| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:42 pm Wal-Mart Ordered to Stock Emergency Contraception |
|
| Quote: |
Wal-Mart Ordered to Stock Emergency Contraception
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
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."
source: www.foxnews.com
|
Seeing as the morning after pill is not a medical necessity, or something that affects the populations general health, I don't think that the government has the right to tell a company that they have to stock something. Somehow it seems like the government is overstepping its bounds.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:48 pm |
|
Agreed. I agree ENTIRELY. This is ENTIRELY wrong for the government to be doing. It has NO RIGHT to do it, nor should it. Nor should Wal-Mart do what they're saying, IMO. Encourages bad behavior.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Valathous
The Canadian, eh
Joined: 31 Aug 2002
Posts: 19074
Location: Centre Bell
|
| Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:55 pm |
|
I don't see what the big deal is. It gives the women a chance to pick up the pill without hastle or going to like 9 stores before they find it. The pill is a good thing to have incase of an accident were other forms of birth control fail.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:57 pm |
|
So? The government doesn't have the right to force a company to stock this kinda of product.
|
|
|
Valathous
The Canadian, eh
Joined: 31 Aug 2002
Posts: 19074
Location: Centre Bell
|
| Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:00 pm |
|
Just like the government doesn't have the right to imprison 500 people without giving them a fair trial, right?
*beep* happens, the pill cleans it up.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:05 pm |
|
If you call a child *beep*...then sure....
And yes, the government has the right to detain terrorists. It doesn't have the right to control a business like this. Two completely different things.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:05 pm |
|
Difference  That deals with national security, this deals with a woman not thinking ahead before getting into bed
Kevin's right. The government shouldn't be forcing businesses to provide a certain product.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:17 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Difference That deals with national security, this deals with a woman not thinking ahead before getting into bed |
Even if a woman was on birth control, and her partner used a condom, mistakes happen. Suppose she'd been so busy she forgot a day, then the condom broke? Even if she'd taken every precaution, mistakes happen.
I think it's a good idea. They don't have to stock mass quantities of it, and they could keep it out of the open. They don't need to advertise it or carry mass amounts of it, but having some stocked for emergencies is a good idea.
Suppose the woman has a medical condition and is worried about her health and a possible baby's health? You can't account for all situations. And no matter what moral reasoning there is, there is always going to be at least one instance where even the staunchest conservative would waver.
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:18 pm Re: Wal-Mart Ordered to Stock Emergency Contraception |
|
Accidents happen even when taking extreme percausions.
And since no one seemed to catch it.
| Quote: |
The women had argued that state policy requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines."
source: www.foxnews.com |
If it's state policy, and since the morning after pill is a commonly perscribed medicince, The state has every right to get involved and demand that Wal-Mart stock it.
|
|
|
Micteth-Son of Udas
Klingon Warrior
Joined: 20 Jul 2002
Posts: 3202
Location: rite behind you!
|
| Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:31 pm |
|
| Puck wrote: | If you call a child *beep*...then sure....
And yes, the government has the right to detain terrorists. It doesn't have the right to control a business like this. Two completely different things. |
terrorists? half the ppl this democracy of a hippocracy detained in the name of "national security" have been held with no formal charges, and the ones released will never have formal charges brought up, the goverment made a huge mistake and broke the law of this land, a document on which this country is founded, the constatution, hell im no supporter of bush, i detest the way hes run this country from a respectable country in the veiw's of this simple minded teenager to a nation whos out after everyone, give me STONE COLD evidance against these so called terrorists, and then yes detain them all you want, but with out evidance, just a mere thought that there terroists, then no they should not be detained, its called "clear and present danger", with out that they cant be detained.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:50 pm |
|
Who the hell is the government to tell Wal Mart what they must stock. I don't think the government should EVER FORCE a company to carry a product. Maybe the government should force Wal-Mart to sell Bibles and Crosses, since most Americans are Christian, and their religious rights need to be upheld.
Gimmie a break, this is CLEARLY a violation of Wal Mart's rights.
I wish Massachusettes would just fall into the ocean. (Take the PATS with them. J/K T.)
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:17 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | Who the hell is the government to tell Wal Mart what they must stock. I don't think the government should EVER FORCE a company to carry a product. Maybe the government should force Wal-Mart to sell Bibles and Crosses, since most Americans are Christian, and their religious rights need to be upheld.
Gimmie a break, this is CLEARLY a violation of Wal Mart's rights.
I wish Massachusettes would just fall into the ocean. (Take the PATS with them. J/K T.) |
Nope not at all. It's a state policy. If Walmart want to stay they should, like all other businesses, follow those policies.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:18 pm |
|
I just love how the word child has become interchangeable with words like accident, *beep*, etc....
But yes, I'm tending to go with the whole falling into the sea thing. I think for the most part LightningBoy has it perfect. Do I care if it's state policy? No, not really, I don't think that automatically makes it right.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:19 pm |
|
State has no right to do this, it's a VIOLATION OF BASIC PROPERTY RIGHTS.
If Wal Mart doesn't want to carry this, they don't have to. The government, state or local, can not force you to carry anything!
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:25 pm |
|
^uh.... remember that when something that could have helped you was "policy" but "rights" ment they didn't have to carry it . I see no problems what so ever with this. All they said was to carry it, not how much to charge, not how much to have on stock, but to HAVE it on stock. Do you have ANY idea how much it sucks to look for a medication and have to go to many, many, many stores trying to find it? Belive me, it sucks. How ever, i would agree that for something as far as that, an emergancy trip to the doctor, or a full actuall pharmacy may be the best.
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:29 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | State has no right to do this, it's a VIOLATION OF BASIC PROPERTY RIGHTS.
If Wal Mart doesn't want to carry this, they don't have to. The government, state or local, can not force you to carry anything! |
Nice to see you suddenly know all of Massachusetts state laws about business.
And yes they can, if they want to be a business. You have to conform to rules and guidelines passed down by the state.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:35 pm |
|
Haven't you heard of the Constitution. The federal one, you know, the law of the land, the big gun.
Yeah, it defends PROPERTY RIGHTS. This is a violation of that; doesn't matter who Massachusettes thinks it is, they're breaking the law here. Wal Mart, if they're smart should sue. (In a FEDERAL court)
Massachusettes sucks. Sorry, everyone from there. I really do know a lot of MA business law, since I deal with their idiocy, daily, in my line of work. There is no more screwed up state in the nation than MA.
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:45 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | Haven't you heard of the Constitution. The federal one, you know, the law of the land, the big gun.
Yeah, it defends PROPERTY RIGHTS. This is a violation of that; doesn't matter who Massachusettes thinks it is, they're breaking the law here. Wal Mart, if they're smart should sue. (In a FEDERAL court)
Massachusettes sucks. Sorry, everyone from there. I really do know a lot of MA business law, since I deal with their idiocy, daily, in my line of work. There is no more screwed up state in the nation than MA. |
You mean the thing our current president trounces all over?
Scream and complain about it all you want, The state has the right to ensure that its policies are followed. The courts, the interpreters of the LAW , found that these women we correct in that Walmart was violating state mandate policy for businesses.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:48 pm |
|
No, i'm referring to the constitution that protects individuals and businesses from being walked all over by the government. I really don't know what president has trounced all over it. Presidents, all the way back to Kennedy, have been pretty good about it.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Wed Feb 15, 2006 9:40 am |
|
Pharmacists and pharmacies are licensed for business by the states. The state government has control over them. The states are not going to set up special "get your abortion pills here" kiosks or booths, they simply use the already-existing state-sanctioned drug dispensaries.
And although using a pill is still morally wrong, it is less stressful physically and emotionally, and cheaper than "normal" abortion.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:58 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Difference That deals with national security, this deals with a woman not thinking ahead before getting into bed
|
You have obviously not had much first hand experience with 'getting into bed'. It's remarkably easy for usual birth control methods to fail and thus needing the 72hr pill.
Well, unless your from a crazy catholic crowd then I take back what I said.
Agreed sort of on the government not being able to control a companys stock in that matter, but I think these stores SHOULD ALWAYS have supply with much more extra spare supply and every employee MUST sell those products regardless of their religious beliefs.
|
|
|
Tyvek
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Jul 2001
Posts: 2821
Location: Mississippi, USA
|
| Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:42 pm |
|
| Puck wrote: | I just love how the word child has become interchangeable with words like accident, *beep*, etc....
But yes, I'm tending to go with the whole falling into the sea thing. I think for the most part LightningBoy has it perfect. Do I care if it's state policy? No, not really, I don't think that automatically makes it right. |
Yes but you've also got to remember that in the country we live, unborn chldren are not people until they come out of the birth canal. I mean abortion is legal, so I don't see what the fuss is. I mean I seriously don't, it is your right to choose that a child can live or die, even if your contraception failed... you took the risk, it never goes away. But thats OK... the thing that makes me mad is that Scott Peterson got jailtime for his unborn son... I don't see why, all he did was kill his wife, and a fetus, who could have been aborted....
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:54 pm |
|
You say abortion is legal but it doesn't make it morally right. Women should use some common sense and not to spread their legs if they don't want to have a baby. And for rape victims, well their is adoption. Cause there are married people who is dying to raise a child. People say there are no other options but I disagree strongly cause there is.
Last edited by Leo Wyatt on Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:55 pm |
|
| Tyvek wrote: | | Puck wrote: | I just love how the word child has become interchangeable with words like accident, *beep*, etc....
But yes, I'm tending to go with the whole falling into the sea thing. I think for the most part LightningBoy has it perfect. Do I care if it's state policy? No, not really, I don't think that automatically makes it right. |
Yes but you've also got to remember that in the country we live, unborn chldren are not people until they come out of the birth canal. I mean abortion is legal, so I don't see what the fuss is. I mean I seriously don't, it is your right to choose that a child can live or die, even if your contraception failed... you took the risk, it never goes away. But thats OK... the thing that makes me mad is that Scott Peterson got jailtime for his unborn son... I don't see why, all he did was kill his wife, and a fetus, who could have been aborted.... |
I really hope that entire post was a joke. It was one of the most horrible posts I've ever read...
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:52 pm |
|
| Leo Wyatt wrote: | | You say abortion is legal but it doesn't make it morally right. Women should use some common sense and not to spread their legs if they don't want to have a baby. And for rape victims, well their is adoption. Cause there are married people who is dying to raise a child. People say there are no other options but I disagree strongly cause there is. |
Again, what I said before. No matter how careful or prepared you are, mistakes happen. Condoms dont have 100% effectiveness, and neither does birth control.
And adoption can be very difficult, I don't know much about how the system works here, but if I remember the statistic correctly more people are adopting from overseas and developing countries.
Again, no one said they had to advertise stocking the pill, stock mass quantities for it, or put it on sale. They just have to have it, and make it available.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
