Welcome to PatsFans.com

Mass tells Wal-Mart it must sell abortion pill

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by FreeTedWilliams, Feb 14, 2006.

  1. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,465
    Likes Received:
    88
    Ratings:
    +256 / 38 / -4

    #75 Jersey

  2. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,827
    Likes Received:
    47
    Ratings:
    +99 / 7 / -14

    #37 Jersey

    Because you know these "women" could not of found another pharmacy :rolleyes: I mean there are about as many pharmacies as there are dunkin donuts in the state.
  3. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I should preface this by saying that 1. I disagree with Massachusetts on this, and 2. I am pro-choice.

    The reasoning, if that's all you're looking for, is pretty obvious: when a woman needs* some form of medication, she should be able to get it at any pharmacy, without having to worry about getting to one and finding out they have objections and don't sell the drug.

    I'd accept the state's argument if they had a blanket law requiring all pharmacies to sell all medications as a condition for keeping their license (this is far from the libertarian ideal, but this is the world we live in). In that case, I don't think there should be a special exemption for abortion drugs. However, since pharmacies are free to not cary other drugs (like OxyCotin), I don't think abortion pills should have unique status.

    *I'm defining "needs" as determined by a woman and her doctor, I don't want to turn "needs abortion drugs" into a great word debate.
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2006
  4. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,141
    Likes Received:
    192
    Ratings:
    +649 / 2 / -9

    Another case of "Liberal Socialism Communism Looneyism Loopyism @ass holeism".

    They want to control everything, because they know whats right and whats best for you.

    Hillary won't rest until she gets to tell you what Doctor she insists you go to.

    It must be terrible to be liberal.
  5. sieglo

    sieglo Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,244
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    Is Massachusetts also going to legislate that all pharmacies carry jock itch treatment in 17 varieties? Actually, why stop at pharmacies? What about convenience stores, grocery stores, etc. Because there are a lot of people that "might need it" and it should be their "right" to get it "everywhere".
  6. dryheat44

    dryheat44 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,369
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +78 / 2 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    Actually, this is a big issue here (Virginia) also. Some pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control pills.

    This is clearly wrong.

    But I think Massachusetts' take is misguided. Walmart shouldn't be forced to carry anything it doesn't want to, for the same reason Blockbuster shouldn't be forced to rent porn.
  7. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,141
    Likes Received:
    192
    Ratings:
    +649 / 2 / -9

    I wonder what would happen if they told them they had to sell the Bible.
  8. Chevy

    Chevy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    How is this wrong? The only way I can see the state being justified in enforcing this is if the pharmacy in question is state run or funded. In the case of a privately owned and funded pharmacy this just plain wrong.
  9. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,048
    Likes Received:
    185
    Ratings:
    +259 / 10 / -11

    Pharmacies do not have the right to pass moral judgment on patients, and state's have the right to regulate pharmacies to protect the public. The state is protecting a womans right over her own body. You may not agree with the morning after pill, but until it's outlawed, it's a medication that in some cases is probably given with good cause.
  10. Chevy

    Chevy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    The only rights being violated are those of the private business owner, who has the right to say "I do not want to be associated with this product."

    A woman's rights are not in jeopardy here. No authority has said that the morning after pill is illegal.
  11. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,048
    Likes Received:
    185
    Ratings:
    +259 / 10 / -11

    So should pharmacies be allowed to deny AIDS sufferers their medication? What about Tourette's Syndrome? What about lung cancer? What about people who suffer from sickle cell anemia? Where do you draw the line? It's easier and fairer not to draw a line at all, i.e., let the doctor decide.
  12. Chevy

    Chevy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    There is no line to draw. The free market will determine what is carried. Seeing as medications are a profitable business, hospital pharmacies at the least will carry nearly everything. However, an institute like Walmart should not have it's inventory forced upon them. It does nothing except give the government more control. Given time, agencies like planned parenthood would hire pharmacists and offer this themselves.
  13. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,048
    Likes Received:
    185
    Ratings:
    +259 / 10 / -11

    Chevy, that would happen in theory, but what could happen in practice is that poor people would find that their pharmacy (Walmart) does not provide them with the medications they want, so they need to travel further away in order to get what they need. Further, people may be made to feel like second-class citizens when they discover that their pharmacy doesn't carry a particular medication. A pharmacy has no right to judge the medical condition of someone seeking medication, unless asked. Should hospitals be allowed not to have handicapped access, under the theory that the handicapped could go elsewhere? The free market isn't perfect.
  14. Chevy

    Chevy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    The free market is far better than this level of intervetion by the government.

    I own a computer business. I sell AMD based systems exclusively. Now, if the state of Louisiana said that in order for me to renew my occupational license I would have to offer Intel processors, wouldn't that be wrong?

    Walmart made a business decision. It is their right.

    Besides, Walmart isn't the only game in town. You've got CVS, Eckards, Walgreens, and a slew of others. Plus the pharmacies at every hospital.

    Private enterprise needs to be able to decide for themselves what products they will and will not carry.
  15. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,048
    Likes Received:
    185
    Ratings:
    +259 / 10 / -11

    Of course it would be wrong, but if you didn't want to sell to black people, that would also be wrong. Now let's take the pharmacy that doesn't want to sell to black people so doesn't provide sickle cell anemia medication and doesn't want to sell to women so doesn't provide gynecological medication, that would also be wrong.

    By and large I agree, but if by not carrying a product you're penalizing a race, sex, religion, and so on, then you're crossing the line.
  16. Chevy

    Chevy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    You're assuming that the motivation is based on some sort of bigotry.

    Maybe pharmacy A doesn't carry sickle cell anemia meds because the cost for inventory vs the amount sold is not cost effective. In fact, that is probably closer to the truth. You aren't going to see that level of bigotry on a corporate scale because one truth drives big business - money is good, and everyone's money adds up the same. You may see that reasoning in a mom & pop drug store, though - but even that would be an isolated case.
  17. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,048
    Likes Received:
    185
    Ratings:
    +259 / 10 / -11

    In general you're right, but sometimes bigotry enters the equation, either the bigotry of the pharmacy owner or pressure brought on by various groups. It can be in a business's interest to cater to one group at the expense of another. Certainly with the morning after pill there are such issues entering the equation.
  18. sieglo

    sieglo Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,244
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    Does the state tell pharmacies to carry medications for cancer?
    Does the state tell pharmacies to carry medications for diabetes?
    Does the state tell pharmacies to carry medications for pneumonia?
    Does the state tell pharmacies to carry medications for jock itch?
    Does the state tell pharmacies to carry bandaids?
    Does the state tell pharmacies to carry toilet paper?
    Does the state tell pharmacies to carry toothbrushes?
    Does the state tell pharmacies to carry condoms?
    Does the state tell pharmacies to carry big screen TVs?
    Does the state tell pharmacies to carry blunts?
    Does the state tell pharmacies to carry milk?
    Does the state tell pharmacies to carry MGD?

    God forbid that people might have to drive a few exrtra miles to get their MGD. Or even worse, that people might be "made to feel like second class citizens" when their pharmacy doesn't carry their brand of jock itch powder.

    Of course, pharmacies and stores like Walmart aren't forced to sell any of these items -- critical or not. (And believe me, there are people out there who think blunts and MGD are just as critical as cancer meds.) So what makes the morning after pill so special?
  19. Chevy

    Chevy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    I think a major point here is the definition of denying:

    You see it as one entity not providing something while others do.

    I see it as one entity not providing something, and seeing to it that no one else does, either.

    Walmart is not denying anyone anything.
  20. Chevy

    Chevy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    I've never rated a thread before, but I did on this one. Why? Because it's a political debate on a volatile issue (pro-choice v pro-life), yet it's in its second page and not a single disparaging remark has been made.

    Can we make it to three pages?

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>