Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Austin prohibits Walgreens from refusing to fill prescriptions
The Houston Chronicle ^ | August 18, 2005 | Lisa Falkenburg

Posted on 08/19/2005 2:24:44 AM PDT by hocndoc

HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Local & State

Aug. 18, 2005, 10:34PM

Austin prohibits Walgreens from refusing to fill prescriptions

By LISA FALKENBERG Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

AUSTIN - Texas' capital city became the first in the nation Thursday, according to Planned Parenthood, to prohibit a pharmacy from refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control, emergency contraceptives and other medications. ADVERTISEMENT

The measure, approved unanimously by the Austin City Council, requires Walgreens, the city's pharmaceutical contractor, to fill prescriptions for patients on Austin's medical assistance program "in-store, without discrimination or delay," even if an individual pharmacist declines to fill a prescription based on personal beliefs.

Planned Parenthood hailed the measure as a model for other cities and a strong statement against recent high-profile cases across the country in which pharmacists cited moral objections to filling birth-control prescriptions.

"We haven't heard of any other city to do this," said Danielle Tierney, regional spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood. "Instead of waiting for a woman in Austin to get denied her prescriptions, we're putting in this extra layer of protection and taking a positive, proactive approach to the problem. Our hope is that other city councils will look at this and say, 'What a great idea. We can do this in our community, too.' "

In the Dallas area, several women have been denied prescriptions, including a rape victim who was refused the "morning after pill" and a North Richland Hills mother of two and first-grade teacher, who was denied her birth-control pills.

Joe Pojman of the Texas Alliance for Life downplayed the significance of the provision, which affects only nine Walgreens stores in Austin's medical assistance network.

"Strangely, I don't see it as such a big deal," Pojman said. "I'm just wondering if they're not grasping for something they could call a victory, to have something to show to their donors."

Michael Polzin, a spokesman for Deerfield, Ill.-based Walgreens, said the Austin provision differs from the company's general policy in only one way.

Normally, a Walgreens store manager can refer a customer elsewhere if a pharmacist objects to filling a prescription and there's no one else to fill it, Polzin said. The Austin rule requires the prescription be filled in-store.

"This program was a unique situation, and that's why we agreed to the provision," Polzin said. "I wouldn't see any reason that this would go beyond the single program."

Polzin said he thinks the company's general policy is balanced, meeting its obligation to serve customers and respecting the beliefs of its 16,000 pharmacists nationwide.

"We want our pharmacists to have the ability to step away from that situation. We don't want them to step in the way," he said.

Walgreens' agreement with Austin, which begins Sept. 1, will affect more than 50,000 people using the city's health care clinics, including more than 8,000 families who use it for family planning, said Karen Gross, policy director for Austin City Council member Brewster McCracken, who sponsored the provision.

lisa.falkenberg@chron.com


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: abortion; austin; bioethics; conscienceclause; cultureofdeath; healthcare; infaticide; medicine; notprivacy; pharmacy; plannedparenthood; prescriptions; prolife; taxdollarsatwork; taxes; taxpayerfundabortion; texas; youpayforthis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last
To: hocndoc
The measure, approved unanimously by the Austin City Council, requires Walgreens, the city's pharmaceutical contractor, to fill prescriptions for patients on Austin's medical assistance program "in-store, without discrimination or delay," even if an individual pharmacist declines to fill a prescription based on personal beliefs.

Attention Customers: As of today Walgreen's will no longer fills perscriptions for persons on Autin's Medical Assistance Program. Have a nice Day


21 posted on 08/19/2005 11:21:54 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WomanBiologist
My health insurance (Group Health) only covers medicine dispensed from their OWN pharmacy. They do not carry a certain medication that I need for my own health. As a result, I go over to Walgreens and pay out of pocket for the medication in question.

In a free society, they have a right to carry what they wish, we have the right to take our business elsewhere.

22 posted on 08/19/2005 11:22:10 AM PDT by Clemenza (Pirro is Hillary with an (R))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
A pharmacist's job is to fill a perscriptive ORDER from a DOCTOR. Their ethic's or personal beliefs are not a part of the perscription. If the pharmacy stocks the medication then the 'script should be filled. If the pharmacist owns the store then they could choose not to stock a paticular item.
23 posted on 08/19/2005 12:33:54 PM PDT by 1FreeAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WomanBiologist
So you would have no problem with pharmicists refusing to dispense insulin medication, cholesterol meds, obesity meds etc?

No, I wouldn't. Would you have a problem with the Jewish deli owner down the street refusing to sell ham, or the Mormon supermarket owner refusing to sell alcohol and cigarettes?

24 posted on 08/19/2005 12:41:11 PM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
The measure, approved unanimously by the Austin City Council, requires Walgreens, the city's pharmaceutical contractor, to fill prescriptions for patients on Austin's medical assistance program "in-store, without discrimination or delay," even if an individual pharmacist declines to fill a prescription based on personal beliefs.

Good catch. This is the city demanding that Walgreens live up to its contractual obligations.

25 posted on 08/19/2005 12:42:39 PM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
Attention Customers: As of today Walgreen's will no longer fills perscriptions for persons on Autin's Medical Assistance Program. Have a nice Day

That would probably be a violation of their contract with Austin.

26 posted on 08/19/2005 12:44:14 PM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc

Solution?

Remove every Walgreens from the Austin city limits.


27 posted on 08/19/2005 12:45:24 PM PDT by trubluolyguy (If you think you're having a bad day, try crucifixtion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc

Austin City Council

Mayor Will Wynn


Phone: (512) 974-2250
Fax: (512) 974-2337

Office Term: June 15, 2003, to June 15, 2006

Physical Address
City Hall
301 W. 2nd St. 2nd Floor
Austin, Texas 78701


http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/contacts.htm


28 posted on 08/19/2005 12:46:37 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
I'm not offering favorable odds of it remaining so contained. Nope, there is wide spread effort to do this. Shoot, the governor of Illinois just tried to do this by executive order for all pharmacies in the state, but I believe he found he overstep his authority.
29 posted on 08/19/2005 12:48:41 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WomanBiologist

You are so right. These PRIVATE companies should be FORCED to do the pro-abort lobbies bidding!

Pro-Life doctors should be FORCED to perform abortions! If they don't, take their license away!

(sarcasm off)


30 posted on 08/19/2005 12:51:04 PM PDT by trubluolyguy (If you think you're having a bad day, try crucifixtion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: WomanBiologist
Filling medications eis part of their job. If they don't like their job duties, then pick another profession!!!!!!!

They didn't give up their moral obligations just because they chose pharmacy as a profession. You obviously don't know much about their "job duties".

Maybe you should take care of YOUR PROBLEMS before you run out of birth control pills. You can take your business elsewhere.

31 posted on 08/19/2005 12:53:38 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
If the owner of a store refuses to stock a product, that's THEIR CHOICE. It doesn't matter if its a tavern owner refusing to stock Coors or a pharmacist refusing to stock the pill.

EXACTLY!

32 posted on 08/19/2005 12:55:13 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 1FreeAmerican

"WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE"!


33 posted on 08/19/2005 12:57:56 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 1FreeAmerican
A pharmacist's job is to fill a perscriptive ORDER from a DOCTOR.

And you are FREE to take that prescription to ANOTHER PHARMACY.

34 posted on 08/19/2005 12:59:20 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

All Contracts have escape clauses.


35 posted on 08/19/2005 1:18:57 PM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay

I guess NARAL's supporters are the ONLY people who get to CHOOSE. Everyone else is suppose to bow to their orders.


36 posted on 08/19/2005 1:49:06 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
Walgreens' agreement with Austin, which begins Sept. 1, will affect more than 50,000 people using the city's health care clinics, including more than 8,000 families who use it for family planning, said Karen Gross, policy director for Austin City Council member Brewster McCracken, who sponsored the provision.

That's the "pro-business" (and pro-toll road) Brewster McCracken that conservatives were urged to back when he was running for his council seat. Reminds me of the Jennifer Kim thing where conservatives were told to back her even though I don't think she do anything conservatives will applaud.

Essentially, I consider Austin city government a lost cause and I'm not going to go out of my way for the equivalents of Jim Jeffords or Lincoln Chafee. They'll turn on us just as easily as the other libs will.

37 posted on 08/19/2005 1:55:32 PM PDT by Tall_Texan (Visit Club Gitmo - The World's Only Air-Conditioned Gulag.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
A pharmacist's job is to fill a perscriptive ORDER from a DOCTOR.

And you are FREE to take that prescription to ANOTHER PHARMACY.

I'm a little confused; based on this "free market" analogy, then any hospital should be able to refuse treatment to anybody - after all, they can go to another hospital, can't they? Or, to extend the "Jewish Deli" analogy, they can refuse service to anyone wearing a burka - they can go to another deli, can't they?

Now, if a pharmacy does not stock a particular med, that's their choice, and the customer should never go there again for that prescription. But once they've chosen to keep it in stock, denying to dispense it based on "moral beliefs" is wrong (especially in this day of prescribing meds for side effects).

I especially like the post about condoms - should a cashier be allowed to refuse to ring up a box of condoms?

38 posted on 08/19/2005 2:09:19 PM PDT by jaj_dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc

what if Walgreens refuses to stock my favorite brand of breath mints?

What the heck is "emergency" contraception? RU486?


39 posted on 08/19/2005 2:13:26 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaj_dad
I'm a little confused; based on this "free market" analogy, then any hospital should be able to refuse treatment to anybody

Since when is a hospital a "free market". Many of them now are government subsidized. It's not the same as a private business which gets no government handouts (Thank God!).

40 posted on 08/19/2005 2:14:43 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson