Well, isn't this shiny...
Feb. 2nd, 2006 03:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
agilebritWalMart 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-03 02:03 pm (UTC)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.