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.

 

Mass. Wal-Mart Must Stock Contraception

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   





Mass. Wal-Mart Must Stock Contraception

The state pharmacy board ordered Wal-Mart on Tuesday to stock emergency contraception pills at its stores in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts becomes second state to require the world's largest retailer to carry the morning-after pill.

A Wal-Mart spokesman said the company would comply with the directive by the Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy and is reviewing its nationwide policy on the drug.



With all the yelling and screaming about Muslims seeking to take away our 1st amendment rights, we have our own taking away our liberties...

I understand that people want access to this drug, but forcing a private business to carry the product is absurd!
Is this China???


Where is everyone's anger on that?




posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
I disagree with you on this one, if the state laws required all pharmaceuticals to carry the drugs then Wal-Mart is not any different they have to applied like any other business for licenses to dispense drugs so they have to abide by the law, be private or not.

Or they can lose their license.

Plain and simple.

[edit on 14-2-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I'm not getting your disagreement to this. I have a 16 year old son a 13(and 11) year old girl(s). You're pushing for MORE teenage pregnancy?

Don't get it dude.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   
If there were a law, I might agree with you...but I read:




The women had argued that state policy requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines.



Is a "policy" a law? Perhaps in this case it was, in which case I might moderate my tone a bit... But I am not at all comfortable with the concept of government telling a business they have to sell a certain product. That kind of power cuts both ways...



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I'm not getting your disagreement to this. I have a 16 year old son a 13(and 11) year old girl(s). You're pushing for MORE teenage pregnancy?

Don't get it dude.


Read my post above... And of course not.... I might point out that the drug was freely available at other retailers...

You want the government forcing YOU to sell something?



[edit on 14-2-2006 by loam]



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I'm not getting your disagreement to this. I have a 16 year old son a 13(and 11) year old girl(s). You're pushing for MORE teenage pregnancy?

Don't get it dude.


I have a 22 daughter and a 19 year old son and pregnancy and promiscuity has never been an issue in my home.

What you teach you children is what you children carry with them regardless of what is going on in the world.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
With all the yelling and screaming about Muslims seeking to take away our 1st amendment rights, we have our own taking away our liberties...

I understand that people want access to this drug, but forcing a private business to carry the product is absurd!
Is this China???


Where is everyone's anger on that?


Let me put it another way for you:
Depression medication is also one of those "optional" sorts of things just like birth control pills.

How would YOU feel if you were prescribed Prozac and went to your local drug provider only to be told "we object to antidepressants on religious grounds. Go home and pray."

Birth control pills are used for hormone replacement and for a lot of other things. The objection isn't based on what the meds do. It's based on how someone feels about a med or what their religion dictates they should feel about it.

So what if the pharmacist is a Christian Scientist? They could refuse on religious grounds to dispense things such as blood pressure meds.

As Intrepid said, "Don't get it, dude."



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Read my post above... And of course not.... I might point out that the drug was freely available at other retailers...

You want the government forcing YOU to sell something?


Read your post man, if the LEADING retailer, where everyone goes to for nappies and batteries............ If you're going to nationalize things, expect the nation to come in and demand what they need.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Dude, have you ever REALLY looked around in Walmart?




  1. Miniskirt
  2. Tube Top
  3. High Heels
  4. Thigh Highs
  5. Earrings and Piercing
  6. Wristwatch
  7. Fakefur Coat
  8. Makeup
  9. Lipgloss
  10. Crazy Nails
  11. Fake Eyelashes
  12. Rhinestone Watch
  13. Binaca
  14. Pearl Drops
  15. Parfum
  16. Wig and Contacts
  17. Purse
  18. Summers Eve
  19. Trojans
  20. KY
  21. Viagra
  22. Cellphone
  23. Webcam
  24. Cosmopolitan
  25. Bed, Blanket, and Pillow...



Walmart is already Sin City- seems like the new addition fits right in!



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indellkoffer
Let me put it another way for you:
Depression medication is also one of those "optional" sorts of things just like birth control pills.

How would YOU feel if you were prescribed Prozac and went to your local drug provider only to be told "we object to antidepressants on religious grounds. Go home and pray."


That is how it is supposed to work. This isn't about the government restricting the product you sell... It's about the government FORCING you to sell a particular product.

Why not force grocery stores to sell specific food items in the interest of public health? Or restaurants for that matter?


I'm NOT against contraception.... I'm against the state forcing my business to sell a product.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Contraception is not medication. Pregnancy is not a disease or illness.

No one should have to be required to stock anything.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Where is everyone's anger on that?


There was another thread about this, before this decision was made, I argued your exact points but of course I got the same old line of women are being denied their medication and....etc. I disagree strongly with the notion that I can sue a private company because they don't sell what I want.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I disagree strongly with the notion that I can sue a private company because they don't sell what I want.


Simply absurd, isn't it?



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Under Threat of Lawsuit



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."


FYI, We cannot get this pill in our town because pharmacies don't want to sell it. We cannot go down the street because they don't want to sell it either. We have to drive 2 hours to fill a Rx for this pill.

What if they decided they didn't want to hand out anti-depressants? Or the drug I take to control seizures? What if everyone in town didn't want to carry it?

Pharmacies must meet certain state regulations. It's not like it's a little Mom and Pop's and they're refusing to sell the bread I like. There are certain responsibilities pharmacies have to meet. They are regulated by the state.

[edit on 14-2-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
What many here that claim Big giant wal-mart is a Private company seems to oversee is that being a Private company and one that is becoming one of the biggest monopolies in the US when it comes to built in small towns and suck up all smaller businesses around is that they are left with the responsibility to supply the town and surrounding areas with the same goods that they are driving away from other stores that they are absorbing.

That includes other pharmacies in the area.

Wal-Mart can pretty much dictate what people in small towns buy, consume and used.

So what do you call that?

I call it Corporate dictatorship



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Have you seen some of the people who shop at Wal-Mart? Would contraception really be a bad thing? I just hope the religious right doesn't go after Rogaine next! Emergency contraception pills are just like condoms or IUD. It just prevents the sperm and egg from making goo. I hope condoms aren't next on the list. I'm a single man, I need my condoms!



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Don't worry Curme the fight is not against the male population is about the female side of the population and their right to make decisions about their fertility and birth rights.

You will always find your Viagra, Rogain and occurs your condoms in any size and style


They are after women not men.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
I think it's more of a "You must carry this"
I don't agree.
It's a free market and I control my company, if it doesn't sell, it doesn't sell.
CVS carries them.
I would think if you were planning on getting it on, you'd atleast know where to go for a morning after pill or a condom.

Some stores sell beer and wine, but not hard booze. If I'm in the mood and hit up one that doesn't have it....I go to another store.

-DT

Edit to correct the condom/protection line


[edit on 14-2-2006 by Derek Trance]

[edit on 14-2-2006 by Derek Trance]



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Contraception is not medication.


It's a pharmaceutical. A drug.



No one should have to be required to stock anything.


Even if the state law requires it? I thought you supported state's laws. Must have been someone else.

Pharmacies are regulated by the states. There's a Board of Pharmacy in every state that says how they have to operate. Apparently Mass. board of Pharmacy has a policy that the pharmacies must serve the people with the pharmaceutical they normally require and this pill has been included in that.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
FYI, We cannot get this pill in our town because pharmacies don't want to sell it. We cannot go down the street because they don't want to sell it either. We have to drive 2 hours to fill a Rx for this pill.

What if they decided they didn't want to hand out anti-depressants? Or the drug I take to control seizures? What if everyone in town didn't want to carry it?


I understand the difficultly that presents, but let's call this type of government compulsion what it truly is.... indentured servitude to the state.

If you acknowledge this example now, what distinctions will you make when the government forces businesses to deliver other products and services?

For example, maybe...just maybe...abortion clinics will have to provide counseling services from a provider of the government's choice... (Remember the specially recognized "charities" listed by the White House????
) ...one that has a 30 day seminar covering topics such as abstinence, intelligent design, or any other mumbo jumbo the government believes is in the public interest...

The truth is life can suck... There are many problems government can't fix. Letting them try "just a little bit" can be an invitation for a whole lot more.


There's another problem too. What happens when under this logic EVERYONE with some obscure drug requirement forces pharmacies to carry their particular drug? Over time, people will just stop opening pharmacies....


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Pharmacies must meet certain state regulations. It's not like it's a little Mom and Pop's and they're refusing to sell the bread I like. There are certain responsibilities pharmacies have to meet. They are regulated by the state.


Yes, they regulate behavior... but they shouldn't be allowed to compel it in this manner, in my view.

(
That's two issues in a week, BH.
)

[edit on 14-2-2006 by loam]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join