Women sue Wal-Mart to require them to carry the

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

pharmacists being required to carry drugs is a VERY grey area.  i don't think they have to stock rubbers so i doubt they'd have to stock the morning after pill.

593862[/snapback]

 

Conversely, pharmacists refusing to dispense medication prescribed by a doctor are overriding the medical judgement of said doctor and going WAY beyond their training and license. It's bad enough that lawyers and accountants can override a doctor's medical judgement already...

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Yes.  They're clones.  All liberals are clones.  Some day they'll make a liberal clone out of you as well.

592701[/snapback]

Just like all Republicans are lemmings...oh well

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

The general idea here it that State and Religion must be seperate - no disagreement by me - we watch out for that all the time. But gosh, a prayer session by some students behind closed doors in a public building could cause the most catastrophic results! - like somehow some kids trudging home might have some sort of terrifying dream after walking past a closed door...

 

Now, citizen's personal beliefs in their private affairs, in the public economic sector, is to be a subject of governmental scrutiny? Shall they in the private sector be fired and criminally or civally charged for their personal beliefs?

 

We should be careful when we trample on what our Founding Fathers set up for us, and be very circumspect.

 

Reflect on the words of a mid-century German citizen, a Protestant Minister, Martin Neimoller.  It always starts as a murmer, a minor intolerance, then grows...

 

Said Neimoller:

 

'They came for the Jews

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Jew

 

Then they came for the Communists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Communist.

 

Then they came for the trade unionists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a trade unionist.

 

Then they came for me

and there was no one left

to speak out for me.

 

Pastor Martin Niemöller"

 

He perished in a concentration camp.

I beg of you, do not countance interference by the State in people's expression, religious or otherwise.

592728[/snapback]

 

Walmart is hardly an individual, it is corporation, so the analogy doesn't work, but one that does and is currently happening is the many states establishing emergency requirements "regulations" that pharmacies under medicare to keep a 30 day supply of all drugs listed under medicare and not deny any senior access to it until insurance situation can be worked out.

 

States have the right to regulate their pharmacies under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution, not necessarily the drugs. Drugs are regulated by the FDA. I am not sure what the current status of the morning after pill is at the FDA and that may be where the arguement really is. The rest of it is all window dressing and part of current legal precedent.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I didn't read it but that's pretty much always been my thinking.  If you believe the statistics, there are between 750,000 and 4,000,000 abortions in America every year.  If even 10% of those kids were born because abortion was made illegal that would be a significant group of at risk.

593777[/snapback]

 

I think the author concludes that there would be about 15,000,000 more adults --of those, a lot of them would be in the high risk as criminal mold. Again, not an argument for abortion, but that's some side effect.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I think the author concludes that there would be about 15,000,000 more adults --of those, a lot of them would be in the high risk as criminal mold. Again, not an argument for abortion, but that's some side effect.

593960[/snapback]

 

Would love to see those actual stats, don't see them much or discussed much as to their accuracy? Sources on any of that info? That seems like a lot? But I have heard they are going up under the current Administration, who knows what that means?

[Mickey]

Would love to see those actual stats, don't see them much or discussed much as to their accuracy?  Sources on any of that info?  That seems like a lot?  But I have heard they are going up under the current Administration, who knows what that means?

593967[/snapback]

Let me speculate. Given the horrific record of this Administration, people sense that the end is near and are humping like rabbits before its all over.

[Johnny Coli]

pharmacists being required to carry drugs is a VERY grey area. i don't think they have to stock rubbers so i doubt they'd have to stock the morning after pill.

593862[/snapback]

Huh?

How is that a grey area? That's what a pharmacy does. Rubbers are not controlled substances, and can be bought without a prescription.

 

The regulation in Mass requires that if you are going to run a pharmacy in the state of Mass, that you have to have the medications that the people in Mass expect you to carry. Once again, this is not about buying a unique brand of over-the-counter aspirin. This is about a specific, unique medication that has been chosen by a qualified professional for a patient's specific need. People in Mass have a reasonable expectation that they can walk into any pharmacy in Mass and get this prescription filled.

 

Pharmacys dispense drugs. They do not get to dispense medications based on what they deem to be morally acceptable or not. Not in Massachusetts.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Would love to see those actual stats, don't see them much or discussed much as to their accuracy?  Sources on any of that info?  That seems like a lot?  But I have heard they are going up under the current Administration, who knows what that means?

593967[/snapback]

 

I'm in a starbucks while my daughter is at dance class, but here's what I dug up.

 

Abortions per year in the United States

(AGI) (CDC)

1973 744,600 615,831

1974 898,600 763,476

1975 1,034,200 854,853

1976 1,179,300 988,267

1977 1,316,700 1,079,430

1978 1,409,600 1,157,776

1979 1,497,700 1,251,921

1980 1,553,900 1,297,606

1981 1,577,300 1,300,760

1982 1,573,900 1,303,980

1983 1,575,000 1,268,987

1984 1,577,200 1,333,521

1985 1,588,600 1,328,570

1986 1,574,000 1,328,112

1987 1,559,100 1,353,671

1988 1,590,800 1,371,285

1989 1,566,900 1,396,658

 

(I think the way the book calculated--this was the cut-off for estimate of the number of potential criminals, since most of the abortions that follow would still be pretty young for a criminal.)

 

1990 1,608,600 1,429,577

1991 1,556,500 1,388,937

1992 1,528,900 1.359,145

1993 1,500,000 1,330,414

1994 1,431,000 1,267,415

1995 1,363,690 1,210,883

1996 1,365,730 1,221,585

1997 1,365,730 (NRLC estimate)

1998 1,365,730 (NRLC estimate.)

1999 1,365,730 (CIRTL estimate.)

total 38,269,010

39,417,080 with AGI 3% undercounting factor

40,565,151 with AGI 6% undercounting factor

 

source

 

The source page obviously has an agenda, but their source is allegedly the CDC. Maybe my recollection of 15 million was low, because these numbers are obviously much higher than 15 million. From Roe to 1990, this is about 18 million abortions (my rough guess).

 

So there are the numbers.

[X. Benedict]

Pharmacys dispense drugs.  They do not get to dispense medications based on what they deem to be morally acceptable or not.  Not in Massachusetts.

594092[/snapback]

So you have the law, if the law is a good one or not is debatable. What the law, or this type of pharmaceudical regulation seems to do however is preclude health care in a private religious setting, does it not?

 

For example, the Pharmacy in the Hallelooo Evengelical Mercy Hospital would have to provide this drug even if their ethicists and charter say it is morally wrong? What happens when states like Oregon approve a perscription for Dr. Kevorkian's Do it at Home Alone Top Yourself Kit? Or what about a once fashionable drug like Thalidamide, where a smart pharmacist decides it is against his conscience to broker the stuff?

 

I think this type of regulation can be a slippery slope.

[colin]

Huh?

How is that a grey area?  That's what a pharmacy does.  Rubbers are not controlled substances, and can be bought without a prescription. 

 

The regulation in Mass requires that if you are going to run a pharmacy in the state of Mass, that you have to have the medications that the people in Mass expect you to carry.  Once again, this is not about buying a unique brand of over-the-counter aspirin.  This is about a specific, unique medication that has been chosen by a qualified professional for a patient's specific need.  People in Mass have a reasonable expectation that they can walk into any pharmacy in Mass and get this prescription filled. 

 

Pharmacys dispense drugs.  They do not get to dispense medications based on what they deem to be morally acceptable or not.  Not in Massachusetts.

594092[/snapback]

 

it is grey.

 

you have it wrong, pharmacies are not required to carry drugs "people would expect" because people can expect anything.

 

they have to carry drugs that meet some subjective criteria of being needed or "expected".

 

that is in and of itself grey.

 

if the pharmacy does not feel they will sell enough of the drug to warrant holding it, they MIGHT be able to avoid carrying it. if they don't like the drug itself (they feel it is unsafe or that another type of drug is a better alternative), they might stock it, or might not stock much of it.

 

then you have drugs like that contraceptive or viagra. they are drugs that are not required to save anyone's life or to maintain them day to day, they are "lifestyle drugs" which is a very fast growing and profitable sector.

 

so one judge or advocacy group might feel that a certain drug should be required, while another might not.

 

grey

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The regulation in Mass requires that if you are going to run a pharmacy in the state of Mass, that you have to have the medications that the people in Mass expect you to carry.

594092[/snapback]

 

Have? Or provide?

 

Because there is a difference. There's certain drugs I know my pharmacy doesn't stock...but they will order, if I bring in a prescription. They don't have them in stock, because they so rarely dispense them, but they will provide them.

 

Whether or not they're required to "provide" by law is another story (and varies from state to state)...I would certainly hope so, as I don't want my pharmacist overriding my doctor's judgement if he writes me a script. But "have" is an ambiguous turn of phrase.

[The Avenger]

Have?  Or provide?

 

Because there is a difference.  There's certain drugs I know my pharmacy doesn't stock...but they will order, if I bring in a prescription.  They don't have them in stock, because they so rarely dispense them, but they will provide them.

 

Whether or not they're required to "provide" by law is another story (and varies from state to state)...I would certainly hope so, as I don't want my pharmacist overriding my doctor's judgement if he writes me a script.  But "have" is an ambiguous turn of phrase.

594420[/snapback]

 

That will be the next battle if Mass determines that Wal-Mart needs to provide Plan B. They'll comply and not stock it knowing full well that with that specific prescription forcing someone to wait for it to come in on order is as good as not filling it. It'll be litigated for years.

[Mickey]

The issue regarding Wal Mart pharmacies actually takes this dispute to another level beyond individual pharmacists. The issue had been whether or not an individual pharmacist could refuse to dispense a given medication based on moral grounds. That particular issue has a lot more room to allow for both patient care and the pharmacist's moral purity. A pharmacy can simply have another pharmacist on duty whose morality is not so offended fill the order.

 

Here you have the pharmacy itself not refusing to dispense the meds but refusing to even stock them. I am not sure what religion Wal Mart is or whether there is such a thing as corporate conscience worthy of protection over and above a patient's health. If we are going to permit Wal Mart executives to have their collective morality (how in the world that would be determined I don't know) protected, will we also protect the individual morality, the conscientous objectors if you will, among Wal Mart Pharmacists? If a Wal Mart pharmacist disagrees with the Wal Mart executives, will we make Wal Mart allow that pharmacist to dispense the drugs?

 

I am not even sure it would be proper to let individual pharmacists refuse to do their jobs. I think it is even less defensible to permit the entire pharmacy, let alone a nationwide chain of them, to decide this issue not just for patients but even for their own pharmacists. I have no desire to protect the ability of the Wal Mart Board of Directors to serve as a philosophical and moral tribunal deciding which medications are ethically pure enough to be dispensed.

[colin]

The issue regarding Wal Mart pharmacies actually takes this dispute to another level beyond individual pharmacists.  The issue had been whether or not an individual pharmacist could refuse to dispense a given medication based on moral grounds.  That particular issue has a lot more room to allow for both patient care and the pharmacist's moral purity.  A pharmacy can simply have another pharmacist on duty whose morality is not so offended fill the order.

 

Here you have the pharmacy itself not refusing to dispense the meds but refusing to even stock them.  I am not sure what religion Wal Mart is or whether there is such a thing as corporate conscience worthy of protection over and above a patient's health.  If we are going to permit Wal Mart executives to have their collective morality (how in the world that would be determined I don't know) protected, will we also protect the individual morality, the conscientous objectors if you will, among Wal Mart Pharmacists?  If a Wal Mart pharmacist disagrees with the Wal Mart executives, will we make Wal Mart allow that pharmacist to dispense the drugs?

 

I am not even sure it would be proper to let individual pharmacists refuse to do their jobs.  I think it is even less defensible to permit the entire pharmacy, let alone a nationwide chain of them, to decide this issue not just for patients but even for their own pharmacists.  I have no desire to protect the ability of the Wal Mart Board of Directors to serve as a philosophical and moral tribunal deciding which medications are ethically pure enough to be dispensed.

594748[/snapback]

 

 

do you really have this poor of an understanding of business?

 

walmart won't carry items that they think might cause them a negative business impact. they have to consider lobby groups or concerned parent shoppers who might create a problem over an item (some books and CDs for example) against the potential losses in profits or market share to competitors who will carry that item.

 

your statement:

 

"I have no desire to protect the ability of the Wal Mart Board of Directors to serve as a philosophical and moral tribunal deciding which medications are ethically pure enough to be dispensed."

 

just stinks of self importance.

 

laws requiring pharmacies to carry certain (and if pushed to their logical end ANY item) force private business to itmes they might not otherwise want to (for any number of reasons). NOT FORCING walmart to carry an item IS NOT PROTECTING walmart, it is simply not fascism (which is private ownership with government fiat overriding owner's control).

 

and what does your desire have to do with it? I desire ABC to broadcast bills games in prime time every week, should they?

 

your other commets about permiting walmart and their moral concious show that you are more than happy to have fascism if it suits your own politics.

 

not exacly liberal, are you?

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

do you really have this poor of an understanding of business?

 

walmart won't carry items that they think might cause them a negative business impact.  they have to consider lobby groups or concerned parent shoppers who might create a problem over an item (some books and CDs for example) against the potential losses in profits or market share to competitors who will carry that item.

 

your statement:

 

"I have no desire to protect the ability of the Wal Mart Board of Directors to serve as a philosophical and moral tribunal deciding which medications are ethically pure enough to be dispensed."

 

just stinks of self importance.

 

laws requiring pharmacies to carry certain (and if pushed to their logical end ANY item) force private business to itmes they might not otherwise want to (for any number of reasons).  NOT FORCING walmart to carry an item IS NOT PROTECTING walmart, it is simply not fascism (which is private ownership with government fiat overriding owner's control).

 

and what does your desire have to do with it?  I desire ABC to broadcast bills games in prime time every week, should they?

 

your other commets about permiting walmart and their moral concious show that you are more than happy to have fascism if it suits your own politics.

 

not exacly liberal, are you?

594794[/snapback]

I understand your logic, about non-governmental interference of a moral choice, or at least that is the way Walmart sounds like it is trying to portray itself, but since Walmart can't at least pay their workers a living wage, has had store accused of letting meat taint and restocking shelves, hired tons of illegal aliens, not paid workers for time, let alone overtime so "morally" they are suspect and should fall into a hypocracy exception under your standard. Now that Walmarts variable morality is established it therefore should be regulated even under a laissez faire standard, besides they are not a church and do not qualify for a tax exemption and under any normal part of the interstate commerce clause come under the "Constitution" as allow to be regulated by the states. The Constitution doesn't say anarchy or is that what you think.

[Wacka]

If Walmart won't stock the abortion pills, then those wanting to kill their children can go to Rite Aid or another chain.

[Mickey]

do you really have this poor of an understanding of business?

 

walmart won't carry items that they think might cause them a negative business impact.  they have to consider lobby groups or concerned parent shoppers who might create a problem over an item (some books and CDs for example) against the potential losses in profits or market share to competitors who will carry that item.

 

your statement:

 

"I have no desire to protect the ability of the Wal Mart Board of Directors to serve as a philosophical and moral tribunal deciding which medications are ethically pure enough to be dispensed."

 

just stinks of self importance.

 

laws requiring pharmacies to carry certain (and if pushed to their logical end ANY item) force private business to itmes they might not otherwise want to (for any number of reasons).  NOT FORCING walmart to carry an item IS NOT PROTECTING walmart, it is simply not fascism (which is private ownership with government fiat overriding owner's control).

 

and what does your desire have to do with it?  I desire ABC to broadcast bills games in prime time every week, should they?

 

your other commets about permiting walmart and their moral concious show that you are more than happy to have fascism if it suits your own politics.

 

not exacly liberal, are you?

594794[/snapback]

Your understanding of the exercise of power and the role of government seems to be quite limited. Even more limited is your inability to understand the difference between selling hoola-hoops and life saving medicines. Worst of all is your inability to see that there are occasions where protecting individuals, real live people, is more important than protecting large corporations.

 

If hospitals and pharmacies were treated simply as businesses with profit being the only legitimate goal, there are quite a lot of live saving procedures and medicines that would not be available. Fortunately, the world isn't run by idiots who see fascism in government protecting individuals but not in powerful corporations deciding which people will have access to which medicines regardless of medical need and the opinions of actual doctors.

 

Since government is such a terrible thing when it comes to requiring pharmacies to make drugs available inorder to have a license, I have a sound solution for the poor embattled Board of Directors at Wal Mart. No federal dollars, none, not medicaid, not medicare, zip for any prescriptions purchased at Wal Mart so that Wal Mart can be entirely free of government "interference". Those who want to buy their drugs there can do so with their own money and at prices far exceeding what would be otherwise paid at other pharmacies. Nobody is asking my politics when they take my tax money to pay for those prescriptions

 

You might want to expand your understanding of fascism a little bit. In Nazi Germany, the government was so pro-business it was hard to tell the two apart. The government didn't force businesses to do its bidding, the government volunteered to help the businesses do anything they wanted. There were no better allies to the Nazi's then the largest business interests in Germany, the Wal Marts of their day (Corporations collaborating with the Nazis included Krupp, Daimler Benz, Opel, Mann, Volkswagen, BASF, Degussa, Siemens and IG Fargen to name just a few). When government intervenes against the interests of individuals, real live people, on behalf of large businesses and to their benefit, that is true fascism. The result is a combination of the largest, wealthiest and most powerful institutions in society working in concert. Against such an alliance, individual freedom doesn't stand a chance.

 

Government is at its least fascist when it intervenes on behalf of individuals as against powerful institutions be they businesses or some other breed. Every concern you have raised has been over the much abused "rights" of poor old Wal Mart. As for people, real live people, the kind with arms and legs and medical problems requiring medicinal treatment, you apparently don't give a rat's a$$.

An imaginary, inflated threat to Wal Mart's profits have you in conservo-salivating overdrive about fascism but the plight of actual people, doesn't merit so much as a syllable of concern from you.

 

But you aren't a fascist are you? IG Farben would have loved you.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

You might want to expand your understanding of fascism a little bit.  In Nazi Germany, the government was so pro-business it was hard to tell the two apart.  The government didn't force businesses to do its bidding, the government volunteered to help the businesses do anything they wanted.  There were no better allies to the Nazi's then the largest business interests in Germany, the Wal Marts of their day (Corporations collaborating with the Nazis included Krupp, Daimler Benz, Opel, Mann, Volkswagen, BASF, Degussa, Siemens and IG Fargen to name just a few).  When government intervenes against the interests of individuals, real live people, on behalf of large businesses and to their benefit, that is true fascism.  The result is a combination of the largest, wealthiest and most powerful institutions in society working in concert. Against such an alliance, individual freedom doesn't stand a chance.

596313[/snapback]

 

This is laughable. The Nazi regime no more allowed free markets than they allowed free press. They TOLD the Krupps and Farbens and Benzes what they wanted...namely cannons, tanks and aircraft, and the companies did what they were told. The businessmen backed Hitler early on because they THOUGHT he was pro-business and anti-communist. But they were in for a rude awakening when they found that Fascism in the Nazi sense was hardly different at a practical economic level than Soviet Communism.

 

Perhaps a deeper read into history with a neutral eye is in order, Mick.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

This is laughable. The Nazi regime no more allowed free markets than they allowed free press. They TOLD the Krupps and Farbens and Benzes what they wanted...namely cannons, tanks and aircraft, and the companies did what they were told. The businessmen backed Hitler early on because they THOUGHT he was pro-business and anti-communist. But they were in for a rude awakening when they found that Fascism in the Nazi sense was hardly different at a practical economic level than Soviet Communism.

 

Perhaps a deeper read into history with a neutral eye is in order, Mick.

596336[/snapback]

 

No, I think you just made Mickey's point, even the U.S. was complicit with Nazi sponsored corporations, before it became untennable even for them. Sure facism and communism meet on the other side of the spectrum, but there are degrees and Mickey's point is valid, read your history of Nazi business capitalism, free market business and freedom are not the same thing. Maybe you should reread history, start with the 1920s.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

No, I think you just made Mickey's point, even the U.S. was complicit with Nazi sponsored corporations, before it became untennable even for them.  Sure facism and communism meet on the other side of the spectrum, but there are degrees and Mickey's point is valid, read your history of Nazi business capitalism, free market business and freedom are not the same thing.  Maybe you should reread history, start with the 1920s.

596372[/snapback]

 

Again, in my post I state that the businessmen were chief in ensuring Hitler became Reichs-Chancellor. That is indisputable. Once Chancellor, however, Hitler imposed martial law and imposed his will and his vision on to the big businesses of Germany. It was the only way the Germans could have built such a formidable war machine in such a short period of time.

 

The businessmen thought they had bought a lap dog. Unfortunately for them, it was the other way around. In fact, by the end of the war, IIRC, the SS was in control of many of Germany's industries.