# They're coming for your Plan-B **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2012, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711 "2012-02-23T06:24:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/21 "2012-02-23T09:03:13Z")
I really can’t get worked up about it. Should every convenience store be forced to sell condoms? Should every hospital be forced to offer an abortion service? I mean, I’m 100% pro-choice, possibly even up to the point of the minute before the water breaks, but I just can’t get behind forcing a store to sell a product or class of product (unless they receive hefty public funding). Are pharmacies forced to stock life saving items (i.e. anti-venoms, inhalers + asthma steroids)? If not, I can’t really get behind forcing them to carry a Plan-B, but not things that are legitimately time sensitive to saving lives. If they are forced to have those items, then maaaaaybe, but there’s still something off about it to me. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/22 "2012-02-23T09:09:32Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Do you think businesses should also not have to serve customers they don’t want to serve? > > For example, do you think hotels or restaurants should have the right to refuse to allow blacks? They _have_ the right to not serve Jews, or Muslims, or vegans, in the sense that they are not obligated to sell the products or services those groups actually want to buy. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/23 "2012-02-23T09:15:50Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > I really can’t get worked up about it. Should every convenience store be forced to sell condoms? Should every hospital be forced to offer an abortion service? I mean, I’m 100% pro-choice, possibly even up to the point of the minute before the water breaks, but I just can’t get behind forcing a store to sell a product or class of product (unless they receive hefty public funding). > > Are pharmacies forced to stock life saving items (i.e. anti-venoms, inhalers + asthma steroids)? If not, I can’t really get behind forcing them to carry a Plan-B, but not things that are legitimately time sensitive to saving lives. If they are forced to have those items, then maaaaaybe, but there’s still something off about it to me. [http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=246-869-150](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=246-869-150) It is a little different, the law is not written in a way to force contraceptives, it is written in a way to ensure that the health needs of the public are met. Pharmacy compounding is pretty rare these days, with increasing automaton the only reason to have a pharmacist is due to federal requirements. It would have been best had the FDA followed the scientific recommendation and make it OTC. This would be a non-issue if you could buy it at 7-11 ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/24 "2012-02-23T09:53:58Z")
I cant really view a pharmacy as your average business. Dispensing medicine is a privilege a business can gain by meeting various criteria rather than a right, and that privilege should be able to be withdrawn if it isnt meeting the criteria that the licensing body sets - expecting reasonable availability levels of commonly prescribed drugs or the like doesnt sound particularly outlandish to me as a possible criteria. Having said that, it sounds like something that could be fairly impossible to enforce, they could ‘run out’ or use any number of endruns Id think. Otara ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/25 "2012-02-23T10:47:25Z")
Of course, the same people who remember they are supposed to support the right of private businesses to run themselves in this instance will forget it the next time a pharmacist is fired for refusing to dispense medication. When that happens, suddenly Walgreens doesn’t have any private property rights and it’s the government’s job to tell them what to do. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/26 "2012-02-23T14:43:48Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > It is when you are the only pharmacy open for hours in every direction. > > You are making a conscious choice that a women who has been raped will have to take her “chances” or have a traditional abortion. > > Save a zygote, kill a fetus. Where is that place? You know, where there’s only one pharmacy for hours and they don’t stock this product? Specifically? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/27 "2012-02-23T14:45:41Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > Of course, the same people who remember they are supposed to support the right of private businesses to run themselves in this instance will forget it the next time a pharmacist is fired for refusing to dispense medication. When that happens, suddenly Walgreens doesn’t have any private property rights and it’s the government’s job to tell them what to do. No, not all of the same people. As I have repeatedly held on these boards for many years, a business should absolutely have the right to fire an individual pharmacist if they wish to dispense legal medication and he refuses. And that same business should have the legal right to decide not to dispense a particular medication if they wish. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/28 "2012-02-23T14:46:34Z")
Pro-zygote, pro-fetus forces win again. Too bad after the female is born she won’t have any help from these fucks, so “pro-life” is not appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/29 "2012-02-23T14:48:13Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/23/washington-state-plan-b-ruling\_n\_1295585.html](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/23/washington-state-plan-b-ruling_n_1295585.html) > > According to this article the ruling only applies to these two stores. > > This judge had already seen this case, the appeals court overturned and sent it back. > > It is highly likely it will not stand. The Ninth Circuit would probably do the same thing again, true. Should the Supreme grant cert, though, I don’t agree with your prediction. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/30 "2012-02-23T14:49:41Z")
As a federal issue, I think this is the right ruling. The federal government does not license pharmacists. However, in principle I would have no problem if the state or local licensing board required that pharmacists stock “x” product in order to maintain his or her license. The only reason I say “in principle” is I’m not sure how this would work. Suppose the pharmacist just didn’t order enough product. Can he lose his license? How much product is he supposed to keep in stock, and how many days can he not have it before it becomes a problem? If this is something the experts can agree on and make work, then I’m OP with it. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/31 "2012-02-23T14:54:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The only reason I say “in principle” is I’m not sure how this would work. Suppose the pharmacist just didn’t order enough product. Can he lose his license? Why would you think this? ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/32 "2012-02-23T15:04:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The Ninth Circuit would probably do the same thing again, true. Should the Supreme grant cert, though, I don’t agree with your prediction. Could you outline why a state isn’t allowed to right a law like this? I don’t see how it violates the free exercise clause. All it says is that a licensed business must carry a certain product to promote the general welfare. That seems well within a state’s rights to me. Am I missing something? ---
**Author:** ![leahcim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b4bc9f/32.png) [@leahcim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leahcim)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/33 "2012-02-23T15:13:10Z")
> [@Otara](#): > > Dispensing medicine is a privilege a business can gain by meeting various criteria rather than a right, and that privilege should be able to be withdrawn if it isnt meeting the criteria that the licensing body sets - expecting reasonable availability levels of commonly prescribed drugs or the like doesnt sound particularly outlandish to me as a possible criteria. This. Pharmacies only exist as part of a government program to restrict the sale of certain types of drugs. As such they are able to command higher prices than they could if the neigbourhood 7-11 was allowed to sell antibiotics. As a result of that privilege they have been given by the government, I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be expected to follow some rules. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/34 "2012-02-23T15:22:52Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Why would you think this? Suppose the licensing board requires that pharmacists stock Plan B. I’m wondering how you enforce it. What do you do to the guy who just has “trouble” ordering it and keeping it in stock? What do you do to the guy who always has plenty in stock but charges $1,000 per dose? Are either of those guys in compliance in with the licensing requirement? ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/35 "2012-02-23T15:35:33Z")
Why isthat the forced-to-stock laws are only news when it’s about contraceptives/abortives? What other things must always be carried? My take is the usual on this issue. 1. Full freedom to stock whatever you want. 2. Full fredom to hire/fire workers that will not sell the products you want. 3. Should thepeople want it, laws could be enacted so that some items are “must-stock”. 4. Pharmacy owners can then decide is the new law is odious enough to either challenge it or they can close shop. 5. The community that enacted the laws is adult and has to accept the intended and unintended consequences. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/36 "2012-02-23T15:39:35Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Suppose the licensing board requires that pharmacists stock Plan B. I’m wondering how you enforce it. > > What do you do to the guy who just has “trouble” ordering it and keeping it in stock? > > What do you do to the guy who always has plenty in stock but charges $1,000 per dose? > > Are either of those guys in compliance in with the licensing requirement? I understand this is your concern. I don’t understand _why_ this is your concern. Are you making an analogy from some other kind of professional group where such infractions result in a loss of license? (Which?) Or where the possibility of such infractions actually renders it impossible to regulate? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/37 "2012-02-23T15:41:55Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Why isthat the forced-to-stock laws are only news when it’s about contraceptives/abortives? > What other things must always be carried? > > My take is the usual on this issue. > > 1. Full freedom to stock whatever you want. I agree with this, with one minor little bit of reservation. Place all drugs OTC. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/38 "2012-02-23T15:43:31Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Could you outline why a state isn’t allowed to right a law like this? I don’t see how it violates the free exercise clause. All it says is that a licensed business must carry a certain product to promote the general welfare. That seems well within a state’s rights to me. Am I missing something? Well, I agree that a state should be able to make that rule – just as I agree it should be able to make the opposing rule. Both are a matter for state regulation. In Washington, the state legislature passed RCW 70.47.160(2)(a), which provides in part: > [@](#): > > …no individual health care provider, religiously sponsored health carrier, or health care facility may be required by law or contract in any circumstances to participate in the provision of or payment for a specific service if they object to so doing for reason of conscience or religion. The Washington State Board of Pharmacy in 2006 adopted a draft rule in accordance with that legislative dictate that provided that a individual pharmacist could refuse to dispense a medication but mandated that no pharmacy or pharmacist obstruct a patient’s effort to obtain lawfully prescribed drugs or devices. In other words, a pharmacist could refuse to help but could not hinder. Governor Gregoire reacted by announcing she should legally remove the entire Board if she wished, but wanted to avoid taking such a drastic step, and she submitted an alternate regulation to the Board, one drafted by Planned Parenthood, that required pharmacies to dispense lawfully prescribed drugs and prevented pharmacists from refusing to dispense a medicine or medical device for religious or moral reasons. The Board adopted this alternate rule. It’s for state courts to determine whether this rule conflicts with the requirement of state law RCW 70.47.160(2)(a). In federal court, the pharmacists claim that the rule violates their right to freely exercise their religion as the First Amendment protects, the Equal Protection and Due Process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment, and federal anti-discrimination laws which would trump Washington state laws. In 2007, the Federal District Court for the Western District of Washington enjoined, on a preliminary basis, the state of Washington from enforcing the rule, finding that the pharmacists complaining had an likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the actions were taken because of an animus against religion. (_Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky_, 524 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (Dist. Ct, WD Wash, 2007). In 2009, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court reversed that injunction, finding that the district court had erred by applying a heightened scrutiny to the law, which was “…a neutral law of general applicability…” Today, following an actual trial on the merits, the district court found that in practice, the decision burdens religion and notes the pharmacies are permitted to refuse to stock needed medication for other reasons with no problem: > [@](#): > > In practice, both the stocking rule and delivery rule contain exemptions not present in their text. While the stocking rule states pharmacies must carry a representative assortment of > drugs requested by its patients, in practice, pharmacies refuse to carry drugs for a variety of reasons. Pharmacies regularly refuse to stock such drugs as oxycodone for fear of robbery; they > refuse to dispense syringes because they dislike the clientele they associate with the product. Pharmacies may decline to stock a drug because it is expensive, because the “return on > investment” is less than desired, or because of the “hassle factor”—additional paperwork or patient tracking. Pharmacies may decline to stock drugs because they have contracted with > manufacturers of competing drugs or because the pharmacy opts to serve a particular niche market. None of these exemptions exist in the text of the rules; but in practice, the Board allows > pharmacies to shape their stock rather than allowing patients to do so. Further, the Board has no written policy or procedure about how to enforce the stocking rule. And in at least 40 years, the Board has never enforced the stocking rule against any pharmacy—until the delivery rule required pharmacies to deliver Plan B. > > Like the stocking rule, the delivery rule operates far more loosely than its text suggests. For example, the Board has interpreted the delivery rule to allow pharmacies to refuse to deliver > a drug because it does not accept a patient’s particular insurance or because it does not accept Medicare or Medicaid. That leeway exists because the delivery rule exempts a pharmacy from > its duty to deliver in not just the five enumerated categories, but in all “substantially similar circumstances.” At trail, the evidence included memos sent between the Governor’s office and Planned Parenthood: > [@](#): > > On June 7, 2006, Planned Parenthood and the Northwest Women’s Law Center submitted an alternative rule. Pl.’s Ex. 123. After minor alterations made by the Governor’s office and the Washington State Pharmacy Association, the Governor sent handwritten comments to Ms. Hulet, asking whether “this draft [is] clean enough for the advocates re: conscious/moral issues can’t allow pharmacist to refuse?” Pl.’s Ex. 139 (citing internal Governor’s office memorandum). > > Mr. Saxe responded to the alternative rule with an honest, and telling, question: > > > [@](#): > > > > Would a statement that does not allow a pharmacist/pharmacy the right to refuse for moral or religious judgment be clearer? This would leave intact the ability to decline to dispense (provide alternatives) for most _legitimate_ examples raised; clinical, fraud, business, skill, etc. > > Pl.’s Exs. 154 & 155 (emphasis added). Mr. Saxe was asking, rightfully, why the Board did not simply draft clear language to do exactly what it was attempting to do with vague language—bar pharmacists and pharmacies from conscientiously objecting, while at the same time allowing pharmacies and pharmacists to refuse to dispense for practically any other reason. > > Doing so would be easier, of course, than “trying to draft language to allow facilitating a referral for only . . . non-moral or non-religious reasons,” the ultimate goal of the proposed draft. Pl.’s Ex. 157 (email from Mr. Saxe to Ms. Hulet). Indeed, Mr. Saxe’s division of reasons not to dispense into illegitimate (i.e., moral reasons) and legitimate (i.e., any other reason) highlights the goal of the Board, the Governor, and the advocacy groups: to eliminate conscientious objection. At trial, Mr. Saxe admitted that the rule targeted conscientious objectors: > > > [@](#): > > > > Q. And it was your understanding that the intent of the proposed rule was to allow professional judgment and as you’ve indicated business reasons that are consistent with the time honored practices of pharmacy but not moral or religious reasons, right? > > > > A. I believe so, yes. > > Trial Tr. vol. 3 at 32, Nov. 30, 2011. Based on the evidence at trial, the district judge found as a matter of fact that the regulations were in practice intended to remove religious and conscience objections, not to actually ensure a reliable supply of Plan B be available. In other words, the only thing the regulations targeted was the conscience objections; they didn’t do anything at all to address any other reasons plan B wouldn’t be available. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/39 "2012-02-23T15:47:12Z")
There’s a taco vendor outside the building that sells out of his van, and, y’know, I just don’t think it’s right that he doesn’t make burritos. I’ve said time and time again that he should have them, but he refuses to stock the tortillas. There should be a law against that. He should lose his vending permit unless he makes burritos. Did I mention he’s the ONLY taco truck around for miles? And that my burrito need is time-sensitive? My boss says I only get the time between 11:30 and noon to eat a burrito, and if I don’t, I’ll be hungry until dinner time! Of course I don’t think everybody should have to make burritos, but c’mon, this guy’s a taco truck! That’s really, really _like_ a burrito! Why hasn’t Congress done something about this? Don’t they want to promote the lunchtime welfare? ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2012, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/40 "2012-02-23T15:51:23Z")
Ooh, can I get another straw-taco? They’re really good here… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711.md?page=3)