Women Sue Wal-Mart Over Contraception - should morning after pill be required?

from yahoo

BOSTON - Backed by abortion rights groups, three Massachusetts women sued Wal-Mart on Wednesday, accusing the retail giant of violating a state regulation by failing to stock emergency contraception pills in its pharmacies.

The lawsuit, filed in state court, seeks to force the company to carry the morning-after pill in its 44 Wal-Marts and four Sam Club stores in Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs argued that state policy requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines."

Wal-Mart carries the morning-after pill in Illinois only, where it is required under state law, said Dan Fogleman, a spokesman for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart.

Fogleman said the company "chooses not to carry many products for business reasons." He would not elaborate. But in a letter to a lawyer for the plaintiffs, a Wal-Mart attorney said the store chain does not regard the drug as "commonly prescribed."

CVS, the state's largest pharmacy chain, stocks the pill at all of its drugstores.

oh its in taxachusetts

that explains it

take a vague rule and try to expand it

its a bit odd that they would admit shopping at walmart

shouldn't private companys have any rights?
if only there were people willing to sue on 2nd amendment violations

i found out I was pregnant in a walmart lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bohoki

oh its in taxachusetts

that explains it

take a vague rule and try to expand it

its a bit odd that they would admit shopping at walmart

shouldn't private companys have any rights?
if only there were people willing to sue on 2nd amendment violations

---

What are you thinking of in terms of gun rights violations?

If they were more responsible human beings, and had an intelligence greater than that of methane producing bacteriums, they would have gotten their medication elsewhere BEFORE it was an issue at all.

This is merely a case of "if someone can bitch about something, they will".

Mindlessness. Nothing more.

yeah I can't think of a better idea then to punish people who are irresponsible by giving them the responsibilty over someone elses life. but hey, a kid that will be neglected at best and killed at worst with a likely chance of abuse sitting somewhere in between is much better then adding one sperm to it's thousands of dead brothers (in limbo?) and making us spend five seconds stocking the store shelves cuz we're only here 40 hours a week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

yeah I can't think of a better idea then to punish people who are irresponsible by giving them the responsibilty over someone elses life. but hey, a kid that will be neglected at best and killed at worst with a likely chance of abuse sitting somewhere in between is much better then adding one sperm to it's thousands of dead brothers (in limbo?) and making us spend five seconds stocking the store shelves cuz we're only here 40 hours a week.

---

Well said.

I think most people use birth control. The pill can have A LOT of horrible side effects for many women and barrier methods sometimes simply fail. I've never personally used a morning after pill, although I have tried to get one in an emergency situation where a barrier method broke. I had to just use a ton of spermicide (which I am violently allergic to) and pray for a few weeks. I was lucky, but I think it is great that the morning after pill should be more commonly available.

I'm not sure if this is still the case, but I believe you must have a prescription for the morning after pill, so it is not like you can keep one on the nightstand in advance just in case.

If CVS is the largest pharmacy chain in the area and all their branches stock it, then the morning after pill is not something which would just expire on a superstore's pharmacy shelves.

Women who have sex without wanting to become pregnant who need the morning after pill either (a) have a method fail i.e. like a condom or diaphragm or sponge becoming punctured or sliding out of position or not being able to take a pill because they are at someone else's home when they would normally take it or (b) they are afraid of being seen as "bad girls" and don't feel they can address their sexual interaction in an at all premeditated way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

The pill can have A LOT of horrible side effects for many women and barrier methods sometimes simply fail.

---

True. For example, the birth control PATCH tv ads specifically state the potential side effects include: stroke, paralysis, DEATH, infection, liver and kidney failure. Wow, what a russian roulette solution!

Common sense and self-respect are the catalysts that some women and men lose sight of though. One has to ask if these people have any self-restraint, self-respect, or anything else...

While they are "private companies", they are the only option available for most people to have access to items on which the state places controls. That is, items which must be purchased with a prescription.

It absolutely should be law that if the pharmacies are going to act on the state's behalf as an intermediary, that they stock "all commonly prescribed" medications. Period. There is no valid medical or financial reason for them not to do this.

If they want to play moral objection games, they should be disintermediated as a medication provider, and the state should directly handle the sale and dispensation of regulated items, in the manner of ABC stores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inox

If they want to play moral objection games, they should be disintermediated as a medication provider, and the state should directly handle the sale and dispensation of regulated items, in the manner of ABC stores.

---

Really good point.

well if commonly perscribed worked in california walmart would have to provide doobie snacks

if you catch my drift

i'm bummed that i didnt partake in the 2nd amendment thread back in september so i dont really want to start a 2nd amendment thread sorry i brought it up

but i'm in ca and they want me to register my 50 bmg rifle($25 tand i have till april) and people cant buy them anymore (which will make it harder for me to buy ammo locally since who would stock it if no one can even buy the gun

if the first amendment means what it says congress shall not do this and that free speach and such (and it is interpreted to mean government shall not do this and that) shouldnt the "people" refered to in the second be the same people referenced in the first?

then what is an arm? i think it should be any man portable weapon
nunchucks,swords,brassknuckes,ninja stars,crossbows,longbows,pistols,rifles,submachine guns(uzi,sten,thompson,mp5,mac-10) automatic rifles m16,hk,g3,fal,kalashnikovs

but we cant get a court to rule what it really means because if so it would open a can of worms that would include hand grenades and rpg's
atomic bombs are a joke hen people bring that up
they could possibley remain banned due to explosives and nuclear regulations

you cannot even buy a semi automatic kalashnikov in california and new york city's ban on handguns

they either need to repeal it or amend it
but we need some end to the confustion on what it means

i'm all for background checks but a waiting period longer than it takes for a check is wrong

whoa what am i starting
oh well brain diarrhea it just flew out sputtering

fyi i have never hunted i dont like killing animals(i have deer and turkeys that come right up to me my yard
i once shot a raccoon (with a 22)but it was attacking my chicken(i dont have a chicken anymore) i felt bad but then another racoon came and ate 10 fish out of my pond(all the white and black ones it left all the orange ones)
(i've since moved the pond)

so they can go ahead and ban hunting

i wouldn't kill an animal unless i was really hungry and taco bell was closed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bohoki

i'm bummed that i didnt partake in the 2nd amendment thread back in september so i dont really want to start a 2nd amendment thread sorry i brought it up

but i'm in ca and they want me to register my 50 bmg rifle($25 tand i have till april) and people cant buy them anymore (which will make it harder for me to buy ammo locally since who would stock it if no one can even buy the gun

if the first amendment means what it says congress shall not do this and that free speach and such (and it is interpreted to mean government shall not do this and that) shouldnt the "people" refered to in the second be the same people referenced in the first?

then what is an arm? i think it should be any man portable weapon
nunchucks,swords,brassknuckes,ninja stars,crossbows,longbows,pistols,rifles,submachine guns(uzi,sten,thompson,mp5,mac-10) automatic rifles m16,hk,g3,fal,kalashnikovs

but we cant get a court to rule what it really means because if so it would open a can of worms that would include hand grenades and rpg's
atomic bombs are a joke hen people bring that up
they could possibley remain banned due to explosives and nuclear regulations

you cannot even buy a semi automatic kalashnikov in california and new york city's ban on handguns

they either need to repeal it or amend it
but we need some end to the confustion on what it means

i'm all for background checks but a waiting period longer than it takes for a check is wrong

whoa what am i starting
oh well brain diarrhea it just flew out sputtering

---

You might want to start a new gun issues thread for the specific issues which interest you. Just because we've talked about goth-industrial music before doesn't mean we won't do it again. Same thing applies here. I mean, don't start 50 threads on the same topic the same day, but I think you probably get that.

I have mixed feelings about how background checks apply to the 2nd amendment, as political issues could be made criteria and that would definitely be a violation. But what constitutes a political issue is difficult to define.

Well, I can see it from both sides.
If a company decides a medication is not common, and chooses not to keep it in stock, thats their decision, and people cant sue them for it.
But Walmart is a Christian run company, and Im sure the views of the company leaders are anti-abortion, and chose not to keep the medication in stock for personal reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kellie

Well, I can see it from both sides.
If a company decides a medication is not common, and chooses not to keep it in stock, thats their decision, and people cant sue them for it.
But Walmart is a Christian run company, and Im sure the views of the company leaders are anti-abortion, and chose not to keep the medication in stock for personal reasons.

---

If Walmart were not such a monopoly in so many areas, I would definitely be on the side of free trade and letting businesses do business as they see fit. Because Walmart is such a monopoly in so many places and prescriptions can't be filled just anywhere, I feel like regulation is less unreasonable. I'm quite certain, however, that Walmart's excuse is disingenuous and their real reason for not carrying it is precisely what you said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

If Walmart were not such a monopoly in so many areas, I would definitely be on the side of free trade and letting businesses do business as they see fit. Because Walmart is such a monopoly in so many places and prescriptions can't be filled just anywhere, I feel like regulation is less unreasonable. I'm quite certain, however, that Walmart's excuse is disingenuous and their real reason for not carrying it is precisely what you said.

---

Exactly. Plus, like I was saying earlier, pharmacists and pharmacies both are licensed by the state.

Hence, the "private business" pharmacy exists by the grace of the state, and is supposed to dispense medications in accordance with applicable laws.

What medication or medical treatment an individual receives should be primarily a matter between the doctor and patient, subject only to the aforementioned state or federal regulations.

It is certainly not in the best interest of the populace that these private businesses take advantage of the scarcity of alternate options that's imposed by licensing, and effectively choose to deny a given medical option to the community. They are using the authority that the state grants them for a particular purpose in order to advance their unrelated personal moral agendas.

If the given prescription is a relatively common one, it should be carried. If it is not common, they should be prepared to order it. Again, this is financially sound as well.

yeah I pretty much agree with you on that, marcus. but don't even get me started on this whole thing, if PMS were working, hint hint, then maybe we could toss a few thoughts around. all I'll say is that I really don't know how much faith we could have in the impartiality of a judge in this day and age, and that I really don't see any fucking reason why not to stock this medication. no matter how much irresponsibilty it may promote (which in fact, has been shown to be the exact oppiste reaction) it still is nowhere near as irresponsible as the alternatives. the bottom line on this issue is that it seems to me to really be about men controlling women.. whoops! ok so I got started, and i'm stopping now.

The " morning after pill " only prevents an egg from being released from the womans ovarie for 48 hours after taking it. Thats all it does. If an egg is already released before the pill has been taken, then too bad, she will most likely get pregnate anyway.

( In case any of you have misconceptions as to what this pill really does)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Ravenheart

I still believe that even though Wal-Mart is a super power due to its success, they should have the right to stock things as they desire. A pharmacy does not stock every drug known to man in its coffers... and while many people would disagree... the "Morning After" pill is not on the sheet of vital drugs that must be in a pharmacy.

---

That shouldn't be the threshold; it should be "commonly prescribed" medications. If it's something for which demand exists, it makes good business sense to have it on hand, as well.

They should not get the latitude to carry things "as they desire"; that allows state legislation to be misused as a moral blockade.

There's no financial or public health benefit to allowing pharmacies that option.