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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Marge why are you brining he above topics into this? Wal-Mart is a private corporation;


Where you have been hiding lately, this problem with prescription is not limited to wal-mart, if every pharmacy starts withholding medications to womens base on religious bias then were they are supposed to get their medical prescriptions.

In your house Westpoint?, are you planning to open a home base pharmacy so Private corporations with religious employers in agendas can score another one with God?

I guess you have no much experience with birth control methods.




posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Where you have been hiding lately, this problem with prescription is not limited to wal-mart, if every pharmacy starts withholding medications to womens base on religious bias then were they are supposed to get their medical prescriptions.


How do you know it’s on the basis of religion? These companies unless specifically stated otherwise have a right to choose what products they want to sell, for whatever reason.

My issue here is not with the actual product in question it’s with the concept that I can sue a drug store because they don’t happen to carry a specific item that I want.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Well let's get the specifics how the state mandates the selling and stocking of prepcriptions drugs. Okay.

Every state have their own laws and when a store is opening a pharmacy they have to apply for licenses, this license have a follow up that the particular stores have to maintain in order to stay open and licenced.

If the state mandates that they have a particular type of medication they have to have it or they are breaking the law of the state that they fall under when they got their license to sell drugs

If they denied the prescription when they are stock with it, is not the store that is at fault but the particular employee that is behind the counter when a consumer is asking for it.



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


Somebody is breaking the law, don’t you think Westpoint?



A new state law that took effect late last year following heated debate among lawmakers requires all hospitals to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. It also allows pharmacists to dispense the pill without a prescription, but does not require it.


For some reason Massachusetts is becoming a very naughty state when it comes to people that hold positions of employment in pharmacies in mega stores like wal-mart.

I wonder if is a Christian agenda or perhaps people are doing it to be able to get money from wal-mart

Meaning that I get a job in the pharmacy and then have a friend to come and ask for a certain birth control and I denied it even when I have in stock.

That will be very fraudulent practices don’t you think?

It could go both ways.

But taking in consideration that this is not limited to wal-mart I wonder.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Take this sample, for instance:

One convinience store in my town sells tobacco and rolling papers. Most other little stores do not sell rolling papers. Why?
They dont want to cater to the riff raff. (BTW, i know this because i worked in one of the stores).

So, said riff raff goes right on down the street a few yards and they can buy all the rolling papers they want. It was just a choice made by the management of the store.

I think its the same thing. You always have the option of going somewhere else.
This is nothing new- this was going on 10 years ago.

NOW, WHEN THEY STOP ALL OPTIONS, thats when i'd be suing their butts off.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Somebody is breaking the law, don’t you think Westpoint?


Who decides what prescriptions constitute “…medications that are commonly prescribed to meet the usual needs of the community," is it Wal-Mart who decides? If not then then the law needs to be clearer.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe

NOW, WHEN THEY STOP ALL OPTIONS, thats when i'd be suing their butts off.


Exactly Dg that is the problem when others around start to follow sue, a law sue will ensure that laws are more specific on the issue.

When laws are left to be interpreted by just a few then we have problems arising.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I think its the same thing. You always have the option of going somewhere else.
:
NOW, WHEN THEY STOP ALL OPTIONS, thats when i'd be suing their butts off.

So if that convenience store decides to stop selling rolling papers, you'll be suing their butts off, dg?

Maybe we should sue KMart for their policy of not selling handgun ammo?

I was in line at WalMart behind a lady who wanted to buy 6 bottles of cough medicine. The cashier would only sell her 3 bottles, citing a federal law. When I asked the cashier about the law, she said that WM follows the law, but that many stores don't bother following it.

So the idea of trying to pin this decision on religion is bogus. WM doesn't sell porn videos, either. Is that a 'religious' decision?



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
So the idea of trying to pin this decision on religion is bogus. WM doesn't sell porn videos, either. Is that a 'religious' decision?


Not really bogus. Although many pharmacies have changed their story, when they first started getting flack for not selling them, they were very willing to admit that it was for religious and moral reasons.

Source



When she finally did find a pharmacy with it, she said she was told the pharmacist on duty would not dispense it because of religious and moral objections.


Source



Pharmacy counters are emerging as the latest battleground in the culture wars. Anecdotally, an increasing number of pharmacists have been refusing to fill prescriptions for the "morning-after" pill and other birth control medication they oppose on moral or religious grounds.


Source



Last summer, two Walgreen Co. pharmacies were cited for violating the governor's mandate. As a result, the company in September instituted a strict policy for filling the orders. Three of the company's more than 1,000 Illinois-based pharmacists refused to sign off on the policy on religious or moral grounds, said Michael Polzin, a Walgreen spokesman.


There are tons of sources out there saying the same thing. Only recently have they switched over to "Oh, we just didn't think it was a common enough drug to dispense. We'll do it if the law requires it."



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   
The reasons given by a few individual pharmacists do not constitute corporate policy. Unless, that is, they can cite "Policy and Procedure #XYZ" as prohibiting them from dispensing it.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
The reasons given by a few individual pharmacists do not constitute corporate policy. Unless, that is, they can cite "Policy and Procedure #XYZ" as prohibiting them from dispensing it.


I didn't say it did. In fact, nobody did. And it's not a few individual pharmacists. I said there were tons of pharmacies who are doing this. But now that you brought it up...

WalMart's refusal to stock the morning after pill



" 'Is Wal-Mart a Christian company? No,' said former Wal-Mart executive Don Soderquist at a recent prayer breakfast. 'But the basis of our decisions was the values of Scripture'."




Some sources stated that Wal-Mart did not give a reason for its refusal to sell the pills. One source stated that Wal-Mart had announced on 1999-APR-14 that the decision was not related to ethical concerns.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Benevolent Heretic, exactly what point and message are these ladies trying to send? That WM should carry emergency contraception and since they don't it's because of religious reasons from the pro-choice crowd....is that it?

These hens are adding to the already growing number of crappy, waste of time law suits that do nothing more than use up the tax payers dollars. If it were for a good cause then that would be different, but it's for a cause that really has nothing to do with abortion.

Anyways, in court, do the women have to prove that they "needed" the emergency contraception? That may be a little hard to prove, especially with these ladies




posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by dgtempe
I think its the same thing. You always have the option of going somewhere else.
:
NOW, WHEN THEY STOP ALL OPTIONS, thats when i'd be suing their butts off.

So if that convenience store decides to stop selling rolling papers, you'll be suing their butts off, dg?

Is that what i said? My little story was an example, and in case you didnt notice, i meant if ALL STORES STOPPED SELLING WHATEVER IT IS, (by the way, i dont buy rolling papers) You've twisted my story around.
Read the thread before you jump to conclusions.
I still love ya.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
Benevolent Heretic, exactly what point and message are these ladies trying to send? That WM should carry emergency contraception and since they don't it's because of religious reasons from the pro-choice crowd....is that it?


I think more likely it's not to make a point or message at all, but to get some progress toward having the pill available in all pharmacies. I don't really know. I doubt it has anything to do with religion at all on their part. I think they just want it available along with viagra, birth control pills and paxil. And in this country, it's their choice to do this, whether you agree with their purpose or not.



These hens are adding to the already growing number of crappy, waste of time law suits that do nothing more than use up the tax payers dollars. If it were for a good cause then that would be different, but it's for a cause that really has nothing to do with abortion.


I think that's your opinion. If it moves things in the desired direction, it's not a crappy lawsuit or a waste of time for those who would benefit. For them and many women, it IS for a good cause. And I didn't mention abortion. This doesn't have anything to do with abortion and I'm not sure why you bring it up.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I wonder if this law sue Was a male issue instead of a female issue the responses will be different.

Perhaps if it was Viagra the one been taken away from the male population would they be making such a fuss about it?

No, probably not, because males will die before admitting that they have a problem.

But when it comes to woman why is that it has to be made into a big issue?

I tell you like Benevolent Heretic pointed out this started as A religious issue now under what grounds is falling under?

Well Many point out that is a corporate issue and decision and that is their right .

Well how about if every Mega corporation that supplies prescribe drugs starts using their own policies for all kind of medicines or drugs?

Will that be legal?

Then again the state where this stores operates have laws and they have to abide by those laws be private or other wise.

Or they should have their licenses suspended.

Plain and simple.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Well how about if every Mega corporation that supplies prescribe drugs starts using their own policies for all kind of medicines or drugs?

Will that be legal?


Exactly. Like antidepressants. Many people (me included) feel that too many children and adults, too, take antidepressants when they don't really need them. What if pharmacies started making the judgment that people don't really need to take them and stopped dispensing them?

The point is that it's not the pharmacy's place to decide what the consumer needs. If it's prescribed by a doctor, the pharmacy shouldn't have the power to step in and (act as a doctor) and refuse them.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
i might not necessarily agree with the way these women went about it, but it did bring this issue to the surface.

The way i see it is this. In a lot of little towns, Wal-mart is the only pharmacy a consumer has access to, there might not be another pharmacy for miles. I know where my sister lives, the only pharmacy she can get to is Wal-Mart and that about 30 miles way. So sure, these women live in a large city with many pharmacy options, but other people aren't so lucky. Then what do they do?

Also, I look at the plan B as a significant medication. If you need it and it's not available, it will have a life altering effect. And on top of which, who's business is it to deny someone a medication that your doctor has prescribed? If the doctor says no, that's one thing, but the pharmacy saying no, that's not really their place. Especially if they are the only place to fill prescriptions within the consumers' reach.

I mean if Wal-mart can sell rubber hoses and ammo and Viagra and KY and goldfish and talking Larry the cable guy key chains and anything else they can get their hands on, why can’t they sell Plan B? It is a "moral issue" for them. . .

And also, Plan B and RU-486 are two different medications which do two different things.



Plan B® is not RU-486 (the abortion pill); it will not work if you are already pregnant.

People get them mixed up, and start waving the anti abortion flag around.

The plan B website, read and learn

and lastly, it's ignorant for people to assume the the only people who will use Plan B are promiscuous and "deserve what they've got coming". Plan B is for people who have used contraceptives i.e. the pill, condoms, spermicide, etc. and believe it has failed, perhaps a hole in the condom, or misuse of the product (due to lack of honest sex ed. , but that's another topic i won't get into) and for people who has been sexually assaulted.

Someone who uses plan B as their only means of birth control have their own issues and need to seek help for them, and do not make up the whole community of plan B consumers. So get your facts straight before you come out swinging.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   
decidedlyundecided

Thanks for that littler inside on the medication in question, I knew about that but like you said some like to keep the facts scramble because is a fight again privacy rights and throwing the religious views do not hurt either.

Yes wal-mart is a mega corporation that has absorbed many small stores in small towns so yes many people is Dependant on their facilities to get what they need.

This is can become the big issue of how monopolis work and how they can affect the public.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
From the article mentioned in the first part of this thread. www.cnn.com...



It also allows pharmacists to dispense the pill without a prescription, but does not require it.

A whole lot of the discussion here relates to PRESCRIPTION drugs. Yes, I think that all Commonly prescribed medications should be stocked by all pharmacys. Uncommon or rare drugs should be made available, meaning that if something is needed, a pharmacy ought to try to get it. HOWEVER--- the pills in question here do not need prescriptions, according to the article. ( see above quote) Selling Non-Prescription medications ought to be a decision of the store management.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by rawiea
From the article mentioned in the first part of this thread. www.cnn.com...



It also allows pharmacists to dispense the pill without a prescription, but does not require it.

A whole lot of the discussion here relates to PRESCRIPTION drugs. Yes, I think that all Commonly prescribed medications should be stocked by all pharmacys. Uncommon or rare drugs should be made available, meaning that if something is needed, a pharmacy ought to try to get it. HOWEVER--- the pills in question here do not need prescriptions, according to the article. ( see above quote) Selling Non-Prescription medications ought to be a decision of the store management.








An Act Providing Timely Access to Emergency Contraception, St.2005, c.91, effective December 14, 2005. Allows pharmacists to dispense the emergency contraception (EC) pill without a prescription.


Mass. Law about Contraception

OTC EC is the law in Mass. but i don't know exactly what the law is about OTC emergency cont. in other states. Personally, i don't think it should be OTC, it's a drug i think would need a doctor's advice before taking.

Also, i think that the people who lobbied for it to be over the counter shot themselves in the foot. If it were still a perescription, then you could make a bigger stink over it, But Rawiea is right, if it's otc, then it's their decision to carry it *which makes it too easy for these companies to shrug off the medical responsibility one has to their customers*



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

I wonder if this law sue Was a male issue instead of a female issue the responses will be different.


Why? Like I said my issue here is not with the medication nor with the plaintiffs, my issue here is with the message being sent. The message that I can sue any company I want because they don't sell what I want.


Perhaps if it was Viagra the one been taken away from the male population would they be making such a fuss about it?


Who is taking this medication from the Female population? You will see that this was not the case of three women who had no place to Plan B prescription.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join