Wal-Mart must stock morning-after pill !!

BOSTON (Reuters) - A Massachusetts regulatory board voted on Tuesday to require Wal-Mart stores to stock morning-after contraceptives, two weeks after three women in the state sued Wal-Mart for refusing to fill orders for the pills.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060214/ts_nm/life_contraception_walmart_dc

 

What the hell is this ?? Forced abortions ?? I am not so sure you can call the morning after pill a contraceptive... but I really believe these pills should NOT be sold at Wal-Mart

I can see an appeal. This won't stand.

Much controversy in Australia regarding this same pill.

 

hot topic to say the least.

Much controversy in Australia regarding this same pill.

 

hot topic to say the least.

 

Tell me about bloody liberal gov (liberals in australia are like the republicans in the USA).

They're having a conscious vote on the pill tomorrow, atm the health minister has control over the drug and seen as though he is a catholic, the pill has been out of reach for everyone.

 

However alot of people don't know that RU486 has also been proven to halt the growth of certain brain tumors

http://virtualtrials.com/btlinks/sitemap.html

 

on a personal note, I do not agree with off the hat abortions, people who are stupid enough not to use protection deserve what they get. However if a woman falls pregnent as a result of rape, or the child is to be deformed etc then I don't have a problem with it.

I did hear of the possible other uses of the drug, quarky. Interesting.

 

The emotive issues often cloud the realism behind the real issues, and not being a woman, I can only snipe from the sidelines.

 

Should this pill be available to all? If it can be proven to be less of a risk of death than traditional carve and scrape abortions, then I don't see why not.

As a fellow male I know how you feel, what I do know about the drugs, is that used in the early stages and I mean early, as in the first month the risks are lower, after that they become less so.

 

My point is that the drugs is showing far greater benifits regarding tumors and some cancer (not sure which ones though), than just a abortion pill. Thus in australia if the TGA get control of it, people who have these tumors etc might be bale to live out a long life, rather than die early.

 

So on a personal note, I hope the bill passes and the australian public can get to use this drug

This has been a big deal. There's local pharmacy's that don't want to carry it, or won't give if they don't feel the customer should have it. It is a legal drug and you should be able to get it anywhere. At this point i don't think it's any differant than a pharmacy selling not birth control pills, because the pharmacist thinks there wrong.

It hasn't passed muster here yet.

A business should be able to choose what product it sells. I agree with a right to abortion. I do not agree with government forcing others to assist you in getting an abortion.

I think Wal-Mart is lying when they are citing low demand, Wal-Mart is based in the Bible Belt. There are alot of things Wal-Mart won't sell for "religious reasons", have you browsed through their music collection for instance?

 

However if they are going to operate a pharmacy and a drug is a legal drug, approved by the FDA I think they should have to stock it.

How you personally feel about the drug is largely irrelevant since it is in fact legal to perscribe and use. If you don't like this, then make sure you vote in the next election for someone who will try and get it removed from the market.

Of course the next step is removing birth control pills...read up on the way birth control pills work, they don't only stop a woman from ovulating, they also thicken the mucuos to keep a fertilized egg from implanting...very much like the morning after pill.

 

Phreak...how is woman having the CHOICE to take the morning after pill, forced abortion???

 

If I owned a pharmacy and I had an employee who wouldn't do his job, I wouldn't have him working there...despensing medication perscribed by an MD is their job, if they can't do it then maybe they should look for another profession.

 

As far as I'm concerned this is just one more reason to find another place to shop. As a customer I need a place that will serve my needs, not their own agenda. Its interesting Wal_Mart is more then happy to sell cigarettes, which of course we all know cause cancer, they are more then happy to sell alcohol, which can be the cause of all sorts of problems, these are perfectly legal and VERY lugrative financially.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060214/ts_nm/life_contraception_walmart_dc

 

What the hell is this ?? Forced abortions ?? I am not so sure you can call the morning after pill a contraceptive... but I really believe these pills should NOT be sold at Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart should have the right to sell, or not sell, whatever they fucking want.

 

There is no valid argument to support your position.

 

Pharmacies although private businesses, operate under the public trust. They are a highly regulated industry charged with providing and protecting the quality and accuracy of the FDA approved Pharmacopeia. They are the floodgate of control between poison and prescription.

 

The only option available to them is what price to charge. That's it. If Wal-Mart wants to charge 10 times more per dose than anybody else, they can, and their sales will drop to ZERO.

 

However, in order to comply with the terms of the contracts they hold with various insurance plans regarding reimbursement, in some cases, they would have to fill and be reimbursed based upon the contract formulary terms. They would have no choice in the matter.

 

It is a disturbing and frightening trend of having medical personnel decide what they will and will not do based upon their religious or moral beliefs. This should be penalized heavily in all cases. If you can't keep your personal beliefs out of your professional responsibility, you should forfeit your professional license. Period. Become a priest, a minister, a gardner, a painter, plumber, anything but don't be a doctor, nurse, pharmacist, or any other allied health practitioner.

 

Pharmacy is nothing more than the regulated disbursement of controlled substances. Nothing more. The pharmacy does not, nor should they be allowed to choose what they will and will not distribute. That's the job of the FDA, not the local pharmacy, not even a giant corporation like Wal-Mart.

 

Had I been the judge, not only would Wal-Mart be ordered to fill the prescription, but I would have fined them 100 million dollars in punitive fees for such a stupid stunt.

 

Glad you ain't a judge. A business, corporate, individual, partnership, etc, should have the right to choose what products they sell. The FDA should be abolished.

 

CES's stupid position is since government already unjustly intrudes in your life that should give them the right to intrude further. I smell a stinkin' fabian socialist here.

 

Let me explain something folks. A transaction should be between two willing parties.

Glad you ain't a judge. A business, corporate, individual, partnership, etc, should have the right to choose what products they sell. The FDA should be abolished.

 

CES's stupid position is since government already unjustly intrudes in your life that should give them the right to intrude further. I smell a stinkin' fabian socialist here.

 

Let me explain something folks. A transaction should be between two willing parties.

 

I sure am glad Hugo and his kind don't control the government; especially the FDA.

 

While it's fundamentally true that "A business, corporate, individual, partnership, etc, should have the right to choose what products they sell", abolishing the FDA would be cataclysmic at best.

 

Some business activities simply are less business and more of regulated professions. Drug manufacturing, drug testing, and drug dispersement via pharmacies just happens to be one of these activities.

 

Years ago, before drugs were monitored, controlled, and regulated by the government, hucksters were everywhere in this country selling concocted potions which they claimed did all sorts of miraculous things. Some were nothing more than sugar water or alcohol, but some, contained heavy metals, poisons, narcotics, and other such nasties and in fact, many injured or killed unsuspecting people.

 

Given Hugo's logic, which he derives from his flawed libertarian - rose colored glasses on- world view, it's not at all difficult to show just how foolish and misguided he is.

 

Specifically his "Let me explain something folks. A transaction should be between two willing parties." BULLSHIT.

 

If one is to believe this crap, then I should be able to take my folding table and coat hanger, and if I have another person who is willing to pay me, then I should be able to perform back room abortions without fear of government interference. Also, I should even be allowed to perform surgery and cut into a living human being if they are willing. Hugo argues that the government should not interfere!

 

Hugo's logic also would say that...

 

I should be able to manufacture my own chemical remedies for virtually anything I wish to claim that I can cure, so long as I have a willing buyer, and the government should not interfere.

 

I should be able to brew up alcoholic beverages in my garage or basement, regardless of quality or purity controls, ingredient standards or product testing and sell it to willing buyers without fear of government meddling.

 

Hell, I should be able to manufacture explosives and automatic weaponry, and even bombs if I choose and sell them to any willing buyer and the government should stay the fuck out of our mutually agreed upon business.

 

Hugo, you're an ASS. Clearly blinded by your lopsided libertarian dogma and "logic" and as out of touch with reality as anyone I've ever met. The government, although not perfect, (and no one's is or ever was), is not the complete enemy of the people you try to make it out to be.

 

Here's the real truth people, not Hugo's warped version.

 

Although the government has it's cons, it also has it's pros and these pro's are big ones!

 

I like the fact that I can TRUST the quality, purity, and traceability of regulated pharmaceuticals. This is a good thing; thank you government!

 

I like the fact that alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages sold to me are free from impurities, toxics, and have strict quality controls placed upon them. This is a good thing; thank you government!

 

I like the fact that my car must meet basic safety standards in order to be manufactured and sold for use as a motor vehicle in this country and that the fuel manufactured for use in it is also regulated for quality and control. This is a good thing; thank you government!

 

I like the fact that my civic water supply is routinely checked and adjusted to ensure is purity and fitness for human consumption. This is a good thing; thank you government!

 

I like the fact that my doctor, pharmacist, nurse, physical therapist, phlebotomist, x-ray technician, any other medical person, my lawyer, accountant, barber and many other people I do business with or I come in contact with is licensed, has been tested and regulated to ensure that they have the necessary skills and knowledge to perform their function. This is a good thing; thank you government!

 

Yes, there are a lot of things my government does for me that I like. Lots of them. Thank you government! Yes, there are things my government sucks at, but the benefits my government provides far outweigh it's shortcomings.

 

So Hugo, take your "Let me explain something folks. A transaction should be between two willing parties" and shove it up your ass..that way your head will have some desperately needed company!

I sure am glad Hugo and his kind don't control the government; especially the FDA.

 

While it's fundamentally true that "A business, corporate, individual, partnership, etc, should have the right to choose what products they sell", abolishing the FDA would be cataclysmic at best.

 

Some business activities simply are less business and more of regulated professions. Drug manufacturing, drug testing, and drug dispersement via pharmacies just happens to be one of these activities.

 

Years ago, before drugs were monitored, controlled, and regulated by the government, hucksters were everywhere in this country selling concocted potions which they claimed did all sorts of miraculous things. Some were nothing more than sugar water or alcohol, but some, contained heavy metals, poisons, narcotics, and other such nasties and in fact, many injured or killed unsuspecting people.

 

Given Hugo's logic, which he derives from his flawed libertarian - rose colored glasses on- world view, it's not at all difficult to show just how foolish and misguided he is.

 

Specifically his "Let me explain something folks. A transaction should be between two willing parties." BULLSHIT.

 

If one is to believe this crap, then I should be able to take my folding table and coat hanger, and if I have another person who is willing to pay me, then I should be able to perform back room abortions without fear of government interference. Also, I should even be allowed to perform surgery and cut into a living human being if they are willing. Hugo argues that the government should not interfere!

 

Hugo's logic also would say that...

 

I should be able to manufacture my own chemical remedies for virtually anything I wish to claim that I can cure, so long as I have a willing buyer, and the government should not interfere.

 

I should be able to brew up alcoholic beverages in my garage or basement, regardless of quality or purity controls, ingredient standards or product testing and sell it to willing buyers without fear of government meddling.

 

Hell, I should be able to manufacture explosives and automatic weaponry, and even bombs if I choose and sell them to any willing buyer and the government should stay the fuck out of our mutually agreed upon business.

 

Hugo, you're an ASS. Clearly blinded by your lopsided libertarian dogma and "logic" and as out of touch with reality as anyone I've ever met. The government, although not perfect, (and no one's is or ever was), is not the complete enemy of the people you try to make it out to be.

 

Here's the real truth people, not Hugo's warped version.

 

Although the government has it's cons, it also has it's pros and these pro's are big ones!

 

I like the fact that I can TRUST the quality, purity, and traceability of regulated pharmaceuticals. This is a good thing; thank you government!

 

I like the fact that alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages sold to me are free from impurities, toxics, and have strict quality controls placed upon them. This is a good thing; thank you government!

 

I like the fact that my car must meet basic safety standards in order to be manufactured and sold for use as a motor vehicle in this country and that the fuel manufactured for use in it is also regulated for quality and control. This is a good thing; thank you government!

 

I like the fact that my civic water supply is routinely checked and adjusted to ensure is purity and fitness for human consumption. This is a good thing; thank you government!

 

I like the fact that my doctor, pharmacist, nurse, physical therapist, phlebotomist, x-ray technician, any other medical person, my lawyer, accountant, barber and many other people I do business with or I come in contact with is licensed, has been tested and regulated to ensure that they have the necessary skills and knowledge to perform their function. This is a good thing; thank you government!

 

Yes, there are a lot of things my government does for me that I like. Lots of them. Thank you government! Yes, there are things my government sucks at, but the benefits my government provides far outweigh it's shortcomings.

 

So Hugo, take your "Let me explain something folks. A transaction should be between two willing parties" and shove it up your ass..that way your head will have some desperately needed company!

CES, you and Hugo have some valid arguments...

 

However, the stupid law REQUIRING pharmacies to provide the drug not only infringes on a company's right (however stupid they may be in exercising that right) to sell whatever products THEY choose, but it also would make it financially prohibitive for a small business to offer, say, JUST the "morning after pill" (presumably at a "reasonable" cost, in those areas where Wal-Mart [and others] decide NOT to sell the drug).

 

There DEFINITELY is a place for Government Oversight from drug research to prescription issuance. But, to suggest that the Government has a RIGHT (or obligation) to force a pharmacy (or any other private business) to sell (or not sell) any specific product (for whatever reason) is fascism.

 

As a private business owner, I (and I alone) SHOULD be free to alienate whomever I wish (and be driven into bankruptcy as a result of my moronic decisions)… However, those moronic decisions SHOULD be mine to make…

 

Why do you think that Starbucks has been so successful (even though supermarkets sell coffee, and restaurants offer prepared coffee, too)? Because they offer something that people WANT to buy… If there’s such a HUGE demand for the “morning after pill”, then some enterprising individual (or more liberally minded pharmacies) can make a fine profit selling them.

 

The reality, of course, is that there is NOT a huge demand for them, and the Liberals want to FORCE private businesses to stock them for the convenience of a tiny minority (who, for whatever reason, are unwilling or unable to take appropriate PREVENTATIVE measures).

 

The bottom line, CES, is that in a FREE society, YOU (and everyone else) has a RIGHT to NOT do business with whoever you wish… You don’t like Wal-Mart? FINE. NO ONE is forcing YOU to shop there…

 

Let me present the following scenario…

 

We all know that Abortion is (currently) the “law of the land”… Using the Massachusetts standard, cannot the Government REQUIRE every doctor in the United States to perform abortions, on demand?

 

As you know, there are specialized clinics whose “sole” business is performing abortions. THEY seem to be able to remain profitable, while “General Practitioners” who do not offer abortion services, ALSO seem to remain profitable…

 

How do you explain that? Simple, when there is sufficient DEMAND, then the supply will be created by those willing to provide the product or service. The problem with this particular issue is that you want the Government to FORCE the supply, when there is not a corresponding demand…

 

Hell, why can’t the Government REQUIRE every restaurant to serve every food product known to man? Everyone has to eat, you know… SOME people even have special dietary needs (or preferences), so, since restaurants are LICENSED, TOO, why shouldn’t the Government step in, and FORCE McDonalds to offer Filet Mignon, and Cr

Excellent point and it's a point that I was also trying to make... It has nothing to do with it being available, it has to do with the fact that they were FORCED to carry something.

 

What if it was something like cigarettes ?

 

What if I owned say a HARDWARE store, and was, for some reason FORCED to carry cigarettes ??

 

Same thing with Wal-Mart... they are being FORCED to carry something for some other assholes convienience just so they don't have to take their lazy ass down to the drug store to get the damn pills.

.

.

I'm sorry but you two have now twisted the facts so out of reality it's not even funny...time to come back to the real world...

 

Pharmacies, including Wal-Mart's, are not REQUIRED to stock anything. Wal-Mart is not required to STOCK anything. What they are required to do, under the LAW, is FILL any VALID LEGAL PHYSICIANS PRESCRIPTION. That is the legal requirement for holding a license to operate a pharmacy.

 

Oh, you don't like complying with the legal requirements you agreed upon when applying for a pharmacy license, then surrender your pharmacy license an go sell flowers or coffee. It's that simple.

 

Small pharmacies can have at a minimum, daily deliveries, while large pharmacies typically have morning and afternoon deliveries. So filling a prescription within the same day or at worst case, 24 hours, is no big deal.

 

Pharmaceuticals are not like coffee. Sorry, your argument is just not valid at all.

I'm sorry but you two have now twisted the facts so out of reality it's not even funny...time to come back to the real world...

 

Pharmacies, including Wal-Mart's, are not REQUIRED to stock anything. Wal-Mart is not required to STOCK anything. What they are required to do, under the LAW, is FILL any VALID LEGAL PHYSICIANS PRESCRIPTION. That is the legal requirement for holding a license to operate a pharmacy.

 

Oh, you don't like complying with the legal requirements you agreed upon when applying for a pharmacy license, then surrender your pharmacy license an go sell flowers or coffee. It's that simple.

 

Small pharmacies can have at a minimum, daily deliveries, while large pharmacies typically have morning and afternoon deliveries. So filling a prescription within the same day or at worst case, 24 hours, is no big deal.

 

Pharmaceuticals are not like coffee. Sorry, your argument is just not valid at all.

 

gives you pretend rep

 

damn rep system. arrrgh.

Tell me about bloody liberal gov (liberals in australia are like the republicans in the USA).

 

How so... Like the republicans in what sense?

 

serious questions... I'm not just busting your balls:confused:

I'm sorry but you two have now twisted the facts so out of reality it's not even funny...time to come back to the real world...

 

Pharmacies, including Wal-Mart's, are not REQUIRED to stock anything. Wal-Mart is not required to STOCK anything. What they are required to do, under the LAW, is FILL any VALID LEGAL PHYSICIANS PRESCRIPTION. That is the legal requirement for holding a license to operate a pharmacy.

 

Oh, you don't like complying with the legal requirements you agreed upon when applying for a pharmacy license, then surrender your pharmacy license an go sell flowers or coffee. It's that simple.

 

Small pharmacies can have at a minimum, daily deliveries, while large pharmacies typically have morning and afternoon deliveries. So filling a prescription within the same day or at worst case, 24 hours, is no big deal.

 

Pharmaceuticals are not like coffee. Sorry, your argument is just not valid at all.

Agreed. That's the LAW...

 

The point of disagreement, though, is that the LAW is STUPID, and a Governmental INTRUSION into the operation of a PRIVATE business (pharmacy, doctor's office, restaurant, ANYTHING)...

 

It's NOT a question of Wal-Mart not wanting to have the drug sitting on the shelf; they, simply, do not believe they should be FORCED to sell the damn thing (whatever the "damn thing" is)... In THIS case, it happens to be the "morning after" pill, but that is NOT the point...

 

My point IS valid (just because it is beyond your ability to comprehend does not make it any less valid)...

 

The argument, here, is GOVERNMENTAL INTRUSION INTO THE OPERATION OF A PRIVATE BUSINESS (whatever that business is)...

 

Geez!

 

Personally, I'd suggest that Wal-Mart CLOSE all of its pharmacies in Massachusetts. Two can play at that game...

Agreed. That's the LAW...

 

The point of disagreement, though, is that the LAW is STUPID, and a Governmental INTRUSION into the operation of a PRIVATE business (pharmacy, doctor's office, restaurant, ANYTHING)...

 

It's NOT a question of Wal-Mart not wanting to have the drug sitting on the shelf; they, simply, do not believe they should be FORCED to sell the damn thing (whatever the "damn thing" is)... In THIS case, it happens to be the "morning after" pill, but that is NOT the point...

 

My point IS valid (just because it is beyond your ability to comprehend does not make it any less valid)...

 

The argument, here, is GOVERNMENTAL INTRUSION INTO THE OPERATION OF A PRIVATE BUSINESS (whatever that business is)...

 

Geez!

 

Personally, I'd suggest that Wal-Mart CLOSE all of its pharmacies in Massachusetts. Two can play at that game...

 

Actually, whether or not a pharmacy must dispense all valid prescriptions is being decided by courts now. There have been mixed results.

 

The FDA, through delaying and reducing the production of life saving medications has killed far more people than it has saved, Sadly, we undervalue statistical lives. CES lives in his little commie woeld where the motto is "Government good. More government better." Our founding fathers knew better. Our Constitution once was a barrier to intrusive government. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

How so... Like the republicans in what sense?

 

serious questions... I'm not just busting your balls:confused:

 

In much of the world liberal retains it's classical meaning.

In much of the world liberal retains it's classical meaning.

 

ahhh... so once again we change the meaning of something to suit our needs...

 

interesting

Agreed. That's the LAW...

 

The point of disagreement, though, is that the LAW is STUPID, and a Governmental INTRUSION into the operation of a PRIVATE business (pharmacy, doctor's office, restaurant, ANYTHING)...

 

It's NOT a question of Wal-Mart not wanting to have the drug sitting on the shelf; they, simply, do not believe they should be FORCED to sell the damn thing (whatever the "damn thing" is)... In THIS case, it happens to be the "morning after" pill, but that is NOT the point...

 

My point IS valid (just because it is beyond your ability to comprehend does not make it any less valid)...

 

The argument, here, is GOVERNMENTAL INTRUSION INTO THE OPERATION OF A PRIVATE BUSINESS (whatever that business is)...

 

Geez!

 

Personally, I'd suggest that Wal-Mart CLOSE all of its pharmacies in Massachusetts. Two can play at that game...

 

Nobody is forcing Wal-Mart to keep their pharmacies open. They can close them and surrender their pharmacy licenses at any time; it's not a problem.

 

Now...

 

Ultra Christian doctor dude is working in the ER at the local hospital. He's the only attending physician on the unit for the time being.

 

In rolls ambulance with critical gunshot patient - a skinhead full of demonic tattoos including the huge image of Jesus fucking the virgin Mary in the Ass while slitting her throat with a dagger complete with crimson blood squirting, he has dozens of piercings, and the phrase "FUCK YOU" tattooed across his hands. On his arm, is a complex tattoo of his molesting an obvious child.

 

Now, Dr. Jesus Lover...is he able to decide not to treat the patient? In his point of view, it would be against his religion to associate with such blasphemy and he resents being FORCED to treat this patient.

 

Is he right?

 

No. Not in the least bit. When you become a licensed physician, (just like becoming a licensed pharmacy), you obligate yourself to render medical assistance in an emergency situation and this is especially so for an ER Doctor. You're absolutely correct in IT'S THE LAW, AND A DAMN GOOD ONE TOO!

 

If he did not wish to be so obligated, turn in your medical degree and be a florist.

 

Contrary to Hugo's and your ludicrous whining on this topic, there are indeed occasions when government intrusion is A DAMN GOOD THING. Obviously others thought so, because they enacted legislation AUTHORIZING it.

 

Stop whining and start politicking. You have the legal means to change things here in this country but good luck convincing the majority of Americans that regulating pharmacies and medical personnel is a bad thing.

I can't wait to see the world under wardmd and hugo... Please NO!!!

 

Need your prescription filled? No problem; well...kind of...

 

Just go to your local pharmacy, present your prescription, find out the local pharmacist or the corporation they work for, doesn't believe in dispensing your legally prescribed antibiotics because the same company also manufactures drugs to aid in healing sex reassignment surgeries, or hormone replacement, or birth control, or the Plan B pill, or whatever little trivial thing it is that gets their respective panties in a fucking wad! Hell, they may just not even like you and shouldn't have to sell medicine to you because your black or white, or Chinese or Jewish or an immigrant or poor or or or ...

 

So you have to leave and go someplace else, always to be subjected to some arbitrary and religious/bullshit scrutiny in order to obtain MEDICINE.

 

hugo & wardmd - HAVE YOU LOST YOUR FUCKING MINDS?!?!?!?

 

Obviously...

Nobody is forcing Wal-Mart to keep their pharmacies open. They can close them and surrender their pharmacy licenses at any time; it's not a problem.

 

Now...

 

Ultra Christian doctor dude is working in the ER at the local hospital. He's the only attending physician on the unit for the time being.

 

In rolls ambulance with critical gunshot patient - a skinhead full of demonic tattoos including the huge image of Jesus fucking the virgin Mary in the Ass while slitting her throat with a dagger complete with crimson blood squirting, he has dozens of piercings, and the phrase "FUCK YOU" tattooed across his hands. On his arm, is a complex tattoo of his molesting an obvious child.

 

Now, Dr. Jesus Lover...is he able to decide not to treat the patient? In his point of view, it would be against his religion to associate with such blasphemy and he resents being FORCED to treat this patient.

 

Is he right?

 

No. Not in the least bit. When you become a licensed physician, (just like becoming a licensed pharmacy), you obligate yourself to render medical assistance in an emergency situation and this is especially so for an ER Doctor. You're absolutely correct in IT'S THE LAW, AND A DAMN GOOD ONE TOO!

 

If he did not wish to be so obligated, turn in your medical degree and be a florist.

 

Contrary to Hugo's and your ludicrous whining on this topic, there are indeed occasions when government intrusion is A DAMN GOOD THING. Obviously others thought so, because they enacted legislation AUTHORIZING it.

 

Stop whining and start politicking. You have the legal means to change things here in this country but good luck convincing the majority of Americans that regulating pharmacies and medical personnel is a bad thing.

Nobody's whining here...

 

And YOUR analogy is off... NO, I doubt ANY doctor would refuse to treat ANY patient whose LIFE is in jeopardy...

 

Are YOU suggesting that NOT filling a Morning After pill prescription is the EQUIVALENT of not treating a dying patient? YOU'RE FUCKING INSANE!

 

You've got the two scenarios EXACTLY REVERSED, you moron...

 

The doctor (even a bible thumping evangelical) WOULD save the life of the sorry excuse for a human being in the E.R....

 

Filling a prescription for the Morning After pill is HARDLY saving a life, now is it? Isn't the WHOLE PURPOSE of the Morning After pill to ensure that LIFE does NOT OCCUR?

 

CES, you have, again, demonstrated what a fucking moron you are!

 

Can't you draw a REALISTIC scenario? Jesus!

 

Honestly, what's the WORST thing that can (realistically) happen, if a woman does not get the Morning After pill? She, later, gets an abortion (still legal, isn’t it?), or WORSE – a CHILD is born (Oh God, not that, how horrible!).