I wouldn’t call that a “small victory.” I’d call it a huge, scary victory. thirdwarning is right to ask, “where will it lead?” What’s next under the hubris of “women’s rights?”
If we want Wal-Mart to sell something, then we should demand they sell it and stop shopping there until they do what we want. But getting the government to force Wal-Mart? Not sure I like that.
Adding another dissenting voice. This is not about abortion, women’s rights or sexual morality. It’s about the idea that NO governmental authority should be able to tell ANY private business what product(s) it MUST carry. End of story. End of a sad, sad story.
Unless that business is a monopoly. Which in many markets WalMart is. It is not appropriate for a WalMart pharmacist to determine what medicine a woman should or should not take - if he has concerns, he can talk to her doctor, but they should be concerns regarding drug interactions or other concerns he has.
A person should not become a policeman if they have an ethical problem carrying and firing a gun. A person should not go into family law if they think divorce is immoral. A person should not become a pharmacist if they don’t want to fill perscriptions for birth control or the morning after pill.
I don’t like the idea of the government telling any store what they MUST sell either.
BUT: maybe a pharmacist here can answer this: I would assume that the granting of a license to sell pharmaceuticals must have some kind of agreement as to what, exactly, that means. If a license states something like “All licensed pharmacies must as a normal course of business carry or provide all drugs listed in Schedule XYZ of the Big Giant Pharmaceutical Law Book”; and Wal-Mart is choosing to not carry certain of those drugs because they are “immoral” (according to the Wal-Mart board), the the pharma license should either be revoked OR the government should force Wal-Mart to provide those Schedule XYZ drugs.
Is there any kind of standard as to what a “pharmacy” is? Can a pharmacist get a pharmacy license, set up a tall counter, hand out Robitussin and aspirin, and advertise his business as a “pharmacy”?
Just wondering here if this is completely the Evil Government imposing its will.
One wonders, if Hoa Thuy Tran had gotten her RU 486 at Wal-Mart, would her family also included them in the 10/2005 suit against Danco & Planned Parenthood? They do have the deepest pockets of the three.
If you click on the Full Story Here link, yes, the state does have requirements in the license to provide certain drugs. And Wal-Mart chose to ignore them. So screw them, if they don’t want to follow the rules, then they should close down the pharmacy entirely.
Then force Walmart to sell porn, and rated AO games and stuff where it is legal. As they have no right to push there morals onto me.
It is still the evil government imposing its will, telling pharmacies what they must offer. I guess the government doesn’t know that in a free market, people will visit the pharmacy that carries what they need. And the one that doesn’t will lose money.
In many cases, it’s NOT a free market. When Wal-Mart is the only place where a woman can fill her prescriptions, then it cannot be allowed to place itself in between doctor and patient in this manner.
I’d like to see anything in the Constitution which states the government can’t require a store to sell something. I’d also like to know what’s so evil about it.
I’ll sign that petition but I think it’s disingenuous not to acknowledge the aspect of medical necessity when it comes to drug prescriptions. Do you think a phramacy should have the right to refuse to fill a prescription which is necessary to keep a person alive and which that person cannot easily obtain anywhere else?
I think there need to be some requirements about stocking medications - if pharmacies decided not to stock things like Viagra (which Wal-Mart apparently has no compunctions against) because men don’t need to get it up, or antiretrovirals because people with AIDS are immoral and should die, or cholesterol-lowering drugs because people who need them have crappy dietary habits and are probably evil meat-eaters, or painkillers because it’s too much of a pain to weed out the real customers from the junkies, or whatever drugs are the most commonly filled ones by Medicare or AnnoyingInsuranceCompanyX because the billing issues are irritating/too cost-ineffective, it’d be terribly disturbing. Pharmacies provide a public service of sorts, and many small towns have only one option about where to fill their prescriptions. The rise of mail-order prescription services helps open up options, but immediate-need prescriptions (like emergency contraception, painkillers, and various other meds) are poorly suited to those.
Doesn’t the government tells lots of types of stores what they can or cannot sell? Don’t they tell lots of different types of businesses that if they want to be a Whatever Business, then they have to do or not do some certain thing? If a pharmacy license states that certain things must be sold in order for that place to be called a “pharmacy,” then stores that don’t want to sell those items shouldn’t be able to get a pharmacy license.
If Wal-Mart is really concerned about selling any kind of pill, they ought to use some of their huge profits to lobby their legislators to change the laws that govern pharmacies.
Only as a primary effect. It also has a secondary effect that would prevent implantation after conception has already occured.
“After fertilization, the pre-implantation embryo remains extremely vulnerable. The “morning-after” pill, with its high estrogen content, alters the endometrium so that implantation fails to occur…” – Human Embryology and Developmental Biology, Bruce M. Carlson, M.D., Ph.D., 1994, p. 110.
I have seen WalMart close many local store’s, but every town I have ever been in still has either a local pharmacy, or a big box pharmacy other then WalMart. I am a firm believer in allowing market dictate what a company should sale, not the government.
If company B sold the rights pills, and company A does not, market will either force company A to sale them as well. Or company B makes all the money and expands.
Plan B doesn’t have estrogen. It’s progestin-only.
Scroll up. This has been debunked. Conception is not complete until implantation anyway.
There are many rural areas where Wal-Mart is the only option. There is no “Market B.”
What Constitutional right is being violated by this kind of law?
In the pursuit of being open I will say this. I am against forcing a company to hire women, hire men, hire disabled people, etc. I believe firmly that the market can dictate the proper way.
If you needed shoes and you knew Bigot and Awesomeo both made some nice shoes, but Bigot didn’t hire women, or minorities and Awesomeo did whose shoes would you buy?
The market is a great equalizer. Some will say that it didn’t work for minorities, or whatever in the past, but thats not entirely the whole picture. The only reason it didn’t work, was the outside meddling of the government by using laws discriminating against people. Or people using terror to enforce there bigotry.
As for the Constitution, what if they get in an anti-gay marriage ban amendment or a anti abortion one in place, does that make it right because it is in the Constitution? Hey its been but a blink of an eye in time for us as a nation. And I see many more mistakes before we get it right. You seem to think only government can choose whats right or wrong for me, I don’t like that view.
This is a myth. The market is no such thing. Capitalism is predatory and cannibalistic. People don’t always have options.
If they get those bans in the Constitution then they’ll be Constitutional. “Right or wrong” has nothing to do with what is Constitutional. It sounds like we can agree that nobody’s civil rights are being violated by forcing a pharmacy to fill legal prescriptions.
Not so fast, Dio.
I completely agree that all pharmacies should carry and all pharmacists should dispense EBC, but here’s a more extensive study:
“Low-dose treatment with mifepristone has emerged as a
highly effective, convenient and safe method for emergency
contraception. A single dose of 10 mg mifepristone within
120 h of an unprotected intercourse has been shown to be
equally effective as 50 or 600 mg doses but with significantly
less side effects. A great advantage with the lower
dose, besides economical aspects, is that the effect on the
menstrual cycle [6] and delay of the next menstruation is
dose-dependent and less pronounced with the lower dose.
Not only does such delay add to worry about an unintended
pregnancy, but also later ovulation exposes the women to
the risk of pregnancy should she have further acts of unprotected
intercourse.
The spatial-dependent expression of progesterone receptors
in the Fallopian tube may reflect the importance of a
tight regulation of the microenvironment during early embryonic
development [27]. A single dose of 200 mg mifepristone
on LH2 changes steroid receptor expression in
the Fallopian tube, inhibits endometrial development, and
effectively prevents implantation in humans and monkeys
[28,44]. Preimplantation embryo growth on day 6 after
ovulation was significantly affected in the morula-blastocyst
transition stage in mifepristone-treated monkeys compared
with that in control animals. Corresponding data on embryo
development are lacking from humans, however, it has been
shown that mifepristone does not affect human fertilization
rates in vitro [24]. Thus, although information on the situation
in humans is scarce, available data indicate that mifepristone
has no direct effect on embryo development and
that the effect seen in vivo is likely to be secondary to
changes in the tubal and uterine milieu.
Low-dose mifepristone (10 mg) administered after ovulation
seems to have some effect on endometrial development
and progesterone receptor expression, although not as
pronounced as the effect of the higher dose (i.e., 200 mg).
The effect seems to be variable, possibly reflecting individual
sensibility or the 10-mg dose is at the threshold of being
effective to affect the endometrium. However, the high
efficacy of mifepristone as well as the possibility to postpone
treatment until 120 h after the unprotected intercourse,
indicate a possible effect on implantation. Furthermore,
daily low-dose treatment with 0.5 mg mifepristone, which
had a similar effect on the endometrium (as 10 mg 1)
without influencing ovulation, significantly reduced fertility
[38]. The possible effect of low-dose treatment on the human
tubal microenvironment remains to be investigated.
Thus, although doses ranging from 10–600 mg seem to
be equally effective, it is still possible that the mode of
action could be both dose- and time-dependent. It is also
likely that not a single mode of action but rather various
effects contribute to the contraceptive effect.
However, taken together, available data from studies in
humans indicate that the contraceptive effect of mifepristone
used as a single dose for emergency contraception is
mainly due to impairing ovarian function, either by blocking
or postponing the LH surge, rather than inhibiting implantation.”
From:
Mechanisms of action of mifepristone when used for emergency contraception.
Contraception. 2003 Dec;68(6):471-6.
It’s certainly still up for debate.