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."
Direct hit.
"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"
Why don't you give me some verifiable numbers.
"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."
Many women in he said/she said situations choose not to go the police bcse they believe it'll be an exercise in futility. Convictions in such cases are not exactly common and they decide not to go through all that. They still need medical care, though. I don't agree with that attitude, but it exists.
"If you read the article, Target makes a point of saying that the pill would be made available somehow. That is not being dismissive."
I did read the article. My problem with this is that it opens the door to the idea that people have a right to demand that their employers accommodate their religious beliefs, even when those beliefs go against things that the government and the people, for better or worse, have deemed legal. If someone finds that performing their job is morally offensive, they should seek work elsewhere. Render unto Caesar...
Yep. Still amazing they'd do it.
You might find this difficult to believe, but I agree with you. :-)
"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."
See now, that's where we disagree. I don't happen to believe that being able to dictate which job duties you will and won't perform according to your particular belief system is a fundamental human right.
"A rape victim who does not go to the police and allow evidence collection is enabling the rapist."
I agree 100%.
Ever notice that something is an "emergency" or "crisis" to a liberal, when they want someone else to fix up their screw up in the first place?
1. What's with the "suddenly?" That's a whole different issue. A doctor in that situation who did not notify his employers as soon as he converted would be guilty of being a downright rotten employee. Same thing with a pharmacist who sees Plan B coming into his inventory and doesn't mention it until a customer wanting some shows up. You're taking examples of unreasonable jerks and superimposing them on another issue entirely, an issue of freedom rather than one of employee conduct.
2. Actually, Islam makes reasonable exceptions for that sort of thing, or at least that's what the footage I've seen of Egyptian surgeons would seem to indicate. Surgical patients are almost always naked, it's easier to keep theings sterile that way.
Or an army sergeant who becomes a Quaker can refuse to take up arms in a time of war? Same situation.
Wrong answer. Such situations occur on a regular basis. The way you know the fakers is that they always turn CO (conscientious objector) right before they are to be deployed. Real CO's are treated with dignity. As long as the soldier makes his conscientious objector status clear as soon as he arrives at his change of heart, he is able to transfer to a non-combat position. Most CO's have historically chosen to be Chaplain's assistants or medics.
In the days of the draft, many conscientious objectors joined the military on the condition that they be allowed to serve as medics. What you are advocating is the equivalent of taking one of those medics and forcing him to become a rifleman. I'm sure somebody could even use the pain of others to "justify" such a fascist act in the way you have. "The more riflemen we have the shorter the war will be. Can you look a mother in the eye whose child was killed by the enemy and tell her that her child could have lived if we hadn't fooled around with that silly free exercise of religion crap?"
Not difficult at all. I may not agree with your conclusions most of the time, but at least you're dealing with facts when you make those conclusions. You're keeping your eye on the prize here; it's all about the individual's freedom of conscience.
And besides, a stopped clock is right twice a day. :-)
All the best,
Mr. S.
Several, and I'm not even Catholic.
2. Do you live in an area with a low cost of living?
"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."
That is also a false comparison. The government in the Target case is not requiring people to work as pharmacists against their will.
"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."
In other words, he's trying to force his belief system on the pharmacists who are trying to force their belief systems on individual customers.
"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?"
Close, but no cigar. The difference here is that the pharmacists took an oath to dispense legally prescribed drugs. They did not take an oath to dispense the ones they feel like dispensing. I doubt the Hindu took an oath to slaughter whatever came his way.
"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."
As a matter of fact, I'm not. I don't think he has any standing.
"Government intrusion wasn't at stake with Target,"
Which is why I didn't address that particular subject.
"Planned Parenthood would love to have the State forcing Target to do their will."
You're right. And I'd be against them in that case bcse then they'd be doing the same thing as the pharmacists I take issue with: forcing their belief system on others.
PS - I smell a quandary for some people re Target this shopping season. Do they boycott them bcse they've removed Christmas from their stores or do they shop they're bcse they're supporting pro-life pharmacists?
Maybe these young ladies should try Bill Clinton's method of birth control instead...A Lewinsky!
The fundamental human right I'm speaking of is freedom of religion, and it is outlined in the First Amendment.
If someone's religious beliefs tell them that an action would be murderous, forcing them to do it is every bit as grave a violation of their rights as forcing a nun to pose for Playboy (or run a Nevada brothel) or telling a Muslim he can only eat ham sandwiches on the job. Using your logic, why not let employers in states where adultery isn't outlawed decide that sleeping with your boss is a job duty? Would married people be able to object? Nope. It's not a violation of a right if their silly little belief system considers "forsaking all others" to be more important than their job requirements. And wouldn't it be even better if the State forced employees to do this, because it might help the economy or something?
We're talking about people who believe that filling a particular scrip will be the same as being an accomplice to murder, and you treat it like it's the same issue as a Muslim wanting to take the whole month of Ramadan as paid vacation. And you chide others for being "dismissive" of others' feelings.
When Blagojevich started forcing pharmacists to fill these scrips here in Illinois, I remeber that one of the guys who refused had a competitor literally on the next block who was willing to fill them. But hey, if it isn't one-stop shopping, then that's just too much of a burden, right?
No to both. In fact, the only Hispanic I know with more than 3 kids is a Protestant.
Thanks!
I was suspicious of this statement because it said nothing about what would happen if ovulation had already occurred. So I looked it up on the Plan B site. This is what they say about it
Plan B is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium).
Sounds like it does more than delay ovulation. It makes the uterine environment hostile to the fertilized egg.
So take it to a pharmacy that doesn't mind contributing to the murder of a child. Maybe some of those rape victims aren't really rape victims. As if that has never happened. /sarcasm. By whose orders are pharmacists required to fill prescriptions they believe will kill someone (a baby)?!
Most doctors know which pharmacy will and will not fill the morning after pill. It's the feminists who want what they want and don't care whose rights they trample.
If a rape victim is really a rape victim I would imagine they would go to the emergency room and call the police to report the rape. Unless it's really not a rape at all. Since I would guess that most rapes happen at night and there probably aren't that many physicians who are open. That's what emergency rooms are for.
Is the next step for 'Planned Parenthood' to DEMAND that every doctor perform an abortion because they are 'rape victims' and didn't get their morning after pill in time?
Just because some lunatic feminist decides she needs her morning after pill doesn't mean anyone is obligated to give it to her, rape victim or not. You or anyone else don't have the right to demand anyone change their career to appease lunatic feminists who think no one but them have rights.
Payne (of Planned Parenthood) said. "We want to go beyond simply the right to choose."
Nice rant.
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.