Four Walgreen Pharmacists Disciplined For Not Filling Contraceptives - AP

[WillyT]

Four Walgreen pharmacists disciplined for not filling contraceptives

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

By Jim Suhr
The Associated Press

<snip>

ST. LOUIS — Walgreen Co. said Tuesday it has put four Illinois pharmacists in the St. Louis area on unpaid leave for refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception in violation of a state rule.

Ed Martin, an attorney for the four, called the discipline "pretty disturbing" and said the pharmacists would consider legal action if Walgreens doesn't reconsider. Citing religious or moral grounds over filling prescriptions for the morning-after pill, the four "have said they would like to maintain their right to refuse to dispense, and in Illinois that is not an option," Walgreens spokeswoman Tiffani Bruce said.

A rule first imposed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich in April that became permanent in August requires Illinois pharmacies that sell contraceptives approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to fill prescriptions for emergency birth control such as the morning-after pill. Pharmacies that do not fill prescriptions for any type of contraception are not required to follow the rule. At least six other pharmacists have sued over the rule, claiming it forces them to violate their religious beliefs. Many of those lawsuits were pressed by Americans United for Life, a Chicago-based public interest law firm with which Martin is affiliated.

"If you're a pharmacist and a woman has a prescription for contraceptives, you should have to fill that prescription," Blagojevich said Tuesday during an appearance in southern Illinois.

<snip>

Link: http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dsnews/305nd3.htm

Way to go Gov!!! :toast:

And then there's THIS guy (notice he already has a nice head-shot ready for his many upcoming media appearances)



<snip>

Menges, 39, said he had not been offered another job with Walgreens, but that he had received three job offers from Illinois pharmacies. Menges said he makes about $100,000 a year at Walgreens, and is getting married in two weeks.

He's determined to change the Illinois mandate - Menges is one of six Southern Illinois pharmacists who have sued to end the state's rule.

<snip>

Link: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/metroeast/story/6694D70D17BEA283862570C9001884A9?OpenDocument

Hey John... you're a putz, plain and simple.

:puke:

[Aimah]

1. Maybe he should change professions.

How does he feel about giving out viagra prescriptions?

[Broken_Hero]

36. he should change professions...seriously.

[Aimah]

49. IL should do one better and start pulling licenses for

habitual offenders.

[Richard Steele]

2. It's your JOB that "conflicts with your religious beliefs", assholes!

If your convictions are so strong, you need to stfu and QUIT already.

God, these people piss me off...:rant:

[sui generis]

3. if they wanted to be preachers they should have joined the clergy

they're pharmacists. Shut up and fill the prescription, or get out of the trade.

Plain and simple.

Waiters aren't allowed to not serve meat just because they're vegetarian. They just don't work in carnivorous establishments. If ya don't like the heat . . .etc.

[Zenlitened]

4. Their "right to refuse to dispense" = Find another line of work, assholes.

Dispense all legal drugs as prescribed by a doctor, or dispense none.

:grr:

[booksenkatz]

5. Anyone who doesn't do his job should be fired.

Simple as that. You or I would be fired for stubbornly refusing to perform our main job descriptions, would we not? So why should these insane low rent fucks get a break?

[Robeysays]

71. I WORK AT WALGREEN'S!!!!!!!!!!

at my store, if you don't fell the script you're fired. plane and simple. my store manager is all about profit. and pharmacy is their money maker.

[notadmblnd]

6. if he can't follow the laws then he need to find a new job

I'd be willing to bet money that he never refused to fill a Viagra scrip though.

[Supersedeas]

45. re-Thugs-lickin'-cans...no not soda cans

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. For $100,000 a year,

he needs to be filling those scripts!

That is a sinful amount of money for a pharmacist who is refusing to do his job. What a putz.

[AspenRose]

46. He's in the 75th percentile salary-wise

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes291051.htm

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

8. Good. Walgreen's needs to follow through, and FIRE these pharmacists

if they persist with this.

I've always maintained that the pharmacists have every right not to do their job. But the employer then has every right to fire them.

[triguy46]

13. They'd better hurry up...

state legislatures are formulating legal protections for phramacists exercising their "moral" judgement, preventing one from being fired for such acts.

[Nay]

40. So are legislators also formulating legal protections for the

vegetarian waiters who refuse to serve a meat meal to a patron? I doubt it.

[FreedomAngel82]

53. Someone should try that out

;) And than when they get in trouble bring up all these so-called pharmasicsts. ;)

[fudge stripe cookays]

9. So which other pharmacies are interested in this asswipe?

They obviously don't need our business.

fsc

[UTUSN]

10. Good. Kick and Rec. He Was Just on T.V. Sez He Sends'em 15 mi Away n/t

[kevinbgoode]

20. 15 miles away?

Oh no. . .that isn't gonna hack it at all. First, the pharmacy should either employ people who do their job, or provide someone pronto who WILL do their job. Second, since when does a damned pharmacist get off thinking the public is interested in his pseudo religious/political beliefs? That is the part that irks me the most - why the hell are these people making political statements using their professional positions?

[Dark]

11. You're not the doctor, it's not your responsibility to decide what someone

gets or doesn't get.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

72. Right on !!!

[triguy46]

12. Just wait...coming to a state legislature near you...

There will be a flood of "Pharmacists' Bill of Rights" legislation over the next few years, allowing the individual health professional to make judgement on how you take care of yourself. Many of these bills will include provisions that the pharmacist will NOT be obligated to assist in any way for you to find an alternate source. Though this is currently being fought over use of Plan B, expect similar actions if the the pharmacist is unable to determine the marital status of the woman requesting contraception. The argument here is that you cannot compel a physician to perform an abortion, therefore you should not be able to compel a pharmacist to do the same (they equate Plan B with abortion, and some equate contraception with abortion).

This could put some pharmacies in a difficult spot, the profit margin on contraceptive products of all types is quite healthy to say the least, and it is steady, dependable business. Some legislation has proposed that the employer cannot compel, or even hire on their willingness to fill these LAWFUL prescriptions.

[MountainLaurel]

26. They're already here

I think the current figure is that 17 states have already passed this type of legislation, with many more considering it.

[Ian David]

61. It's much worse even than that...

NO DOGS OR QUEERS ALLOWED --------- 5th Annual Pride Write-off
May 24 '04 (Updated Jun 25 '04)

The Bottom Line Discrimination never changes. Only the target does.

<snip>

But this e-mail was different. It was forwarded by a friend and it concerns a recent law currently in Michigan legislation--the “Conscientious Objector Policy Act” or COPA for short.

“Conscientious Objector”… what an odd term to use in a time of war. But this doesn’t refer to “The War on Terror” or “The Iraqi War”. It refers to “The War on Homosexuality”.

Simply put, this law would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree--this law gives physicians the right to refuse to treat a gay or lesbian patient. They can be turned away without referral to a doctor who would be willing to treat them. There is a stipulation that if it is a true emergency, then they must treat the patient--even if that patient is a gay or lesbian. Makes you wonder what type of treatment they’ll receive, doesn’t it? And wonder who decides what constitutes an emergency?

The insidiousness of this law bothers me greatly. It gives health care professionals the right to make moral judgments on their patients. It supports the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation or “lifestyle” choices. What “lifestyle” choices will be next?

<snip>

All this time I’ve been fighting for these rights, it never occurred to me that basic medical care might be a right for which I should be fighting. I’m always honest with my health care providers from the first moment they step into the cube. In a paper towel gown, it’s hard for me to be anything else but honest--I sweat when I lie. However, if I found out the best rheumatologist to treat fibromyalgia is homophobic, I might be tempted to lie. If the best oncologist was homophobic, I would definitely lie. It never dawned on me that I should be fighting for medical rights.

And who is the next group to get the okay to discriminate against homosexuals? Will it be my hair stylist? The guy who fixed my air conditioner? My mechanic? My veterinarian? Who will next hang out the sign that says: “NO DOGS OR QUEERS ALLOWED” and why are we allowing them to do it?

More:
http://www.epinions.com/content_3920666756





Also:

An Orthodox Jewish view of the Culture War

<snip>

Do you want an idea of their ultimate, Final Solution, to "The Gay Problem?"

Michigan just passed The Conscientious Objector Policy Act (COPA) which would allow physicians, pharmacists, and health care insurers to refuse medical treatment to any individual they choose on "ethical, moral, or religious grounds."
www.365gay.com/newscon04/04/042904michFolo.htm
www.tgcrossroads.org/news/?aid=870
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/opinion/8709907.htm
http://www.washblade.com/2004/5-7/news/healthnews/HIBS.cfm
http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2003-HB-5006

While the law forbids "conscientious objections" due to race and religion, they rejected an amendment to the bill that would have included sexual orientation on the list of those who could not be discriminated against.

They also rejected an amendment that would have required an objector to provide a referral to another service provider.

And the bill does make an exception for "emergency treatment," but does not specify what constitutes an emergency-- for example, is bleeding to death an emergency, or is something like a broken arm (not life threatening, but painful) an emergency?

There are COPA laws in the works in several other states right now. I honestly believe that if we do not do something soon, this will be the first true step in the next Holocaust.

More:
http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/002364.html

[triguy46]

67. The "without referral" is a new twist on things

It is medical abandonment. Under any other circumstances that is actionable and a malpractice gold mine for attorneys. Standard practice in our state is that you must provide a patient 30 days notice that you will no longer treat them, but you must continue care for that period. Its a process to discharge a patient from your practice, and in my 35 years of healthcare have only seen it done for patients that are non-compliant with their treatment plan, drug seeking or abusing, verbally abusive or threatening to staff. It just isn't done much. But now abandonment will become de riguer.

Exactly how is this a step forward? The institutionalized disenfranchisement of any group, take your choice. The Hippocratic oath is now the hypocritic oath.

[Ian David]

69. That's because White Christian Men are persecuted in America...

and someday, if we can fight back the secular demoncrats we may one day even finally have a White Christian Male President!

:sarcasm:

[Sequoia]

14. It just amazes me how MEN tell us WOMEN what we can and can't do

with OUR BODIES. IT'S OUR BODIES. WOMEN! NOT MEN. So glad the governor put his foot down. Some men are terrific and get the message.

[sui generis]

42. don't you worry yer purdy lil head about it toots

we know what's best for you and we're gonna make you do it.

:hide: }(

Isn't it odd though that the people with the least possible rationale think that they have the greatest right to intrude into other peoples' lives? Most people who vote to keep people of the same sex from marrying have never met a gay person.

Most people who want to keep people alive until they turn into applesauce have never been through the process of death with a loved one, and most people who want to force women to carry a baby aren't even women.

And "they" hate us for our freedoms? Reeeeeally. I guess the "they" they're talking about ain't one-eyed koran bangin' ay-rabs, but something a little more on the blue-eyed WASPish side.

[Sequoia]

47. Yes, Master.

Back in my bottle I go.

[Ian David]

70. As far as I'm concerned, your bodies are yours to do with as you see fit..

but the TV remote... that belongs to men!

[TlalocW]

15. Good for Walgreens, but they need to go further

All remaining pharmacists need to be told they have to wish customers, "Happy Holidays," instead of "Merry Christmas," just so we can get some more right-wing whackos' heads to explode.

TlalocW

[Lisa0825]

38. They need to go WAY Further!!!

Their only policy on this issue (when I called their office a couple months ago) was that when there is a state law stating that the pharmacist must fill the scrip, they will enforce that law. But in the states with no specific law, Walgreens allows pharmacists to refuse to fill it.

Walgreens has a LONG way to go to satisfy this former customer. They need to have a nationwide policy protecting the rights of their customers!!!

[Aimah]

16. Recommended. nt

[Initech]

17. It's about damn time someone is doing something about this!

I am so sick of hearing about pharmacists not dispensing birth control because of religious reasons. If I didnt do one aspect of my job because of religious reasons, I'd be fired!

[mtnester]

18. Computers are the work of SATAN - I refuse to TOUCH another one

If our network goes down, I simply REFUSE to lay a hand on.....

Waddaya mean it is part of my job description? So what if I have been touching them for thirteen years here now...it is against my religious beliefs to touch anything I consider to be the work of the devil. Now, I will work on yer telephone cause that is OK with me....



How long before you think my employer fires me after I say any of the above? 5 minutes? Maybe I get counseled first, or a sit down, but if I still refuse? Buh bye. Same game with pharmacists, find another career or suck it up and dispense.

[kevinbgoode]

19. I think we need another constitutional amendment

which prohibits pharmacists from mixing their faux religious beliefs with their job. There's no reason we can't be operating more like the fundies - if they can pass state amendments prohibiting same-sex marriages, we can certainly gather signatures for an amendment about this crap.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

21. What were these guys thinking, when they trained to be pharmacists?

"Even though it's against my whacked out beliefs to prescribe one of the most commonly used types of medication in the country, I'm sure some RW whackjob lawmakers will bail my ass out so I'll be able to maintain employment!"

[kay1864]

22. Damn copycats, is all

You just KNOW that some of these fundies never considered refusing to dispense, instead just gritting their teeth (or maybe even just doing their job).

Until some OTHER fundie told them dispensing birth control was immoral, or they heard this was a way to teach those immoral loose women a lesson. Praise Jeebus!

[zanne]

23. You can't refuse to sell meat or furs

If you work in a grocery store at a checkout counter, you can't refuse to sell meat for "moral" reasons. If you work in a clothing store, you can't refuse to sell furs for "moral" reasons. I'm sure there are many other examples that I haven't thought of. Many, many people go to work every day and have to do things that are morally reprehensible to them. That's capitalism. They can't have it both ways.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

25. Well, you CAN refuse to sell the meat or fur, but you shouldn't count on

showing up for work the next day. Or getting a paycheck.

[zbdent]

24. Well, if you're a nice conservative pharmacist, then

QUIT YOUR FUCKING JOB AND LET SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO WORK DO IT!!!!

So why are these people who constantly whine about the "frivolous lawsuit mentality" allowed to file a frivolous lawsuit?

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[Dinger]

27. Kicked & Nominated

Dman, what a stupid POS!:grr:

[Ganja Ninja]

28. These people are nothing but glorified store clerks.

This is like a bag boy refusing to pack up your beer with the rest of your groceries because his religion doesn't allow the use of alcohol. The right of the patient to get the medicine prescribed by their doctor is all that matters. If they refuse they should have to surrender their license to the state and they can go find another line of work.

[Zenlitened]

32. Good analogy. I think pharmacists with their heads on straight had better

... stop to this trend quick, before a certain little fact gets wide attention: robots can do their job just as well, if not better.

[Kber]

35. Then we will have "moral" programmers insisting that

they can program the robots to ignore certain perscriptions.

[Zenlitened]

37. Good luck selling that software. Essentially, it would make a...

... business decision for the purchaser: to not sell certain drugs. Can't imagine anyone would buy that if they did indeed want to sell those drugs.

[Buns_of_Fire]

62. Easy to rectify. Allow a "lockout" for certain prescriptions.

Like you have to tell your anti-virus, blocker, and spyware programs how secure you want to be. Obviously, every medication would have to have a unique identification number (which they probably already do, via the FDA). Allow all prescriptions? Have a "Cristofascist" checkbox to disallow all contraceptives (but allow Viagra and Cialis, naturally)? A piece of cake, programatically, for an honest software company.

Now, if Diebold gets into writing this software, we have reason to fear. Damn thing would probably shove a box of Band-Aids over the counter when you feed it a prescription for skin cancer medication.

[Zenlitened]

73. Then locking out becomes a decison the business makes,

... not the programmer. As it ought to be.

But you're right -- if Diebold gets a hold of it, all bets are off. You'll get what we wanna give ya, and that's that!

:D

[sui generis]

43. oh, oh, oh they already have "christian" software consulting

and developers out there.

The funniest damn thing I've ever heard of. Write a bunch of code and pray that it works.

snort.

[dsc]

39. That is ridiculous

Name any clerk of any type that goes to school for as many years as a pharmacist. Incidently in my drinking days I have often had check out people and or bag boys who couldn't check out booze due to their age, they have another person do it for them.

[Ganja Ninja]

54. They may go to school for a few years to get their license but ...

they have no right to stand between a patient and their doctor's prescribed treatment. They need to fill the script and mind their own business. As post number 32 says they can be replaced by a machine.

[Bill McBlueState]

64. they go to school for six years after high school

Lots of people do that.

[Arkana]

29. Good. I'm glad.

They should fill the fucking scrips, not moralize with people.

[saracat]

30. What about addicting people to pain pills? Is that okay with his God? What

about filling scripts for antibiotics to the point that they are no longer effective? Where exactly is the line with these pharmacists? Maybe refusing diet pills to overweight patients because they should have more dicipline? And women with bad mentrual cramps should just suffer as God intended them to? Maybe all meds should be discontinued and these bozo's should be thrown out of their jobs. Don't meds interfere with nature and the divine plan?

[spooky3]

31. Interesting column by a Stanford law professor

Richard T. Ford.

(edited to add excerpts)

http://slate.com/id/2120789

snip

"WRFA would replace the current legal standard for religious accommodation with one similar to that applied to the disabled. Employers are required to accommodate disabled employees (by modifying facilities, reassigning jobs, or changing work schedules) unless doing so would cause the employer undue hardship. There are good reasons, however, to distinguish religious observance from disabilities. Religious employees forced to decide whether to honor a religious belief or stay at a job face a difficult choice, to be sure. But people with disabilities have no choice at all. In the absence of a wheelchair or seeing-eye dog, many of them can't work.

Pious employees will insist that their religious observance is, well, sacred. But religious mandates aren't always etched in stone, and some religious beliefs are hard to distinguish from more earthly ideological commitments—which, of course, employees must set aside when they conflict with work. And sometimes, religious commitment should have to bend to workplace goals. Employees have rightly been rebuffed in court when they've complained that co-ed dormitories conflict with their religious beliefs. However sincere, such claims—often inspired by religious admonishments to avoid temptation—could discourage employers from hiring women. Pharmacists with religious objections to contraception say they should have a right to refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions, and police officers have argued that religious liberty entitles them to refuse to protect abortion clinics. If sufficiently widespread, such refusals could effectively nullify the constitutional right to reproductive freedom. Social workers have argued that counseling gay and lesbian couples offends their religious convictions. Here WRFA could amount to a federal right to discriminate and come into direct conflict with the civil rights laws of some states. In each of these cases, the expansion of religious rights in the workplace that WRFA envisions would require courts to intervene in ideological disputes between employers and employees.

Of course, not all requests for religious accommodation are demands to shrug off unpalatable aspects of a job. Shouldn't employers allow largely symbolic forms of religious expression, like Sikh turbans, and grant reasonable requests to accommodate religious observances, like an observant Jew's appeal to work on Sundays rather than Saturdays? Yes, which is why anti-discrimination law already requires employers to do so when the associated cost is relatively small. WFRA would make it easier for employees to demand scheduling changes and dress-code exemptions. But it would also make it easier for them to press the more troubling sorts of claims. And judges trying to separate the spiritual wheat from the ideological chaff would be forced to interpret religious doctrine, an imprudent and probably unconstitutional entanglement of church and state."

[Zenlitened]

33. The common denominator, as always: religion, being used to...

... harass, hinder and hurt people. And now they want to "enshrine" it as law.

Imagine...

[Lisa0825]

34. I encouraged people to contact Walgreens for not having a strong

enough corporate policy to protect women's access to contraceptives. I even changed pharmacies and informed my pharmacist of why I did so. I spoke with a PR person at corporate, printed out information, wrote notes on it, and hand-delivered it to my pharmacist when I picked up my last refill.

While they appear to have done the right thing, the botom line is that Walgreen's policy is to only enforce the rule in states which have a law. So, they will NOT protect a woman's right to LEGAL contraceptive choices in states which have not passed such laws. I think it's time to contact them again to let them know that we appreciate them doing the right thing in THIS situation, but we expect them to improve their policies nationwide.

http://www.walgreens.com/contactus/corporate.jsp
Contact Us

Corporate Contact Information

Exceptional customer service is our business, and that means listening to what you have to say. Walgreens always welcomes your comments and inquiries. Answers to many of your questions can be found in Our Company, Career Opportunities, Frequently Asked Questions, or Help sections. If you need additional help, contact us directly using the information below.

Walgreen Company Corporate Office

Write or call us at:
200 Wilmot Road
Deerfield, IL 60015
[phone]

[blonndee]

50. I called and left a message.

I wasn't sure what department to contact so I left a voicemail at the legal department.

[The Backlash Cometh]

41. BFOQ-- Bono fide occupational qualification.

Religious beliefs can be suspended whenever the job requires a BFOQ.

[ComerPerro]

44. These people aren't doctors. They are just order-takers

fuck them.

They can't refuse to fill perscriptions. Its their job. They don't do their job, they get fired.

What happens when a pharmacist who thinks that lying and killing is wrong, and therefore refuses to fill a perscription for a Republican or Bushbot?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

48. Denying legally prescribed medication is practicing medicine without

a license in my opinion. Essentially they are denying medical services to those who do not share their Religious beliefs. I personally feel that is a civil rights violation and if someone denied me medication, that is the avenue that I would pursue.

[FreedomAngel82]

51. If it violates your religous beliefs why have the job in the first place?!

Ugh! Give me a freakin break. And BC isn't always just for sex issues. Sometimes a woman has trouble with her menstrual cycle and will need BC to help her with that case. It's none of their damn business why I'm taking BC and it shouldn't be!!! These so-called pharmacists need to grow up! Good for the governor!

[stevietheman]

52. Solution: Stop being a pharmacist, or leave Illinois.

If your morals conflict with the job, then why are you in the job?

I apply this even to myself, which is why I normally prefer not to work for big corporations.

[BlueCollar]

55. is Illinois a "fire at will" state?

if so...Walgreens should do it

[Hekate]

56. Kudos to the Gov and Walgreens. Common sense at last!

Filling every prescription without judgment is (or should be) a BFOQ in any public pharmacy. Those who cannot do this should find another profession or attempt to get a job at a private hospital run by a religion close to their ideals.

BTW, pharmacists are not "glorified store clerks" as some have claimed here. They are skilled, college-educated professionals who have knowledge of chemistry and of myriad drugs and their interactions.

Hekate

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

57. I know what needs to be done about this

Why dont some rich (#@*$@##*$@!!) pharmacists nut(business man) open there own chain of drug stores.








>>>>I'm at work..no bad words from me!

[Ian David]

58. Would he sell cigarettes to a pregnant woman?

He makes $100,000 a year? I think I'm going to become a pharmacist.

[XanaDUer]

59. You have no rights as employees

What makes them think they do? In addition, when they became pharms, did they not know about birth control pills? They are hardly a new invention...

[Swamp Rat]

60. They should be fired and lose their license to deal drugs forever.

Fucking religious wackos have no place in the pharmacy business, let alone the health profession in general. Why don't they find employment in a fundie religious order instead? :eyes:

[LynneSin]

63. I think Fundies are pushing their own to go to Pharmacy School

Seriously

The fundies find the most obscure stuff and do all they can to blow it up in the media in order to divide the public. They did it with Partial-Birth Abortions, they're doing it with stem cell research and now with these fundies who won't fill prescription.

Pharmacists are NOT medical doctors. They're just people who got the education needed to help fill prescriptions. They took this job knowing that they are part of the process to help people get well. I mean, these assholes wouldn't deny a man viagra even though many times viagra and pills like them are used as sexual enhancements and not just for ED. But they'll use this as a new step to block women from make her own decision for what's right with her body.

It use to be if a woman needed to make a difficult choice about terminating a pregnancy that she would have to travel (sometimes hours) to a local family clinic where it was known that abortions could be made available. The fundies did an excellent job of limiting the number of people who perform these functions which means that a simple picketing outside those known clinics were easier to target. Their hopes was that their protest would reach every potential woman who might consider and abortion. Not only was their target list easily managemable but it was also easy for them to target the doctors who worked there and make threats against their lives. The later of these tactics worked in preventing new doctors from performing the service. I guess their hope was that eventually all the doctors who performed abortions would either retire, die or quit doing the procedure for fear of his/her life. And these scare tactics would hopefully prevent any new doctors from entering the field.

When EC and RU-486 became available in America, it prevented women from the stigma of having to walk past the protesters to get to their local family planning clinic in order to get an abortion. NOw these women can go to their family doctor (or any doctor) and as for a prescription and only need to get it filled through that pharmacist in order to receive the care she needs. In many states, women can skip the doctor and go right to the drugstore to pick up EC.

SO now the fundies have a whole new battle. They're winning the war against family planning clinics and doctors who perform abortions, but now the market has spread wide open since any sympathetic doctor could write a prescription and help a woman out in need. Or if EC became OTC doctors wouldn't even be needed.

I truly believe in all of my heart that the fundies recognize that they are losing the battle with EC/RU-486. They no longer can get that emotional woman who gets traumatized walking past the protestors outside the clinic. So now the way to stop it is to get more fundies into Pharmaceutical Schools and then get them to resist selling these prescribed drugs.

I can guarentee this is the new hot-button issue for the fundies. They'll be pushing for their rights to not do something against moral judgement. But Pharmacists aren't doctors and they shouldn't be deciding.

[Craig3410]

65. Seriously, if a woman is raped and needs an emergency morning-after pill,

and a pharmacist refuses to fill it, and the woman is forced to stay pregnant, can you sue the pharmacist/pharmacy?

[Zenlitened]

74. I think there's an opportunity for an emotional distress lawsuit...

... whether she gets pregnant or not. I want to walk into a pharmacy and get a prescription filled, not to be told that the pharmacist thinks I'm an immoral whore and he refuses to deal with me.

And just let that fundie freak go ahead and say "I won't fill your prescription" within earshot of other customers. I'm going to be a majority shareholder in his company by the time the jury gets through with this case.

:grr:

[mopinko]

66. walgreens has been protecting these kind of people, but

in illinois, they can't. they do not discipline them in other states.

:toast: to blaggo, our dem governor, who is cursed by many dems for the choices you have to make when mopping up after 30 years of thug corruption. but i like him. and he jumped right on this.

[labelette]

68. More information on pharmacy's policy

You can see the policies of a number of pharmacy chains on the Planned Parenthood website at http://www.saveroe.com/fillmypillsnow/scored.php

There are also links there for activism if you should feel like it.