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 ...
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
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?
Bullseye!
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.
Well, it is different. I don't approve of either, but the morning after pill and RU-486 are very different medications.
Give me a break.
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?
BTW, in regard to the headscarf thing...how does getting rid of headscarfs stop terorism, or even slow down the transmission of radical ideology?
I was cheering for global warming today...my car was in the shop, and it was a long, cold walk to go get it.
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?
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.
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.
Excellent question.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You forgot the "love my abortions" movement.
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.
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.