Posted on 02/20/2006 7:59:43 AM PST by XR7
Should the government really be telling businesses what products they can stock on their shelves? That‘s debatable, but it is happening.
Wal-Mart was ordered this week by the Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy to carry the morning after pill. It‘s an emergency contraceptive and a commercial one. The directive came after three women, backed by abortion rights groups, sued Wal-Mart to carry the pill in its Massachusetts stores.
Dr. Rebecca Guy is one of those women. Dr. Guy, along with her attorney Mr. Sam Perkins, joined Tucker Carlson to discuss the case.
CARLSON: Doctor, why should government be telling businesses what they can and cannot sell? Or why should anyone be forcing businesses to sell things they don‘t want to sell?
...You don‘t own Wal-Mart. I mean, you‘re not—right. You don‘t have a business relationship with Wal-Mart, I assume. Wal-Mart is owned by its stock holders. And so why shouldn‘t they get to decide what Wal-Mart sells? I guess I‘m missing this.
...But she can go somewhere else and buy it...How is it that you get to choose what a store sells? You could make the same argument about grocery stores. I need to eat to live, right? But I‘m not allowed to tell a grocery store what has to sell, and neither is government—yet.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
That is plain wrong on so many fronts!!
All these pills are dangerous, because they play with hormone levels and fertility cycles.
When "the pill" first came out, it was widely used by women, often with destructive long-term effects. Since then, it has been played with, weakened, and altered, but it's still risky.
The same with the morning-after pill, RU-486, contraceptive implants, and all the rest of these questionable drugs. If it were not for the overwhelming force of the abortion lobby, and the knee-jerk impulse to look the other way whenever contraception and abortion enter the picture, there would be a lot more questions about all these drugs.
I took the pill for several years with no ill effects. How many years were you on it? :)
I'm confused?
1) Is wal-mart hated by the left because they are non-union?
OR
2) Is wal-mart hated because they are pro-life?
Seems to me there are some cimmonalities here!
Wal-Mart does carry and fill prescriptions for regular birth control pills; around FR that probably does not qualify them as "pro-life".
<< I've come to view TC as the left's Alan Colmes. >>
Doesn't David Gegen [Gerbal?] own that jersey?
Actually, some say that physicians should follow similar rules for medications. We had all our meds "behind a lockable drawer." If a physician dispenses meds, she must keep records, even for samples (most of us just use the patient chart). At least in Texas, if we charge to dispense, we must keep a pharmacy, with similar records and regulations.
If this is a physician-patient issue, then let the physician dispense.
Actually the medication, while possibly an actual contraceptive, is not proven to be life saving or even to positively act on the mother's health.
The right to refuse to act in such a way that a person believes will be harmful to another is one of the fundamental rights. To rule as the Board of Pharmacy has in Mass. goes against the pharmacists' and Walmart's liberty and right to property.
Hildy, the concern about the potential for abortifacient effects under the old, traditional definition (rather than the new definitions made up to accomodate IVF and the IUD, etc.) makes the difference between barrier methods of contraception and those which potentially interfer in the natural life cycle of a human being.
We're still not sure how these medication protocols work. But we know that there's no "emergency" to the whole thing. If the doctor is convinced that there is, he or she should dispense.
I'm almost convinced that the Plan B and Preven will be proven to be true contraceptives - the evidence is stronger every day that they only work before ovulation and don't have any effect on the embryo. But I won't prescribe or refer for them until I'm fully convinced. It's better to err on the side of caution.
I love the idea of $1000 a pill. Unfortunately, price-fixing is an old Dem strategy.
I agree there is nothing legal about abortifacient drugs. That's because the Supremes ordered it legal with Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479; 1965) and Eisenstadt v. Baird (405 U.S. 438; 1972).
You know, the economic definition of fascism is that you get to own your stuff, but the government can tell you what to do with it. Hmmmmm....
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
The morning after pill is known to be abortifacient--that is quite literally the whole point of the drug.
However, it is NOT a controlled substance as defined by the federal Controlled Substances Act (21 USC ss.801-971), and thus is not Scheduled by the DEA.
LOL!!! Yea, they're going to get rid of a huge profit center to make a point. Wishful thinking on your part.
Yeah!
I want somebody to tell Wholefoods to resume selling Ben & Jerry's Chocolate Fudge Brownie Ice Cream.
(They stopped selling it due to the transfats....)
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.