Wal-Mart Ordered to Stock Emergency Contraception (AKA The Morning After Pill) - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Wal-Mart Ordered to Stock Emergency Contraception (AKA The Morning After Pill) (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 2/15/2006 12:55:41 PM EDT

[#1]

But they have to potential to become 400 babies!

I know it seems weird but that's how it seems to me. You either think the embryos are human beings or you don't. I don't.

I wont argue about this any more.

Posted: 2/15/2006 12:56:40 PM EDT

[#2]

1) How is a contraceptive something that would be REQUIRED?

2) How is it any government's responsibility or authority to order a company to stock such products?

3) How is it a health product? Can we consider sponges, condoms, and vasectomy coupons to be health products now?

Posted: 2/15/2006 12:59:45 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
No one gets it. Since when the fuck does the governement have a right to tell a private company what they can and cannot sell?

Since the federal government started regulating drugs.

Or maybe it started under the Washington administration, with the whiskey tax.

Posted: 2/15/2006 1:01:34 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
3) How is it a health product? Can we consider sponges, condoms, and vasectomy coupons to be health products now?

with the exception of the sponges you don't need coupons. Condoms are free to kids as young as 8 and vasectomies are covered 100% by insurance companies

Posted: 2/15/2006 1:02:13 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
No one gets it. Since when the fuck does the governement have a right to tell a private company what they can and cannot sell?

Since the federal government started regulating drugs.

Or maybe it started under the Washington administration, with the whisky tax.

doing it doesn't give them the right.

Posted: 2/15/2006 1:04:54 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No one gets it. Since when the fuck does the governement have a right to tell a private company what they can and cannot sell?

Since the federal government started regulating drugs.

Or maybe it started under the Washington administration, with the whiskey tax.
doing it doesn't give them the right.

Would you be OK with eliminating federal controls on alcoholic beverages?

How about deregulating heroin?

Posted: 2/15/2006 1:05:32 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Over the counter? What would happen if everyone started putting abortion pills on layaway as fast as they could. The shelves would be empty for a period of time which would be good. Then just before times up and they've restocked their shelves go get your money back and stick Wal-Mart with a huge stock just waiting to expire.

With their computerized inventory tracking wouldn't it appear to be a money loser and they'd no longer stock it??

Shok

they are not abortion pills, you are thinking of RU486, this just prevents pregnancy like a condom or birth control pill.

It can, and often times does, do more than just prevent the fertilization of an egg.

"morning-after pill" —are hormones that act both to prevent ovulation or fertilization, or the subsequent implantation of a fertilised egg

In many cases the embryo is prevented from attaching to the uterus. The embryo dies and in affect is an abortion. So, "abortion pill" is an accurate description.

Shok

"THE PILL" does the same thing do you call that the abortion pill? "sweetie did you remember to take your abortion pill today?"

[/quote]

Ummm, no..........

"The Pill" simply tricks a womans body into thinking she's pregnant, so she stops ovulating alltogether. No pregnancy is started because her ovaries don't release any eggs.

The "Morning After Pill" causes a womans body to reject an already fertilized - and otherwise viable - embrio. The only real difference between the "Morning After Pill" and RU486 is the timeframe.

-K

Posted: 2/15/2006 1:13:21 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Over the counter? What would happen if everyone started putting abortion pills on layaway as fast as they could. The shelves would be empty for a period of time which would be good. Then just before times up and they've restocked their shelves go get your money back and stick Wal-Mart with a huge stock just waiting to expire.

With their computerized inventory tracking wouldn't it appear to be a money loser and they'd no longer stock it??

Shok

they are not abortion pills, you are thinking of RU486, this just prevents pregnancy like a condom or birth control pill.

It can, and often times does, do more than just prevent the fertilization of an egg.

"morning-after pill" —are hormones that act both to prevent ovulation or fertilization, or the subsequent implantation of a fertilised egg

In many cases the embryo is prevented from attaching to the uterus. The embryo dies and in affect is an abortion. So, "abortion pill" is an accurate description.

Shok

"THE PILL" does the same thing do you call that the abortion pill? "sweetie did you remember to take your abortion pill today?"[/quote]

Ummm, no..........

"The Pill" simply tricks a womans body into thinking she's pregnant, so she stops ovulating alltogether. No pregnancy is started because her ovaries don't release any eggs.

The "Morning After Pill" causes a womans body to reject an already fertilized - and otherwise viable - embrio. The only real difference between the "Morning After Pill" and RU486 is the timeframe.

-K

Ummmmmmmmmmmm. double-no.

The drugs in the morning after pill are the SAME DRUGS used in daily contraceptive pills, and they work the same way including the POSSIBILITY (ie: not conclusively proven) that part of the drug's action inhibits implantation of a fertilized egg.

Look it up.

Posted: 2/15/2006 1:18:43 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No one gets it. Since when the fuck does the governement have a right to tell a private company what they can and cannot sell?

Since the federal government started regulating drugs.

Or maybe it started under the Washington administration, with the whiskey tax.
doing it doesn't give them the right.

Would you be OK with eliminating federal controls on alcoholic beverages?

How about deregulating heroin?

Not only would I be ok with it, I'd vote for any politician that supported those policies. Why? because they are stupid and useless laws. No one , NO ONE doesn't do Heroin because it's illegal. Responsible people do not need laws to tell them how to act, irresponsible men will not respect the law anyway. Let people do what the hell they are going to do, and then let them pay the consequences. They put a needle in their arm and ruin their life? I've got a ditch out back they can rot in. Drink all you want, none of the governments buisness, but you drink, drive, and kill someone, then you rot on deathrow for 1st degree murder. As it stands now a bartender that serves someone who later commits murder because they were DWI can get in more trouble than the driver.

Posted: 2/15/2006 1:23:38 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:

...Would you be OK with eliminating federal controls on alcoholic beverages?

How about deregulating heroin?

Not only would I be ok with it, I'd vote for any politician that supported those policies. Why? because they are stupid and useless laws. No one , NO ONE doesn't do Heroin because it's illegal. Responsible people do not need laws to tell them how to act, irresponsible men will not respect the law anyway. Let people do what the hell they are going to do, and then let them pay the consequences. ...

Wow, you and I are in complete agreement on that.

Posted: 2/15/2006 1:27:20 PM EDT

[#11]

OMG the sky is going to fall.

Posted: 2/15/2006 1:27:58 PM EDT

[#12]

I guess choice only applies to women and their bodies, and nobody and nothing else. Good going feminists.

Posted: 2/15/2006 1:30:41 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No one gets it. Since when the fuck does the governement have a right to tell a private company what they can and cannot sell?

Since the federal government started regulating drugs.

Or maybe it started under the Washington administration, with the whiskey tax.
doing it doesn't give them the right.

Would you be OK with eliminating federal controls on alcoholic beverages?

How about deregulating heroin?
Not only would I be ok with it, I'd vote for any politician that supported those policies. Why? because they are stupid and useless laws. No one , NO ONE doesn't do Heroin because it's illegal. Responsible people do not need laws to tell them how to act, irresponsible men will not respect the law anyway. Let people do what the hell they are going to do, and then let them pay the consequences. They put a needle in their arm and ruin their life? I've got a ditch out back they can rot in. Drink all you want, none of the governments buisness, but you drink, drive, and kill someone, then you rot on deathrow for 1st degree murder. As it stands now a bartender that serves someone who later commits murder because they were DWI can get in more trouble than the driver.

+1

Posted: 2/15/2006 1:33:03 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

...Would you be OK with eliminating federal controls on alcoholic beverages?

How about deregulating heroin?

Not only would I be ok with it, I'd vote for any politician that supported those policies. Why? because they are stupid and useless laws. No one , NO ONE doesn't do Heroin because it's illegal. Responsible people do not need laws to tell them how to act, irresponsible men will not respect the law anyway. Let people do what the hell they are going to do, and then let them pay the consequences. ...

Wow, you and I are in complete agreement on that.

And I'm only 25

BTW, how'd all that recent drama go?

Posted: 2/15/2006 1:36:50 PM EDT

[#15]

But only in Massachusetts and Illinois.

WTF?

Posted: 2/15/2006 1:50:11 PM EDT

[#16]

Come Lord Jesus......

Posted: 2/15/2006 1:54:53 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Ummm, no..........

"The Pill" simply tricks a womans body into thinking she's pregnant, so she stops ovulating alltogether. No pregnancy is started because her ovaries don't release any eggs.

The "Morning After Pill" causes a womans body to reject an already fertilized - and otherwise viable - embrio. The only real difference between the "Morning After Pill" and RU486 is the timeframe.

-K

Ummmmmmmmmmmm. double-no.

The drugs in the morning after pill are the SAME DRUGS used in daily contraceptive pills, and they work the same way including the POSSIBILITY (ie: not conclusively proven) that part of the drug's action inhibits implantation of a fertilized egg.

Look it up.

Winston, I have your six:
How Does It Work?
link
Most birth control pills are "combination pills" containing a combination of the hormones estrogen and progesterone to prevent ovulation (the release of an egg during the monthly cycle). A woman cannot get pregnant if she doesn't ovulate because there is no egg to be fertilized. The Pill also works by thickening the mucus around the cervix, which makes it difficult for sperm to enter the uterus and reach any eggs that may have been released. The hormones in the Pill can also sometimes affect the lining of the uterus, making it difficult for an egg to attach to the wall of the uterus.
They fail to mention that eggs only attach when they are fertilized.

This is the reason that many anti-abortionists ALSO want the pill banned. FYI: Norplant and the BC Patch work the same way.

Posted: 2/15/2006 2:09:00 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No one gets it. Since when the fuck does the governement have a right to tell a private company what they can and cannot sell?

Since the federal government started regulating drugs.

Or maybe it started under the Washington administration, with the whiskey tax.
doing it doesn't give them the right.

Would you be OK with eliminating federal controls on alcoholic beverages?

How about deregulating heroin?
Not only would I be ok with it, I'd vote for any politician that supported those policies. Why? because they are stupid and useless laws. No one , NO ONE doesn't do Heroin because it's illegal. Responsible people do not need laws to tell them how to act, irresponsible men will not respect the law anyway. Let people do what the hell they are going to do, and then let them pay the consequences. They put a needle in their arm and ruin their life? I've got a ditch out back they can rot in. Drink all you want, none of the governments buisness, but you drink, drive, and kill someone, then you rot on deathrow for 1st degree murder. As it stands now a bartender that serves someone who later commits murder because they were DWI can get in more trouble than the driver.

+1

+1

Hooray for thinking.

Posted: 2/15/2006 2:29:00 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Ummm, no..........

"The Pill" simply tricks a womans body into thinking she's pregnant, so she stops ovulating alltogether. No pregnancy is started because her ovaries don't release any eggs.

The "Morning After Pill" causes a womans body to reject an already fertilized - and otherwise viable - embrio. The only real difference between the "Morning After Pill" and RU486 is the timeframe.

-K

Ummmmmmmmmmmm. double-no.

The drugs in the morning after pill are the SAME DRUGS used in daily contraceptive pills, and they work the same way including the POSSIBILITY (ie: not conclusively proven) that part of the drug's action inhibits implantation of a fertilized egg.

Look it up.

Winston, I have your six:
How Does It Work?
link
Most birth control pills are "combination pills" containing a combination of the hormones estrogen and progesterone to prevent ovulation (the release of an egg during the monthly cycle). A woman cannot get pregnant if she doesn't ovulate because there is no egg to be fertilized. The Pill also works by thickening the mucus around the cervix, which makes it difficult for sperm to enter the uterus and reach any eggs that may have been released. The hormones in the Pill can also sometimes affect the lining of the uterus, making it difficult for an egg to attach to the wall of the uterus.
They fail to mention that eggs only attach when they are fertilized.
This is the reason that many anti-abortionists ALSO want the pill banned. FYI: Norplant and the BC Patch work the same way.

Thanks

I tell ya though, incrementalism is incrementalism.. If they want to ban our guns, they should quit fucking around and drop the Second Amendment. If they want to ban safe and effective birth control they should man up and pass an Amendment banning sex outside of marriage for the purposes of procreation.

Hell, we can tack on female circumcision and jettison that pesky suffrage bit while we're at it, and shoot anyone who teaches a woman to read. We'll get Betty Crocker to start using pictographs on the back of their cake boxes and we're all set.

[Ulysses Everett McGill] I tell ya, it'll be a brave new world of possibilities!! [/Ulysses Everett McGill]

Posted: 2/15/2006 2:34:12 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Ummm, no..........

"The Pill" simply tricks a womans body into thinking she's pregnant, so she stops ovulating alltogether. No pregnancy is started because her ovaries don't release any eggs.

The "Morning After Pill" causes a womans body to reject an already fertilized - and otherwise viable - embrio. The only real difference between the "Morning After Pill" and RU486 is the timeframe.

-K

Ummmmmmmmmmmm. double-no.

The drugs in the morning after pill are the SAME DRUGS used in daily contraceptive pills, and they work the same way including the POSSIBILITY (ie: not conclusively proven) that part of the drug's action inhibits implantation of a fertilized egg.

Look it up.

Winston, I have your six:
How Does It Work?
link
Most birth control pills are "combination pills" containing a combination of the hormones estrogen and progesterone to prevent ovulation (the release of an egg during the monthly cycle). A woman cannot get pregnant if she doesn't ovulate because there is no egg to be fertilized. The Pill also works by thickening the mucus around the cervix, which makes it difficult for sperm to enter the uterus and reach any eggs that may have been released. The hormones in the Pill can also sometimes affect the lining of the uterus, making it difficult for an egg to attach to the wall of the uterus.
They fail to mention that eggs only attach when they are fertilized.
This is the reason that many anti-abortionists ALSO want the pill banned. FYI: Norplant and the BC Patch work the same way.

Thanks

I tell ya though, incrementalism is incrementalism.. If they want to ban our guns, they should quit fucking around and drop the Second Amendment. If they want to ban safe and effective birth control they should man up and pass an Amendment banning sex outside of marriage for the purposes of procreation.

Hell, we can tack on female circumcision and jettison that pesky suffrage bit while we're at it, and shoot anyone who teaches a woman to read. We'll get Betty Crocker to start using pictographs on the back of their cake boxes and we're all set.

[Ulysses Everett McGill] I tell ya, it'll be a brave new world of possibilities!! [/Ulysses Everett McGill]

We went from radical feminists using an interpretation of state law to strong arm a private business to shooting women?
Geez.

Posted: 2/15/2006 2:51:04 PM EDT

[#21]

They (Wal-Mart) should shut down the pharmacy in the stores affected to prove a point. They have the means to afford such a tactic and the libpuke .gov needs to be taken on by someone, they could do it but like so many liberties, it will erode juuuust a little more.....no big deal.

Posted: 2/15/2006 2:57:59 PM EDT

[#22]

Well shit, we should ban those damn pills!!! It's a waste of a great food source!!!

Posted: 2/15/2006 3:17:24 PM EDT

[#23]

I understand what people are saying about a business being able to decide what it should sell.

BUT

The pharmacy regulations are there for a reason.

Let's say that Wal-Mart has opened up many chains in South Dakota. They have driven away most of the other pharmacies in the state. AND let's say that Wal-Mart is owned by some kook like Tom Cruise, who has less than mainstream religious beliefs.

Tom Cruise says that his stores will not be selling any anti-depressants or mood elavators.

Because he is controlling the drug store-faring population of South Dakota, his religious views are infringing on the rights of those people that need those medications, have been prescribed those medications and should leagally be able to get those medications.

The regulations are to protect us from religious (or other kinds of) zealots who would control our lives if they had the power.

Posted: 2/15/2006 3:19:57 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
I understand what people are saying about a business being able to decide what it should sell.

BUT

The pharmacy regulations are there for a reason.

Let's say that Wal-Mart has opened up many chains in South Dakota. They have driven away most of the other pharmacies in the state. AND let's say that Wal-Mart is owned by some kook like Tom Cruise, who has less than mainstream religious beliefs.

Tom Cruise says that his stores will not be selling any anti-depressants or mood elavators.

Because he is controlling the drug store-faring population of South Dakota, his religious views are infringing on the rights of those people that need those medications, have been prescribed those medications and should leagally be able to get those medications.

The regulations are to protect us from religious (or other kinds of) zealots who would control our lives if they had the power.

Then the people would have the right to take their business elsewhere. A market has been created for these pills then since Walcruise won't stock antidepressents. It's captailism.

Posted: 2/15/2006 3:28:15 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
I understand what people are saying about a business being able to decide what it should sell.

BUT

The pharmacy regulations are there for a reason.

Let's say that Wal-Mart has opened up many chains in South Dakota. They have driven away most of the other pharmacies in the state. AND let's say that Wal-Mart is owned by some kook like Tom Cruise, who has less than mainstream religious beliefs.

Tom Cruise says that his stores will not be selling any anti-depressants or mood elavators.

Because he is controlling the drug store-faring population of South Dakota, his religious views are infringing on the rights of those people that need those medications, have been prescribed those medications and should leagally be able to get those medications.

The regulations are to protect us from religious (or other kinds of) zealots who would control our lives if they had the power.

People are free to urge the company to change its decision, and they are free to start another business that does what they want, and they are free to find another business that does what they want.
Lemme twist it around on you, if I may. Does somebody have a right to have you behave in a certain way that benefits them? Do you have a right to demand that a doctor treat you? Of course you need it, but does your need present such a requirement upon the doctor to the point where refusal of treatment for any reason is an infringement upon your rights?
Same with Walmart and drugs.

Posted: 2/15/2006 3:39:50 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I understand what people are saying about a business being able to decide what it should sell.

BUT

The pharmacy regulations are there for a reason.

Let's say that Wal-Mart has opened up many chains in South Dakota. They have driven away most of the other pharmacies in the state. AND let's say that Wal-Mart is owned by some kook like Tom Cruise, who has less than mainstream religious beliefs.

Tom Cruise says that his stores will not be selling any anti-depressants or mood elavators.

Because he is controlling the drug store-faring population of South Dakota, his religious views are infringing on the rights of those people that need those medications, have been prescribed those medications and should leagally be able to get those medications.

The regulations are to protect us from religious (or other kinds of) zealots who would control our lives if they had the power.

People are free to urge the company to change its decision, and they are free to start another business that does what they want, and they are free to find another business that does what they want.

Wal mart is notorious for closing little mom and pop shops in any area it inhabits. It has lower prices, people go for that, the small business closes- free enterprise. I, who have a career, am not going to go back to school for 5 years to become a pharmacist, spend huge amounts of money on opening a new business, just so I can sell one type of drug. (all the others can be supllied at Walmart for a lower price than I could ever charge.)

Lemme twist it around on you, if I may. Does somebody have a right to have you behave in a certain way that benefits them?

I'm a teacher. My kids have to behave in a way that befits me or I throw them out of my classroom. I have every right and an obligation to the other kids to do so.

Do you have a right to demand that a doctor treat you? Of course you need it, but does your need present such a requirement upon the doctor to the point where refusal of treatment for any reason is an infringement upon your rights?

If I am rushed to the hostpital with critical wounds and they refuse to treat me. That is against the law and they will be saddled with a big ol' lawsuit, should I die.

Same with Walmart and drugs.

Nice points though, and I really do see where you are coming from. I just don't agree.

Posted: 2/15/2006 3:44:03 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I understand what people are saying about a business being able to decide what it should sell.

BUT

The pharmacy regulations are there for a reason.

Let's say that Wal-Mart has opened up many chains in South Dakota. They have driven away most of the other pharmacies in the state. AND let's say that Wal-Mart is owned by some kook like Tom Cruise, who has less than mainstream religious beliefs.

Tom Cruise says that his stores will not be selling any anti-depressants or mood elavators.

Because he is controlling the drug store-faring population of South Dakota, his religious views are infringing on the rights of those people that need those medications, have been prescribed those medications and should leagally be able to get those medications.

The regulations are to protect us from religious (or other kinds of) zealots who would control our lives if they had the power.

People are free to urge the company to change its decision, and they are free to start another business that does what they want, and they are free to find another business that does what they want.

Wal mart is notorious for closing little mom and pop shops in any area it inhabits. It has lower prices, people go for that, the small business closes- free enterprise. I, who have a career, am not going to go back to school for 5 years to become a pharmacist, spend huge amounts of money on opening a new business, just so I can sell one type of drug. (all the others can be supllied at Walmart for a lower price than I could ever charge.)

Lemme twist it around on you, if I may. Does somebody have a right to have you behave in a certain way that benefits them?

I'm a teacher. My kids have to behave in a way that befits me or I throw them out of my classroom. I have every right and an obligation to the other kids to do so.

Do you have a right to demand that a doctor treat you? Of course you need it, but does your need present such a requirement upon the doctor to the point where refusal of treatment for any reason is an infringement upon your rights?

If I am rushed to the hostpital with critical wounds and they refuse to treat me. That is against the law and they will be saddled with a big ol' lawsuit, should I die.

Same with Walmart and drugs.

We ARE talking about adults in adult interactions and, in this case, we are not talking about the legal requirements of emergency medicine.
We're talking about a private company being denied the right to sell what they want. This is outside the legal requirements of emergency medicine.

Posted: 2/15/2006 3:51:05 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I understand what people are saying about a business being able to decide what it should sell.

BUT

The pharmacy regulations are there for a reason.

Let's say that Wal-Mart has opened up many chains in South Dakota. They have driven away most of the other pharmacies in the state. AND let's say that Wal-Mart is owned by some kook like Tom Cruise, who has less than mainstream religious beliefs.

Tom Cruise says that his stores will not be selling any anti-depressants or mood elavators.

Because he is controlling the drug store-faring population of South Dakota, his religious views are infringing on the rights of those people that need those medications, have been prescribed those medications and should leagally be able to get those medications.

The regulations are to protect us from religious (or other kinds of) zealots who would control our lives if they had the power.

People are free to urge the company to change its decision, and they are free to start another business that does what they want, and they are free to find another business that does what they want.

Wal mart is notorious for closing little mom and pop shops in any area it inhabits. It has lower prices, people go for that, the small business closes- free enterprise. I, who have a career, am not going to go back to school for 5 years to become a pharmacist, spend huge amounts of money on opening a new business, just so I can sell one type of drug. (all the others can be supllied at Walmart for a lower price than I could ever charge.)

Lemme twist it around on you, if I may. Does somebody have a right to have you behave in a certain way that benefits them?

I'm a teacher. My kids have to behave in a way that befits me or I throw them out of my classroom. I have every right and an obligation to the other kids to do so.

Do you have a right to demand that a doctor treat you? Of course you need it, but does your need present such a requirement upon the doctor to the point where refusal of treatment for any reason is an infringement upon your rights?

If I am rushed to the hostpital with critical wounds and they refuse to treat me. That is against the law and they will be saddled with a big ol' lawsuit, should I die.

Same with Walmart and drugs.
We ARE talking about adults in adult interactions and, in this case, we are not talking about the legal requirements of emergency medicine.
We're talking about a private company being denied the right to sell what they want. This is outside the legal requirements of emergency medicine.

But it is within the legal requirements of pharmacy regulations, Regulations that Wal-Mart had to agree to to get their pharmacutical license. If they had proven in either court case that they couldn't turn a profit by supplying the drug, they would've won. Their reasoning to not supply the drug was not based on the business aspects. That's what the regs are protecting us against.

Posted: 2/15/2006 3:55:31 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wal-Mart Ordered to Stock Emergency Contraception

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184879,00.html

BOSTON — 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.

"Clearly women's health is a high priority for Wal-Mart," spokesman Dan Fogleman said. "We are actively thinking through the issue."

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

The unanimous decision by the pharmacy board comes two weeks after three women, backed by abortion rights groups, sued Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart for failing to carry the drug in its 44 Wal-Marts and four Sam's Club stores in Massachusetts.

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

The morning-after pill provides a high dose of hormones that women can take up to five days after sex to prevent pregnancy. Some abortion opponents believe emergency contraception is a form of abortion because it blocks the fertilized egg from being implanted on the uterine wall.

CVS, the state's largest pharmacy chain, stocks the pill at all of its pharmacy locations, as do the state's other major pharmacy chains.

Sam Perkins, a lawyer for the three women, praised the board's decision and said he was prepared to sue in other states should Wal-Mart not overturn its policy. Abortion rights groups and women's organizations have also urged Wal-Mart to change its policy.

"I'm proud to be able to tell my patients that they now can go anywhere for their prescriptions," said one of the plaintiffs, Dr. Rebekah Gee, 30, of Boston. "My patients should not have to shop around."

Want the license, follow the regs.

Do we have the regs here in front of us. She "argued" not they absolutely do.

It seems like they argued pretty convincingly. I assume this is what they based their arguement on:

www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/regs/247cmr006.pdf
------------------------------------------
6.02: Conditions for Continuing Registration and Operation of a Pharmacy or Pharmacy Department

Except as provided by exemptions set forth in 247 CMR 12.00 with respect to restricted
pharmacies and 247 CMR 13.00 with respect to nuclear pharmacies, the following conditions
shall apply to the continuing operation of a pharmacy or pharmacy department:

(1) The premises of the pharmacy or pharmacy department shall at all times be kept in a clean
and sanitary manner.

(2) The equipment and publications set forth in 247 CMR 6.01(6)(a) shall be maintained in the
pharmacy or pharmacy department at all times.

(3) The following shall be conspicuously displayed within the pharmacy or pharmacy department:

(a) the pharmacy permit;
(b) the pharmacy's Massachusetts controlled substance registration;
(c) the pharmacy's U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration controlled substance registration;
and
(d) whenever applicable, the pharmacy's certificate of fitness.

(4) The pharmacy or pharmacy department shall maintain on the premises at all times a
sufficient variety and supply of medicinal chemicals and preparations which are necessary to
compound and dispense commonly prescribed medications in accordance with the usual needs
of the community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the Morning After Pill commonly prescribed in the communities that Wal-Mart operates in?

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:00:48 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wal-Mart Ordered to Stock Emergency Contraception

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184879,00.html

BOSTON — 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.

"Clearly women's health is a high priority for Wal-Mart," spokesman Dan Fogleman said. "We are actively thinking through the issue."

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

The unanimous decision by the pharmacy board comes two weeks after three women, backed by abortion rights groups, sued Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart for failing to carry the drug in its 44 Wal-Marts and four Sam's Club stores in Massachusetts.

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

The morning-after pill provides a high dose of hormones that women can take up to five days after sex to prevent pregnancy. Some abortion opponents believe emergency contraception is a form of abortion because it blocks the fertilized egg from being implanted on the uterine wall.

CVS, the state's largest pharmacy chain, stocks the pill at all of its pharmacy locations, as do the state's other major pharmacy chains.

Sam Perkins, a lawyer for the three women, praised the board's decision and said he was prepared to sue in other states should Wal-Mart not overturn its policy. Abortion rights groups and women's organizations have also urged Wal-Mart to change its policy.

"I'm proud to be able to tell my patients that they now can go anywhere for their prescriptions," said one of the plaintiffs, Dr. Rebekah Gee, 30, of Boston. "My patients should not have to shop around."

Want the license, follow the regs.

Do we have the regs here in front of us. She "argued" not they absolutely do.

It seems like they argued pretty convincingly. I assume this is what they based their arguement on:

www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/regs/247cmr006.pdf
------------------------------------------
6.02: Conditions for Continuing Registration and Operation of a Pharmacy or Pharmacy Department

Except as provided by exemptions set forth in 247 CMR 12.00 with respect to restricted
pharmacies and 247 CMR 13.00 with respect to nuclear pharmacies, the following conditions
shall apply to the continuing operation of a pharmacy or pharmacy department:

(1) The premises of the pharmacy or pharmacy department shall at all times be kept in a clean
and sanitary manner.

(2) The equipment and publications set forth in 247 CMR 6.01(6)(a) shall be maintained in the
pharmacy or pharmacy department at all times.

(3) The following shall be conspicuously displayed within the pharmacy or pharmacy department:

(a) the pharmacy permit;
(b) the pharmacy's Massachusetts controlled substance registration;
(c) the pharmacy's U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration controlled substance registration;
and
(d) whenever applicable, the pharmacy's certificate of fitness.

(4) The pharmacy or pharmacy department shall maintain on the premises at all times a
sufficient variety and supply of medicinal chemicals and preparations which are necessary to
compound and dispense commonly prescribed medications in accordance with the usual needs
of the community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the Morning After Pill commonly prescribed in the communities that Wal-Mart operates in?

The morning after pill is very commonly prescribed anywhere wher there is any kind of family planning facility, any college town, any "free clinic" etc. I had a roomate who had a condom break and she did it. she came back with all sorts of stories and suprising info.

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:37:58 PM EDT

[#31]

Gotta admit that the first thing that came to mind when I read this was that Wal-Mart is the perfect place for some "birth control". In fact, I think they should be irradiating people as they walk through the front doors! But seriously--I can't wait to go to my church this Sunday and tell my married friends that they've actually been getting abortions when they use the pill to avoid pregnancy.

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:45:10 PM EDT

[#32]

Another thing that bothers me about this is the doctors comment about her not wanting her patients to have to shop around.

Could, legally, wal-mart jack the price up to like 100.00 per pill or 800.00 per pill?

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:50:37 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
No one gets it. Since when the fuck does the governement have a right to tell a private company what they can and cannot sell?

Tiss weird. I can see the gov making not sell harmfull things, like.. known bad food,drugs, etc.

However, making sell something is entierly different, and I don't like it.

Can Target be forced to sell guns?

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:52:33 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
seems like they argued pretty convincingly. I assume this is what they based their arguement on:

www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/regs/247cmr006.pdf
------------------------------------------
6.02: Conditions for Continuing Registration and Operation of a Pharmacy or Pharmacy Department

Except as provided by exemptions set forth in 247 CMR 12.00 with respect to restricted
pharmacies and 247 CMR 13.00 with respect to nuclear pharmacies, the following conditions
shall apply to the continuing operation of a pharmacy or pharmacy department:

(1) The premises of the pharmacy or pharmacy department shall at all times be kept in a clean
and sanitary manner.

(2) The equipment and publications set forth in 247 CMR 6.01(6)(a) shall be maintained in the
pharmacy or pharmacy department at all times.

(3) The following shall be conspicuously displayed within the pharmacy or pharmacy department:

(a) the pharmacy permit;
(b) the pharmacy's Massachusetts controlled substance registration;
(c) the pharmacy's U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration controlled substance registration;
and
(d) whenever applicable, the pharmacy's certificate of fitness.

(4) The pharmacy or pharmacy department shall maintain on the premises at all times a
sufficient variety and supply of medicinal chemicals and preparations which are necessary to
compound and dispense commonly prescribed medications in accordance with the usual needs
of the community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the Morning After Pill commonly prescribed in the communities that Wal-Mart operates in?

Well, I guess it's hard to argue against that. It would hinge on what commonly prescribed means. I'm sure Planned Parenthood hands out scripts like breath mints. Maybe it is commonly prescribed

Posted: 2/15/2006 5:00:43 PM EDT

[#35]

On a slightly lateral topic...

If a visibley pregnant woman comes into a bar, it is under the bartender's discretion to serve her or not.

This decision is not made because of profitablity or other business reasons, it is made for personal, moral reasons of the particular bartender.

It is law that he has the choice.

I don't see how it is legal in the bar example and not legal in the Wal-Mart example.

Just throwing that out there. But it is the law.

Posted: 2/15/2006 6:47:05 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Over the counter? What would happen if everyone started putting abortion pills on layaway as fast as they could. The shelves would be empty for a period of time which would be good. Then just before times up and they've restocked their shelves go get your money back and stick Wal-Mart with a huge stock just waiting to expire.

With their computerized inventory tracking wouldn't it appear to be a money loser and they'd no longer stock it??

Shok

they are not abortion pills, you are thinking of RU486, this just prevents pregnancy like a condom or birth control pill.

It can, and often times does, do more than just prevent the fertilization of an egg.

"morning-after pill" —are hormones that act both to prevent ovulation or fertilization, or the subsequent implantation of a fertilised egg

In many cases the embryo is prevented from attaching to the uterus. The embryo dies and in affect is an abortion. So, "abortion pill" is an accurate description.

Shok

"THE PILL" does the same thing do you call that the abortion pill? "sweetie did you remember to take your abortion pill today?"[/quote]

Ummm, no..........

"The Pill" simply tricks a womans body into thinking she's pregnant, so she stops ovulating alltogether. No pregnancy is started because her ovaries don't release any eggs.

The "Morning After Pill" causes a womans body to reject an already fertilized - and otherwise viable - embrio. The only real difference between the "Morning After Pill" and RU486 is the timeframe.

-K

Ummmmmmmmmmmm. double-no.

The drugs in the morning after pill are the SAME DRUGS used in daily contraceptive pills, and they work the same way including the POSSIBILITY (ie: not conclusively proven) that part of the drug's action inhibits implantation of a fertilized egg.

Look it up.

Ummmmm.. Triple no?

First off, I'm not against the morning after pill. I'm even on the fence on the abortion issue as a whole. I'm just against the .gov compeling someone to sell it against their will. Just as I would be against .gov telling a GM dealer he MUST sell Ford and Chrysler products.

Having said that, there is still a difference between the morning after pill and the regular birth control pill. One prevents ovulation and fertilization of the egg. The other causes the body to reject the already fertilized egg. Drugs work differently if given in different doses, and at different "times" regarding the conditions they are being prescribed for. The regular pill and morning after pill really aren't the same thing.

-K

Posted: 2/15/2006 7:35:04 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
But only in Massachusetts and Illinois.

WTF?

The "practice of pharmacy" is defined and regulated by the individual states, not the feds (though there have been attempts by the FDA to do so on occasion, mostly aimed at trying to regulate compounding).

Posted: 2/15/2006 7:44:35 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Morning after pill is a good idea since it would prevent abortions later on.

+1,000,000

It's not an aborticide. It's just a big dose of the birth control pill that prevents fertilization.

Anti-abortion people should LOVE this pill....but they don't because alot of them are retarded.

Posted: 2/15/2006 7:49:22 PM EDT

[#39]

Stop spilling your seed, it makes the baby Jesus cry.

Posted: 2/15/2006 7:54:41 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
No one gets it. Since when the fuck does the governement have a right to tell a private company what they can and cannot sell?

Amen.

Wouldn't it be a hoot if Wal-Mart told the state legislature to FOAD and simply closed all its pharmacies?

I know I'd LMAO.

Posted: 2/15/2006 8:00:26 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Quoted:
No one gets it. Since when the fuck does the governement have a right to tell a private company what they can and cannot sell?

Amen.

Wouldn't it be a hoot if Wal-Mart told the state legislature to FOAD and simply closed all its pharmacies?

I know I'd LMAO.

Then Walgreens and the other big names would open more pharmacies to fill the gaps. Not much would change, except Wal-Mart wouldn't sell prescription drugs.

Posted: 2/15/2006 8:06:48 PM EDT

[#42]

Just wondering what do you guys do when the condom breaks?

Posted: 2/15/2006 9:16:32 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Ummmmm.. Triple no?

First off, I'm not against the morning after pill. I'm even on the fence on the abortion issue as a whole. I'm just against the .gov compeling someone to sell it against their will. Just as I would be against .gov telling a GM dealer he MUST sell Ford and Chrysler products.

Having said that, there is still a difference between the morning after pill and the regular birth control pill. One prevents ovulation and fertilization of the egg. The other causes the body to reject the already fertilized egg. Drugs work differently if given in different doses, and at different "times" regarding the conditions they are being prescribed for. The regular pill and morning after pill really aren't the same thing.

-K

Quadruple-no with a quad rail, Aimpoint, and a brake so loud the neighbors go deaf.

We could argue all night over the precise physical action of the stuff. My understanding is that the action of hormonal birth control in any form is not completely understood by people that get paid to try. I believe you may be underestimating the chance for rejection of a fertilized egg with habitual methods. I also believe you're underestimating the timeframe that fertilization occurs in. None of this matters however, not one whit. The moral implications of this drug are neither in question nor pertinent in the least to this discussion.

People have been talking about pharmacists denying perscriptions, and in some cases refusing to return the slip. She was how far into the 72 hour window when she walked in the door? Now there's a shitstorm because Discount Holymart is being forced against it's moral standing to comply to the letter with pre-existing Massachusetts state pharmacy code. Not so long back, an FDA panel recommended one of them be sold OTC.. Plan B I'd guess. The head mucketies made an unusual decision to ignore the panel and keep it perscription only.. Largely condemned (perhaps rightfully) as a scientific body injecting politics into medicine.

Backlash-Backlash-Backlash.

Keep it up. They'll have this shit in fucking pez dispensers in kindergartens in ten years. It'll become the primary birth control method for a lot of underinformed women, and they'll end up with 75% effective instead of 99.x% with a daily pill.

One interesting point though.. Plan B may be healthier for women than some daily pills.. No estrogen. All progesterone. Less risk of clots I believe, so there is that

Posted: 2/16/2006 5:30:26 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Just wondering what do you guys do when the condom breaks?

It's not up to the guy to decide what to do in that situation.

Posted: 2/16/2006 5:31:37 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Over the counter? What would happen if everyone started putting abortion pills on layaway as fast as they could. The shelves would be empty for a period of time which would be good. Then just before times up and they've restocked their shelves go get your money back and stick Wal-Mart with a huge stock just waiting to expire.

With their computerized inventory tracking wouldn't it appear to be a money loser and they'd no longer stock it??

Shok

they are not abortion pills, you are thinking of RU486, this just prevents pregnancy like a condom or birth control pill.

It can, and often times does, do more than just prevent the fertilization of an egg.

"morning-after pill" —are hormones that act both to prevent ovulation or fertilization, or the subsequent implantation of a fertilised egg

In many cases the embryo is prevented from attaching to the uterus. The embryo dies and in affect is an abortion. So, "abortion pill" is an accurate description.

Shok

Of course this puts birth control pills in the same catagory. It is a tough line to draw.

You're absolutely correct. Since the pill is taken daily the egg usually doesn't get fertilized but there are not guarantees. That's one reason the Catholic Church opposes the pill. I'm not Catholic but any pro-lifer should be against the pill also.

Shok

Posted: 2/16/2006 6:11:01 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Of course this puts birth control pills in the same catagory. It is a tough line to draw.

You're absolutely correct. Since the pill is taken daily the egg usually doesn't get fertilized but there are not guarantees. That's one reason the Catholic Church opposes the pill. I'm not Catholic but any pro-lifer should be against the pill also.

Shok

Precisely why some of us Catholics have 'reformed...'
They want us to breed like rabbits AND support the church with hefty donations while priests run up the legal fees by doing naughty things with our offspring...

Gives a whole new meaning to supply and demand....

Posted: 2/16/2006 6:19:17 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Over the counter? What would happen if everyone started putting abortion pills on layaway as fast as they could. The shelves would be empty for a period of time which would be good. Then just before times up and they've restocked their shelves go get your money back and stick Wal-Mart with a huge stock just waiting to expire.

With their computerized inventory tracking wouldn't it appear to be a money loser and they'd no longer stock it??

Shok

they are not abortion pills, you are thinking of RU486, this just prevents pregnancy like a condom or birth control pill.

It can, and often times does, do more than just prevent the fertilization of an egg.

"morning-after pill" —are hormones that act both to prevent ovulation or fertilization, or the subsequent implantation of a fertilised egg

In many cases the embryo is prevented from attaching to the uterus. The embryo dies and in affect is an abortion. So, "abortion pill" is an accurate description.

Shok

Doesn't the Bible say " The life is in the blood."? and since there is no blood until the fetus is 5 weeks old, no life (per the Biblical definition) is aborted?

flesh

In the verse(s) your refering to it is talking about animals used for food. This does not define life or determine it's begining.

Pro 14:30 A sound heart is the life of the flesh: but envy the rottenness of the bones.

Life comes from a sound heart? This verses is not saying that either. What this says is a righteous man is a happy man therefore a healthy man blessed by God.

God's eyes does see us before we are formed perfectly. Our body was known to God before before it ever existed. This means life begins before the blood, bones, and flesh comes into existance. Did God know us when we were an embryo? a zygote? Did God know us at conception, or manybe even before conception?

I don't know for sure. I do know that a fertilized egg, as a single cell (zygote), has the complete DNA of a human person. All scientific evidence tells me life begins at conception.

Shok

Posted: 2/16/2006 6:20:11 AM EDT

[#48]

I am a pharmacist and will tell you that personally dispensing this type of medication is probably one of the best things I ever do. It truely makes a difference in certain cases and the idea that a pharmacist wouldn't dispense this medication in the right case if just absolutely ridiculous. I can't imagine a real pharmacy refusing to dispense this medication. As for walmart they should stock it but it should be up to the pharmacist if they chose to dispense it or not. Just my thoughts!!

Posted: 2/16/2006 6:37:49 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
I am a pharmacist and will tell you that personally dispensing this type of medication is probably one of the best things I ever do. It truely makes a difference in certain cases and the idea that a pharmacist wouldn't dispense this medication in the right case if just absolutely ridiculous. I can't imagine a real pharmacy refusing to dispense this medication. As for walmart they should stock it but it should be up to the pharmacist if they chose to dispense it or not. Just my thoughts!!

Like hell! That sets a precedent like never before!
"Gee, Mr Jones, I think you're really not a nutcase, so no Lithium for you this week!"
"Ya know Mrs. Thomas, I think it's time you and the Mr. had kids...no BCP for YOU this week!"

You're a pharmacist, not an MD.
Don't like giving out a particular drug? Go back to school and get your MD and change things.
(Not meaning YOU personally in this, btw)

Posted: 2/16/2006 7:09:48 AM EDT

[#50]

There are circumstances where a pharmacist has to use what is called professional judgement. In certain cases just because a patient has a prescripiton does not mean that it is appropriate to fill it. I am just saying that there are cases where I can understand and agree that certain prescriptions should not be dispensed. Actually it is the pharmacist responsibility//liability to insure that every prescription he or she fills is appropriate.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Wal-Mart Ordered to Stock Emergency Contraception (AKA The Morning After Pill) (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us