Advertisement

There's no such thing as a stupid question, but they're the easiest to answer.
Login
Search

Advertisement

Civilized Debate Civilized Debate
Search Search
Search for:
Tech Support Guy > > > >

Wal-Mart FORCED to stock and sell abortion pills


(!)

LANMaster's Avatar
Account Disabled with 55,854 posts.
THREAD STARTER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central USA
Experience: Need no stinking badges
14-Feb-2006, 02:14 PM #1
Wal-Mart FORCED to stock and sell abortion pills
Notice the headline indicates that the writer thinks abortion is just another form of contraception.

Wal-Mart Must Stock Contraception in Mass.

Quote:
The state board that oversees pharmacies voted Tuesday to require Wal- Mart to stock emergency contraception pills at its Massachusetts pharmacies, a spokeswoman at the Department of Public Health said.

The unanimous decision by the Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy comes two weeks after three women sued Wal-Mart in state court for failing to carry the so called "morning after" pill in its Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores in the state.

The women argue state policy requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines."

The board has sent a letter to Wal-Mart lawyers informing them of the decision, said health department spokeswoman Donna Rheaume. Wal-Mart has until Thursday to provide written compliance.

Dan Fogleman, a spokesman for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart, said the company hadn't heard about the decision, but would comply with any order.

Wal-Mart carries the pill in Illinois only, where it is required under state law. The company has said it "chooses not to carry many products for business reasons," but declined to elaborate.
Link

Next they'll be FORCED to sell porno.
Stoner's Avatar
Account Disabled with 44,931 posts.
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Dayton,Oh
14-Feb-2006, 02:34 PM #2
Thought you favored the right to choose abortion up to the first trimester?
Chicon's Avatar
Chicon Chicon is offline   Chicon has a birthday soon!
Computer Specs
Member with 6,650 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: 50 34' 07.13" N - 04 10' 23.
Experience: Second socks retriever
14-Feb-2006, 02:41 PM #3
Wal-Mart being forced to sell !
LANMaster's Avatar
Account Disabled with 55,854 posts.
THREAD STARTER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central USA
Experience: Need no stinking badges
14-Feb-2006, 03:38 PM #4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoner
Thought you favored the right to choose abortion up to the first trimester?
And I still hold that position, thoough abortion is still a tragedy regardless when, and should not be considered mere contraception at any stage.

I'd wager that WM had this store containing the pharmacy for a long time before this pill hit the market.

I understand the licensing issues in states, but I disagree with the state making them sell this product after they have already established their business.

Should they also be forced to sell marajuana if some doctor prescribes it?
LANMaster's Avatar
Account Disabled with 55,854 posts.
THREAD STARTER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central USA
Experience: Need no stinking badges
14-Feb-2006, 03:39 PM #5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicon
Wal-Mart being forced to sell !
If they don't provide this "medicine" they could be forced to close their pharmacy.

Yes ...... forced by State law.
Mulderator's Avatar
Member with 51,021 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
14-Feb-2006, 03:57 PM #6
Quote:
Originally Posted by LANMaster
Next they'll be FORCED to sell porno.
One can only hope--I got one right around the corner!
cristobal03's Avatar
Member with 3,072 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Experience: Advanced
14-Feb-2006, 04:00 PM #7
I don't think the writer should be faulted for the use of the term "contraception." That was more than likely an editorial call; having worked in journalism, I can say that copy has very little to do with a story's headline. More than likely the editor favored the more (and I say this loosely) socially acceptable term "emercency contraception" over the hot-button phrase "abortion pill."

If abortion rights rest with the States, and the majority of the State supports the right to obtain emergency contraception, I think it's correct of the State to require doctors to fill those prescriptions. Just like judges shouldn't "legislate from the bench" (just as an analogy), pharmacists shouldn't "legislate from behind the counter."

That's my personal opinion.

chris.
Mulderator's Avatar
Member with 51,021 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
14-Feb-2006, 04:11 PM #8
This may turn into a big constitutional issue. Frankly, I can see both sides of the argument. For me, though, being a capitalist, I side with less government instrusion and regulation--plus, Massachusetts might as well be a Communist block state!
cristobal03's Avatar
Member with 3,072 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Experience: Advanced
14-Feb-2006, 04:29 PM #9
There's a difference between less government intrusion and the inability of a government to enforce the will of the majority. All I'm saying is, Federal/State constitutions aside, if the majority of people want something, it should be provided--or maybe rather, it will be provided and should be protected. That's true of capitalist as well as democratic principles.

Anyway.

chris.
Rep's Avatar
Rep Rep is offline
Member with 3,469 posts.
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Wisconsin, USA
14-Feb-2006, 04:54 PM #10
This is common sense.

In rural areas where pharmacies are far between people find it difficult to gain access to these legal products.

Attacks on access to birth control from the far right is increasing.

In fact today, in the Wisconsin state legislature was a hearing to reduce access to basic birth control.

Don't like an abortion? Prevent them.

Not good enough of a solution? Don't have one.

Still not doing enough? How many unaborted babies do you have room for in your life? Thought so.
LANMaster's Avatar
Account Disabled with 55,854 posts.
THREAD STARTER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central USA
Experience: Need no stinking badges
14-Feb-2006, 04:57 PM #11
cristobal;

Assume you own a business (not just a teller behind a pharmacy window) and you marketh theraputic neck massagers, because you believe they heal people. You market related products deliberately and your patrons appreciate that fact. Your business grows.
Now the government steps in and demands that you also offer vibrators in the shape of male genetalia. Otherwise you cannot offer neck massagers anymore.

This is tantamount to thie issue at hand.

Wal-Mart corporate has decided that it should offer pharmaceuticals because they SAVE LIVES.
They have been selling them for years,

And now there's a drug introduced that TAKES AWAY LIFE. And the government is FORCING them to carry what they feel is an immoral product. Otherwise they can no longer sell the product that heals people.

Let the owner decide what is to be sold at his/her store.
LANMaster's Avatar
Account Disabled with 55,854 posts.
THREAD STARTER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central USA
Experience: Need no stinking badges
14-Feb-2006, 05:05 PM #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rep
This is common sense.

In rural areas where pharmacies are far between people find it difficult to gain access to these legal products.

Attacks on access to birth control from the far right is increasing.

In fact today, in the Wisconsin state legislature was a hearing to reduce access to basic birth control.

Don't like an abortion? Prevent them.

Not good enough of a solution? Don't have one.

Still not doing enough? How many unaborted babies do you have room for in your life? Thought so.

Since Abortion was legalized 47 million lives have been ended in the USA alone.
I do not know how many of those were of the late term viable baby, but far too many I suspect.

If Ace hardware is to far away, should Wal-Mart be required to sell hammers?

We're talking Boston here, Rep. There are plenty of other places that consumers can get this "legal drug" to kill their unwanted babies.

This abortion pill is not contraception. But no store should be forced to carry any product which they feel violates their own moral code.


That being said, I already have a winning opposing argument.

Why should Walmart care? They buy all their products from a country that engages in forced abortions.
I'm not into bashing corporations but it seems a bit hypocritical for Walmart to suddenly develop a conscience about abortion when they do all their business with China.
cristobal03's Avatar
Member with 3,072 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Experience: Advanced
14-Feb-2006, 05:06 PM #13
I'm sorry, you're not going to win me over with such a blatantly moral argument; I see no correlation. A body authorized by the State has ruled that the product be made available, ostensibly in conjuction with the wishes of that State's majority. Beyond that, there's no argument in my opinion. If Wal-Mart doesn't like the ruling, they can remove their pharmacies from stores in that State. Or, they can comply. Apparently they've chosen to comply. Which is smart business on their part, I think.

chris.
deh's Avatar
deh deh is offline
Member with 7,809 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 192.168.1.1
14-Feb-2006, 05:09 PM #14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rep
Still not doing enough? How many unaborted babies do you have room for in your life? Thought so.
Irresponsibility does not justify murder.

I have a child as the result of being young and irresponsible. It wasn't always easy esp. when i was younger, sometimes still isn't for different reasons but I love her dearly and know she was never a choice.
Stoner's Avatar
Account Disabled with 44,931 posts.
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Dayton,Oh
14-Feb-2006, 05:10 PM #15
Lan said:
Quote:
Should they also be forced to sell marajuana if some doctor prescribes it?
If you want ti play the "IF" game........
If marajuana becomes a drug certified by the FDA for the treatment of specific medical ailments, Yes. I do think a liscensed pharmicist has to abide to the needs of the public and be made to offer all legally prescribed medications.

Note, I have said this before, I just don't want it used as a rationale to be able to legally buy ' party supplies'.


Should a Doctor be allowed to dismiss a patient for a bias of any nature?
Why would a dispenser of medicine have special consideration?
Expand this bias to race? Like the spammer CaptainJohn.......in a position of public health, should a person like that be allowed to dispense medication on the basis of skin color and language?
As Seen On

BBC, Reader's Digest, PC Magazine, Today Show, Money Magazine
WELCOME TO TECH SUPPORT GUY!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.


(clock)
THIS THREAD HAS EXPIRED.
Are you having the same problem? We have volunteers ready to answer your question, but first you'll have to join for free. Need help getting started? Check out our Welcome Guide.

Search Tech Support Guy

Find the solution to your
computer problem!




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools


WELCOME
You Are Using: Server ID
Trusted Website Back to the Top ↑

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2