Fundie pharmacists sue to deny women reproductive freedom

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/27/health/main3104500.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3104500

Didn't we do this already?

If you own the pharmacy, you should be able to choose what you do or do not sell.

If you work there, suck it up if you want to keep your job.

I had a piece of apple pie tonight.

Ramen has an enormous penis.

So I hear.

Those "in the know" claim otherwise.

They're right. The government shouldn't be able to require any business owner to stock something he or she doesn't want to.

As to whether individual pharmacists should be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription, that's up to their bosses.

!

Huh. From the thread title I thought they were suing to force women to have sex.

Or that they bring three letters of recomendation from their parish priests.

We gots that one here!

Yup, they own the business and if they don't want to sell it they don't have to. The only exception could be if they held some kind of council license that gave them exclusive rights to be the only pharmacy in the area.

That seems unlikely though so they are in the right. However when another business sees an opportunity to open up nearby and offer customers what they want I hope we won't hear them complaining about their small business getting into trouble in the market.

It's the company's right to decide.

Not the employee's, and not the governments.

Where are their any small business pharmacies left? I can't name a single one in my area. It's all Walgreens, CVS, grocery stores, and increasingly Wal-Mart.

I used to work at an Osco

And we have the Pill Box over here in Ft. Lauderdale.

Well, it's everyone's right to decide:

The company's right to decide whether to carry the medication.

The employee's right to decide if they want to work for a place that either does or does not carry the medication.

The customer's right to decide if they want to patronize a business that does or does not carry the medication.

The government's only real right at all is whether or not to approve the drug in the first place.

I'm impressed. I honestly don't think the south side of the Nashville metro area has a single independent pharmacy.

What about women that live in very rural (and often very conservative) areas where there is only one pharmacy for miles? (As is the case with many small towns here in Illinois. Women who can't take their business elsewhere???

The libertarian in me wants to say that they can sell what they want, it's their choice...but in the real world, pharmacies are licensed by and heavily regulated by the government. Why should they be granted a license at all if they refuse to do their jobs - supply legal medicines???

Or should we just do without government regulation at all and let pharmacy owners do what they want? Hell, I would *love* to be able to buy more than 2 bottles a year of over the counter codeine here in Illinois! Hell, I'd love to be able to buy Oxycontin over the counter...

And what if some pharmacists decided to stop serving black people?

How much freedom do we give state licensed businesses???

No, they will just picket the new pharmacies.

You know they will.

True, but I was referring mostly to the right to decide whether their store will supply such drugs. Which in that case rests solely with the employer.

The license isn't to enforce what they sell at individual business level, Bryce. It's to enforce how they sell the products they choose to carry. Why should a state license restrict a business owner's rights? The real question is why would we restrict the freedom of state licensed businesses. State licensed, not state owned. This isn't the Soviet Union.

Well....it does, except that I was pointing out that that's not exactly the end of the story. The individual pharmacists can refuse to work for a place that sells the drug. The problem seems to be that some think they should be able to set company policy for themselves whenever they go into work.

A smart pharmacy owner would establish whether or not they sell the drug as part of the hiring process and make it clear that pharmacists who disagree with their decision should seek employment elsewhere.

I live in a town with 5,500 residents....and we have three locals besides the one at WM and Freds....

They are still licensed by the state. They state would withhold or take away that license if they refused to serve black people, or if they violated controlled substance laws...so why not if they refuse to supply a legal drug to women?

And what about women in rural areas who have NO OTHER OPTIONS???

Honestly, ideally, I would support anyone's right to not sell or sell something, or serve on not serve whom they please, or allow or not allow, say, smoking...but in practice, I can see how a LOT of people might suffer for this.

Patient's right to drugs? What fucking right to these drugs??

Women in rural areas can use mail-order.

My mother works for one such company, Caremark.

I live in a town of ~ 20,000, and we have *one* small "mom & pop" pharmacy (btw, these places tend to be MUCH cheaper) and also a Walgreens, Osco..well, now CVS, HyVee & Walmart pharmacies.

So you always have options. Walgreens costs to much, go to the local run place. *IF* the mom and pop place decided to stop selling BC (which is illegal to do in Illinois...every pharmacy is required to post a sign saying that BC can't legally be denied) you could go to one of the big chains.

But in towns near here, they have one or *maybe* two owner operated drug stores. Or maybe a Rexal-affiliated place.

Rural doesn't mean inaccessible.

Mail-order, order from a pharmacy online, etc.

Which wouldn't work very well for emergency birth control.*

*By which I don't mean "I need a pill now, I'm getting nailed at 5:30!!!" I mean the "emergency contraceptive" doses that have to be taken a very short time after possible insemination.

http://www.walgreens.com/search/search_results.jsp?_dyncharset=ASCII&term=contraceptive&x=0&y=0

http://www.cvs.com/CVSApp/cvs/gateway/search?ActiveCat=499&Query=condom&SEARCH.x=0&SEARCH.y=0

http://www.drugstore.com/products/prod.asp?pid=161395&catid=88538

last link is a morning-after pill "add-to-cart" page

Actually, in many cases, rural does mean inaccessible. Many companies do not deliver to rural areas, and some people do not have access to the internet. Even then access to the internet is no guaruntee that the item would be delivered either.

As far as some medicines like emergency birth control are concerned, yes, yes it does.

Plus, if you are a young woman with fundie parents who check your mail...

You'd be surprised how many teenage daughters of abstinence-only, "wait until marriage" touting parents here in the Midwest get knocked up.

And drop out of school. And go on welfare.

I couldn't even count all 16yo drop out mothers that I know personally if I used all my fingers and toes.

Yes, denying girls here further access to BC would be a very shiny idea...

Not.