, but should not be required to be law to do so. Last time this came up, we spent as much time clarifying that sort of thing as on anything else.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#3)
    by bad Jim on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 02:30:14 AM EST
    What the pill actually does is not all that clear, and may vary from person to person, like most forms of contraception. Conception isn't something that happens in an instant either. The moral case is murky at best. Christian Scientists should be discouraged from seeking careers as pharmacists, and likewise those who are morally opposed to contraception. Let us stipulate that a pharmacist who refuses to sell the morning after pill could be charged with manslaughter should the woman die in childbirth, and that he should assume some part of the burden of caring for the unwanted child. Only then should we allow him the moral luxury of setting his principles above, or even at the same level, as the people he was licensed by the state to serve.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 05:24:46 AM EST
    The one point that is not addressed by walmart is that of availability. As most of us know in many rural areas Walmart is the only source for medicines. Getting the pill elsewhere would put an undue burden on the customer. Walmart has to accept the responsibility for eliminating any real competition. I would rather Walmart have said they would take it upon themselves to provide some one else who could fill the perscription if for religious reasons one of their Pharmasists refused to fill it. If Walmart won't or can't provide an alternative why should the burden be put on the consumers? They didn't put all the local pharmacies out of business.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#5)
    by roy on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 07:13:37 AM EST
    If Walmart won't or can't provide an alternative why should the burden be put on the consumers?
    Because they're the ones who want to buy the drug. By the default, the burden is one the person who wants to acquire X, not on the person who might provide X.
    They didn't put all the local pharmacies out of business.
    Yes they are. They stopped shopping there. Wal-Mart defeats in competition with low prices, but people had the opportunity to keep the local pharmacies in business by paying higher prices. They declined.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 09:09:37 AM EST
    Ed Beckman:
    The one point that is not addressed by walmart is that of availability. As most of us know in many rural areas Walmart is the only source for medicines. Getting the pill elsewhere would put an undue burden on the customer.
    Please provide a link that shows Walmart is the only provider of medicine in any one area. Until you do, it is just speculation by you. Thanks.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 09:59:55 AM EST
    Roy and Wile I find it amusing when folks like yourselves deny the obvious. there are some things a simpleton who has a rudimentary knowledge of the issues will acknowledge. I don't think it is helpful to turn this into silly arguments. You are, of course entitled to see the world through the wingnut eyes of self deception but I will not engage you in a usless debate.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#8)
    by roy on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 10:28:07 AM EST
    ED, I'll gladly concede that in many areas, Wal-Mart is the only place for miles at which to fill a prescription. If not Wal-Mart, than some store. Small markets don't invite a lot of competing suppliers. I'm just not conceding that such a condition should create a legal obligation upon the pharmacists. They're licensed to ensure they don't mishandle dangerous drugs, and so people who ask for advice have an assurance that the response is correct. That doesn't mean we should compel them to participate in any particular transaction. The Left likes to speak about rights, but y'all're too quick to conscript others to create the society you want. "My body, my choice" applies to pharmacists too. Some choose not to use their bodies to dispense birth control.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 10:55:14 AM EST
    Ed Beckman: If it is so obvious, show a link where Walmart is the only medicine supplier in any one area. Wingnuts like you often can't backup your statements.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 11:00:04 AM EST
    Roy Very interesting point. I just wish you would recognize that there is a difference here when a Pharmacist under the guise of protecting his Religouse beliefs wants to force a pregnancy on a women. For the most part there would be no serious harm and definately no physical harm to the Pharmacist if he was obligated to dispense this medicine, after all he is not really much more than pill despenser, but the consequences of his interference in the Doctor patient relationship could have a devasting effect on the patient. We are in fact, talking about pharmacists interference in the privacy and individuals rights of the woman aren't we? The Parmacist is entitled to his or her beliefs as long as they don't impede or impair the rights and health of a patients need to receive good health care. Would you think they should be able to deny patients their cancer medicine? What about Glycerine pills for a heart patient like myself? Should a walmart employee be able to withhold this life saving medication from me? Would you want to have your private life decisions made for you by a religous fanatic?

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 11:23:52 AM EST
    What about the executioner who does not believe in the death penalty? The Christian Scientist who is an emergency room surgeon or pharmacist, the white supremacist DA or cop, the kosher chef in a Chinese restaurant? They would all be fired unless their employer was a political activist wanting to enforce their ideals on the public at the expense of lost profits. These people are hired to do a job. If they can not perform the duties required of them they should be fired or never hired in the first place. If their employer knowingly hired them or supports their failure to do their job by not firing them than the employer is taking a political position and should be held responsible. Wal-Mart and Target (also the same policy) are clearly in cahoots with the radical right wing religious extremist movement and can be described as political activists. I find it hard to believe that their conspiratorial activity is legal when it comes to dispensing medicine, a highly regulated industry. Perhaps it is time for a few class action suits. For those of us that have a choice of where to shop, a boycott of those stores is the least we can do.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 11:25:38 AM EST
    Roy There is a point here on which I do agree with you in this matter There is really no need for walmart to have a law passed to justify requiring their pharacists to fill legal perscriptions. The pharmacists have no legal grounds such as the right to religious freedom, in this matter. IMHO

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#13)
    by roy on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 11:39:16 AM EST
    I just wish you would recognize that there is a difference here when a Pharmacist under the guise of protecting his Religouse beliefs wants to force a pregnancy on a women.
    I recognize that some people use religion as a guise to justify controlling others. But how is declining to help prevent the pregnancy equivalent to "forcing" the pregancy? The difference seems obvious to me, but I suspect a lot of things that are obvious to you don't make sense to me, either.
    For the most part there would be no serious harm and definately no physical harm to the Pharmacist if he was obligated to dispense this medicine...
    In the libertarian worldview any coerced action -- and declining to help doesn't count as coersion -- is a pretty significant harm. Maybe that's where we diverge?
    but the consequences of his interference in the Doctor patient relationship could have a devasting effect on the patient.
    Agreed. The fact that the patient will be direly harmed makes it a moral imperitive for the pharmacist to help, IMO, but doesn't justify forcing him to do so.
    We are in fact, talking about pharmacists interference in the privacy and individuals rights of the woman aren't we?
    I see no new privacy intrusion at all; she chose to ask the pharmacist for the drug, which reveal some intimate details about her sex life. She'd have to ask even if the pharmacist was the sort who didn't mind filling the script. As for the broad individual rights, those don't include the right to coerse action from others. So I figure she has an individual right to take the drug, she doesn't have a right to make somebody supply it.
    Would you think they should be able to deny patients their cancer medicine?
    If I'm going to be a libertarian absolutist -- I keep changing my mind -- then yes. He'd have to be a total pr*ck to do so, but it's his right. But I wouldn't complain too loudly if the law required pharmacists to dispense any drug if he knows it's a life-saving measure, which might require the potentially-pregnant customer to to reveal more about her situation if she's in that category (i.e. she's a hemophiliac).
    Would you want to have your private life decisions made for you by a religous fanatic?
    No, but I don't think the religious fanatic should have his decisions made by others either. And I don't consider government coersion to be the right way to make people give me what I want. BTW, thanks for making this an intellectually interesting conversation. It doesn't happen often with this topic.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 01:20:03 PM EST
    Why is this any different than a doctor being able to opt out of providing an abortion?
    Ya mean besides the fact that a pharmacist is not a doctor? Ya mean besides the fact that they're preventing the Doctor from exercising their right to practice medicine and write a prescription. Ya mean besides the fact that they're preventing the woman from exercising her right to fill that prescription and live her life as she sees fit. Ya mean besides the fact that it's none of the pharmacist's damned business. Ya mean if the pharmacist objects to filling the prescription on religious grounds, they're perfectly free to pursue a new line of work?
    The Supreme Court set up guidelines where physicians et al don't have to provide an abortion.
    Yes, they did. They don't. They also don't have the right to prevent others from performing them, either and once again, pharmacists aren't physicians, any more than Shaquille O'Neill and the jockey who rides the winner of this year's Kentucky Derby Winner are gonna be able to switch places and have nobody notice.
    Even planned parenthood's web page acknowledges that emergency contraceptives will prevent fertilized ova from attaching. That in religious terms is an abortion.
    That happens to unfertilized eggs all the time. You don't even know it is a fertilized egg in the first place. No one does. It's a precautionary process to prevent a potential need for an abortion. So, you're not only against abortion, you're against contraception as well. So, what you're saying is that life begins the second a teenage boy thinks about having sex. Yeah, sure, you folks are capable of rational dialog. You're worthy of being taken seriously.
    So long as the law is being followed, why shouldn't the pharmacists be allowed to rest on their rights granted by the Court?
    They are. As long as they don't interfere with anyone Else's rights. If they can't do that, they have the right to find a new line of work. It's a free Country.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#15)
    by BigTex on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 07:30:43 PM EST
    Ya mean besides the fact that they're preventing the woman from exercising her right to fill that prescription and live her life as she sees fit. Ya mean besides the fact that it's none of the pharmacist's damned business. Ya mean if the pharmacist objects to filling the prescription on religious grounds, they're perfectly free to pursue a new line of work?
    This is the same line of arguments that was made and failed to force doctors to perform abortions. That much has already been settled. Now, you raise an interesting point about pharmicists not being doctors, however, the fed law and Court decision upholding that law doesn't extend only to doctors, it covers support staff also. I'm not arguing that pharmacists are doctors, only that the same reasoning applies, and the protection should be extended to pharmacists.
    They (doctros) also don't have the right to prevent others from performing them
    Straw man, I didn't say that pharmacists should be able to seize a perscription or otherwise prevent it from being filled. Only that a pharmacist shouldn't be forced to fill. Re the fertilized ova How does emergency contraception work? Emergency contraception keeps a woman from getting pregnant by stopping: ovulation, or stopping the ovaries from releasing eggs that can be fertilized; fertilization, or stopping the egg from being fertilized by the sperm; implantation, or stopping a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the wall of the uterus. Even Planned Parenthood's literature acknowledges that the morning after pill will prevent implementation. That's where the tie in to abortion comes in. No orginazation condemns spontanious abortion if it is naturally occurring. That happens day in and day out. Ova are fertilized. As you suggest sometimes they attach, sometimes they don't. Other times they lead to chemical pregnancies. Either way as long as the result was natural then there is no condemnation because there was no action taken to kill the fertilized ova. However, emergency contraception can prevent implantation from taking place. Left to nature about half of all fertilized ova will fail to implant (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_late.htm) and another third will end up as chemical pregnancies. (http://www.babysnark.com/ttc-fertility/ttc-fertility.asp), leading to about 85% failure rate. Progestin-only ECPs reduce the chance of getting pregnant to 1%. (Planned Parenthood literature.) This means emergency contraception is inducing "spontanious" abortion in some cases. It looks natural, but would not have occurred without the EC. In other words makes it not naturally occurring. That's where people have problems with emergency contraception. If a pharmacist has a conscious objection to giving out EC because it may cause abortion, then the Court's reasoning applies to them as it does a doctor. They should be treated the same as doctors and abortion. This isn't a case where they are asking for special protection, only the same protection given to other players dealing with abortion.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 07:57:05 PM EST
    And a prophylactic prevents a sperm and an egg from getting together in the first place. By your logic, that's abortion. To me, that's meshuggah. You're free to live your life that way if you so desire. Go. Go in peace, but you've got no right whatsoever to impose your beliefs or values on anyone else. Their rights and beliefs are just as valid as yours. If they're not interested in your sermon, they don't have to hear it. If they say, stuff a sock in it and give me the damned prescription, that's their right. A pharmacy is a State Licensed Business in the United States of America. It's a legal prescription. Either fill it or close up shop and get a new line of work. If you don't like abortion or birth control, fine. Don't have one. Don't practice it. Beyond that, mind your own damned business. You have no right to come banging on my door or get in my face with your song and dance if I don't want to hear it and I most certainly don't want to hear it. I'm Jewish. I don't buy it. I'm not convinced. Which part of that is giving you trouble?

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#17)
    by aw on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 08:43:37 PM EST
    I love you, Charlie.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#18)
    by glanton on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 10:04:50 PM EST
    Right on, Charlie!

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#19)
    by BigTex on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 10:16:06 PM EST
    And a prophylactic prevents a sperm and an egg from getting together in the first place. By your logic, that's abortion.
    No, prevention of fertilization isn't abortion in my view since life IMO doesn't begin until fertilization occurs. That's why the pill, condoms, etc are valuable assets. They stop unwanted pregnancies without having to resort to abortion. Now, you havew danced all around my main question. Why shouldn't the same reasoning that protects a doctor's ability to refrain from an abortion protect a pharmacist. Both are liscened. I've not said that they should be able to preach on the subject. The only point I've tried to make is that the arguments are parallel, why shouldn't the results of the arguments?

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#20)
    by glanton on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 10:23:19 PM EST
    TL asks a great question and follows up with an even better point, neither of which do you spinners dare to answer:
    Why do pharmacists get to refuse to provide the pill? Do supermarket cashiers get to refuse to ring up meat because they are vegetarians? If the drug is legal, they should have to provide it-- or find another job.
    Plus. It's hard enough to get decent health care in this country. For those who are lucky enough to be able to afford a doctor and a prescription in the first place, in Uhmerrikah they have already cleared a hurdle that some 45 million people can only dream of. All this effort only to dealk with some whacko telling them that doing their job violates their beliefs? Some system we've got here. In a society that had any courage whatever such "pharmacists" would be called out right there on the spot, humiliated in all the local press, derided to the point that they had no choice but to leave. Get out of medicine, Luddites, get ye back to snake handling and talking in tongues!

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#21)
    by roy on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 11:06:45 PM EST
    Glanton, Just because we didn't bother to quote the questions doesn't means they aren't answered. The answers flow obviously from the arguments above. But, just for clarity:
    Why do pharmacists get to refuse to provide the pill?
    Freedom. See above for detailed rant.
    Do supermarket cashiers get to refuse to ring up meat because they are vegetarians?
    If "get to" means not be barred by law, then yes. If "get to" means not be fired, then it's not up to us. And it's nice to see you embrace a free market solution to the problem, rather than (or maybe in addition to) government coersion:
    In a society that had any courage whatever such "pharmacists" would be called out right there on the spot, humiliated in all the local press, derided to the point that they had no choice but to leave.


    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#22)
    by glanton on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 11:17:52 PM EST
    roy: I'm not "embracing" anything. Remember, I pointed out the right thing would only happen "In a society that had any courage whatever." That aint this one. Of course, for all your "free market" prattle, you must know that any cashier who refused to sell meat at a grocery store in Uhmerrikah would be fired. But for some reason our "free market" is such that the "pharmacist" who refuses to do his job doesn't get fired. So save me the libertarian tripe. I'm pointing out the ridiculousness of the situation, of the people, the society involved--not calling for government coertion.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#23)
    by BigTex on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 11:30:07 PM EST
    TL asks a great question and follows up with an even better point, neither of which do you spinners dare to answer
    Glanton, although I answered it in the initial post on the thread will elaborate so that it is more clear. From the government passing a law end, see the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. From the private employer end, see Title VII (employer can't discriminate because of religous beliefs... this has been held to include terming someone for refusing to do something that is contrary to their religion.) Although this is similar to abortion, it is different in the fact that the female doesn't have to be present to receive the perscripion. Let's look at this from an enhanced rational basis standard (which is what the Court would use to resolve a case before it.) On one hand the government interest is of a mid level nature. Protect women's health, and to a lesser extent reproductive rights. Neither of these are absolutely needed because a woman could go and have an abortion at a later date. On the other hand, we have the government's duty to tailor the law to have as minimal an impact as possible on the pharmacist's rights. This is the day and age of perscription by mail and overnight shipping. The female has to have a doctor give her a perscription to get EC. Therefore she is dealing with someone who is not opposed to EC. The woman could place a call to a pharmacy who has and dispenses EC and have them overnight the pills to her. The practical arguments against this fail. No telephone access? That fails because she could use a phone at the doctor's office. Afraid to have the pills shipped to her home? Have them shipped to the doctor's office. She got there already, she can get back. No charge card to pay for shipping? Pay the doctor's office the charge and have them pay the courrier. If we were dealing with a time when overnighting the perscription wasn't an option then the government's interest would outweigh the pharmacist's interest. However, in this age the pharmicist's interest outweighs the government's interest because of the alternatives available. As far as the vegetarian example, that's not religious, so no Title VII protections. That's a classic apples to oranges comparison. Now, I've answered your question glanton. How about answeing mine? Since the arguments for pharmacist being able to opt out of filling EC is parallel to the arguments of a doctor being able to opt out of providing an abortion, why shouldn't the law be parallel?

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 05:02:37 AM EST
    Posted by aw March 4, 2006 09:43 PM I love you, Charlie. Posted by glanton March 4, 2006 11:04 PM Right on, Charlie!
    THAT'S BACK AT YA!
    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 05:20:04 AM EST
    If I am a pharmacist at walmart it's ok for me to refuse to fill a prescription for you for antibiotics for a life or health threatening infection if you support bushco and/or the invasion of Iraq, because I have a moral belief that you are enabling the killing of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? The assertion of freedom to refuse to sell the morning after pill is an assertion of freedom to limit anothers freedom, and to force others to submit to your moral code. If you assert that you have the freedom to do this, then you must also assert and support the womans freedom to force you to submit to her moral code and decisions. By your own logic you must sell her the pill, or get a job in some other line of work. The men here arguing for the power to choose whether or not to sell this pill would be wise to leave these decisions to the women whose health and life are at issue, and stay out of an argument that makes them look like fools. --- Charlie, very well said.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 05:53:08 AM EST
    Posted by BigTex March 4, 2006 11:16 PM And a prophylactic prevents a sperm and an egg from getting together in the first place. By your logic, that's abortion. No, prevention of fertilization isn't abortion in my view since life IMO doesn't begin until fertilization occurs. That's why the pill, condoms, etc are valuable assets. They stop unwanted pregnancies without having to resort to abortion. Now, you havew danced all around my main question. Why shouldn't the same reasoning that protects a doctor's ability to refrain from an abortion protect a pharmacist. Both are liscened. I've not said that they should be able to preach on the subject. The only point I've tried to make is that the arguments are parallel, why shouldn't the results of the arguments?
    Because, to paraphrase the late, great, philosopher, James Marshall Hendrix, six is not nine and I do mind. Once again, I'm interested in the Constitution, the Law, Life on Planet Earth and the way things are. Frankly, I'm really not interested in the way you think things should be. Truthfully, I can conceive of no commodity that can interest me less including what you think the point of conception of that opinion was. Yes, you continually make the same argument. Repetition does not make it valid. It was utterly specious the first time you made it. It's equally specious now. Your sanctimonious sermonizing does not make your opinion any more valid than anyone else's. You, or anyone who shares your views, does not have the right to impose their views on anyone else. That's the bottom line. Again, if you don't like it, find a new gig. It's a free Country. Furthermore, Morning-After Contraception is a precautionary measure. Nobody knows if conception has taken place at that point. Not you. Not anyone. So your assertion that it's tantamount to abortion is - at best - faith-based. In matters of Law and Science, in the words of another late, great, philosopher, The Wicked Wilson Pickett, "Lord, that just won't git it!" A pharmacist is not a doctor. Shaquille O'Neill is not going to ride a horse in this year's Kentucky Derby. They may both work in the Health Care Profession. They may both be Athletes. Clearly, that does not make them one and the same no matter how often you click your heels together and wish it to be true. And as for them both being licensed, sfw. So are plumbers. So are taxidermists. So are bakers. Don't get me started on any stuff this tangents.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 05:59:13 AM EST
    Thanks, edge. Top of the Morn to ya!

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#28)
    by BigTex on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 07:03:06 AM EST
    Once again, I'm interested in the Constitution
    You talk about wanting to know the constitution/state of the law. The first amendment protections kick in when it is religous belief, not medical belief. Title VII kicks in when it is a religous belief, not a medical belief. You complain I repeat my arguments, but so do you. Yes, a pharmacist is separate from a doctor. However, they are both dealing with abortion and where religion, not science, defines an abortion. These are two different points. If this were a question of when medicine declared an abortion took place, then you would have the greater point. But according to the Constitution, the key point isn't when medicine declares an abortion takes place, it is when religion declares abortion takes place.
    Nobody knows if conception has taken place at that point. Not you. Not anyone. So your assertion that it's tantamount to abortion is - at best - faith-based.
    Actually it is statistical based. I don't hold for a moment every EC application will create an abortion. However, given that even Planned Parenthood's web page says EC will prevent implantation. This gives three options. 1) No ova are present, thus no ability to fertilize. 2) Ova are present, but not yet fertalized, and this prevents fertalization. 3) Fertalization has taken place and this prevents implementation. 1 and 2 are not abortions. 3 is from a religous standpoint. That means that EC may not produce an abortion, but that it may also. No one knows how it will work with a particular woman, but over time statistically speaking EC will cause abortions. You keep saying that a pharmacist is not a doctor. Irrelevent. All that changes is the degree of certainity at the time of the action. Now, that may be where the difference in opinion lies, but probabally the difference in our two opinions runs much deeper than that. But just looking at the issue from a how the Constitution and how the real world works, the only question is the degree of certanity of abortion. With doctors the degree of certanity is 100%. With pharmacist it ranges from 1-14%. Otherwise, because the Constitution deals with religous beliefs in this instance and not medical belief, that is the only difference between the two arguments. They are parallel arguments, just plug in the different degree of certanity. Are you suggesting that is enough of a difference to grant doctors the right to opt out, but not pharmacists?

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 07:36:27 AM EST
    Yes I repeat things. The difference is mine are valid. Yours aren't. Big difference. So, yours aren't faith-based, they're statistical, eh? OK, I'll bite. I'm always down for a laugh. You then proceed to give me a scenario yielding - by your own assertion - a 1-14 percent possibility of - not a scientific definition - but a "religious" definition of an abortion. Not only will that not keep you in the big leagues, I don't think they'll even spring for the one-way ticket to Palookaville. You've got a thumb kid. Use it. It sure didn't do ya much good here. As Glanton pointed out, if a Hindu refused to sell meat at a Supermarket because it violated her religious beliefs she'd be out the door and down the road in a heartbeat and I doubt you'd shed a tear or show a shred of solidarity for her plight. Christianity is no higher or lower on the spiritual food chain. You get the same deal she gets. It's a free Country.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 07:42:46 AM EST
    Top of the morn' to you to Charlie :) btw... my question was NOT rhetorical, but I doubt that any of them will touch it. Might burn their fingers, you know? ;-)

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#31)
    by roy on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 08:20:48 AM EST
    edger,
    If I am a pharmacist at walmart it's ok for me to refuse to fill a prescription for you ... if you support bushco and/or the invasion of Iraq ... ?
    I think that should be legal. It's your body, you should be able to choose whether to use it to dispense antibiotics. There are no "freedom of morality" clauses in the Constitution so a law forcing you to dispense antibiotics to wingers would more likely be Constitutional. And, of course, your employer would have the option of firing you for refusing. The legal argument requires a religious belief. The dogmatic libertarian one doesn't.
    The assertion of freedom to refuse to sell the morning after pill is an assertion of freedom to limit anothers freedom, and to force others to submit to your moral code.
    We will bicker about this forever because we don't have the same definition of "freedom". We agree that she has the freedom to take the drug, we don't agree that she has the freedom to get others' unwilling help in getting the drug. How does declining to help somebody constitute force?
    btw... my question was NOT rhetorical, but I doubt that any of them will touch it.
    It was a good question; we pro-pharmacists'-choice people should have to admit that the right we propose includes the right to do things we don't like. My question isn't rhetorical either, btw.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 08:51:19 AM EST
    we don't agree that she has the freedom to get others' unwilling help in getting the drug.
    If a pharmacy does not want to sell a particular product then don't stock it. No one is forcing them to stock it. If they stock it, they do so to sell it. They are a business. In business to sell products and services. Not in business to evangelize a religion. To carry the argument to an extreme of ridiculousness, maybe a woman wants to buy the pill to feed to her dog who she just used a bucket of ice water on to disconnect her from the neighbors dog. What business is it of any employee of a pharmacy why she wants to buy a product the pharmacy is stocking? Anyone, IMO, arguing that employees of any business should decide based on their private religious beliefs whether they will sell a product the business offers to it's customers, is advocating forcing submission to a religious and moral belief.
    How does declining to help somebody constitute force?
    It is forcing her to either accept the beliefs and morals of the employee, or to leave a store that sells the product she needs and wants to buy, and go somewhere else to buy it. The employees assertion of right to decide not to sell a product has set a limit on her freedom to buy the product from a business that sells it. This is not rocket science, but quite obviously some people are a bit spaced out when it comes to this subject, I see.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#33)
    by roy on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 09:06:12 AM EST
    Edger, If I ask you to let me post a sign in your yard, and you decline, have you limited my freedom of expression? I don't ask to be condenscending, I'm just trying to get a more precise understanding of your argument.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 09:15:18 AM EST
    It's pretty precise, Roy, in my last post. Maybe it will be clearer with 2 or 3 readings of it. I also am not being condescending, we all understand things through the filters of our beliefs and preconceptions, and need to understand that we have them.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#35)
    by glanton on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 09:41:14 AM EST
    Roy you really seem to believe that you are defending "free market" principles on this thread. Today's American libertarian can be good for a laugh if nothing else. Allow me to explain. You see, dear Roy, there is absolutely nothing "free market" about the way Pharmaceuticals work in this country. Nor only do Pharmacies and the industry at large enjoy a monopoly on developing/making/selling certain drugs, but they get subsidized and protected in any number of ways by our government. Things would be different if a woman could walk into Planned Parenthood or even thje corner convenience store and buy this pill. But that aint the way it is. So, already enjoying a cornered market, now these same blights of human skinwant to turn around and plead "free market" principles? And do they enjoy your sympathy and support? Of course they do. Sure, you and other "libertarians" will give lip service to the unfairness of the Pharmaceutical monopoly--knowing full well all the time that this will never change. These droolers, Roy, are supposed to be operating not as Jehova's Witnesses but rather as representatives of the Scientific Community. That's ostensibly what they went to school for, why they make the big bucks, and get so much government protection. They now make a great case, though, that they have no business in the medical field whatever; I'd not flinch, then, or worry for their "freedom" if they were forced out by the very government that propped them up in the first place. But don't worry your pretty little heads, libertarians. Your precious industry shall continue to enjoy the best of all worlds.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#36)
    by Punchy on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 10:50:04 AM EST
    I would just love to hear all the Right's reponse to the logical end to this "right" the pharmacists claim: Can ER doctors now not operate on, diagnose, or assist a homosexual patient becuase homosexuality goes against their beliefs? If not, then please explain why that's not acceptable but pharmacists denials are OK. Can Indian tribe (or other sects who allow and encourage pyote) members be allowed to smoke it on the job? It seems their religous beliefs are trumping their professional responsibilities, so how is that different than pharmacists? Seems insane, no? Where, then, does it end? Who's to say my personal religion--we can have our own religions and personal beliefs, right?--doesn't allow me to accept Jewish people. Can I refuse them sales based on their last name? Can beliefs allow schoolteachers to not teach evolution because it interferes with their beliefs in Creationism? See...it STARTS with pharmacies. But under the Right-wing playbook, it can extend ad nauseam. By their rules, anyone can decline anyone anything, because, you know...it's against "my religious beliefs". What a crock of you-know-what.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#37)
    by BigTex on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 11:42:54 AM EST
    No one is forcing them to stock it.
    Sorry, Edgar, but that's not the case. A couple of damnyankey states are forcing Wal-Mart to stock EC. MA and CT I believe, but don't quote me on the exact states. They not only have to carry the pill, but they carry it at a business loss because the shelf life of the pill is relativly short, and isn't long enough to meet the demand for the pill. Charley keeps droning on that my argument isn't valid, but doesn't point out where the argument fails other than to say a variation of
    Not only will that (religion) not keep you in the big leagues, I don't think they'll even spring for the one-way ticket to Palookaville.
    Yet he doesn't seem to understand that in order to get the protection of the free exercise clause and title VII you have to be based on religous beliefs. This argument won for Catholic Hospitals, doctors, and nurses. Why does it fail for pharmacists? Parallel arguments should have parallel results. I'll cede there is a difference in degree of certanity regarding abortion between doctors and pharmacists. But the difference between medical and religous abortion doesn't keep me out of the argument. It simply draws the battle lines. The argument that it imposes my rights on you is equally made, as has been pointed out by others, on you imposing your rights on me. That's a wash. No one has addressed the alternative solution proposed earlier. Remember the standard is enhanced rational basis. The government has a duty to make the government action impact freedoms as little as possible. That holds true for both allowing pharmacists to not fill as it does to force pharmacists to fill. Two sets of rights are in play, both have to be as undisturbed as possible.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#38)
    by glanton on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 12:27:18 PM EST
    Big Tex, Roy, and any other "libertarian" (read: would vote for Porky Pig if he promised to cut taxes): Wisely you ignore my point that you're operating under a false premise of "freedom." Obviously "freedom" went out the window in terms of this drug the very moment it was declared a pharmaceutical, as opposed to an over-the-counter remedy. Pharmacists represent a kind of monopoly and you disingenous apologists know that all too well. Please drop the act. That monopoly is literally facilitated, not to mention supported and protected and enhanced in various ways by our tax dollars. If good ole Hector down at the local convenience store could sell Janie Q her pill then the pharmacist refusing to sell it wouldn't matter (imagine! A world where the droolers don't matter!). But as it stands, he has an exaggerated sense of power, and in refusing to fulfill the very offices to which goverment power (read:tax dollars) has elevated him in the first place, he is no longer operating as a pharmacist. A missionary, perhaps, a colorful quack, a snake handler, a caricature of inverse integrity. But no representative of the scientific community. Any owner of a pharmacy who allows his or her or its employees to take such "stands" should therefore be stripped of their licenses to sell pharmaceutical drugs of any kind, and be relegated to the same status of the aforementioned Hector whose convenience store will sell you all the Theraflu you need, not to mention a sweet cigar and enough papers to roll as many joints as you'd like. Neither more nor less than the snake handler, after all, does Hector deserve to be recognized as a medical figure. Stop cloaking your real agendas beneath the banner of "economic freedom," people. It gets old and is soooo transparent. Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 02:33:03 PM EST
    Posted by BigTex March 5, 2006 12:42 PM No one is forcing them to stock it.
    Sorry, Edgar, but that's not the case. A couple of damnyankey states are forcing Wal-Mart to stock EC. MA and CT I believe, but don't quote me on the exact states. They not only have to carry the pill, but they carry it at a business loss because the shelf life of the pill is relativly short, and isn't long enough to meet the demand for the pill.
    Gee, imagine how they must feel about having to carry dairy products and other perishable items. That's not exactly a first in retail.
    Charley keeps droning on that my argument isn't valid, but doesn't point out where the argument fails other than to say a variation of Not only will that (religion) not keep you in the big leagues, I don't think they'll even spring for the one-way ticket to Palookaville. Yet he doesn't seem to understand that in order to get the protection of the free exercise clause and title VII you have to be based on religous beliefs. This argument won for Catholic Hospitals, doctors, and nurses. Why does it fail for pharmacists? Parallel arguments should have parallel results.
    Because they're not doctors, nurses or compelling. Boy, ain't no stereotypes in danger of bein' smashed on your watch, tex. Gee, that's a shame. We must have a different US Constitution up here than you do. That's bound to happen when you lose the Civil War and stuff like that. You know how it is with those Damn Yankees. Well, you know what they say, tex, whatever Lola wants, Lola gets. And little man, Lola wants her EC prescription filled, pronto, and hold the sermon. Oh, and she ain't just whistlin' Dixie. How many days and in how many ways do I have to tell you that just because you think a pharmacist should be treated the same as a doctor doesn't make it so. Who gives a damn that they're both licensed. So are plumbers and taxidermists. Who cares that they both work in the Health Care Profession. So does the little insurance company putz who initially tries to deny every medical claim benefit so he can get that promotion to department head. Again, apples and oranges. I don't give a damn about your religious beliefs any more than the Hindu Woman who refuses to sell meet at the Supermarket because it violates her Religious Beliefs. Her Beliefs are no less valid than yours and yours don't trump hers, so spare me the roy's rock rubbish before ya even get started. Tell you troubles to Jesus, tex, Charlie's gone ashore. You've got no case. You're free to pursue a new line of work. Bless you my son. Go in Peace. May the Road rise up to meet you and may the win be always at your back. Now take a hint and don't push your luck.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#40)
    by BigTex on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 04:55:45 PM EST
    Okay Charlie Glanton et al, will try one last time to try to show you where your reasoning fails. If this doesn't work, will leave the thread alone.
    42 USC 300(d) Individual rights respecting certain requirements contrary to religious beliefs or moral convictions No individual shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity funded in whole or in part under a program administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services if his performance or assistance in the performance of such part of such program or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions.
    Unlike the other subsections in 42 USC 300, subsection d does not specifically state abortions or sterilazations. Rather subsection d states No individual shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program ... if his performance or assistance in the performance of such part of such program or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions. This subsection is different than the other subsection of section 300 in that it talks about no inividual. It doesn't say doctor, nurse, etc. No individual. Also, this subsection is different in that it talks about any part of a health service program. It doesn't say "abortions or steralizations" like the other subsections. It says health service program. Lastly the targeted ill is activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions. I'm not arguing my brand of morality against your brand of morality. I'm arguing that the current law allows a pharmacists to refuse. More specifically, I'm arguing that EC is the end state of a health service program. Since EC is dispensed by pharmacists, that makes them part of the health service program. Since pharmacists distributing EC is part of a health service program, then the pharmacists should be allowed rest upon their rights granted in 42 USC 300(d). This has been held to be a constitutional code section by the Court. All the moral arguments here failed in the Court. This goes back to the question, why should pharmacists be treated differently than doctors? I cede that pharmacists aren't doctors. I cede that they are liscened by the state. In the end, they are part of health services programs. If you are going to argue they are not, then why not? As long as they are, they should be allowed to rest upon their rights. Note, this isn't a right to preach to those wanting EC, it's not the right to seize the script and destroy it. It's simply a matter of not having to fill the perscription.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 06:41:50 PM EST
    Yeah, that means nobody can hold a gun to your head and force you to do it and you're free to get another job. Just like me, aw, Glanton and everyone who's finished the third grade's been tellin' ya all along. You don't get to refuse to provide the service, lay down and draw a check any more than you get to join the army and decline to get out of your bunk or fight for religious purposes then turn around and ask when do we eat? It just doesn't work that way and no amount of born again blarney or roy's rock rubbish is gonna change that fact. If you own the joint, you're licensed by the State. That means you fill the prescription of close up shop and sell the joint. Just 'cause you own the joint doesn't give you the right to pick and choose any more than it gives you the right to refuse to serve Blacks or Hispanics. It's like those Nitwits who couldn't grasp the fact that the Dominos Pizza Dude couldn't make up his own rules just because he owned the town. You can't institute slavery or segregation just because you own the town and/or make some bogus religious claim. The Town is still in the USA. Deal with it.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#42)
    by aw on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 07:19:22 PM EST
    I'm not arguing my brand of morality against your brand of morality. I'm arguing that the current law allows a pharmacists to refuse.
    Yes, Tex, you are arguing for your brand of morality. We know you. We've heard you go on and on and on whenever the subject comes up. Come on, you've compared a pregnant woman to a cow before and recommended doing what the vet does. They don't do late-term abortions on cows, they cut 'em open and take the troublesome calf. You are so transparent, so obvious, and you do drone on.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 07:39:50 PM EST
    More specifically, I'm arguing that EC is the end state of a health service program. Since EC is dispensed by pharmacists, that makes them part of the health service program. Since pharmacists distributing EC is part of a health service program, then the pharmacists should be allowed rest upon their rights granted in 42 USC 300(d). This has been held to be a constitutional code section by the Court. All the moral arguments here failed in the Court. This goes back to the question, why should pharmacists be treated differently than doctors?
    Because they're not doctors. Why am I not going home with Charlize Theron tonight? I don't think that's fair! It's my deeply held Religious Belief that I should go home with Charlize Theron tonight. It's a very important rite. It's an absolutely essential sacrament in my belief system! Oh, and I want to keep my job and get paid for the time I miss, too. Triple time. Hey, it's Sunday, Man.

    Re: Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pil (none / 0) (#44)
    by glanton on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 08:18:28 PM EST
    I tell you guys what. I'm be cool with the pharmacists using their position as a platform for their religious beliefs... If you'll be cool with abolishing the over/under the counter distinctions altogether. Let's allow people to just order their drugs online or buy them at the convenience store. Or (gasp!) allow them to buy from Canada, thereby not paying an arm and a leg. You cede the monopoly, and then these "pharmacists" can refuse to sell the drugs. But something tells me you wouldn't go that far. And of course, I realize the chokehold enjoyed by pharmaceuticals in Uhhmerrikah means what I'm proposing will never happen; and that meanwhile, these droolers will reserve the right to invoke their "religious beliefs." So you should be happy. Once again, you've got the "cows" over the barrel with your little perverted moral codes. Be proud, Tex. Drink you a beer in celebration. "Free market" my arse. You people believe in freedom about as much as Lockhead does.

    Wal-Mart Reversal: Will Sell Morning-After Pill | 44 comments (44 topical)