« Regarding Emergency Contraception... | Main | Speaking Of Going To The Pharmacy... »

April 19, 2005

More On Pharmacists Discriminating Against Women

Jaye Ramsey Sutter at BlondeSense is pissed about the entire issue of pharmacists being permitted to discriminate against women by refusing to fill their birth control prescriptions and refusing to dispense drugs related to abortion. This is a sampling of the anger.

At current rates, about one in three American women will have had an abortion by the time she reaches age 45. Where the hell are these women and why aren't they in the streets over this issue? You got yours, do you care if anyone else can have one?

Do pharmacists mourn for the fertilized egg that my uterus may shed without my being aware that I was pregnant?

These pharmacies that won't carry the morning after pill and or fill prescriptions for birth control pills--do they have ads for Viagra? Do they care those "male enhancement" drugs? Do they allow men with criminal records for rape and sexual assault purchase those insurance covered drugs? If women must be pregnant, men who rape their wives, girlfriends, and strangers must not be allowed to purchase drugs that enable them to use their penis to rape. Why aren't pharmacist working to stop rape? Why aren't they as angry about rape as I am?

How much longer are we going to allow our right to control our bodies slip from our grasp? What have you done today to fight this violence you and other women? Boycott those stores that won't stock or won't fill prescriptions. It is the store that is hiding behind the pharmacist's so-called conscious. What if the pharmacist refused to fill black people's prescriptions? They would violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The pharmacist could not refuse to serve black people so they would be fired. So why not sue the pharmacies and the pharmacist for violating women's civil rights by refusing service to her?

If these pharmacies won't carry birth control for women, demand that they stop carrying condoms, too. Demand that they stop carrying Viagra. That way cheating men will impregnate their mistresses and we can all go down to the court house and argue about the child support for these unwanted children.

Do you really want Hell-Mart to ensure unwanted pregnancies? Do you really want them to make your choice for you?

NARAL includes a protest letter on its web site. It is aimed at the following pharmacies whose policies permit pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions:

CVS Pharmacies
Eckerd Pharmacies
RiteAid Pharmacies
Wal-Mart Pharmacies
Walgreens Pharmacies

Go there and make your displeasure known now. Discrimination against women must stop.

Posted on April 19, 2005 at 07:40 AM | Permalink

Comments

Trish- that article is the most outstanding piece of gibberish. How can this lady expect pharmacists to carry out criminal records checks? How can she compare condoms and morning-after pills? She is nuts. I thought better of you.

Posted by: Steve at Apr 19, 2005 10:10:50 AM

She's perfectly entitled to do so because that's what these pharmacists are doing. They don't know shit about the women they're denying medication to but that doesn't stop them from denying it. At the same time, they assume that all the men they serve are totally Godly and perfect.

Posted by: ginmar at Apr 19, 2005 11:08:47 AM

Ginmar- you are just being silly.
What do you want next? Check if someone is a poisoner before selling them aspirin in case they bung the whole lot in the punch? Stop Wall-Mart selling kitchen knifes in case Mrs Bobbit is in a bad mood this week?
Distinguish (a)products which in themselves are morally inoffensive, but may be misused because of, for instance, the motives of the user; (b) products which by their normal use may be deemed morally offensive: such as the morning-after pill.
You can either like or dislike abortion but you need to compare like with like in discussing the issue.

Posted by: Steve at Apr 19, 2005 12:08:24 PM

"(a)products which in themselves are morally inoffensive, but may be misused because of, for instance, the motives of the user; (b) products which by their normal use may be deemed morally offensive: such as the morning-after pill."

Yes Steve, you very cunningly put the 'morning after' pill in as the prescription being denied...but in fact it was not JUST the morning after pill, but birth control pills as well...which are equivalent to condoms in their uses...

Again this is right back to the many control issues men have regarding womens' uteruses...why are you always trying to poke your nose into them....it's disgusting really...

Stop it...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 19, 2005 12:20:06 PM

"Morally offensive"? Of course, the question is, by whose standards?
And, where's the freedom from religion referred to in the Constitution by the protections against both discrimination and the separation of Church and State? Has Wal-mart become a State yet? If not, as it's happening, Wal-mart may just as well become the 51st State. Ugggghhh.

Posted by: blogbabe at Apr 19, 2005 1:04:04 PM

"Morally offensive"? Of course, the question is, by whose standards?
And, where's the freedom from religion referred to in the Constitution by the protections against both discrimination and the separation of Church and State? Has Wal-mart become a State yet? If not, as it's happening, Wal-mart may just as well become the 51st State. Ugggghhh.

BTW, if this posts twice, it's the site that is causing it. The first time I try to post, it shows up as not being posted. It's only after the second attempt to post, that sometimes both attempts show up as posted.

Posted by: blogbabe at Apr 19, 2005 1:09:11 PM

Btw, as it stands now, I refuse to shop at Wal-mart. If all women who oppose Wal-mart's practices choose not to shop there, perhaps it could cause Wal-mart to think more clearly about their policies and the need for their customers.

Posted by: blogbabe at Apr 19, 2005 1:09:56 PM

Most Wal-Marts sell guns. How long would a sales clerk who refused to sell guns keep his or her job? You know my guess....

Posted by: Fred Vincy at Apr 19, 2005 5:03:05 PM

Fred, I don't understand your post. One situation is employees refusing to sell birth control based on the policy of the store. The other situation would be an employee refusing to sell something the store does want to sell (guns). How do those 2 scenarios equate?

Posted by: blogbabe at Apr 19, 2005 5:23:57 PM

Well, if they are going to pass judgement on women, then they should assume outright that all men using Viagra are doing so to fornicate, rape, or commit adultery.

Posted by: Amanda at Apr 19, 2005 5:49:35 PM

Yeah, and kill their pregnant wives, like Scott Petersen. (just a joke). :)

Posted by: blogbabe at Apr 19, 2005 6:06:36 PM

Blogbabe,

Here is Wal-Mart's policy:

"Wal-Mart does not carry emergency contraceptives. Our pharmacists may
decline to fill a prescription based on personal convictions."

Wal-Mart does carry ordinary contraceptives, so the situations are analogous. Would Wal-Mart respect an employee's "personal convictions" against selling guns to the same extent as "personal convictions" against selling contraceptives? I strongly suspect the answer is "no", but if it is "yes" I would acknowledge that Wal-Mart was at least being consistent.

Posted by: Fred Vincy at Apr 19, 2005 6:06:59 PM

Thanks for the list of pharmacy chains allowing this assinine practice. As a woman, I cannot in clear conscience give any of my business to a pharmacy with these practices. Have any chains made a statement in favor of women's rights? I'd like to know who to take my money to in the future.

Posted by: Terry at Apr 19, 2005 6:51:37 PM

Terry, I don't know if the other chains have made statements, but Wal-Mart's statement shows it will continue to discriminate against women. Of course, Wal-Mart already has a reputation for doing that.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 19, 2005 7:16:16 PM

Here's the reasoning these pharmacists are using: I think it's an abortion, but there's no scientific evidence that it actually is, I just have this belief that it is therefore I should exercise my conscious not to dispense the medicine. Something is wrong here. Conscientious objection to wars I could understand. I think war is wrong, I could get killed, and I'm not denying anyone their rights to go to war if they want. But objection to legal medicine, something that doesn't directly impact your life, but curtails the rights of someone else seems just plain wrong. Additionally If they can refuse medicine on something so vague, why can't I deny medicine for any reason and claim it violates my moral convictions? It's the same as Jehovah's witnesses denying their children blood transfusions based on their nutty beliefs. This has nothing to do with these people being free to practice their religious beliefs. If they personally were being forced to take deprovera shots that would be different. You can't have a right that infringes on the rights of others. These fundies are wrong and they should be forced by law to fill any legal prescription a doctor writes, period.

Posted by: PO'd at May 13, 2005 12:44:09 AM