Austin prohibits Walgreens from refusing to fill prescriptions

The Houston Chronicle ^ | August 18, 2005 | Lisa Falkenburg

[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

[hocndoc]

How is it that this is such a private decision and activity that the rights of so many other people - in large groups, as thought they give up their individual identities and rights - must be restricted in advance and by laws and regulations?

[HiTech RedNeck]

"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."

Ho, boy, they will find out soon enough that they are SO wrong.

[hocndoc]

I've commented on this in my blog LifeEthics.org. Wonder how the citizens of Austin feel about the City paying for this? I still can't figure out why the PP clinics, ER's and even the city clinics don't dispense the med themselves if it's such an "emergency." And if they want to keep things "private."

[King Prout]

this is an enforcement of contractual obligations between the corporation and the city, and does not impinge on independent private practices. I don't mind this... just so long as it stays nice and contained as it is right now.

I'm not offering favorable odds of it remaining so contained.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I still can't figure out why the PP clinics, ER's and even the city clinics don't dispense the med themselves if it's such an "emergency."

Nooooooo, that would mean being trying to be honorable and making sense, inasmuch as it's possible for a looie liberal. Noooooooo. Their credo: drag the world down into the gutter with them, then it ain't so lonely.

[hocndoc]

I agree on the contractual obligations. I wish Walgreens had used the city's decision to change the contract as an excuse to get out of the contract.

[Hardastarboard]

pharmacists cited moral objections to filling birth-control prescriptions

Ah, yes, the wonderful MSM propaganda machine, at its subtle finest. Notice they're using "birth-control prescriptions" to mean abortion pills. Clever little Jedi mind trick, but it didn't work.

[topher]

Austin is one of the most liberal cities in Texas (though I could be wrong). There is a very large gay community, and the U. of Texas has a lot more liberal professors than would Texas A & M.

Maybe I am wrong.

[exDemMom]

I wonder if the Austin City Council and/or PP will assume financial liability for adverse health effects incurred by women using the "emergency contraceptive" several times per month over a prolonged period? Just because this drug has been deemed safe for sporadic use (I don't know how they tested it--one-time only, once per year, or what?) does NOT mean it's safe for routine, frequent use.

Although, when it comes to "reproductive health," a certain subset of women are always eager to make themselves into guinea pigs, having believed the PP propaganda that anything related to abortion is "perfectly safe." (Yes, a PP saleswoman said that to my high school biology class back in the 70s--who knows how many heard and believed that lie.)

[libertylover]

Looks like Walgreens is trying for a Neville Chamberlain award.

[monday]

"Ah, yes, the wonderful MSM propaganda machine, at its subtle finest. Notice they're using "birth-control prescriptions" to mean abortion pills. Clever little Jedi mind trick, but it didn't work."


from the article; "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."

It means both.

[SpinyNorman]

I still can't figure out why the PP clinics, ER's and even the city clinics don't dispense the med themselves if it's such an "emergency."

Nooooooo, that would mean being trying to be honorable and making sense, inasmuch as it's possible for a looie liberal. Noooooooo. Their credo: drag the world down into the gutter with them, then it ain't so lonely."

I agree: it is a matter of looking "legitimate" to them, similar to the gay marriage issue. Both groups want to be considered normal and mainstream, even thought they are not.

It is an extesion of the Goebbel's theorem of repeating a lie: if consumers etc. see their friendly pharmacist dispensing these items, they must be good, right?

[Ro_Thunder]

Nope, Austin is the California, or Massachusetts of Texas. It's so far left it actually wraps itself around the Earth from El Paso enough to reach back into the middle of th estate.

[WomanBiologist]

They are pharmicists... their job is to dispense medications...

Many women are on birth control... try having to go on the pill for Accutane (acne medication) or having severe endometriosis (which leaves you lying on the floor, doubled over in pain or puking in the toilet for a couple days each month).

If my pharmicist refused to fill my birth control pills, i don't know where i would go (many insurance companies will only pay for meds at certain drugstores!!!!!!!!!). If I couldn't get my pills, i'd have to call into work sick at least 2 days a month.

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

[weegee]

You do realize that this is about the morning after pill. An abortion pill.

Taxpayer funded abortions under the radar.

[weegee]

You don't approve of "conscious objectors"?

All doctors should be forced to administer abortions?

Some schools believe so.

[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.

[Skooz]

Well said.

[WomanBiologist]

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

The pharmicists believe it's their duty to provide meds, give shots, diagnose illnesses, and consider themselves nearly doctors... isn't it then unethical?

And the story did highlight "birth control"! Not just EC.

Also, the Walgreens sell condoms but not birth control? imagine that...

Pharmacists, hospitals, doctors, etc are much different than other businesses. When it comes to saving lives, ensuring the wellbeing, it can't be just a business decision.

[Skooz]

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

It's called "freedom."