Another Reason to Boycott Wal-Mart
Tashina Byrd went to Wal-Mart with her boyfriend to buy Plan B® - the "morning-after" pill - after their condom broke. The pharmacist said, "We have it on hand, but there's no one here who can dispense it."
This happened at a local Wal-Mart in Springfield, Ohio.
Send a letter to Wal-Mart CEO H. Lee Scott, Jr., urging him to change company policy to guarantee that pharmacies fill requests for Plan B® without delay, just like they do for any other over-the-counter medicine.
Click here to send your letter to Wal-Mart today.
posted by kate @ 5:57 AM
33 comments
33 Comments:
Remember Kate, just b/c you dont agree with them, doesnt mean you should be forcing them to dispense what you want them to dispense.
Wal-mart is a private business. If they dont want to sell something, that is their constitutional right. Just like them not selling CD's that have profane lyrics. Where do I buy my cd's, not wal-mart. But i am not trying to force them to sell them, i just go somewhere else.
I know a state court judge in some liberal state in the northeast told Walmart there they have to, but some (many) judges are simply opinion makers. According to the law, private businesses are free to practice as they please, without discriminating for the list of things.
Does Wal-Mart sell Viagra?
I'm no Wal-Mart hater and would agree with Rich but for his assertion "I just go somewhere else." In many small communities Wal-Mart is the very reason there is nowhere else to go.
As for private businesses being able to discriminate as they please, they were once able to choose who they would or would not serve based on race. I would contend that access to reproductive health care is a basic human right. Whether or not their law makers agree with me, many states do regulate what pharmacies must offer if they want to operate in the public sphere or accept public health care funds. As long as we have a health care system that is no system at all, we'll have unequal access to all manner of treatment.
port tampa,
I couldnt tell you about Viagra, im only 29 years old. I probably will find out when im 40 or 45 if they do. :)
In many small communities walmart may be the reason some mom and pop pharmacies are dead, but walgreens will always be in these areas too. Walgreens has done far more to put the locals out of their misery in the pharmacy area, they regularly buy out the locals prescriptions with people, and then the locals cannot fill those peoples prescriptions anymore. Walmart does not do that at all.
Im not sure people wanting to take a morning after pill is considered basic reproductive health care. But each person has their opinion. Some people may consider an abortion a basic human right of reproductive health care, and thus should doctors be required to perform abortions if the patient wants it. Only approximately 0.5% of doctors are even willing to perform that operation, and they are not forced to.
Rch-I hope you make it past 40-45 before needing Viagra ;)
ROFL .... nice
well if i want it as often as i do now, when i am 40-45 i will need it. If i am ok with much less frequency, then i wont... :)
private businesses do not have a constitutional right to practice as they please. while they may have more freedom in making certain business decisions, they can still be held accountable if they discriminate and/or act in violation of the law.
originally, wal-mart refused to stock plan b based on a "business decision". the only two states where wal mart stocked plan b were illinois, where it was mandated by law, and massachusetts (MA).
while there was a lawsuit in MA, wal mart changed its policy in MA after the board of registration in pharmacy voted unanimously to require wal mart to stock the drug. wal mart (private business and all) was found in violation of a MA regulation that provides that pharmacies dispense "commonly prescribed medications in accordance with the usual needs of the community".
as a whole, wal mart decided to stock plan b after the MA decision, impending actions in CT and NY, as well as the FDA's approval of the drug. wal mart's company policy allows pharmacists who object to providing plan b to refer customers to another pharmacist or pharmacy.
so, the issue in ohio isn't that wal-mart is being forced to dispense a medication it doesn't want to.
as far as i'm concerned, if the pharmacy stocks the medication, over-the-counter or prescription, it should be dispensed.
to allow a pharmacist to decide whether or not to give an individual medication, especially one that is over-the-counter for those over age 18, based purely on that pharmacists moral beliefs is a slippery slope.
jenn,
Point taken, see my first post. I said they practice as they please, but have to meet the discrimination laws (sex, race, etc.)
An individual pharmacist is free to choose not to dispense the drug. Walmart management is also free to keep that pharmacist, reprimand the pharmacist, or fire him/her.
dems love a damn letter!
Girl needs to by her man some King Kong size condoms so they don't bust again!!
And what about rape victims? Why should they have to schlep all over town trying to find a store who will "let them" buy Plan B? And why should an individual pharmacist have any say over someone else's morals or beliefs?
If we allow one store or one pharmacist to refuse to sell this absolutely LEGAL medicine because of their own moral righteousness, it only opens the door for more right-wing religious nuts to start governing women's reproductive rights AND our country. Lord help us.
anonymous,
Your argument is a non-issue. Roughly 0.7% to 1.1% of ALL abortions and pregnancy terminations are a result of rape. Over 98% are simply b/c they dont want the baby. And why should those very few have to schlep all over town, b/c that is life, deal with it.
An individual pharmacist has the right and freedom to do as he pleases. Are you only for freedom of speech as long as you agree with it? Check my post above at 11:50. Walmart management is also FREE to fire that pharmacist, if they choose.
You are rationing an argument that is one sided. Basically the immoral in society has the freedom to push anything they want on the moral, yet you dont want any moral people to have the freedom to push their morals on the immoral.
Like I said, freedom. The pharmacist can deny it, the consumer can go elsewhere, the company can fire the pharmacist, or the company can support the pharmacist. Freedom goes both ways.
whether the pharmacist has to dispense a medication they are morally opposed to or whether they refuse, someone is imposing their belief system on someone else.
however, a pharmacist's job description does not include being a moral compass for society.
if, as in the present case, an adult asks for a particular medication and there is no medical indication to deny the medication, it should be dispensed.
it is not the responsibility of the pharmacist to deny a medication based on their personal belief system.
nor is there any kind of legal "right" to do so. . .there is no such thing as freedom of expression when the decision you have made is, in fact, denying another something they are legally entitled to.
jenn, you hit the point while missing the point at the same time.
The pharmacists job description does not include the moral compass, but he is free to do that. AT THE SAME TIME, Wal Mart is FREE to decide that he is not doing his job, and fire him.
You use the word "entitled" they are entitled to the pill, if and only if, they enter a PRIVATE business that is willing to sell to them (without the federal law discrimination factor).
You dont seem to be getting it. He can do whatever he wants based on his personal beliefs, you cant make him, the law cant make him, but he isnt doing his job, and thus, he can be fired for not doing his job.
I am free in my profession to stop doing work for a client. Our company can choose not to sell a home to an individual (once again, within the federal law) We could deny a home to a person, and he could claim foul, but its our right not to sell it to him, we are a private company. Now if my company decided that I should have sold that person a home, and wrongly denied them, my company could fire me, or discipline me.
Remember, private business. Got it, good. Sometime you liberals are dense.
Rich,
Have you ever asked yourself, as I have, if liberals are so "dense", why you are CONSTANTLY here on this website mouthing off?
And why is it that you can never be wrong about ANYTHING?
And why, for the love of Pete, you are so insulting and annoying to everyone who posts who you don't agree with?
You sound to me like a misogynist windbag with a giant ego who is in dire need of counseling. Maybe that route would help you to realize that not everyone thinks as you do (thank goodness), but that doesn't make them wrong. Also that understanding is a good thing. If we liberals are so undesirable, then please feel free to stay in your dark conservative alley with your white, male friends who have no compassion for anyone but those who look just like them and enjoy their company. Do the rest of us a favor. Please.
Reflecting on the arguments my question is this: If Wal-Mart allows one pharmacist to refuse to dispense the medicine, but another pharmacist will, and, if the cashier refuses to ring it up, is Wal-Mart required to allow that cashier to do so? When I say “allow” I mean the employee will not be fired for making that choice.
Do my eyes deceive me or did Richie Rich label all those who choose to follow the decisions made by the United States Supreme Court, immoral? If my eyes are clear, then, by extrapolation, the Supreme Court Justices who made the decision in Roe v. Wade are immoral people.
Once again R’ie R, you are right on the money. If only the liberals could see it your (and my?) way.
In vain!
Goad further!
Cruel goader!
Thus Spake Zarathustra (Part Four)
by Friedrich Nietzsche
I am busting at the seams. Please pardon me for dual contiguous posting.
Oh, Rich, you young whippersnapper, you warm the cockles of my heart. As long as you stay young enough to follow your bosses’ around like an eager puppy dog, wagging your tail and panting at their every utterance, the power-brokers of the world have nothing to fear.
I cannot wait until the end of next week to hear more new (read old) ditties from you. Oh, I don’t want to ruin it for you, but I am so anxious to give you all of the rhetoric right here and right now, e.g. money is equal to free speech and right-to-work means limited unions. Be still my heart, patience, and you young Rich will be fully indoctrinated in due time. I am giddy that one more is almost fully onboard.
Maybe you are a conductor on this train now, but play your cards right and you will be an engineer one day. Think about it, you will get to blow the whistle and tell the others on the train what to do.
In vain!
Goad further!
Cruel goader!
Thus Spake Zarathustra (Part Four)
by Friedrich Nietzsche
rich,
you are correct. . .wal mart, as a private business, can make certain business related decisions and, as it stands, the pharmacist can do what s/he wants based on his/her personal beliefs. just because that's the way it is, doesn't mean that's the way it should be.
while i did use the word "entitled", please note that the word before it was "legally". in MA, wal mart, as a private business, was found in violation of a state regulation pertaining to the dispensing of medication. so, in fact, private companies cannot make policies that are in violation of the law, regardless of what the private business is willing or not willing to do.
private businesses must follow the letter of the law; not just in relation to discrimination, as they can also be found liable in civil actions, as well as criminal actions.
wal mart's policy may seem like some sort of middle ground. however, in rural areas, it seems unrealistic that if one pharmacist is unwilling to dispense plan b, that another one will be on duty who is. nor is it reasonable to refer a customer, in a rural area, to another pharmacy.
you should not have to travel any additional distance to get, as in the present case, an over the counter medication that you are legally entitled to.
as a whole, healthcare should not be dispensed on a moral basis.
as an aside, i certainly hope you are not calling, or inferring, that i am dense. for future reference, i will not respond to, nor will i resort to name calling.
got it? good.
Oooh, Jenn just smoked your ass, Rich. My girl's wicked smart.
Goader and everyone else - remember that you can't win a battle of the wits with someone who is unarmed.
My - I say that a lot.
Kisses.
Why Kate (May I call you Kate?) what on earth do you mean? After all, the battle is only half the fun and besides, if I was trying to be witty wouldn’t you think I’d say something funny?
Actually and unfortunately, what I said, even the fact that I had to say it is not funny at all—it’s really quite sad. However, if Jenn, and others will keep pluggin’ along, we will chip away at the massive amount of hypocrisy that has invaded this wonderful country of ours—yes, Rich, I said ours.
Wow, I have a lot to respond to. I must have rattled some liberal feathers. Ok, here we go.
im going to puke, you stated that I constantly insult anyone who disagrees with me. Are you referring to one word that i have used out of all my posts: dense. Not quite the personal attack. You however, right after saying that I do nothing but personal attacks, which i dont, personally attack me with insults aimed at me and my mental wellness. Is it that I am a pro-freedom conservative that makes me ill? Huh, i thought liberals were all for freedom, unless that is, the freedom contradicts their belief.
Eskay, that is up to the private business whether to allow it, the private person whether to do their job, and the private consumer on whether to shop somewhere else. The govt has no place telling private business that in order to be in business, they HAVE to sell certain items.
Goader, you were referring to supreme court decisions. I am aware that they ruled abortion legal, and obviously the morning after pill legal. However, they did NOT rule that every doctor has to be forced to perform an abortion if their patient wants it. They also did NOT rule that a pharmacist has to be forced to distribute the morning after pill if a patient wants it, nor did the supreme court rule that a private business has to carry the morning after pill if they carry other medicines.
jenn, your first paragraph is 100% true. Just b/c its the way it is, does not mean thats the way its supposed to be. But that does not mean the govt should interfere with private business and tell them, if they are a business, or if a person is a pharmacist, they HAVE to sell something to someone who wants it.
I didnt know it at the time, but I had a gf back when I was 18 that was given the morning after pill. Im not speaking from a higher moral ground. I will leave that to the misguided christian leaders who seem to want moral law over the land. I am just talking freedom and law.
Entitlement, legally. We are legally entitled to many things, if we pay the money to a private company that is willing to sell the product. My wife is legally entitled to thyroid prescription medication on a daily basis. DO you want to know how hard it is to find her medication, how many pharmacies just say they dont carry it, about 75%. We have repeatedly been rushing around at late hours just to find a place before her daily pills run out.
So should we get the govt to force all pharmacies to carry her prescription. Nope, we will just give business to the private business that does carry it. Government interference is not the way to "entitlement". MA and one other state may have decided to make it law. Personally I believe it is not right, only b/c it is more govt interference and regulation. However, this case was in OH, and we live in FL, and neither state has this law.
and finally, Kate, if what Jenn wrote was the liberal smoking my ass, then i totally missed it, and i am certainly not fearing any ass smoking in the future. Maybe YOU BELIEVE that she did, b/c you severely disagree with me, so her comments you take as pounding me. Maybe thats why one side usually thinks they won the debate for political candidates.
HOwever kate, the beginning post, while seemingly unnecessary, was the right way to go with Wal-mart. You want Wal-mart to force its pharmacist employees to dispense the morning after pill to anyone who wants it. YOu didnt say: write the state or federal govt and have them force walmart to do that. Wal-mart is a private business, and if enough people complain or convince the CEO, then the policy will change.
LIke i said, the guy is free to not dispense, wal-mart is free to allow or forbid that, and you are free to write them letters to convince them to force pill dispensing. SO if you want to do that, more power to ya.
I believe that if Wal-Mart were to “allow” the pharmacist to refuse to dispense the medication, then they become legally bound to also allow the cashier to refuse to ring it up. Once they open the door and let one employee refuse to do something, then they must allow another employee make the same choice. What is good for the pharmacist becomes equally good for the cashier. I imagine the executive wing at headquarters is losing a little perspiration over this one.
Well, well, I was beginning to think you were no longer going to grace us with all the right answers. (Let me pause to say irrespective of my sarcasm, I find you refreshingly gutsy, and I respect your willingness to stand up for your beliefs—even if they are wrongheaded [damn it I just cannot help myself sometimes]. OK, that is enough of that drivel.)
Allow me to remind you of a little detail called corporate welfare. I know those of you who are always right do not like to dwell on this little ditty, but we all know it exists. Here is why it is important to our discussion. When Wal-Mart accepts tax breaks or other concessions to build one of their stores they become somewhat beholden to all of the tax payers in the neighborhood. Remember, the monetary breaks afforded to Wal-Mart and others comes out of our pockets not the politicians who offer them. It is our money with which we allow our elected officials to negotiate.
Therefore, Wal-Mart is not a purely free enterprise venture. We can speak of freedom and free markets and private business, knowing that the ideals we speak of do not exist in the real world. If you recall in World History class; true democracy ended with the ancient Greeks. Today our global world is far to complex to explain things simply in black and white. This is where I believe the side of the political isle that has all the “right” answers loses some credibility. Those on the left, where the wrong answers reside, have a better grasp on world affairs when they are able to see the gray areas.
The bottom line: Wal-Mart is not free to make any legal choice in doing business unless and until they give up all corporate welfare they have accepted. They need to ask those of us who pay for the benefits they receive before they start doing things that directly affect some of us in a negative way. Everything in business and life is a multilane highway and if you are going to travel it you better drive cooperatively.
You are certainly right on corporate welfare. I left that out as an entirely separate issue. Virtually ALL companies get corporate welfare, and that is ridiculous. I wish we would end all of it. The govt does it mostly to buy votes and control as much as possible. But this would be for another discussion on another post.
Goader - who knew you were this enteraining? Color me impressed.
Rich - At least you're consistent. That's gotta count for something.
That’s it? I completely destroy your premise that the almighty private business, Wal-Mart can do as they bloody well please as long as it’s legal; and all you have to say is, “I left that out as an entirely separate issue.”
That is the problem with Left/Right dialogue: The right spits their dogma until someone on the left finds a legitimate weakness and suddenly it’s time for commercial break. (To wit, O’Reilly says “cut his mike, we’ll be right back after this from one of our sponsors.”) Upon returning from the right distraction we find we’ve moved on to something else. (The other sneaky strategy is to put pretty-boy Sean Hannity for the Right up against Alan Combs [god bless him] for the Left.) It’s not the Right’s fault; it’s the Left’s fault for not hammering endlessly on these obvious manipulations. Lefties, remember Howard Dean’s infamous rebel yell? The Right beat the shit out of that one clip until the public said, enough, alright already we hate Dean, now stop playing that video clip out of context so we can see something else. Honey, please tell your friends we hate Howard Dean so Fox, CNN and MSNBC will play something other than that same damned tired video clip.
Those on the Left (where real freedom rings) need to practice beating the ever-lovin’ doo-doo out of any, and I mean any, mistake, blunder, out-take, misstatement or manipulation made by someone on the other side. The general public (bless their hearts) is the product of “Happy Days,” “90210” and now “Grey’s Anatomy. Those in the public have the attention span of a gnat (forgive me noble gnat).
goader,
You act like I lost the argument, so i ended the discussion. I see corporate welfare (manipulation) as a separate issue. The govt (fed, state or local) gives grants and help for business devt. That does not mean that a business has to sell what the state or feds feel like they should sell.
Just b/c the govt reimburses a business when they dispurse a prescription to a person who has medicaid, does not mean the govt gets to tell the private business exactly what it has to stock and sell. The govt simply reimburses the company for the cost of a prescription WHEN they sell it.
Thats why I didnt go into it. Corporate welfare is an entirely separate issue than a pharmacist not doing his job b/c of personal reasons, and risking getting fired for it.
The larger scope of the argument was availability of goods and services in the neighborhood. Your point was that if one cannot acquire a product or service locally then they should move on to the next proprietor who will provide the commodity. The bigger issue was the private business’ “right” to sell whatever they damn well please to whomever they choose to sell it.
The pharmacist’s right to sell or not to sell morphed into a sort of sovereignty of private business. My point so eloquently bloviated was that it is a myth that private business holds some kind of transcendent sovereignty over its customers. Nothing can be further from the truth. It is as dependent on the customer who needs the product as the customer is to business to supply it. To condone censorship of products and services based on some retro-moralistic doctrine is absurd. It is clear that Wal-Mart, our supreme example, has engaged in just such behavior. The pharmacist choosing not to sell a product knows well and good that his employer will back him on his decision, or he would have resigned the second the offending product was first placed on the shelf.
Your premise that those affected are to simply choose to go somewhere else or find another job does not acknowledge the interdependence between parties.
As for corporate welfare, you can dress it up all you want with terms like “grant” and help for development, but if it quacks like a duck, my friend, it is welfare pure and simple. And, there is no cap or time limit on that entitlement.
Goader,
i was only calling it a grant to specify the "type" of welfare they get. I know its not right. If we simply eliminated all corporate welfare, our tax bills would go down about 10-15%. To me any govt handout is welfare, unless it is social security for retirement to someone who has paid in it for at least 20 years.
I already went over walmart being dependent on its customers. I dont need to again.
Wal-mart started their so-called choosing not to sell certain products years ago. I mentioned in a much earlier comment about profane lyric CD's, all b/c Sheryl Crow sang about walmart selling guns in their catalogs. Pretty dumb, but it was their choice, and I rarely if ever buy a CD at walmart. I go elsewhere.
Oh... well, never mind then.
Whatever Wal-Mart is or is not permitted to do, the fact remains that a pharmacist goes into their field to dispense medicine. If they have a problem dispensing certain types of medicine because they disagree with those drugs morally, then they should get out of the business of being pharmacists. The fact that they CAN pick and choose, does not make it ethically proper for them to do so.
And frankly, I'm about sick and tired of people substituting their moral judgment for the judgment of others. If you don't like the morning-after pill, then write your Congressman. In the meantime, give the pill to the woman who asks for it, or find another line of work.
Goader,
I simply find you quite annoying.
Really and why is that Mr. H? Do tell…
Post a Comment
<< Home