Posted on 11/12/2005 5:00:47 PM PST by wagglebee
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - Target Corp. is defending its policy on filling prescriptions for emergency contraception after the Planned Parenthood Federation of America accused the retailer of disrespecting customers' reproductive rights.
Target allows pharmacists to choose not to fill requests for emergency contraception, also known as Plan B, if it is against their religious beliefs.
The issue has caused an ongoing debate nationwide between people who oppose abortion because of religious beliefs and those in favor of abortion rights.
Emergency contraception primarily delays ovulation long enough for sperm to die without fertilizing an egg. Those who oppose the drug say it could cause an abortion, but medical experts disagree.
Though other retailers have similar policies, Planned Parenthood officials say Target's policy is especially burdensome to customers. If one pharmacist refuses to dispense the drugs, the customer could have to travel to another store to get it.
It's an unnecessary inconvenience and embarrassment to the customer, said Jackie Payne, assistant director of government relations for the Planned Parenthood Federation in Washington. The timing is crucial for emergency contraception and could be a problem especially for women in rural areas, Payne said.
"Basically, they don't want to absorb the burden," she said of Target. "They would rather pass that on to the customer."
But Target defends its policy, pointing out that if the pharmacist refuses to dispense the drug, he or she must pass it on to another pharmacist at the same location. If none is available, the pharmacist must call another Target and make sure the drug is available for the customer.
"We are committed to getting these prescriptions filled," said Lena Michaud, spokeswoman for Target Stores. "But we also have to respect associates with strongly held religious beliefs."
In a company statement, Target officials added that their policy follows recommendations made by the American Pharmacists Association. It's a rare event that a pharmacist's beliefs conflict with a request for emergency contraception, officials said.
"Under no circumstances can the pharmacist prevent the prescription from being filled, make discourteous or judgmental remarks, or discuss his or her religious beliefs with the guest," Target's statement said.
Planned Parenthood officials say if Target allows pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription, they should think about adopting other ways to satisfy the customer. For example, other retailers have the emergency contraception delivered if pharmacists at the store refuse to fill it.
"All I want (Target) to do is to offer a minimum standard that the customer gets what she needs," Payne said. "And they won't do that."
On Thursday, Planned Parenthood organized a protest in front of the Target on Nicollet Mall in downtown Minneapolis. Participants held signs and chanted, "In store without delay, Target fill my pills today."
It's too much of a burden for some women to keep their birth control pills filled on time. What do you expect them to be responsible? If they are going to 'give it away', who cares, many of them sure as hell don't.
They have to realize they sinned, ask for forgiveness and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. Many of these baby murders won't do that. God doesn't forgive them just because they exist, they have to sincerely ask for His forgiveness!
Also, the women will oftentimes suffer a living Hell for years due to the guilt they feel about murdering their own unborn BABY. Often they can never forgive themselves and they truly suffer for their poor "choice".
"We're talking about people who believe that filling a particular scrip will be the same as being an accomplice to murder, and you treat it like it's the same issue as a Muslim wanting to take the whole month of Ramadan as paid vacation. And you chide others for being "dismissive" of others' feelings."
Hmm. You're chiding me for chiding others for being dismissive at the same time as you dismiss the hypothetical religious concerns of muslims. If I'm a hypocrite, then so are you. Have the last word.
These folks went into pharmacology to be healers and you are now demanding that they do something that they believe is the killing of a child. Your attitude is similar to that of the German government in that you believe the outcome you think is best trumps the fundamental rights of the individual.
In other words, he's trying to force his belief system on the pharmacists who are trying to force their belief systems on individual customers.
Wow, that is a great argument, except for one flaw: It's a pile of crap.
First, the pharmacists are not forcing their belief system on anyone. To do that, they would have to force their customers to be the same religion as them. Of course, what you mean is that they will not fill the scrips. Well, that's not forcing anything on anyone. They can get the scrip filled elsewhere. Imagine how silly you'd sound if you said, "that Hindu who owns the vegetarian grocery store is forcing his belief system on me because he doesn't sell hamburger!" Actually, you do sound that silly, because that's precisely the argument you're making. And even better, you're saying that he should be forced out of his profession because you don't want to go down the block to another grocer for hamburger.
Second, as I stated, the governor's action results in the government telling a private busineessperson what to stock, who to serve, how to serve them, and does so while forcing people to something they believe is murderous. If forcing someone to commit what their religion believes is a mortal sin merely to save the customer from going to a different store is not a violation of freedom of religion, what in the world would be? If it would help the public interest by increasing tax revenue or making life more convenient for hog farmers, could the governor force Jews to eat porkchops? If he said, "All Jewish state employees have to start eating porkchops," would you say, "Well, nobody's forcing them to work for the State?"
Close, but no cigar. The difference here is that the pharmacists took an oath to dispense legally prescribed drugs. They did not take an oath to dispense the ones they feel like dispensing. I doubt the Hindu took an oath to slaughter whatever came his way.
Show me that oath. I am looking at one version in another window right now and I also checked this more modern version from Rutgers. Neither states such an obligation, and each contains several phrases that would conflict directly with dispensing a medication that you believe to be deadly to a human life. Show me the oath you're talking about or show me why the ones I've provided require someone to commit a murderous act.
As a matter of fact, I'm not. I don't think he has any standing.
Why? He has advanced all the same arguments you're using. The only difference between you and him that I can see is that he has the power to exert his will and you don't.
And I'd be against them in that case bcse then they'd be doing the same thing as the pharmacists I take issue with: forcing their belief system on others.
Then you'd be a hypocrite, and already are because you think Blagojevich is out of line. Who is forcing a belief system, a pharmacist who says "I'm opting out of this treatment but you can obtain it elsewhere and I won't stand in your way" or somebody like you who says "These people should do what I think they should do or they should give up their profession?"
You are for forcing people to do something they believe is evil, simply because you think it's right. You can play semantics games about how they aren't being forced, but I'll bet if I told you to do something morally wrong or I'd have you fired you wouldn't just shrug your shoulders and say "Oh well, at least he's not forcing me."
We want our way, dammit, and if we don't get it we will destroy you and anyone who stands in our way.
Payne (of Planned Parenthood) said. "We want to go beyond simply the right to choose."
Stop projecting. I am not dismissing the religious concerns of anybody, hypothetical or otherwise. I was using the Ramadan example as an example of a ludicrous request. You are treating the pharmacists wish to avoid what they view as a murder as being a ludicrous and selfish imposition.
You're the one imposing and dismissing. And you're the one running and hiding under your desk because you've got nothing that justifies your position. Next time, bring your A game.
If a child is raped and her parents take her to a hospital which puts Plan B into effect, far from the mutilation you choose to assume will occur, in fact it isn't known at that point whether pregnancy did or will occur.
That is the situation upon which I based my remarks. You chose to equate it with every possible abortion technique, probably including partial-birth abortion.
I could better understand your disagreement had you just stated that you cannot tolerate ANY interference, at any point, just in case the girl-child may be pregnant.
If, or until, you have had to face the reality of this happening to one of your daughters or you're little sister, (and I would say the same to anyone) you can pontificate with ease.
When a human being is backed into a corner like a rat without any reasonable escape route, unless we can provide an acceptable one, I don't see where we can sit in judgement.
You can stick with your down-the-line beliefs on the subject but I can't deny to myself what I would do if faced with the realty.
In your mind I may be described as pro-abortion. I've argued against abortion with one of my adult children. I believe I finally convinced her. You can think whatever you like. I know my own mind.
Do yourself a favor and skip my previous post to you. Suffice it to say we are not in sync. Agree to disagree. OK?
Ain't no thing.
Well, you and I will have to agree to disagree because I see no problem with Target's policy.
But Target defends its policy, pointing out that if the pharmacist refuses to dispense the drug, he or she must pass it on to another pharmacist at the same location. If none is available, the pharmacist must call another Target and make sure the drug is available for the customer.
Target is going out of its way to acommodate the religious beliefs of its' workkers while ensuring its customers have access to the disputed abortifacient.
You're very welcome :)
(Liberals are best left to believe the lies they tell themselves.)
Only one problem, they control the public school systems.
Good for Target, although they shouldn't be selling this poison at all. Anyone know Walmart's policy?
Sounds like you haven't been keeping track....that behaviour *IS* the Clinton legacy for many young "ladies"...
Are you serious? You quote the bible and want me to come up with it?
Or maybe you didn't even realize you were quoting the bible?
LOL, I realized it, I'm glad you did. It certainly does NOT say the same thing about all other sins. Clearly there are other mortal sins, in this particular case (the scandalizing of the innocent child) the 'better you were never born' was used, hell awaits the other sinners. If you can refute that view by quotation, I am certainly willing to learn.
Matthew 26:24.
"The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born"
It's when Jesus is talking about Judas... however one could say that he means all of man if they betray Jesus. By sinning or saying his name in vain?
However that is where I believe the quote comes from and if anything it refers to either all sin or just to Judas betrayal itself.
But on this subject the topic is Planned Parenthood. A corrupt organization in my opinion that has been proven to be an enabler of statutory rape and enables the abuse of woman in the name of profit.
The subject of a woman who has been impregnated via rape/ sexual abuse does not have to be a no win situation. You state ".Most women who go through the trauma of an abortion suffer for years afterwards."
which is certain any sane minded woman would feel trauma for killing another life.( read the link below.)
But Planned Parenthood is not in the business of saving lives. They are in the business of killing for profit. Their intent is not to council a woman to carry a child to term but to council that the woman should eliminate the child and pay Planned Parenthood or their affiliates to do so.
I continue to stand vehemently opposed to the Planned Parenthood organization and its pro death agenda which was the subject of my post.
Well, since you are BRAND NEW around here, I will overlook the fact that it is very impolite to talk about someone in forum and not ping them (though your rude FReepmail to me gave me a clue that you probably were). But for the record, you don't know me or anything about me, so I find it rather hypocritical that you are judging me.
women do not wake up + go ~`I`ll think I`ll have an abortion today!!
There are over 3500 abortions PER DAY in the United States and some of these women give more thought about their next hairstyle than whether or not to kill their child.
Rape victims + victims of domestic violence are forced against their will to have sex..please go + visit a domestic violence shelter + the ladies there will enlighten you.. Get your head out of the clouds!!!!
I HAVE talked with these women and it's tragic (here is a thread of mine from two and a half years ago: Prayer Request for Rape Victim), nevertheless it is not the child's fault that their father is a monster and the child should not be condemned to death for this.
Additionally, the entire rape/incest argument, while emotionally curious, is nothing more than a tool of the pro-abortion movement. LESS THAN 10,000 women become pregnant each year as the result of these crimes, yet people like you would use it to excuse EVERY ONE OF THE 50 MILLION ABORTIONS since Roe v. Wade.
Get your head out of the clouds!!!!
Perhaps you thought that you were joining DUmmyland or some other leftist site (though my hunch is that you are a banned troll -- did you ever get caught up in a bugzapper?); however, Free Republic is a CONSERVATIVE AND PRO-LIFE forum and Jim Robinson has reiterated that fact on numerous occasions.
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.