Posted on 11/12/2005 5:00:47 PM PST by wagglebee
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - Target Corp. is defending its policy on filling prescriptions for emergency contraception after the Planned Parenthood Federation of America accused the retailer of disrespecting customers' reproductive rights.
Target allows pharmacists to choose not to fill requests for emergency contraception, also known as Plan B, if it is against their religious beliefs.
The issue has caused an ongoing debate nationwide between people who oppose abortion because of religious beliefs and those in favor of abortion rights.
Emergency contraception primarily delays ovulation long enough for sperm to die without fertilizing an egg. Those who oppose the drug say it could cause an abortion, but medical experts disagree.
Though other retailers have similar policies, Planned Parenthood officials say Target's policy is especially burdensome to customers. If one pharmacist refuses to dispense the drugs, the customer could have to travel to another store to get it.
It's an unnecessary inconvenience and embarrassment to the customer, said Jackie Payne, assistant director of government relations for the Planned Parenthood Federation in Washington. The timing is crucial for emergency contraception and could be a problem especially for women in rural areas, Payne said.
"Basically, they don't want to absorb the burden," she said of Target. "They would rather pass that on to the customer."
But Target defends its policy, pointing out that if the pharmacist refuses to dispense the drug, he or she must pass it on to another pharmacist at the same location. If none is available, the pharmacist must call another Target and make sure the drug is available for the customer.
"We are committed to getting these prescriptions filled," said Lena Michaud, spokeswoman for Target Stores. "But we also have to respect associates with strongly held religious beliefs."
In a company statement, Target officials added that their policy follows recommendations made by the American Pharmacists Association. It's a rare event that a pharmacist's beliefs conflict with a request for emergency contraception, officials said.
"Under no circumstances can the pharmacist prevent the prescription from being filled, make discourteous or judgmental remarks, or discuss his or her religious beliefs with the guest," Target's statement said.
Planned Parenthood officials say if Target allows pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription, they should think about adopting other ways to satisfy the customer. For example, other retailers have the emergency contraception delivered if pharmacists at the store refuse to fill it.
"All I want (Target) to do is to offer a minimum standard that the customer gets what she needs," Payne said. "And they won't do that."
On Thursday, Planned Parenthood organized a protest in front of the Target on Nicollet Mall in downtown Minneapolis. Participants held signs and chanted, "In store without delay, Target fill my pills today."
The tiny, miniscule perecentage refers to the number of rape victims seeking the morning-after pill vs the overall number of women who seek it
Guess what those private physicians give them? That's right: a prescription, which they need to fill.
It's disgusting that you can be so dismissive of rape victims.
I'm not dismissive of them. If they do not seek police help after a rape, and instead seek out their doctors, they are reducing the likelihood of getting help from the police.
If you read the article, Target makes a point of saying that the pill would be made available somehow. That is not being dismissive.
LOL!
I'll answer that with two questions: First, can you provide a case where the following events happened? If one has occurred, I'm sure the pro-aborts would be pointing it out to everyone who would listen, so you should have no trouble finding one.
1. A woman is raped, reports it to police and is provided with medical treatment.
2. The treating physician or hospital is unable or unwilling to provide Plan B to the victim.
3. The victim is directed to a private pharmacist, who refuses to fill a Plan B prescription.
4. The victim goes to at least one other pharmacist who refuses the prescription on moral grounds.
5. The victim becomes pregnant.
Heck, I'll tell you what: I'll even take a case where only steps one through three occurred.
Second, as tragic as rape is, should a corporation violate an employee's right to free exercise just on the off chance they might deal with a rape victim who couldn't get Plan B at the hospital or from their friendly neighborhood Planned Parenthood?
C'mon, how many Catholic families do you know with more than three kids?
Most of the ones I know have more than three. Of course, since I'm part of the Latin Mass community, that isn't unusual.
If you are going to have a large family, the New York/New Jersey area is not the right place. Its too expensive.
Gideon's Band. As for 'too expensive', that is a chimera. The reality is that we will earn what we need to. Reread the Sermon on the Mount, God was very clear.
It seems to me that Jackie Payne and Planned Parenthood are the anti-choice in this case. They don't want anyone else having a 'choice' whether they will fill the morning after pill (abortion) prescription. It's not as if Target is the only drug store in town and that includes 'rural' areas. And they are not moving the 'battlefield' to birth control pills. They are lying, AGAIN.
Can you provide a link or more details on the story?
Payne said. "We want to go beyond simply the right to choose."
Social policies on agenda
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
By HOLLY ANGELO
hangelo@repub.com
NORTHAMPTON - Researchers, educators, policy advocates and activists from around the country will meet at Smith College from Nov.10 to Nov. 13 to discuss reproductive rights in the context of social justice and propose future policy in that area.
"Reproductive Justice for All: A U.S. Policy Conference" is a collaboration of Smith College Women's Studies Program and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
"They'll evaluate existing policy and propose what will be needed for future policies using a social justice framework," said Jacqueline K. Payne, assistant director of government relations at Planned Parenthood, yesterday. "This opportunity came up to really look at reproductive justice, not just rights or health."
Payne and Gwendolyn R. Mink, the Charles N. Clark Professor of Women's Studies at Smith, are the conference coordinators. Smith houses Planned Parenthood's papers on campus. Mink could not be reached for comment yesterday.
The conference will consider laws and policies affecting four areas: the rights of pregnant women; the control of sexuality; the right to be a mother; and assisted reproduction and genetic technologies. Participants will first explore current reproductive justice issues in each of the four areas. Later, they will develop frameworks for policies that promote reproductive justice.
"We're hoping to identify policies that will promote reproductive justice that look to the right to be a mother. We want to look at the issues of fertility, childbearing and child-rearing," Payne said. "We want to go beyond simply the right to choose."
There are two conference events open to the public. On Nov. 10, the opening plenary will include Loretta Ross from SisterSong, Silvia Henriquez from National Latina Institute for Reproduction Health and Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood. On Nov. 12, the keynote address will be given by U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif.
Payne said the hope is that participants will incorporate new concepts established at the conference into their work, research or state policy.
"They really are some of the most foremost thinkers in the field," Payne said.
For more information, go to www.reproductivejustice forall.org
******
U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif. is some of the most foremost thinkers in the field?!!!
I don't see the original story (just ran a quick scan) but here is one reference in a letter: Oct. 23 article "Rape victim: 'Morning after' pill denied." There have been tons and tons of letters to the editor about it since then. Here is one later reference to it - http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/101660
Why'd you switch subjects? You brought up rape victims, and now you want to talk about people who are too irresponsible to raise children conceived in sex they consented to. Why the tap dance?
Which is better preventing conception or aborting them or burying them after they're abused to death.
What is better is to not force the pharmacist to take a position on this issue that he believes makes him an accomplice to murder. What's even better then that is to not pretend that we're doing women or children a favor if we violate the pharmacist's fundamental human rights in such a way.
"With all the leftie connections of Target, this surprises me."
The fact that a Ninnie-apolis corporation takes such a stand on a moral issue I find surprising. The norm is to toe the leftist line.
1. Saying that a group of people is small is not dismissive, or at the very least is not something that should be described as "disgusting."
2. Pointing out that a group of people is small enough that their travails should not be used as an excuse to violate fundamental human rights is not dismissive, either.
3. If a society is going to decide to restrict a right, they should do so only if the exercise of that right gravely affects a number of citizens in the real world. In regard to that, see my challenge to swmobuffalo in post 103.
Well, consider this angle: If you felt the opposite way, and believed that your store should never sell Plan B, Planned Parenthood would believe you should be forced to sell it, and that if you fired a clerk who sold it, you would be as bad as a rapist. And in Illinois, the Governor would force you to sell the product and take action to pull your license if you refused.
Don't forget who the fascists are.
A rape victim who does not go to the police and allow evidence collection is enabling the rapist.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
What you're advocating is putting it not on the child who was raped, but on the child who was fathered by rape.
And maybe you aren't advocating this exactly because we're talking about Plan B, but note that when some pol or pro-abort flack talks about rape and incest victims, they're usually talking about access to surgical abortion. In other words, they're saying, "We should ensure that a young woman is saved from the trauma of a rape/incest pregnancy by ripping her small child limb from limb and throwing it in the trash."
So when it comes to "We don't live in a perfect world," do we come down on the "...so some children will be born whose mothers were raped" side or the "...so we should rip small children apart" side?
Nailed it!
That's a false comparison for at least two reasons.
First, the vast majority of pharmacists got into the field before this issue came up, and now people like you want to come along and say, "My way or find a new career." That sure doesn't seem American to me; more like the stuff in Germany where they can send you to get a job as a prostitute if your real career is overmanned.
Second, we're not talking about mere job arrangements. Take the case of Illinois, where the Governor has forced pharmacists to fill these scrips and has promised to pull their licenses if they resist. Here's a guy telling private businesspeople what they will stock, who they will serve and how they will serve them, all in violation of the establishment and free exercise clauses. There's a lot at stake here.
A closer analogy would be a Hindu who buys a chicken farm, and five years later the state comes in and tells him he's going to raise 50 head of beef steers for slaughter a year and like it, or they'll close his chicken farm. Would you just say, "Well, he has to find a new career," or would you stand up for his rights?
People are always entitled to their personal belief systems, but they are NOT entitled to force others to conform to those beliefs. That's what liberals do.
That's what Rod Blagojevich here in Illinois did when he started forcing pharmacists to do this, and you're on his side of this issue.
I have nothing but sympathy for rape victims, but nobody's pain justifies the sort of fascism where a government comes in and tells people how to run their businesses and spiritual lives. Government intrusion wasn't at stake with Target, but it's at stake elsewhere, and Planned Parenthood would love to have the State forcing Target to do their will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
