It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Women sue Wal-Mart over contraception

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   
here's the easy part, the link...
www.cnn.com...

not for the fun part. Why the hell does it matter if walmart doesn't sell Plan B if it is so readily available at other pharmacies? that single question is all i care about in respect to this news story. I don't want to bring up this thread under the arm of abortion or use of emergency contraception, i'm for both things for the most part. rather, i want this story discussed from the viewpoint of how ridiculous a lawsuit it is, how strategically it was brought about and, as far as i'm concerned, just how much of a jerkoff move it was by these 3 women. i'm tired of absurd and premeditated lawsuits. there's a few very particular points i want to highlight.

-CVS pharmacy, where the women went to get their perscriptions filled is stated as the state's largest pharmacy chain, meaning they have the most outlets in the state. why bitch about not being able to get a pill at a lesser available chain and not just go to the more widely accessible store?

-the suit is seeking damages for the time wasted by the women in going to walmart and not getting a prescription filled (that's what the $25 is for). does it bother anyone that these women are actually getting away with sueing over something they knew would happen beforehand? that they're seeking damages for time wasted when they knew all along they were in fact wasting their time?

-to me, it seems walmart is in fact just taking advantage of the law as it stands, rather then acting as if they are about any law. if the state law not requiring sale of Plan B is the most current on the matter, then it should, by legal understanding, trump and void previous laws.

-i'm all for Plan B, but i really don't think Planned Parenthood has the right to force a company to sell or stock it.

-and lastly, i really have a tough time believing the woman on the far right of the picture would ever even need to use Plan B.




posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   
The lawsuit is stupid and if there is a law requiring all pharmacies to carry that, then I think that's stupid as well. Private companies have a right to choose what they want to sell.

Seriously, what's the big deal? Go to another pharmacy, it'll be a hell of a lot less of a hassle than suing them. Which leads me to think they're just doing it for the money and/or attention.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by astroblade
-and lastly, i really have a tough time believing the woman on the far right of the picture would ever even need to use Plan B.


OUCH! I see no sympathy here.
I might see this lawsuit someday on www.stellaawards.com... Maybe I ought to sue my local Chevrolet dealer. As a GM representative, they do NOT carry Cadillac or Hummer. That might affect my chances of needing a contraceptive--- if I was unmarried and 35 years younger.
Seriously, I have seen far too many times, people or organizations going to court to try to impose their will on the rest of us. If it is that important to them, why not elect legislators who will do their bidding? Voter turnout is usually low, so a concentrated effort to elect the kind of people that they want should be successful.
Here in Ohio, Wal-Mart gets some people upset when they move into an area. Folks say things like most of the locally owned businesses will fail.
Perhaps this contraceptive issue is simply another way to attack the company. Sort of, achieve two things at once.
( I wonder, IF this contraceptive was available when these three women were concieved, would they be filing this lawsuit?)

Apparently the motto for this decade in America is--
If you can't Legislate---Litigate!!!!
When I preview, the above line is in large print. I have no idea why it isn't now. Just tried to fix it.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by rawiea]



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
And whatever happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? If you don't want to worry about becoming pregnant, keep your legs closed!

Sorry to sound so harsh--but I'm really tired of hearing about people doing irresponsible things, then whining when someone won't bail them out!


And if a pharmacy carries it and you can get it, what do you care if Wal-Mart doesn't have it?



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
And whatever happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? If you don't want to worry about becoming pregnant, keep your legs closed!



Easily said than done Amethyst, this America, perhaps you have no problem with doing just that.

The law sue is just a statement nothing more and nothing else.

So get over it.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
The preblem is, there are not enough control mechanism against frivolous lawsuits in US law system. There should be heavy fines for both the persons who is suing and their lawyers (if the lawsuit is declared frivolous by jury). Today they have only little to lose, but much to gain if lawsuit is succesfull.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   
As far as I'm concerned, the problem lies in the ambiguous wording of the law:



"Massachusetts pharmacies are required to stock all medications that are commonly prescribed to meet the usual needs of the community," Perkins said.


What is considered "commonly prescribed" and the "usual needs"? The law should be more precise.

I happen to live in a town where the 'Morning After Pill' is completely unavailable.

I agree that under the current law, as it is stated, the lawsuit is bogus. They should not sue WalMart, instead they should work to get the wording of the law changed so that it will be clear whether or not pharmacies are required to carry the pill.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoganCale
Seriously, what's the big deal? Go to another pharmacy, it'll be a hell of a lot less of a hassle than suing them. Which leads me to think they're just doing it for the money and/or attention.

They are doing it for the attention:


The women said they knew they would be refused when they went to the Wal-Marts in Quincy and Lynn and that the action was planned with the abortion rights groups and lawyers.

One of the plaintiffs is doing her residency in Ob-Gyn:

"I did this on behalf of my patients," said Gee, who is completing her residency at Brigham and Women's/Massachusetts General Hospitals in Obstetrics and Gynecology. "Women shouldn't be refused needed medication."

The mini-poll on the reference site is split almost down the middle, with 50K voting each way.

The fact is, the law allows pharmacies to dispense the pill without a prescription if they choose to. The suit is just a group pushing their own agenda down WalMart's throat, IMO.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by Amethyst
And whatever happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? If you don't want to worry about becoming pregnant, keep your legs closed!



Easily said than done Amethyst, this America, perhaps you have no problem with doing just that.


Marg, that really wasn't necessary. I'm married--go figure. But people have this habit of getting themselves into situations without thinking.


The law sue is just a statement nothing more and nothing else.

So get over it.


The statement they're making is that they want to be able to have everyone bail them out if they goof up. Forget the ounce of prevention--they want to have the pound of cure.

BTW I'm opposed to the MAP because it *can* cause early abortions. It doesn't always--but it CAN.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Amethyst

My apologies I though you were single, also the get over it was for the people that are making a big issue of it.

This is just to make a statement and probably the women doing the law sue will get nothing for it.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Amethyst

My apologies I though you were single, also the get over it was for the people that are making a big issue of it.

This is just to make a statement and probably the women doing the law sue will get nothing for it.


Oh, no problem Marg.
I assumed you knew I was married--in fact I have been for about 12 1/2 years.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   
This is nothing more than another frivolous lawsuit.

Go to another pharmacy. Dont shop at Walmart, for Petes sakes, if it bothers these women so much. boycott the store.

I'm not a religious nut by any means, but the best solution is to keep your legs closed or use other products to avoid conception all together.

There.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 03:59 AM
link   
There could be a case here. Since Massachusetts has a state law that requires “all pharmacies to stock all medications that are commonly prescribed to meet the usual needs of the community" then a judge will have to decide if this drug meets the qualification of "commonly prescribed to meet the usual needs of the community". Not sure if it does or not, but if it does then Walmart has to stock it or it is breaking the law.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 04:25 AM
link   
In this case, abortion is good. I would pitty any child that has to be raised by these hens. And their statement sucked.

If Wal-Mart does not have morning after pills, then go to CVS, Rite-Aid or Big Bee. It's that simple.

[edit on 5/2/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I worked at CVS in Hyannis, Cape Cod for years. They do like to play God in the pharmacy, they judge people, they judge them by what they take, they keep track of all the "dopies", etc.

This is Walmart playing God also. Ultimately, they call the shots. I'm serious. They roll their eyes when "one of them" comes into the store, and they are made to wait, I know, i worked in the pharmacy.

Walmart choses not to give those pills. Other pharmacies descriminate other things.
If you ask me, too much power is given to pharmacies and techs.

If the doctor writes the prescription, they damn well have it and hand it over.

But a lawsuit is extreme. Go somewhere else. Remember, comb your hair,
carry a designer bag with you and act as though you could care less if you get the meds or not. Anyone sweaty is going to suffer.

There's politics everywhere.

By the way, its not just CVS. Its all drug stores.

They are in the judging business.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
I assumed you knew I was married--in fact I have been for about 12 1/2 years.


I just wonder why being married makes any difference at all?
No answer required, I just found this little bit of discussion curious.


Originally posted by dgtempe
Go to another pharmacy. Dont shop at Walmart, for Petes sakes, if it bothers these women so much. boycott the store.


The problem with this is that every pharmacy can decide not to stock it. Then we have to go to another town. If all the pharmacies in the state decide not to stock it, then we have to go to another state. I mentioned that there isn't one in my town (5-6 pharmacies) that have it. I would have to drive for 2 hours to get it.


Originally posted by SportyMB
If Wal-Mart does not have morning after pills, then go to CVS, Rite-Aid or Big Bee. It's that simple.


No it isn't. See above.


Originally posted by zerotime
Not sure if it does or not, but if it does then Walmart has to stock it or it is breaking the law.


Yes. and they said they would stock it if it was required by law. The law, however is open for interpretation. That's why it needs to be re-worded.



He added that Wal-Mart would formally request clarification of the state regulation from Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly or the state's Board of Pharmacy. He said if either directs the company to carry certain products, "Wal-Mart will abide."



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
This is nothing more than another frivolous lawsuit.


Oh my goodness, am I for once agreeing with you?

Yes, this is stupid, they knew they wouldn’t get that type of prescription at Wal-Mart yet they go over there anyway, and then sue? We seriously need to reform lawsuits in this country!

All they are seeking to do in my opinion is, impose their views on private companies, get monetary rewards, be a pain in the arse, get media attention.

[edit on 5-2-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Roe v Wade could have been considered a frivolous lawsuit, too. And look where it went. Or maybe that's why you guys are so upset about this?

Sometimes a lawsuit is the only way to get changes made, even if the lawsuit itself seems unworkable (Roe v Wade was - Roe had her baby and adopted it out) and that's what these women are trying to do. Make changes.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Roe v Wade could have been considered a frivolous lawsuit, too. And look where it went. Or maybe that's why you guys are so upset about this?



Exactly I see like a statement, do something about it or else.

But do not let be drag by people that play judges and executors while looking into others private lives to do just that.

A medical prescription is legal and should not be taken by anyone to be judge at depending on religious, political and racial bias.

This what is all about, since we have a president in the white house that like to play God advocate whenever he feels that needs to keep the religious right happy.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

A medical prescription is legal and should not be taken by anyone to be judge at depending on religious, political and racial bias.


Marge why are you brining he above topics into this? Wal-Mart is a private corporation; if it does not want to sell that type of prescription then it does not have to. The law in this regard is vague so I can understand their refusal to sell the product.

These women where not being deprived, what they were seeking was available elsewhere in their area. All the are trying to do is forcefully impose their views on others.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join