Mass. Wal-Mart Must Stock Contraception

Originally posted by LoganCale
It is a personal right to choose not to sell something you don't want to. ESPECIALLY because this is an over the counter drug that doesn't require perscription.

I have no problem whatsoever with people using it or selling it IF THEY WANT. But I always have a problem with government forcing someone to do something like this.

Let me spin this in a slightly different direction........

Do you think it would be OK if Walmart decided to not sell BRAND X, where BRANX was the recently developed and FDA approved drug to treat and prevent Sickle Cell Anemia (which mostly affects blacks)?

Or, do you think it would be OK if Walmart decided to not sell or distribute CURE Y, where CURE Y was a recently developed and FDA approved medicine to prevent and treat Tay-Sachs Disease (which mostly affects persons of Jewish descent)?

But wait! You can't do that. Thats discrimination! Exactly as charged. Walmart is trying (unsuccessfully) to discriminate against a class of "people" who they perceive to be the buyers of this drug and of whom they very much disapprove of......un-wed mothers, promiscuous women, and women who do not share Sam Walton's Right-to-Life views.

Thats why he is gonna loose this arguement every time.

[edit on 17-2-2006 by Pyros]

Originally posted by Mr101Hazardous
But it's OK for the government to tell me what can and can not sell in my store!

So, you think you should be able to sell rotten milk? Moldy bread? Meat that's been sitting out? No. Because these things are REGULATED by the FDA. Well Pharmacies are regulated, too, by the State Pharmacy Board.

You cannot just set up a store and do whatever you want. There are rules. And one rule in Mass apparently says that pharmacies have to sell the drugs the people need.

A wright is a wright......... not a left, get it

No. I don't get it. Wright isn't even a word. It's a name.

Originally posted by Mr101Hazardous
It's not OK for the government to look in our windows, to tap our phone calls, read our mail......................... But it's OK for the government to tell me what can and can not sell in my store!

Next thing you know they will telling you what kind of things to buy to keep tabs on you and you have to pay for it all.

A wright is a wright......... not a left, get it

This is NOT THE ISSUE...it's not an OTC drug. If a dept store decides to sell Pharmaceuticals...then they're getting into a DIFFERENT type business it’s not a CHOICE or preference we're dealing with here...its doctor prescribed medication. If they don't want to stock a pro-choice bath towel...okay that's cool.

Originally posted by loam

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???

This is State Government. It's the SECOND state to REQUIRE a retailer to carry a drug. Sounds like to me they are being told what to sell.
PS I know about the expiration dates and perishable, that's not what I was getting at

Loam, I'm having a hard time seeing why you're so vehemently against them forcing Wal-Mart to carry the emergency contraception. I'm the biggest advocate of personal freedom and the minimising of the Government's involvment in our private lives that you're going to meet these days. I understand your argument and the reasons for you feeling this way but I can't help feeling that it may be motivated by somthing other than your sense of fair and free industry.

Wal-Mart may have been forced to carry the drug but it's entirely up to the customer to buy it, you're perfectly welcome to pretend it's not there. However, if Wal-Mart refused to sell the pill in certain areas due to moral or religious reasons the consumer no longer has a choice.

Forcing Wal-Mart to Carry the pill and give you the option is ok
Refusing to carry the pill because the store manager thinks abortion is a sin is bad.

Now, I know that not all the Wal-marts that refused to carry the pill did so because of moral or religious reasons but much as Spiderman learned "With great power comes great responisbility". Wal-Mart isn't fast becoming a monopoly, in many cases it already IS a monopoly. Like a longboat filled with viking marauders Wal-Mart swoops into a town and proceeds to destroy all local industry. Some may argue that it creates new jobs, which is true if you've trained your whole life to say "Welcome to Wal-Mart! Welcome to Wal-Mart!"

Picture yourself in a Wal-Mart town, devoid of most other businesses. You're a low income blue collar family and you just found out your wife/girlfriend is pregnant. You can hardly afford to pay for yourselves let alone bring another life into the world and make it worth living. You have no insurance left and no savings, there's no hope of a raise because you work in Wal-Mart. Now you're fooked as the Scottish say, all because the manager of your local Wal-Mart thinks what you do is wrong.

Wal-Mart has a duty to it's customers to carry all the goods and services they destroy by moving in. If there is a Wal-Mart town with no other pharmecy then it is Wal-Mart's responsibilty to carry the medication needed by it's customers. If that medication is the emergency contraceptive then so be it, regardless of wether you or Wal-Mart think they should.

I'm trying to hold back but Loam's original post angers me a bit. His entire argument is about how big government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with private businesses. I agree, but on different conditions. Loam doesn't believe a private business should be forced to carry a product they don't want to carry. I don't believe a private business should be restricted from carrying a product they do wish to sell.

Loam, where were you and the people who agree with you when they were forcing EVERY bar, resturant, dinner, smoke shop, club, venue and lounge in New York City to prohibit the use and sometimes sale of tobacco??? I don't want to turn this into a tobacco argument but everyone seemed pretty happy with the idea back then. The problem really is that people like Loam pick and choose what rights they want to defend. I wager a bet that Loam's reason for being so upset about this whole situation is because he didn't want the pill sold at his local Wal-Mart.

My point is that if you're truly against the government forcing Wal-Mart to carry a pill strictly as a matter of Government staying out of private bussinesses then you would feel the same way regardless of what it is the store is or isn't allowed to sell, be it Spongebob underwear, tobacco products or even a home abortion kit.

There are many times I'm faced with a moral delema such as that. I'm for one aspect and against the other. You have to remember this is Amercia and our freedom of choice is our most sacred Right. Denying someone the right to choose because the option they might choose goes against your own personal morals and values is evil and un-American. Even if 90% of the population of a given town doesn't want Wal-Mart to sell the pill it would be wrong to not have it as an option for the other 10%. That 90% of people have the choice to not buy the pill but the other 10% doesn't have anywhere else to go for the pill.

It is wrong for a bussiness with the size, power, and economic poison of Wal-Mart to deny American citizens, regardless of their number, a product they need based solely on the morals, values, and opinions of managers, corporate drones and employees regardless of their number.

That is why Wal-Mart was forced to carry the pill, if you still disagree with me I suggest you study up on our founding principals.

P.S. Although I must say that if the government was going to start telling Wal-Mart what to do there're better things to tell them to do:
"Restrict the number of your stores"
"Carry only American made products"
"Pay your employees a fair wage"
"Stop treating your employees and their towns as your property"
"Execute your executives"

Originally posted by decidedlyundecided
P.S. Although I must say that if the government was going to start telling Wal-Mart what to do there're better things to tell them to do:
"Restrict the number of your stores"
"Carry only American made products"
"Pay your employees a fair wage"
"Stop treating your employees and their towns as your property"
"Execute your executives"

Sorry, everyone, I've been so busy with the Cheney threads, and my own real life, that I haven't had time to respond to all your good questions...

Just a quick post, for now...

All of the regulatory analogies made in this thread are NOT the same as this issue. When the government tells to you that you can't sell spoiled milk, THAT is not the same thing as the government telling you that you MUST sell milk. Those examples are worlds apart...

On another note, someone thought I had some "other" motive for taking this position........so just to be clear (if I'm reading those statements correctly)... I am pro-choice... pro-birth control... and pro anything else that generally keeps government intrusion to a minimum in one's life.

When I post here again, I'll explain why I also believe this "policy" will make the product LESS available.

In the meanwhile, keep an open mind....

EDIT: Oh, and decidedlyundecided, I'll be sure to address your points specifically.


[edit on 17-2-2006 by loam]

Originally posted by loam
When the government tells to you that you can't sell spoiled milk, THAT is not the same thing as the government telling you that you MUST sell milk.

True. My point was that you just can't do anything you want. There are regulations, rules, policies to follow.

I have looked over this "Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy"www.mass.gov/dpl/boards/ph/sfa/012000.htm
There is not a thing in there that says that someone must have this or that in there stores!
I now know how SOME people get most to all there points around here!
They take half ass potshots at others without a clue as to what's going on just to make small of them, or just run off with someones post.
Must be nice to THINK you are better then others.
They know who are.

Edit to Link.

[edit on 18-2-2006 by Mr101Hazardous]

Originally posted by Derek Trance
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.

It's emergency contraception. It's not fun. It's for after a rape or contraceptive failure. There's no planning this. When it happens to you, you have hours to prevent actual pregnancy.

And there are many areas where there's very limited resources, especially since the government caved in to Catholic hospitals saying they don't have to help people any more. Now that Catholic hospitals are PRO-RAPE, it just makes sense that the largest retailer should be forced to follow the law if they want to be in the DRUGSTORE business, since when Religions get in the Hospital business they apparently don't have to have standards of healthcare.

Originally posted by Mr101Hazardous
I now know how SOME people get most to all there points around here!
They take half ass potshots at others without a clue as to what's going on just to make small of them, or just run off with someones post.
Must be nice to THINK you are better then others.

People get points for potshots? I'll have to remember that.

If you do happen to be referring to me (and I'm not saying that you are), my points come from PODcasting, not potshotting. And I don't give a crap about points anyway! Want some? You can have them!

I have looked over the thread and if it's the "wright" thing, I just don't get your joke. That's all. I didn't know what you meant by wright. You asked, "Get it"? Well, I don't. I wasn't making small of you or running off with Loam's post? And I don't think I'm better than anyone.

So you must not be talking to me.

A couple of points I'd like to state:
1. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no proof that WalMart wasn't carrying this product because of moral or religious reasons. They have replied that it was because of business reasons, and declined to elaborate further. Now it may be that their customer base, or their major stockholders, are strongly pro-life, and WalMart doesn't want to alienate them. That's a business decision, and it doesn't make WalMart "Christian conservative."

2. I see a lot of glee with the fact that WalMart is the defendant in this case. People seem to hate WalMart because of it's success. Well, America ws founded on success. I'd bet that 99 out of 100 companies would love to be as successful as WalMart, given the chance.

3. Finally, the drug has been described as an emergency drug, to be used in the case of rape or contraceptive failure. I think we'll all agree that it has also been used because neither party was prepared, or willing, to use contraceptives during the heat of passion. And those cases occur much more often than rape does. A rape victim should be escorted to the hospital by the police, since rape is a crime. And hospitals have the means to prevent conception, I would think.

Originally posted by jsobecky
A couple of points I'd like to state:
1. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no proof that WalMart wasn't carrying this product because of moral or religious reasons. They have replied that it was because of business reasons, and declined to elaborate further. Now it may be that their customer base, or their major stockholders, are strongly pro-life, and WalMart doesn't want to alienate them. That's a business decision, and it doesn't make WalMart "Christian conservative."

Entirely accurate. That makes them more like the Republican Party than anything. Not exactly religious or conservative, just shills that talk game but are actually just scared of voters (boycotts) and full of it.

2. I see a lot of glee with the fact that WalMart is the defendant in this case. People seem to hate WalMart because of it's success. Well, America ws founded on success. I'd bet that 99 out of 100 companies would love to be as successful as WalMart, given the chance.

Wal-Mart sucks. Deal with it. If success is disemploying countless Americans that used to have domestic manufacturing jobs, then "success" is not something we should aspire to.

3. Finally, the drug has been described as an emergency drug, to be used in the case of rape or contraceptive failure. I think we'll all agree that it has also been used because neither party was prepared, or willing, to use contraceptives during the heat of passion. And those cases occur much more often than rape does. A rape victim should be escorted to the hospital by the police, since rape is a crime. And hospitals have the means to prevent conception, I would think.

Hospitals, as I mentioned, have been given a pass by Congress. In many areas like Massachusetts, where predominatly the Catholic Church runs everything, the hospital has been rewarded the right to tell rape victims to suck it up. What ever happened to privacy? Can't we defend anything any more?

Originally posted by jsobecky
A couple of points I'd like to state:
1. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no proof that WalMart wasn't carrying this product because of moral or religious reasons. They have replied that it was because of business reasons, and declined to elaborate further. Now it may be that their customer base, or their major stockholders, are strongly pro-life, and WalMart doesn't want to alienate them. That's a business decision, and it doesn't make WalMart "Christian conservative."

I know. You won't be convinced, but for others who are curious:

Walmart's decision based on 'Scripture'

" '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'."

Originally posted by jsobecky

2. I see a lot of glee with the fact that WalMart is the defendant in this case. People seem to hate WalMart because of it's success. Well, America ws founded on success. I'd bet that 99 out of 100 companies would love to be as successful as WalMart, given the chance.

Come on JS you truly can not side with Wal-Mart success while they are outsourcing manufactures to get their goods from sweat shops in China,

China

The irony of what is call success and be a successful corporation in American at the expenses of American people's jobs and ship labor from people under the oppression of dictatorial regimes.

But is ok Wal-mart will give you a job on minimum wages after you lost your middle class income in local mill, now you can apply for welfare.

And the government can show that the economy is good and is jobs available for the entire family.

Give me a brake.

Originally posted by marg6043
Come on JS you truly can not side with Wal-Mart success while they are outsourcing manufactures to get their goods from sweat shops in China,

China

The irony of what is call success and be a successful corporation in American at the expenses of American people's jobs and ship labor from people under the oppression of dictatorial regimes.

But is ok Wal-mart will give you a job on minimum wages after you lost your middle class income in local mill, now you can apply for welfare.

And the government can show that the economy is good and is jobs available for the entire family.

Give me a brake.

Sorry, marg, but that's life here in the US, and you and RANT will just have to deal with it.

Why single out WalMart? Did your kids wear Nikes when they were growing up? How about that PC you're working on? Where was it manufactured and assembled? What about your TV and stereo? I could go on and on.

Why would a person pay a dollar for something that can be bought for a dime, simply because it is made in the US? Do you want to force high prices down the throats of American consumers? Look out - you'll be on the sliipery slide to socialism before you know it.

Face it - we're less of a manufacturing economy that we were 25 years ago. So where do we go? Well, we lost our lead in steel production and we lived through it. We lost our textile manufacturing lead and got over it. We'll have to realize that the future is brightest for those who can adapt to it, in technical, medical, aerospace and other high-tech fields. But sadly, our kids are doing poorly in the math and sciences in school, so unless they turn it around they are going to lose out also.

You can't blame WalMart. Oh, I know it's easy to blame them, but they never signed a contract to give you a high paying job, did they? The problem is, the US worker doesn't learn. Take cars, for instance. When you think of Toyota, what do you think? I think of reliabilty. American made cars still have a bad reputation for poor quality. And the unemployment lines in Detroit show it.

Well, I've gone way off topic, but I felt I had to defend my statements.

This isn't about women's rights, the definition of a 'drug store', or medical ethics... this is about free enterprise.

It's easy to read that article and say oh no! somebody's freedoms are being violated... and that is indeed the case. However, contrary to what seems to be popular opinion, it is Wal-Mart that is having its freedoms stripped away.

So what if you can't get contraceptives at Wal-Mart? Get them at CVS, Walgreen's, Eckerd, Harris Teeter, Kerr drug, or that little drug store on Main Street. The pills haven't been banned, they're just not available at that store. You don't hear me bitching because I can't buy a bong at Wal-Mart, because they choose not to sell them, and I have come to terms with that.

And if this still bothers you, just stop shopping at Wal-Mart altogether. I haven't been inside one of those hellholes in about eight months now, and you don't see me getting slapped with any paternity lawsuits. Exercise your freedom to patronize the store of your choice, just like Wal-Mart chooses to make money by selling the products of its choice... any other way of approaching this problem means somebody is getting deprived of their rights.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Why single out WalMart? Did your kids wear Nikes when they were growing up?

I grew up with Convers one of my uncle used to work in their manufacturing plant in Puerto Rico backs in the 60s and 70s I used to get them for free.

My children did grew up with Nikes and Jordans.

Originally posted by The Parallelogram
So what if you can't get contraceptives at Wal-Mart? Get them at CVS, Walgreen's, Eckerd, Harris Teeter, Kerr drug, or that little drug store on Main Street.

Are you or any of your family on medication? Pharmacies are regulated by the state. If your pharmacy decided not to dispense your meds and CVS and Walgreen's and ALL the stores in your town decided not to dispense them, what do you do? Drive to the next town? (2 hours away in my case).

Pharmaceuticals are hardly comparable to bongs. If you went in the bong store and couldn't find a bong, wouldn't this be a problem?

if all of those places stopped selling birth control, ideally, I'd open up a little contraceptives shop downtown and monopolize the industry in the town. but hey, that's just me.

I don't think all of those companies would reach the same conclusion... there is a profitable market to be had here, and if all but one supplier were to shut down, that last one would find itself suddenly flocking with customers... they'd have to be stupid, or a financial masochist, to sacrifice that kind of business.

So as long as the drugs are legal, they will be available, somewhere. If legislation is proposed that would ban these contraceptive pills, I would oppose it wholeheartedly, but that isn't the case here-- all that's at stake is Wal-Mart's freedom to sell or not sell the products of its choice.