Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 2/15/2006 10:31:23 AM EDT
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."
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:35:14 AM EDT
Everyday, the government is telling us more and more what we can and can't do. The giant government dick is coming at our asses without lube much less a kiss on the back of the neck. Worse yet, hardly anyone is doing anything to stop it.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:36:09 AM EDT
Its not over the counter is it? that would be great.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:37:00 AM EDT
Good greif.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:38:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:
Good greif. hr


+1
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:41:27 AM EDT
Good news.

Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:41:58 AM EDT

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
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:42:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 10:42:44 AM EDT by blacklisted]
Morning after pill is a good idea since it would prevent abortions later on.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:42:47 AM EDT
Good.

Av.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:43:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:
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.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:44:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 10:44:35 AM EDT by ZitiForBreakfast]
can people try to start a fight any more?

Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:46:40 AM EDT
I don't understand why its not everywhere.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:47:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 11:27:21 AM EDT by johnrj]
so much for free enterprise for those wanting to have a business.

can't wait until Walmart is ordered to take out the Bibles they sell in the book department and replace them with pornography to enlighten the children.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:49:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Everyday, the government is telling us more and more what we can and can't do. The giant government dick is coming at our asses without lube much less a kiss on the back of the neck. Worse yet, hardly anyone is doing anything to stop it.



You don't feel it there already??!!

Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:49:46 AM EDT
If you want to practice pharmacy in a state, you must abide by the law and directives of the board of pharmacy in that state. I am glad that states are still able to make such decisions for themselves, instead of Congress butting in (again) where it has no business.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:50:03 AM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:50:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Everyday, the government is telling us more and more what we can and can't do.




Doctors and pharmacies are licensed and regulated by the government...what is one more regulation requiring a pharmacy to do exactly what they are supposed to do? If Wal-Mart doesn't like the government regulations they can get rid of their pharmacy and they won't have to deal with it.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:51:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By johnrj:
so much for free enterprise for those wanting to have a business.



Exactly!

What kind of precedent is this? Think about it... and it has nothing to do with your feelings on abortions or birth control or anything else...

The government ordering a store to sell something.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:51:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 10:52:39 AM EDT by blacklisted]

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
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?



It doesn't really matter.

The company can decide who to sell to and who not to sell to.

"Sorry, we are only selling this pill to people over 80."
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:54:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SWIRE:

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Everyday, the government is telling us more and more what we can and can't do.




Doctors and pharmacies are licensed and regulated by the government...what is one more regulation requiring a pharmacy to do exactly what they are supposed to do? If Wal-Mart doesn't like the government regulations they can get rid of their pharmacy and they won't have to deal with it.

So your solution to more governmental control is to get out of that buisness and let them win? What a sheep
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:55:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 1911greg:

Originally Posted By QShok:
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.



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
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:57:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
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?



Dusty....I couldnt agree with you more in your sentiment, but the fact is that because its a pharmacy, it is regulated. Grocery stores go through the same thing....they cant just sell any old meat they want, it has to be inspected.

I dont agree with all the regulation but I understand that it has its place.
Unfortunately, this type of thing is exactly what aclimates people to the idea of government interference in our lives...and this is how they manage to get involved in so many places they dont belong, trying to regulate our private lives.

For all the good the FDA or USDA does, there is a fine line between regulation and interference.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:58:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:

Originally Posted By 1911greg:

Originally Posted By QShok:
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.



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.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:01:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:

Originally Posted By 1911greg:

Originally Posted By QShok:
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.



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?
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:02:01 AM EDT
Massachussetts, where all that is not banned is compulsory.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:03:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:

Originally Posted By 1911greg:

Originally Posted By QShok:
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.



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



Actually, I think the word abortion refers to an aborted pregnancy and since the fetizlized egg is not implanted in the uterine lining (the def of pregnancy), then nothing actually gets aborted with the morning after pill.

There was another pill that caused the uterine lining to shed and that could accurately be called an abortion pill, but not what is commonly called the morning after pill that prevents implantation.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:07:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:

Originally Posted By SWIRE:

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Everyday, the government is telling us more and more what we can and can't do.




Doctors and pharmacies are licensed and regulated by the government...what is one more regulation requiring a pharmacy to do exactly what they are supposed to do? If Wal-Mart doesn't like the government regulations they can get rid of their pharmacy and they won't have to deal with it.

So your solution to more governmental control is to get out of that buisness and let them win? What a sheep



The thread wasn't "how do we change government controls". If you want to do that you need to form a lobbying group, get members, build up funds, and hound the legislators. Until the laws are changed someone who is licensed and regulated by the government has two choices, comply or get out of the business.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:09:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 11:12:16 AM EDT by blacklisted]
Sperm attach to egg


Egg is fertilized


4 cell embryo - 2 days


8 cells - 3 days


5 days - blastocyst stage


This is what is getting "aborted"

It's a microscopic bundle of cells.

Source: http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/som/obgyn/wvucrm/art.htm
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:15:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By blacklisted:
Sperm attach to egg
i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/Egg/2aeggplusspermSmall.jpg

Egg is fertilized
i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/Egg/2b2PNegg.jpg

4 cell embryo - 2 days
i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/Egg/3a4cellembryoSmall.jpg

8 cells - 3 days
i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/Egg/3b8cellembryoSmall.jpg

5 days - blastocyst stage
i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/Egg/3cBlastocystBlastSmall.jpg

This is what is getting "aborted"

It's a microscopic bundle of cells.



Which minus your amoral interference to destroy it becomes this:


What's your point?
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:17:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macro:

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
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?



Dusty....I couldnt agree with you more in your sentiment, but the fact is that because its a pharmacy, it is regulated. Grocery stores go through the same thing....they cant just sell any old meat they want, it has to be inspected.

I dont agree with all the regulation but I understand that it has its place.
Unfortunately, this type of thing is exactly what aclimates people to the idea of government interference in our lives...and this is how they manage to get involved in so many places they dont belong, trying to regulate our private lives.

For all the good the FDA or USDA does, there is a fine line between regulation and interference.



The grocery store/pharmacy analogy doesn't work. It is one thing to keep a grocery store from selling old/bad meat, it is an entirely different thing to force a pharmacy to carry a drug that they would not otherwise carry. This is forcing the store to spend capital that would normally be spent elsewhere on an item that they would rather not carry.

It is akin to the government ordering a grocery store owned by muslims or orthodox jews that they must sell pork.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:18:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:

Originally Posted By 1911greg:

Originally Posted By QShok:
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.



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?"
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:20:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 11:28:28 AM EDT by blacklisted]

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By blacklisted:
Sperm attach to egg
i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/Egg/2aeggplusspermSmall.jpg

Egg is fertilized
i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/Egg/2b2PNegg.jpg

4 cell embryo - 2 days
i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/Egg/3a4cellembryoSmall.jpg

8 cells - 3 days
i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/Egg/3b8cellembryoSmall.jpg

5 days - blastocyst stage
i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/Egg/3cBlastocystBlastSmall.jpg

This is what is getting "aborted"

It's a microscopic bundle of cells.



Which minus your amoral interference to destroy it becomes this:
www.cranehome.org/modules/Photo_Gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1750&g2_serialNumber=1

What's your point?



My point is that if i scratch my arm and some dead skin comes off, it is more complex that that embryo.

Oh and minus my amoral interference, it could also become this:

Or it could simply die before birth. The embryo might just stop dividing as well.

Let me ask you something:
Let's say you were in a clinic and there was a bucket full of frozen embryos (let's say 400 of them) sitting nearby. The building catches fire and you only have the opportunity to save one thing. Sitting next to the bucket is a toddler, all alone. Would you save the toddler, or the 400 embyos?

I really hate argueing about this. But would you rather have some woman "abort" a few cells, or wait until it's already recognizable as a human being?

My point is, abortions happen all the time. In other countries, and even here, "doctors" vacuum fetuses out of women. Babies have been born more premature than some of these fetuses and survived. How is removing a few cells equatable to removing a living fetus and killing it? If there is a simple pill to prevent such horrors from happening, why not embrace it?

Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:25:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By blacklisted:
Morning after pill is a good idea since it would prevent abortions later on.


I agree, but forcing a privately-owned store to stock it or anything else for that matter is bullshit.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:26:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By blacklisted:
Morning after pill is a good idea since it would prevent abortions later on.


I agree, but forcing a privately-owned store to stock it or anything else for that matter is bullshit.



I agree with you on that.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:33:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 11:36:20 AM EDT by Grunteled]

Originally Posted By blacklisted:

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By blacklisted:
Sperm attach to egg
i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/Egg/2aeggplusspermSmall.jpg

Egg is fertilized
i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/Egg/2b2PNegg.jpg

4 cell embryo - 2 days
i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/Egg/3a4cellembryoSmall.jpg

8 cells - 3 days
i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/Egg/3b8cellembryoSmall.jpg

5 days - blastocyst stage
i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/Egg/3cBlastocystBlastSmall.jpg

This is what is getting "aborted"

It's a microscopic bundle of cells.



Which minus your amoral interference to destroy it becomes this:
www.cranehome.org/modules/Photo_Gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1750&g2_serialNumber=1

What's your point?



My point is that if i scratch my arm and some dead skin comes off, it is more complex that that embryo.

Oh and minus my amoral interference, it could also become this: i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/hitler_adolf.jpg

Or it could simply die before birth. You never know.

Let me ask you something:
Let's say you were in a clinic and there was a bucket full of frozen embryos (let's say 400 of them) sitting nearby. The building catches fire and you only have the opportunity to save one thing. Sitting next to the bucket is a toddler, all alone. Would you save the toddler, or the 400 embyos?

I really hate argueing about this. But would you rather have some woman "abort" a few cells, or wait until it's already recognizable as a human being?



It's a specious arguement. I'd rather not have her abort anything at all. Is this like your version of the BATFE parts requirement? Is there some number and configuration of parts required before it's a real person? Are you all knowing so that we only abort the Hitlers?

ETA: While I can accept the notion that this is not yet a feeling being of any kind, the logic of it's fine at 5 days but wrong at 10 days escapes me.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:37:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 11:38:28 AM EDT by blacklisted]

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By blacklisted:

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By blacklisted:
Sperm attach to egg
i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/Egg/2aeggplusspermSmall.jpg

Egg is fertilized
i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/Egg/2b2PNegg.jpg

4 cell embryo - 2 days
i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/Egg/3a4cellembryoSmall.jpg

8 cells - 3 days
i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/Egg/3b8cellembryoSmall.jpg

5 days - blastocyst stage
i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/Egg/3cBlastocystBlastSmall.jpg

This is what is getting "aborted"

It's a microscopic bundle of cells.



Which minus your amoral interference to destroy it becomes this:
www.cranehome.org/modules/Photo_Gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1750&g2_serialNumber=1

What's your point?



My point is that if i scratch my arm and some dead skin comes off, it is more complex that that embryo.

Oh and minus my amoral interference, it could also become this: i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/hitler_adolf.jpg

Or it could simply die before birth. You never know.

Let me ask you something:
Let's say you were in a clinic and there was a bucket full of frozen embryos (let's say 400 of them) sitting nearby. The building catches fire and you only have the opportunity to save one thing. Sitting next to the bucket is a toddler, all alone. Would you save the toddler, or the 400 embyos?

I really hate argueing about this. But would you rather have some woman "abort" a few cells, or wait until it's already recognizable as a human being?



It's a specious arguement. I'd rather not have her abort anything at all. Is this like your version of the BATFE parts requirement? Is there some number and configuration of parts required before it's a real person? Are you all knowing so that we only abort the Hitlers?



I'd also rather have her not abort anything at all.


And yes, there is a certain number of "parts" before something becomes human. If you believe otherwise, that is fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone. I am a scientific person.

Are you all knowing that all abortions only abort the ones that turn out as cute little babies?

Do you see now that this arguement can't work? I never should have used it.



Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:48:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 11:50:19 AM EDT by guardian855]

Originally Posted By SWIRE:

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Everyday, the government is telling us more and more what we can and can't do.




Doctors and pharmacies are licensed and regulated by the government...what is one more regulation requiring a pharmacy to do exactly what they are supposed to do? If Wal-Mart doesn't like the government regulations they can get rid of their pharmacy and they won't have to deal with it.



But when your state tells their FFLs what they can and can not sell, you would be the first one up in arms about it.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 11:50:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:04:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By blacklisted:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By blacklisted:
Morning after pill is a good idea since it would prevent abortions later on.


I agree, but forcing a privately-owned store to stock it or anything else for that matter is bullshit.



I agree with you on that.



They're not forcing anyone to do anything. By opening a pharmacy in that state, Walmart is implicitly agreeing to adhere to state guidelines regulating pharmacies. There is nothing that requires them to run a pharmacy, and company policy has shown a willingness to exclude products from certain stores based on geographical considerations. No guns in their NJ stores for example.


I've said it before, I'll say it again. Difficulty in obtaining morning after pills WILL lead to over-the-counter sales of the things in the near future. Legislation of christian morality will once again fall from favor, and the backlash may very well end up costing ground for those who disagree with contraception. That's the pendulum of politics, and anyone who expects the pendulum to stop at it's apex is chasing moonbeams.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:07:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 12:07:49 PM EDT by Grunteled]

Originally Posted By blacklisted:


I'd also rather have her not abort anything at all.


And yes, there is a certain number of "parts" before something becomes human. If you believe otherwise, that is fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone. I am a scientific person.

Are you all knowing that all abortions only abort the ones that turn out as cute little babies?

Do you see now that this arguement can't work? I never should have used it.



No. I'll post this and then get off it though. You may follow up as you like. You try to turn that argument around and it is just silly. You see one way would be at least justifiable. If you knew with certainty who would become a terrible killer and prevented thier birth (ignoring the side effects you could never predict) that would at least be understandable. The other way is non-sense. Abortion is ok because I don't know you won't be Hitler? You can't really use that as an arguement can you?

My point was not what a baby looks like, it's that the belief that it is wrong doesn't stem from what an embryo looks like today. It stems from the fact that unless you act to kill it, it will become a human child. You can bring up still brth and SIDS and murderers and they are still unrelated to the arguement. Human embryos, on whole, become human babies. The process to make that happen begins when the cells combine. Left alone they will produce a child.

On the subject of this thread, forcing them to carry a certain type of drug by order of some "official" is not my idea of a good outcome. If a pharmacy wants to carry it, and the drug is legal, so be it. If I demanded they carry the kind of heart-burn pills I wanted do you think the state would wade in and force them to.... should they?
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:11:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Everyday, the government is telling us more and more what we can and can't do. The giant government dick is coming at our asses without lube much less a kiss on the back of the neck. Worse yet, hardly anyone is doing anything to stop it.



This is because anyone with an agenda hires the dick to fuck their agenda into other peoples lives. The government gladly helps, even when illegal, and thus their power and influence are increased. It also gives politico's something to say they did that was "good" or "positive for the community."

What NOONE seems to realise is enforcing this type of shit with federal laws or "boards" is that it just gives way to more and more control. Really though, what do politicians always want more of?
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:16:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By macro:

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
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?



Dusty....I couldnt agree with you more in your sentiment, but the fact is that because its a pharmacy, it is regulated. Grocery stores go through the same thing....they cant just sell any old meat they want, it has to be inspected.

I dont agree with all the regulation but I understand that it has its place.
Unfortunately, this type of thing is exactly what aclimates people to the idea of government interference in our lives...and this is how they manage to get involved in so many places they dont belong, trying to regulate our private lives.

For all the good the FDA or USDA does, there is a fine line between regulation and interference.



Very well said.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:20:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By macro:

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
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?



Dusty....I couldnt agree with you more in your sentiment, but the fact is that because its a pharmacy, it is regulated. Grocery stores go through the same thing....they cant just sell any old meat they want, it has to be inspected.

I dont agree with all the regulation but I understand that it has its place.
Unfortunately, this type of thing is exactly what aclimates people to the idea of government interference in our lives...and this is how they manage to get involved in so many places they dont belong, trying to regulate our private lives.

For all the good the FDA or USDA does, there is a fine line between regulation and interference.



Yep, but the local Spartan Store does not have to stock 14 ounce cans of green beans if they do not want to
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:27:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jmzd4:
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.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:45:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GeorgeInNePa:

Originally Posted By jmzd4:
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.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:45:57 PM EDT
The reasoning behind this forced decision is this..

When a state doctor or councilor perscribes the morning after pill to a young woman( Young Girl) or a full grown woman, and that individual becomes ill or dies do to complications from using RU486 abortion pill. Then what will happen is that Walmart or what ever chain Pharmacy is forced to sell it by the state will be held liable for the sale of the product to the patient.

Lets not forget that Wally World has deep pockets..

Also a parent could legally hold Wally World or major pharmacy liable for selling that product to their underage child without their conscent.. Can't wait to see that one will turn out in court.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:47:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By blacklisted:


I'd also rather have her not abort anything at all.


And yes, there is a certain number of "parts" before something becomes human. If you believe otherwise, that is fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone. I am a scientific person.

Are you all knowing that all abortions only abort the ones that turn out as cute little babies?

Do you see now that this arguement can't work? I never should have used it.



No. I'll post this and then get off it though. You may follow up as you like. You try to turn that argument around and it is just silly. You see one way would be at least justifiable. If you knew with certainty who would become a terrible killer and prevented thier birth (ignoring the side effects you could never predict) that would at least be understandable. The other way is non-sense. Abortion is ok because I don't know you won't be Hitler? You can't really use that as an arguement can you?

Absolutely not! That is not what I was saying. I admit that would be incredibly foolish. I was simply responding to your assertion that all embryos make it full term and become happy little cute bundles of laughter.


My point was not what a baby looks like, it's that the belief that it is wrong doesn't stem from what an embryo looks like today. It stems from the fact that unless you act to kill it, it will become a human child. You can bring up still brth and SIDS and murderers and they are still unrelated to the arguement. Human embryos, on whole, become human babies. The process to make that happen begins when the cells combine. Left alone they will produce a child.

Can you respond to my question about the 400 embryos and a toddler? I can understand if you don't want to.


On the subject of this thread, forcing them to carry a certain type of drug by order of some "official" is not my idea of a good outcome. If a pharmacy wants to carry it, and the drug is legal, so be it. If I demanded they carry the kind of heart-burn pills I wanted do you think the state would wade in and force them to.... should they?

Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:51:38 PM EDT
What they dont make those in China?
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:52:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By macro:

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
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?



Dusty....I couldnt agree with you more in your sentiment, but the fact is that because its a pharmacy, it is regulated. Grocery stores go through the same thing....they cant just sell any old meat they want, it has to be inspected.

I dont agree with all the regulation but I understand that it has its place.
Unfortunately, this type of thing is exactly what aclimates people to the idea of government interference in our lives...and this is how they manage to get involved in so many places they dont belong, trying to regulate our private lives.

For all the good the FDA or USDA does, there is a fine line between regulation and interference.



OK, so you own an auto shop that does oil changes and the like. You choose to carry and sell Castrol products - Syntec, GTX, etc. You have the appropriate required government licenses for this kind of business. So you then agree that the city/state/whomever granted the license can DEMAND that you also carry Mobil, Penzoil, and Quakerstate oils also. You, the business owner don't have a choice. You HAVE to carry Mobil and the rest. You are PROHIBITED by the government from only carrying one brand of motor oil.

Your brother owns a gun shop. His interest is in "hunting" guns. He isn't interested in carrying or selling "Assault weapons", or concealable "Saturday Night Specials", or SASS type six-shooters. You have no problem with the ATF DEMANDING that your brother also carry the AR-15's, AK's, and compact pistols right? - because they regulate guns and he had to get a ATF license to sell them.

Walmart also has a hardware department. You don't have a problem with local code enforcement DEMANDING that they carry at least 5 different types of hammers in their hardware department.

The local sporting goods store carrys Louisville Slugger brand baseball bats. No problem with the .gov DEMANDING that they also carry Easton brand bats. Tee-ball and Softball bats too, not only baseball bats. The desires of the owner don't matter.

The local hair salon has a license to operate also. So the issuing agancy now has to authority to DEMAND that the hair salon stock, and use upon request of the customer, certain brands or lines of hair care products. If not, then they are in violation of the law and are fined and shut down.

If you don't have a problem with this, thats fine, but I don't think most of us would agree with you.

If they don't carry the product you want, then take your fucking money someplace else! If you want the morning after pill and Walmart won't carry it, then go to CVS instead!


-K
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:54:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By blacklisted:

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By blacklisted:


I'd also rather have her not abort anything at all.


And yes, there is a certain number of "parts" before something becomes human. If you believe otherwise, that is fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone. I am a scientific person.

Are you all knowing that all abortions only abort the ones that turn out as cute little babies?

Do you see now that this arguement can't work? I never should have used it.



No. I'll post this and then get off it though. You may follow up as you like. You try to turn that argument around and it is just silly. You see one way would be at least justifiable. If you knew with certainty who would become a terrible killer and prevented thier birth (ignoring the side effects you could never predict) that would at least be understandable. The other way is non-sense. Abortion is ok because I don't know you won't be Hitler? You can't really use that as an arguement can you?

Absolutely not! That is not what I was saying. I admit that would be incredibly foolish. I was simply responding to your assertion that all embryos make it full term and become happy little cute bundles of laughter.


My point was not what a baby looks like, it's that the belief that it is wrong doesn't stem from what an embryo looks like today. It stems from the fact that unless you act to kill it, it will become a human child. You can bring up still brth and SIDS and murderers and they are still unrelated to the arguement. Human embryos, on whole, become human babies. The process to make that happen begins when the cells combine. Left alone they will produce a child.

Can you respond to my question about the 400 embryos and a toddler? I can understand if you don't want to.


On the subject of this thread, forcing them to carry a certain type of drug by order of some "official" is not my idea of a good outcome. If a pharmacy wants to carry it, and the drug is legal, so be it. If I demanded they carry the kind of heart-burn pills I wanted do you think the state would wade in and force them to.... should they?




Alright.... I'll answer that for you.

I'd take the toddler. He\she is here right now, and can feel pain. Your contrived choose only one scenario is not proving anything except people can make choices in life and death when forced to.

I could create an equally useless argument for killing elderly folks by asking would you save a 2 year old girl or an 85 year old grandmother from a burning building if you could only save one? Does that really have anything to do with euthanasia?
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:55:32 PM EDT
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top