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 ...
Headline is a lie. The "morning after" pill is not contraception.
>>>http://boortz.com/nuze/alabaster.html
Not going to research every individual case because I have to work, but Neal has the info for you and you can look more into it. Unless you are just trying to draw me out into a debate, which I don't have time for, nor do I care.
Romney the "libertarian?" Last time I checked, he had a big, fat "R" after his name. And sweetheart, here in Massachusetts there aren't enough libertarians to hold a decent Texas Hold'em night, let alone force the General Court to do their bidding. Have you been hitting the sauce?
Yet another reason to never consider living in MA.
...or if you already live there, to move out.
Corporations tend to roll with governmental regulation punches. Mass. is one of the more wealthy states, so I'm sure it's a good market for Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart has 48 stores (including SAM's clubs) in Mass., so I doubt their CEO would keep his job for long if he shut down all of their pharmacies over this.
You are so right Skooz, but it is the result of unintended consequences with one side of the debate demanding a 100% ban on abortion. The "all or nothing" approach has given us nothing.
As you state, rape or incest being such an infinitesimal percentage of all abortions a little ground could have been given to win a greater goal.
In my ideal world there would be no abortions but also there would be no need for abortions. My ideal world does not exist so I would opt for banning the 99% and fight to eliminate the crimes that generate the rest.
LOL. A Democrat state legislature and a Republican Governor force Wal-Mart to sell morning-after pills, and somehow it's the fault of the 0.1% of that Commonwealth's population who consider themselves libertarians?
Well, this means either a suit going up to SCOTUS, or barring that (if this is entirely a state issue) then let's see WalMart close down all of their pharmacies. Local businesses should be happy at the lack of competition and the politicians can all congratulate themselves -- until the voters start complaiining about prices of drugs in Mass.
I'm sure Carla Howell is strutting around like a peacock over this major victory for Massachusetts Libertarians.
Would you argue that certain types of gang or spousal killing are the result of our "all or nothing" approach to treating murder as a crime?
Given that there were states had liberal abortion laws well before the Roe decision and 18 more (including my home state of NY) voted to substantially liberalize their existing laws just before the decision, I have a hard time understanding your logic.
I think what we are seeing is a very intended consequence of one side of the debate wanting absolute, 100%, constitutionally guaranteed, state mandated, tax payer funded, make-it-a-hate-crime-for-a-church-to-decry right to a guilt-free - nay, praiseworthy - abortion for no other reason than I Feel Like It.
I haven't heard he played a role. I did hear he originally opposed the Mass. Legislature's decision to make Catholic Hospitals provide the morning-after pill as part of treatment of rape victims, but then -- according to him -- his lawyers told him it would be illegal to have a religious exception for this.
Romney's a wimp.
Not so fast, there -- not if they're under 18 (or look under 26!).
No stupid logic! Stay on topic.>
Given that there were states had liberal abortion laws well before the Roe decision and 18 more (including my home state of NY) voted to substantially liberalize their existing laws just before the decision, I have a hard time understanding your logic"
Lets see if I can help.
Abortion because of a poor "choice": bad.
Abortion because it is the wrong sex: Bad
Abortion because you changed your mind:Bad
Abortion because you were forced to have sex: Bad but should be allowed. The woman had no choice to begin with and society should not force her to carry to term.
Romney was getting rare political pressure to oppose this socialist law because he thinks he wants to run for prez. That is why he was "against it, before he signed it" into law. His lawyers made him sign it, yeah, thats the ticket.
Romnye is a RINO extraordinare only surpassed by William Weld, the other "libertarian" who forced secret adult/child gay sex clubs into all the public schools in the state and who appointed the dictator on the court who single handedly redefined marriage for the voters of the state. Weld is a gift that just keeps giving. Romney is his evil twin.
Honey pie, do dad, he refers to himself as a libertarian Republican.
And every year she struts down main street leading the gay parade.
And use short words
Before Roe - world was not 100% no abortion
Before Roe - States liberalized (that means relaxed) abortion laws
After Roe - All regulations against abortion were removed
Problem was not absolutism of anti-abortionists
Problem was and is absolutism of pro-abortionists
Following this bunky?
The Walmart case at hand - see me staying on topic? - is an example of an intended action of a philosphy of pro-abortion absolutism, not the unintended result of anti-abortion absolutism.
Understand?
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.