Is WalMart discriminating against women?

[Jerry]

The MAP is a voluntary medication, much like any other supposedly over the counter medication or pill. Antibiotics are not. You are trying to blur the line between necessary and convenient.

What sort of medications must be distributed by all pharmacists, and what sort are optional?

 

[FallingPianos]

If map is a "normally perscribed medication", then all pharmacies, public and privet, must sell it. The current lawsuit is over rather map is a "normally proscribed medication".

I'm not trying to debate about what the law currently is, or about how it should be interpretted. I'm trying to debate about what the law should be.

 

[Jerry]

Wal-Mart to carry Plan B contraception.

Retailer's pharmacies currently only carry the product in 2 states -- Illinois and Massachusetts -- as mandated by law.
March 3, 2006: 4:55 PM EST


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - In a major turnaround, Wal-Mart will begin stocking Plan B contraceptives -- commonly referred to as the "morning-after pill" -- at all of its pharmacies, the company said Friday.

"We expected more states to require us to sell emergency contraceptives in the months ahead," said Ron Chumiuk, vice president of Pharmacy for Wal-Mart, in a statement.

"Because of this, and the fact that this is an FDA-approved product, we feel it is difficult to justify being the country's only major pharmacy chain not selling it."

Wal-Mart pharmacies in Massachusetts were required to carry emergency contraception pills after the state's pharmacy board ruled in February in favor of three women who filed complaints against the retailer.

The company said it will maintain its policy, which lets employees who don't feel comfortable dispensing a prescription to refer customers to another pharmacist or pharmacy.

So now Walmart will not only carry the map where legally mandated, but in ALL of it's pharmacies.

And now you know.........the rest of the story.

 

[tryreading]

Wal-Mart to carry Plan B contraception.

So now Walmart will not only carry the map where legally mandated, but in ALL of it's pharmacies.

And now you know.........the rest of the story.

Thank you Walmart for ruining my thread! Target is better than you anyway!

 

[steen]

The MAP is a voluntary medication, much like any other supposedly over the counter medication or pill.

Your ignorance is showing. It is a prescription medication, not OTC.

Antibiotics are not.

It is as 'voluntary" as the MAP.

You are trying to blur the line between necessary and convenient.

Ah, and pain pills are convenient, but not necessary, as you don't die from such pain. Guess we should stop selling it, right? That's an inanely ignorant argument.

 

[Stinger]

"take" is a use. So is taking blood, f.ex., a process you recuperate from much faster than being pregnant.

But what it comes down to here is that you support the woman being forced to give of her bodily resources against her will, but you hypocritically don't want that same duty foisted on you.

You are eager to assign duties to others that you refuse to take yourself. Yup, hypocrisy.

And by your justification a woman can abort her 8 month 29 day 23 hour, 59 minute old fetus simply because she chooses to no longer want it to "use her body"?

The womans choice of will was when she decided to engage in intercourse. She created that life and placed it in the position to have use her body, if you put someone in such a position the isn't it is a reasonable view that that person can have a claim to that use of your body.

 

[tryreading]

And by your justification a woman can abort her 8 month 29 day 23 hour, 59 minute old fetus simply because she chooses to no longer want it to "use her body"?

The number of late term abortions per year is in the hundreds. So how many of them occur at the last probable day of pregnancy? You've used an extremely rare, maybe non-extistent example. An abortion at that stage may be legal, to protect the life of the woman, but I have never heard of an example of it.

 

[steen]

And by your justification a woman can abort her 8 month 29 day 23 hour, 59 minute old fetus simply because she chooses to no longer want it to "use her body"?

At that time, the termination of the use of her bodily resources would be done through simple induction, which would result in a live birth 1 minute early. So?

The womans choice of will was when she decided to engage in intercourse.

Utter nonsense, as consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. never mind how many times pro-lifers keep spewing that falsehood, it remains a falsehood.

She created that life and placed it in the position to have use her body,

Like the smoker puts the tumor in the position of having to use their lungs for growth.

if you put someone in such a position the isn't it is a reasonable view that that person can have a claim to that use of your body.

There is no "someone," there is no "person," there is non-sentient, non-sensate tissue, your anthropomorphizing none withstanding.

 

[Jerry]

There is no "someone," there is no "person," there is non-sentient, non-sensate tissue, your anthropomorphizing none withstanding.

That is, of-coarse, where pro life disagrees with pro choice. No need to villainies anyone, steen. Just agree to disagree, exchange ideas, and life goes on.

Ultimately, no one here on either side gets to have a say when it comes to Roe-v-Wade, so I don't really see a point in getting all worked up about it.