Well, isn't this shiny...

[agilebrit]

WalMart is being sued because they won't carry the morning-after pill in Massachusetts.



For those who are link-o-phobic, the plaintiffs are saying that "Wal-Mart apparently thinks it is above the law," said Sam Perkins, a lawyer for the three plaintiffs.

But the actual LAW "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." [emphasis mine]

So...when exactly did WalMart become a damb hospital? Maybe it's different in Massachusettes, but when I busted my chin open a few years ago, I didn't go to WalMart to get it fixed. I guess "pro-choice" only applies if the harpies at Planned Barrenhood and NARAL approve of the choice you make.

If Planned Barrenhood and NARAL are sooooo freaking concerned about the availability of the morning after pill, then maybe they should put their money where their mouths are and carry it themselves. It's not like the pharmacists at WalMart take the prescription away from a needy woman, stick their tongues out, and go "Nyaah nyaah nyahh." They say "Sorry, we don't carry this; you'll have to go elsewhere for it."

And apparently the women that attempted to get their pills at WalMart went there knowing they'd be refused--and had NO TROUBLE WHATSOEVER getting them elsewhere. WHAT THE HELL, people??? This is obviously all about imposing an agenda. Well, fuck you very much. Last time I checked, we still had freedom of choice in this country, and these women have no damb right to force their views on a private business. Get your abortion pill someplace else (which you can apparently easily do) and STFU about it.

It's fascinating to me that pro-lifers work (pretty much behind the scenes) in Crisis Pregnancy Centers, putting in volunteer time, making donations, etc, because they believe that women should have an option if they DON'T want an abortion. Why does Planned Barrenhood feel the need to force their views by law on a company that doesn't follow their agenda? Especially when the law in question doesn't make any requirement on pharmacies? A frivolous lawsuit like this is one of the reasons that this country is so screwed up.

Put up or shut up, Planned Barrenhood. If you're so concerned about poor women not being able to get emergency "contraception," then go into those areas and set up shop. Lord knows you get enough of my tax dollars; you should be able to do something that Crisis Pregnancy Centers do on a shoestring.

And yes, I realize that calling them that is inflammatory. I don't care. I hate them So. Very. Much. For reasons that have nothing to do with this particular lawsuit--but those reasons get reinforced EVERY time they do something.

Comments

[mermaidrain.livejournal.com]

Amen sister. I totally agree. I think the thing that offended me the most was the fact that they want a law passed that will force people to agree w/ their beliefs. When we start doing that, we might as well burn the constitution.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Freedom of conscience means nothing to these people. And they're so blind that they don't see that they're actually doing the exact thing they accuse pro-lifers of--imposing their views. Ironic, ain't it?

[perseph.livejournal.com]

The law requiring hospitals to have it and allowing it to be dispensed without a prescription is not the one that they are saying Walmart violated. In Massachusetts, pharmacies are reuqired to provide all commonly prescribed medications. So what it comes down to legally in this case is what exactly is a commonly prescribed medication and does emergency contraception fit the definitition.

I think that law exists because pharmacies and private businesses are there to dispense medication not to make the most personal choices of all for people - those relating to their own health and welfare.

[kathleendoris.livejournal.com]

Pharmacies and PRIVATE businesses ought to be able to stock whatever they want.

I don't know why Wal-Mart opposes Emergency Contraception but the stakeholders of the company should not be forced to provide it or any other item.

If the medication is that common, the pharmacy will go bankrupt. The free market solves everything.

[curiouswombat.livejournal.com]

Pharmacies and PRIVATE businesses ought to be able to stock whatever they want.

No that is totally wrong - if you want to register as a pharmacy you should accept all that that entails - you should not be able to pick and choose - 'Oh I don't like people coming in here looking unsightly so I won't stock ecxema or acne treatments. I don't see the point in putting controlled drugs in locked cupboards I'll just put them on the shelves where they might sell better,' etc.

So next time you are ill you go to your local pharmacy and they say - 'We don't make much profit on this med,. and that one has a packet colour which clashes with the decor, so we've stopped selling them - sorry - just suffer.' You would of course congratulate them on their wonderful business sense, I presume.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

I guess we just do things differently over here. Pharmacies only have so much shelf space; it would be impossible for them to stock every medication on the planet.

In fact, our government has just made it very difficult to stock cold medicines, for crying out loud, because some of the ingredients are used to make methamphetamine. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see some places stop stocking them altogether because of the hassle involved...and I think they'd be well within their rights. Why should they stock something that's a bureaucratic nightmare and costs them more in time and paperwork than they can sell it for?

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

And WalMart has contacted the AG of the state to see if "emergency contraception" falls into this category. If it does, then they'll start carrying it. Apparently their lawyers didn't think it did, before--and lawyers are notoriously cautious about stuff like this.

I guess, if logic follows, that doctors shouldn't be allowed to refuse to perform a non-emergency abortion either? Where does freedom of conscience stop and imposing morality start?

[kathleendoris.livejournal.com]

I heard this news story on the radio and a representative for the plantiffs said that Wal-mart's refusal to carry the pill was a "hassle" for people who had to drive to another pharmacy.

That's the best they can do?

I don't understand what motivates anyone who works for NARAL or Planned Parenthood.

This lawsuit is a stupid stunt.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

They hassled themselves! They went there KNOWING they wouldn't get the scrip filled. How stupid is that?

[bojojoti.livejournal.com]

Okay, now I feel my rights have been violated because my pharmacy doesn't carry one of my asthma medications, and I always have to drive across town to another pharmacy to get it. Also, my sister-in-law uses two pharmacies because her pharmacy doesn't handle one of her medicines. Should I picket the pharmacy and insist they carry something that very few people use? No, of course not. I understand that one company may not carry everything I need.

Naturally, this is not the root of the problem with the after morning pill episode. Those women wanted to force their agenda upon Wal-Mart, knowing full well if they can force Wal-Mart's hand, they can crush opposition from every Mom and Pop pharmacy.

What amazes me is the idea that something as medically devastating as the morning after pill can be given without a prescription. My potassium pills require a prescription for heavens sake!

Why are we lowering our standards of care in order to push forward an agenda? You know that the women who get the morning after pill without a prescription are highly unlikely to have follow-up medical attention. How, in good conscience, can a person give a powerful drug to a woman without knowing her medical history? I guess those women are expendable to the greater agenda.

[curiouswombat.livejournal.com]

I always have to drive across town to another pharmacy to get it.

How annoying pity you don't live on this side of the pond - in the UK it would be the responsibility of the pharmacy to get it from another branch for you if they didn't have it in stock. If you are a regular client and it is a regular medication, they will usually ensure that they keep it in stock ready for your prescription. It makes ecomomic sense - if they don't have it and have to get it from another pharmacy they don't make the full profit.

I think you have a point about the follow-up for women who use emergency contraception - it has been part of the debate here as well. But if it is accepted by government and their medical advisors that the pros out-weigh the cons, it should not be up to individual shop-keepers to decide which legal drugs they will dispense, and which ones they won't - if they don't want to prescribe all legal meds, they should not work as retail pharmacists.

[fierynotes.livejournal.com]

Somehow, I missed this in the news.

You know, I support Planned Parenthood -- I used to volunteer for "clinic defense," which usually meant escorting women past occasionally belligerent pro-life protestors -- and this lawsuit still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. As much as I want birth control (including the emergency kind) easily and readily available, this isn't the way to go about it.

(I'm guessing you oppose abortion. I do not. Can we both assume we've all heard all the arguments, and skip that debate?)

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

You guess correctly, and we certainly may. :-)

Personally, I think the way to go about it would be throught the private sector--PP could organize a boycott, the pro-lifers could organize a buy-cott, and the market would decide. I guarantee that if this "business decision" started costing WalMart money, they'd change the policy. But it totally frosts me that PP takes this position while it *looks like* (not saying this is happening, but this is how it looks from where I'm sitting) they're not actually doing anything but whining about it. I mean, seriously, if there's an area where they feel like women aren't getting the health care they "need," then PP should put its money where its mouth is and open a clinic.

[mommanerd.livejournal.com]

I was thinking about this issue during my drive home, and I'm very uncomfortable with laws or the government telling private retailers what they have to sell.

I agree with letting the free market do the work. If people want to boycott Wal-Mart because of their decision to not carry these medications, then we can fairly boycott other pharmacies that choose to carry them. It would all work out and the legal community wouldn't be passing on even more expenses to the consumers.

[palmaceae.livejournal.com]

Yay for sex with no consquences or strings attached! It's so easy to do these days. I can't believe ppl can get the morning after pill without a prescription, that is just wrong. Hey, we don't need contraception anymore, just run and get a pill! And if a pharmacy refuses to carry it, SUE SUE SUE. Don't shop there if you don't like them, jeez.

[zilly14.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you. This is ridculous. Then again it is Massachusetts, home to the Kennedys. *shakes head*

I like how you call it "Planned Barrenhood" by the way. :)

[dragonflymuse.livejournal.com]

Well, actually, the point being made was that all pharmacies are required to stock and provide drugs commonly prescribed/dispensed to meet the needs of the surrounding community, and that the argument WalMart eventually stuck with was that they did not feel/believe that EC medications fell into that category.

Whether the women did this for publicity reasons or not, I don't begrudge the spotlight being shed on this issue where it relates to lack of coverage/availability of medications that, at some point, physicians deem medically necessary for their patients.

And yes, freedom of choice is important: it also is important to remember that it goes both ways. WalMart promotes itself as a place where people will get the best prices for whatever it is they need, and by carrying medications they include those in that mandate by default. If someone has to go to WallyWorld to get their Rx filled (or get an OTC med, as the guideline for pharmacist dispensing of this medication specifies) because it is $5 - 10 cheaper than elsewhere, they should not be financially prejudiced against because of this position.

Lastly, while I don't have the articles at hand, WalMart and Target pharmacies both have had incidents where they've refused to fill Rxs for contraceptive pills for sundry non-professional/non-commercial reasons, thus shutting down one route of access for women to obtain the medications they are being prescribed. When accessibility is an issue, it doesn't really matter that these women in the article you've linked to did get their 'scripts filled elsewhere: what they are demonstrating is that WalMart is creating barriers to accessible health care for reasons that exceed legal and public mandate.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Well, just to be clear, I'm not "beyond infuriated" with the women in this case--although the stupid of going someplace you KNOW doesn't carry the product you want just burns, and I'm not real happy with them; it would be like me going to Walmart for the spinach I KNEW they didn't carry and then filing a lawsuit. EB idiots. But Planned Barrenhood's hypocrisy just frosts me here. They get my tax dollars and then whine that someone else should do what we're paying THEM to do, in essence. Emergency contraception is well within their purview.

And there's no "barricade" here. Walmart doesn't carry it. Boo hoo. WalMart doesn't carry a lot of things. Get it someplace that does. Which they did. And if it cost them more...well, that's the consequence of being careless. And if I seem unsympathetic, it's because I am. Because their tactic? Sucks.

[dragonflymuse.livejournal.com]

I don't want to get hung up on semantics here, but barriers are financial as well as geographical. While I am sure the three women in the article had little financial difficulty in affording the medication, the fact is that many who may need it (or, any medication) may simply not have the financial means to travel or pay to get it elsewhere. So yes, I have no issue with your ire against these particular people, but the broader scope of this is that some women will be marginalized and meet barriers in accessing meds.

Yes, PP does have the mandate to provide the medication. But if the person requiring it is hindered from accessing PP and a WallyWorld is down the street in her community... well why shouldn't that supposedly licensed pharmacy carry a drug therapy that doesn't always require an Rx?

What brings histrionics to this is the pro-choice v pro-life issue. I laughed at your spinach analogy because the WallyWorld here does carry canned spinach :g: and WalMart Super Stores stock fresh produce: so there is no fear of you not getting your leafy greens :) But the medication in question here narrowly isolates a particular segment of society: women who have been raped or who engage in sexual intercourse (protected and unprotected or where the protection has failed). Suppose WalMart chose not to fill anti-viral medication Rxs? The majority of those are dispensed to HIV/AIDS patients, children and cancer patients. Could the company's 'community needs' assessment somehow be developed to show that they don't consider gays part of their 'community'? Or how about not filling oxycodone Rxs for sickle cell patients? Somehow could that not be skewed by some to say that WallyWorld are ignoring the needs of African-American patients by choosing not to stock a controversial (yet medically effective) narcotic?

Sometime it is hard to separate the rhetoric from the facts. And the fact is that if a pharmacy in my province didn't carry a medication, by God they would find one that did and GET IT IN FOR ME ASAP: I would not be turned away or sent searching for what I needed elsewhere. My pharmacy's mandate is to care for the people and patients that come to it for medicinal therapies.

But then again maybe this is a Canada thing: up here we wouldn't prevent anyone from accessing what they needed, and wouldn't need a law waved in our face reminding us of our responsibility to care for our fellow woman/man.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

LOL I actually used the spinach analogy because, for several months, my WalMart stopped carrying the spinach I like in my salad...and I got it somewhere else without throwing a fit! Because I know the world doesn't revolve around me.

As far as I'm concerned, the government has no business telling a private company that they MUST stock an item--no matter what that item is. As for financial barriers, what about women who can't afford the medication at all? Should the pharmacy be required to give it to them for free? Where does convenience end and an actual NEED start? And who draws that line?

[dragonflymuse.livejournal.com]

Actually, when a private company (and Walmart isn't a private company: I believe they are publically traded and therefore accountable to their BoD and stockholders) takes on a community function - that requires licensure, no less - then yes, the government, as the regulating/accrediting body, does have the right to do so - or rather, they have the obligation to do so.

I routinely discharge patients who require medications that their local pharmacies don't regularly carry: however, because this person is in the pharmacy's 'community' or is otherwise their patient, the pharmacy then makes itself able to fulfil the medication requirements of that patient, even if that child is the only one in the county requiring that medication (and the person up there who made a comment about their asthma inhaler not being carried at their main pharmacy, their pharmacy should be carrying it for that person if that pharmacy is their main dispensary. The pharmacy won't go bankrupt keeping one cartridge of an inhaler med on hand for this person's refills).

As for your financial inability question, that goes beyond the scope of what the article and my argument was focussing on. If people have no money for medications, that is where social services come in. Poverty is a barrier to accessibility, no doubt, but that wasn't the thrust of the article.

::medicates migraine and goes to bed::

Work in the AM - 5:30AM comes awfully fast it seems :)

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

::hugs::

I guess we just do it different here in the States. :)

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Also, by "private company," I mean one "not owned by the government." I guess you could argue that even a company that sells software serves a "public function," depending on how you define that. Doesn't mean we want the government sticking its head in and mucking around with it.

[dragonflymuse.livejournal.com]

That is actually a very interesting point: I suppose software could be seen as serving a public function, since we rely (or are required to rely) on computers and internet access for some things. But I suppose that concept is also being challenged by anti-trust investigations (some spearheaded by the government) into some companies (ie MicroSoft) creating a closed market by how it creates its product.

[kathleendoris.livejournal.com]

I just wanted to ask you a question.

What do you mean by "non-professional/non-commercial reasons"?


And, in America, by the way, we also don't need a law dictating that people have an ethical duty to help each other out, this is something only conservatives seem to realize.

And, all of your questions about why a pharmacy shouldn't carry medicine people might want/need is because the people who run the company don't want to carry it. And, Wal-Mart executives have the right to refuse to sell anti-viral medication or any other medication that they want. It's their company to ruin.

[dragonflymuse.livejournal.com]

I just wanted to ask you a question.

What do you mean by "non-professional/non-commercial reasons"?

Just what it means: non-commercial = not related to profit margins (for it is the drug companies that make $$ off drugs; pharmacies are paid per dispension. WalMart would only make 'profit' on pharmacologics it produces itself). Non-professional = based on criteria not supported by their self-legislating body regarding their standards and protocols of practice.

And, in America, by the way, we also don't need a law dictating that people have an ethical duty to help each other out, this is something only conservatives seem to realize.

?? Isn't there a comment or a reference in the article about WalMart only carrying a particular drug of this sort because it is required by law in one state, but doesn't in other states because there is no law requiring the same? And perhaps this is the point of these women going to this Walmart pharmacy: if it is shown that a pharmacy serving a particular community is not carrying/supplying an OTC med that is shown to be in need in the community, the law (or bylaw, I can't recall which at the moment) requiring them to do so is one that WalMart says it will then comply with in regards to stocking this medication. So, they are saying that they will carry it in order to be compliant with this law - not because they believe in meeting the needs of the community.

As well, I found your phrasing of that comment rather snide and challenging. If that is in fact 'something only conservatives seem to realize' then your country would have a more socialized structure to health care. Just sayin'.

And, all of your questions about why a pharmacy shouldn't carry medicine people might want/need is because the people who run the company don't want to carry it. And, Wal-Mart executives have the right to refuse to sell anti-viral medication or any other medication that they want. It's their company to ruin.

Yes, it is their company to ruin, but no, actually, the company ethos has little bearing on what a licensed pharmacy is required to provide in order to be such an entity. Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines 'pharmacy' as Etymology: Late Latin pharmacia administration of drugs, from Greek pharmakeia, from pharmakeuein to administer drugs, from pharmakon magic charm, poison, drug
1 : the art, practice, or profession of preparing, preserving, compounding, and dispensing medical drugs
2 a : a place where medicines are compounded or dispensed; thus leading to the conclusion that medicinal compounds prescribed by physicians would be available at such places. By not carrying medications in need by a community because 'they don't want to', they are in violation of the professional standards of their practictioners (pharmacists), by the licensed mandate of state regulatory bodies, and - in Massachussets at least - the law/bylaw that you've so baldly told me is not required for Americans to help each other out: basically what this WalMart situation is seemingly indicating is that WalMart will only help out people who don't want emergency contraceptive medications.

[kathleendoris.livejournal.com]

You are using Merriam-Webster's dictionary to prove that Wal-Mart is violating the "professional standards of their practioners".

That's interesting.

Thanks for teaching me a new word: Baldly.

So this statement from you: "But then again maybe this is a Canada thing: up here we wouldn't prevent anyone from accessing what they needed, and wouldn't need a law waved in our face reminding us of our responsibility to care for our fellow woman/man," and the obvious implication that Canadians are morally superior to Americans is what? Subtle?

[dragonflymuse.livejournal.com]

You are using Merriam-Webster's dictionary to prove that Wal-Mart is violating the "professional standards of their practioners".

That's interesting.

Really? I don't find that interesting. I just thought defining pharmacy would help differentiate it from business, which is part of your argument why WallyWorld could yea/nay what it considers meds that are required by it's surrounding community.

Thanks for teaching me a new word: Baldly.

No prob.

So this statement from you: "But then again maybe this is a Canada thing: up here we wouldn't prevent anyone from accessing what they needed, and wouldn't need a law waved in our face reminding us of our responsibility to care for our fellow woman/man," and the obvious implication that Canadians are morally superior to Americans is what? Subtle?

Oh no, there is rarely anything subtle about what I mean to imply, though misinterpretation can occur when people feel they are being attacked. I was implying there is more of a philosophical difference in how we view health care versus folks in the States, and morality is only a small part of that concept. To base all of our public policies on moral grounds is just narrow minded and silly. It would result in a very biased and restrictive culture, where people would only get what they needed because it was to the benefit of someone else.

Speaking of the efficacy of private enterprise -

[nodrogg.livejournal.com]

- you might find this (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/article_print/SB113885042958962963-lMyQjAxMDE2MzA4MjgwNTIwWj.html) a good case in point, if you needed further convincing (which of course you don't, but what the hey).

[hitchhiker-42.livejournal.com]

I personally think that these people are beside themselves with glee, as it gives them an opportunity to strike out at the eeeevil WalMart, the epitome of everything that is wrong with America (How dare people buy things in large quantities for less money. Plebes.), and those relics of an outmoded belief system, commonly know as "pro-lifers," in one brilliantly executed political move.

Wandered over here from fanficrants, being very pleased to find another member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that enjoys fandomish pursuits. Would you mind if I friended you?

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Oh! Please do! Those of us who are members of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy are few and far between on LJ, and we should stick together. :)