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 ...
"It wouldn't surprise me at all if, five or ten years down the road, we see a bunch of major lawsuits, as pharmacies are sued for selling dangerous pills that have killed a number of women."
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.
That's not the way I understand it. 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.
I see nothing hypocritcal about it in the least. One is a controlled substance, one is not.
But my point is where will these mandates end?
I support it as a means to avoid abortion.
I shudder at the thought.
I agree...a private store should be able to stock or not stock whatever it wants. I was just noting the hypocracy. And about the controlled substance argument? It doesn't wash as we're talking about a pharmacy...where most everything is a controlled substance.
Isn't that the truth?
The fact that it is a different drug is not a logical argument for denying people the right to think it is just as bad. It is just in fact a huge fallacy. You can't look at someone else’s true convictions and tell them that they have no right to live by their beliefs, unless you have the intellectual honesty to admit that you are not a conservative, but in fact in favor of government tyranny. I don't care if the person tells you that it is there honest conviction that the pill is wrong because the goddess who lives in there toilet bowl told them it was bad. No government representative or government entity should try to enforce that said believer in the goddess of toilet water can run a pharmacy or any other kind of store.
I didn't say anywhere that I thought Wal-mart should have to carry it.
I still see no hypocracy.
Alcohol is a controlled substance. Should all holders of liquor licenses be required to stock and sell ALL available products?
I haven't posted in ages, but I wanted to answer your post.
Condoms prevent conception. Many people feel this is acceptable birth control as it prevents pregnancy.
Morning after pills do not prevent conception. If within the 72 hour time span a woman has conceived but the embryo has not attached to the uterine wall, then and only then do the pills work: by "flushing the embryo out of the body." Many people feel this is equivalant to abortion; whether or not the embryo has attached to the uterine wall is irrelevant. So long as there is an embryo, there is life, and the result of MA pills is a termination of life.
Yup,so do I,
This is not avoiding abortion, it is avoiding the ugly truth. EC does not necessarily prevent pregnancy, but it does prevent having to face the consequences of knowing.
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.
I have not and will not get into the good/bad/indifference on this pill.
My arguements are strictly based on
1. It is available elsewhere
2. These women knew WalMart did not carry it
3. The government should not be forcing private businesses to carry products they do not wish to carry.
There was a story about a year ago dealing with smoking bans. Smoking was permitted in bars. There was one bar in town that was owned by a recovering alcoholic and the entire athmosphere was geared toward others like him. They had their own gathering place in an athmosphere reminiscent of their drinking days, but no alcohol was sold or served. The owner was given a choice, sell alcohol or ban smoking. If I remember correctly, he just closed up shop.
There is nothing hypocritical in the least with making a personal choice to not sell one product that you think is a bad thing and also a personal choice to go ahead and sell another product that some few people mistakenly think does the exact same thing. There are a number of reasons why a lot of people have no religious conviction prohibiting barrier contraceptives and do have religious convictions prohibiting other types of "contraceptive" products. All of which is completely beside the point--How is any of it the right of government to force on pharmacy owners?
Unfortunately so many of these mandates are at the state and not federal level.
As I say in several other posts, my arguments here have nothing to do with the product or the pharmacy involved, my argument is against the mandates of the nanny state being placed on private enterprise by whiney busibodies such as the women in this case.
As someone else pointed out, Pro-Choice obviously does not mean Freedom of Choice...........and it goes for many other things besides just this particular pill.
Id prefer women to not abort at all, but I'd also prefer everyone face the truth and not pretend otherwise.
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.