Posted on 02/14/2006 10:10:05 AM PST by LouAvul
BOSTON (AP) - The state board that oversees pharmacies voted Tuesday to require Wal-Mart to stock emergency contraception pills at its Massachusetts pharmacies, a spokeswoman at the Department of Public Health said.
The unanimous decision by the Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy comes two weeks after three women sued Wal-Mart in state court for failing to carry the so called "morning after" pill in its Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores in the state.
The women argue state policy requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines."
The board has sent a letter to Wal-Mart lawyers informing them of the decision, said health department spokeswoman Donna Rheaume. Wal-Mart has until Thursday to provide written compliance.
Dan Fogleman, a spokesman for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart, said the company hadn't heard about the decision, but would comply with any order.
(Excerpt) Read more at modbee.com ...
You are not of good will, here, Mr. Know it all. I did not say that the work I did with college kids occassionally in Masshole was the extent of my work in the State. You are shopping for an excuse to name yourself Mr. Know it all.
I was giving you an example of how the libertarian lable plays in Masshole politics but I guess it went over your head. Which might tell you something...
They were pretty busy burning people in Salem. : )
The Demcat Party continues to reveal their fascist leanings.
I wonder what would happen if Wal-Mart decided to charge $500 per pill?
Strictly speaking, that's not really true. While the precise mechanism is a matter of some debate, the available evidence indicates that all hormonal contraceptives, including emergency contraception, work by preventing ovulation, not fertilization or implantation. If all you're doing is preventing ovulation, you're certainly not causing an abortion, not by anyone's definition.
when did this take effect? I have been searching the net for any information on this. I can’t confirm what you are saying other then the new State laws regarding this new drug.
thanks
I'd tell them to F.O.! They can regulate what they cannot sell but they can make them sell something that is not necessary to sustain life!
Spare the histrionics. In an effort to give yourself some sort of credentials, you claimed you were very involved with Massachusetts politics. Someone who actually was very involved with Massachusetts politics would've told us, if asked, "I held fundraisers for candidate B," or "I worked for candidate X," or "I collected signatures for petition Y," or "I manned the phones at precinct headquarters Z," or "I held signs for candidate A at the corner of 133 and 28." Something of that nature. Definitely not the following pre-eminent credential:
"I worked with college students while in Mass ocassionally and I know the students who vote Republican self identify as libertarians even if they don't join the party."
And if anyone on this thread is guilty of not being of good will, it's you. Your posts on this thread have been nothing but libertarian bashing---incredibly ill-informed libertarian bashing, at that. It's not my fault you felt the need to spout off without even the hint of a clue.
Get a life, Mr. know it all. You are nasty and I don't owe you anything at all. And I was addressing you in my responses to you on this board - not "us." Tell us all about your lofty experience in Mass. politics.
Well some things would classify as common sense it would seem...
Although I think you would agree that common sense is clearly lacking at just about EVERY level of government these days.....
You take a swipe at libertarians for no reason at all, yet I'm the nasty one for calling you out for it---go figure. Only on Free Republic.
I don't involve myself formally in Massachusetts politics anymore. The times I did, as a delegate from my town to the Republican state convention in Springfield, and later as a volunteer during Romney's senatorial campaign against Ted Kennedy, soured me forever on retail politics.
My original post was meant as a joke. Maybe you didn't get that. But it was also meant to point out that the majority of abortions are for getting rid of the inconvenient product of consensual acts. That there are a few exceptions doesn't change the typical case or make my original remark unfunny or wrong.
I also know that sometimes abortions are done for tubal pregnancies. That doesn't change the motives of the people getting the majority of abortions.
True, but this could make a good case for the Roberts Court. It is clearly unconstitutional in spirit.
I think so.
Disagree. Romney is unable to secure a veto in this state. He has been overridden more than any governor than I am aware of. He cannot get anything by this left wing legislature. It is shameful.
Fine....then Wal-Mart should stock 'em and charge $50.00 apiece.
Always low prices, except on baby-killing contraceptives. Always.
You are totally making stuff up out of whole cloth.
I didn't force people to have promiscuous sex. Did you?
Typical knee-jerk anti-Libertarian comments. Libertarians and liberals are polar opposites.
In that case I'd certainly agree with you
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.