Wal-Mart ordered to carry 'morning-after' pill [great interview by conservative]

MSNBC ^ | 2/20/2006 | Tucker Carlson transcript

[XR7]

I took the pill for several years with no ill effects.

Thankfully. For now.
It's the long-term effects that concern medical researchers.

"The research concluded that women who used the oral contraceptive pill
may be exposed to long-term problems from low values of "unbound" testosterone
potentially leading to continuing sexual, metabolic, and mental health consequences."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=35663

[Mr. Silverback]

Here's the Pharmacist's Oath:

At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of Pharmacy.

I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns.

I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve.

I will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of Pharmacy,

I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical, and legal conduct.

I will embrace and advocate change in the profession of Pharmacy that improves patient care.

I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.

If a pharmacist believes that filling a certain prescription violates that oath, what business does anyone have forcing him to violate his oath?

How is it that government forcing a person to violate their religious precepts is not a violation of the free exercise clause?

[Mr. Silverback]

Then let the doctor carry it.

Bullseye!

[Jaded]

Are you sure Walmart owns the pharmacy? A few years ago in the Houston area, Walmart sub-let the pharmacy space to a company that provided the service. If so, then it would be individual companies deciding what they would stock in each different area. Is that the case here? The coffers wouldn't be as full though.

[Mr. Silverback]

Well, it is different. I don't approve of either, but the morning after pill and RU-486 are very different medications.

[Hildy]

Give me a break.

[Mr. Silverback]

Between Bush's budget busting and fascist gubmint intrusion, conservatism is dead.

Do you know what the definition of fascism is in economic circles? It is a system where you own and can benefit from personal property, but the government can tell you what to do with it.

So, a pharmacist owns the pharmacy, but the government can tell him what to stock and control how he sells it...hmmmmm...what does that sound like?

[Mr. Silverback]

The issue is not whether the morning after pill will be available. The issue is whether the government should be able to force a business to stock a particular product. There are also First Amendment issues; government mandates forcing a person to violate their religion's precepts are a clear violation of either the establishment clause, the free exercise clause, or both.

BTW, in regard to the headscarf thing...how does getting rid of headscarfs stop terorism, or even slow down the transmission of radical ideology?

[Mr. Silverback]

I was cheering for global warming today...my car was in the shop, and it was a long, cold walk to go get it.

[Mr. Silverback]

What I can't understand is why anybody thinks banning headscarves would do anything to damage terrorism. Radical muslims won't be able to dominate their wives if they can can see the lady's hair?

[Mr. Silverback]

I don't know any food or drugstore that doesn't carry condoms. So, if a store carries condoms, why wouldn't they carry the morning after pill?

The short answer is that condoms don't violate the Pharmacist's Oath, but the morning after pill does.

Now, here's the more important question: Even if it was absurd hypocrisy of epic proportions for a pharmacy to stock condoms and not stock Plan B, what freakin business is it of mine, yours, or (especially) the governments?

That (and the freedom of religion implications) is the issue here. Whether the pharmacists are wise or foolish is irrelevant.

[Mr. Silverback]

Could you and your ping list educate this zarf person? He or she seems to believe that libertarianism is geting the government to force people to do stuff with their businesses.

[Mr. Silverback]

So should doctors also be forced to commit abortions because they're legal?

Excellent question.

[Mr. Silverback]

The morning after pill has been over the counter in Britain for five years now; you'd think we would have heard something if that were the case.

No, we wouldn't. Britain has a "loser pays" system that greatly discourages frivolous/unjust lawsuits. The first few victims of the drug would probably lose their cases (just as anti-tobacco suits failed for decades here in the U.S.) and have to pay court costs for the drugstore.

[Mr. Silverback]

I think my views are "libertarian" and here's where I stand: The gov't should not dictate to a private business what to sell or not sell. The decision whether or not to sell any particular pill should be left solely to the owner of the pharmacy, not to the government, customers, or the owner's employees, either.

You are absolutely correct that this is the libertarian position. Don't let yourself be tarnished by a few people who claim to be libertarians but are really part of the hate moralists and love my genitalia" movement.

[Mr. Silverback]

No offense, but don't you figure that pharmacists know where babies come from? A film of latex that traps sperm is a barrier contraceptive. A drug that turns a living human embryo into clot that gets flushed down the toilet is a weapon. That's the difference, and there is no hypocrisy in agreeing to sell latex and refusing to seel anti-baby weaponry.

[Mr. Silverback]

So, you're saying you'd prefer women to "face the decision" by surgically aborting several weeks later, when the pregnancy is established and farther along. I don't see that as a better course, so we disagree on that.

Are you saying you really believe that if a Wal-Mart refuses to fill this script, the woman will be unable to obtain the drug? First, that's almost certainly not true as things are now. When Governor Blagojevich imposed this crap on pharmacists in illinois, there were cases where the women who were denid the drug by a particular pharmacist could literally walk down the block and get it at another store. Second, if pharmacists don't want to stock the drug, let the doctors give it instead of writing scripts.

Let's keep government out of these affairs.

[Mr. Silverback]

So, you're saying you'd prefer women to "face the decision" by surgically aborting several weeks later, when the pregnancy is established and farther along. I don't see that as a better course, so we disagree on that.

Are you saying you really believe that if a Wal-Mart refuses to fill this script, the woman will be unable to obtain the drug? First, that's almost certainly not true as things are now. When Governor Blagojevich imposed this crap on pharmacists in illinois, there were cases where the women who were denid the drug by a particular pharmacist could literally walk down the block and get it at another store. Second, if pharmacists don't want to stock the drug, let the doctors give it instead of writing scripts.

Let's keep government out of these affairs.

[cgk]

Don't let yourself be tarnished by a few people who claim to be libertarians but are really part of the hate moralists and love my genitalia" movement.

You forgot the "love my abortions" movement.

[cgk]

The only downside to the $1000 a pill idea is that the taxpayers will be footing that bill for the "poor downtrodden women who are victims of rape/men/drugs/the system" and can't afford it. If anyone thinks Medicaid will tell them to find a cheaper pharmacy, think again. Ca$h cow, not unlike the $50 aspirin in the E.R.