DU this poll- emergency contraception

[liontamer]

I'm sure it's already been posted, but CNN has a poll about Walmart, and if they should stock emergency contraception.

Since even most pro-lifers are for contraception, I'm really disturbed that the poll is 50/50 right now.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/01/walmart.contraception.ap/index.html

[yorkiemommie1]

1. done

n/t

[flamingyouth]

2. Done.

And yes, that is disturbing indeed.

[biscotti]

3. Done

[DemInDistress]

4. done,,,,and still 50/50

[Beaverhausen]

5. done

we are catching up!

[liberal N proud]

6. Yes leads by 1344 votes

[andlor]

7. done

[TallahasseeGrannie]

8. Pro-lifers

consider the morning after pill abortion.

[Maddy McCall]

11. That just shows how their extreme position is completely ridiculous.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

12. I understand how they

could feel that way, if they believe life starts at conception.

I personally get around it by saying it starts when the brain is developed. It's an issue we all need to decide FOR OURSELVES in my opinion.

I don't have a problem with a person who honest to God believes that. My problems are with the folks who SAY they believe that because under it all they want to dominate women. Wish they wore different T-shirts or something. Make it a lot easier.

[Maddy McCall]

14. It is about domination of women.

And women accept it. That's what's pitiful.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

17. I wonder if it is hormonal

or something? The desire to be taken care of, which is a platitude for domination.

I read diaries of transgendered men to women who talk about what estrogen did to their minds.

[liontamer]

51. i think everybody wants be taken care of

why else would some men want their women at home cooking and cleaning?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

69. maybe "taken care of"

is too mild a phrase, as it could include cooking, etc.

Protected? maybe?

[Beaverhausen]

16. If anti-choicers believe it is "abortion," they shouldn't take that pill

But they shouldn't make that decision for other people.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

21. That's the way I look at it, as well.

Now whether we can force a store to carry a product is another issue.

I was in a thread on this a while ago and someone mentioned that if the store accepts Medicaid they should be "forced."

That makes sense to me.

However, I am wondering whether or not Meidicaid covers emergency contraception. Gosh, I don't even know if it covers abortions.

Can anyone tell me?

[mantis49]

42. Medicaid does not cover abortion.

That's a misconception many people have.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

44. So I wonder if they would cover this medication, then?

[Maddy McCall]

67. What difference does it make to you?

Why should this matter to you? Emergency contraception isn't illegal, yet. Why shouldn't Medicaid cover it for poor women?

Is it better to deny them this easy remedy? Or should they be forced to carry the baby for six weeks, when they have to pay for the abortion out of their own pockets?

[Maddy McCall]

9. Done

[KansDem]

10. Completed

Yes 50% 72434 votes

No 50% 71090 votes
Total: 143524 votes

[UofIDem]

13. Can't do it...

If I owned a pharmacy, I certainly would stock and expect my pharmacists to provide the MAP, but I believe that Wal-Mart should sell/not sell whatever they want. If nothing else, people scorned on this will probably choose not to shop there anymore.

[Maddy McCall]

15. Do you know how many towns have only one pharmacy? Walmart.

[UofIDem]

19. That's a good point...

And perhaps for those areas where Walmart represents the only pharmacy within a reasonable radius, there should be an exception. On the other hand, seeing as how in Massachusetts this was a orchestrated stunt to put 3 women in position to file a lawsuit, and seeing as how Walmart is not the only pharmacy within a reasonable distance of anyone in Massachusetts, my argument stands, at least as far as this goes. Also, being a person who has traveled a lot, and spent some time in some fairly rural places, I find it difficult to believe that there are all that many places where Walmart is the only pharmacy. I'm not necessarily disputing it, but I've read a number of claims that there are so many places where Walmart is the only pharmacy, but no one has any facts to support it and my own anecdotal experience, suggests that such a claim might be an exaggeration.

Cheers!

[Maddy McCall]

30. NO, you admit that your argument has flaws.

Why the exception if Walmart is the only pharmacy in town?

[Atman]

24. Then that is a different regulation

That is an entirely different kettle of fish. If Wal Mart is truly the ONLY source for a necessity, then the reasons for that dominance needs to be addressed. But that doesn't mean Wal Mart should be forced to sell something. Why not demand they sell higher quality merch that doesn't break after a month? Why not demand they sell SOMETHING that isn't made in China?

Sorry...I think the complainers are off-base here.

[Maddy McCall]

28. Well, in the towns in which walmart isn't the only pharmacy...

it won't be long before it is.

You're a guy. Imagine if your whatever medicine were refused to you by your pharmacist, just because he thinks that your erectile disfunction is something that you should handle through prayer, not through the pharmacy. (Hypothetical, but you get my point, I hope.)

Imagine then that the pharmacies in your hometown that existed before Walmart came to town were all now out of business.

Imagine having to travel 50 miles to get your Viagra.

Imagine it pissing you off so badly that you decide to take a stand for other men in the same situation as you.

Walmart, whether we like it or not, is a cultural icon these days. Walmart's marketing practices affect people's views. Whether it's about women's medication or cheap Chinese-made plastic shit, we all have the right to sue, if we believe our rights have been violated.

[Atman]

35. It still isn't right to force Wal Mart to sell what you want

This is supposed to be an economy based upon free enterprise. I know there are myriad examples of FE being supressed for one reason or another, but that doesn't mean we can force a company to sell something it doesn't want to sell. Let's talk "slippery slopes." What if you like a certain brand of tampons or hemmoroid cream or whatever. If your retailer doesn't stock it, you go to the customer service desk and tell them you're a valued customer, and you'd buy from them if they'd only stock it.

I've done this at my local supermarket just because they didn't stock Starburst jellybeans. I'm serious. This isn't a case to demand government regulation...this is a case of what a retailer stocks. If Wal Mart is being a bad neighbor to certain towns, it is up to the citizens of said town to petition Wal Mart locally or at the national level, and/or take their business elsewhere. Shop online if you have a CC and internet connection. I just find it antithetical to our very economic system to force a company to stock something which it has concluded isn't a proper "fit" for it's customers, for whatever reason.

Should I demand my local ski shop stock more snowboards because my favorite brand of snowboard is only available 100 miles away? How about organic coffee? What if Wal Mart stocks only Viagra, but I demand Cialus because I have a stable of hos and need a weekend boner? WTF, people! I understand all too well the problems Wal Mart has caused for people living in remote locations. But there are proper ways to address the problem.

Maybe not allowing Wal Mart into your town in the first place is a start. But that horse is already out of the barn.

[Beaverhausen]

37. You are comparing Starburst Jellybeans to emergency contraception?

Not quite the same thing. Get a clue.

[Atman]

38. Oh for Christ's sake, get some reading comprehension!

Of course I did no such thing. Don't be a dumbass.

[Beaverhausen]

39. excuse me? I'm a dumbass?

this is what you said:

"I've done this at my local supermarket just because they didn't stock Starburst jellybeans. I'm serious. "

So you are saying women should do the same thing about stocking emergency contraception. What did I miss?

[Atman]

43. You missed the entire point, that's what you missed.

Why did you single out the Starburst Jellybeans reference instead of any of the others I mentioned? I know why...it was the easiest for you to minimize and ridicule. Unless you are a complete dumbass -- and I'm sorry, perhaps you are if you really thought I was comparing emergency contraception to Starburst Jellybeans -- you'd know what I was talking about. Re-read my post with a more critical eye. My statements were about retailing and what retailers sell, and how to redress a grievance with retailers. If you want to insist on calling it a post about jellybeans vs. emergency contraception, we have nothing to discuss.

"So you are saying women should do the same thing about stocking emergency contraception."

In fact, maybe YES. Just as I did with re: the jellybeans, if every woman shopping at Wal Mart went to the Customer Service desk with their cart full of merch -- BEFORE CHECKOUT, prepared tp leave that cart full of goods there for the stocker to put back on the shelves should they not listen -- and demanded that Wal Mart stock a product they wanted, Wal Mart would stock the product. Jellybeans or jellyfish, contraception or control top pantyhose, Wal Mart adds up the numbers and sells what will make money and please the shareholders, without pissing of and/or alienating their customer base. Sueing puts them on the defensive and in a position where they CAN'T back down without admitting wrong-doing. There are other, better ways to get your point across to a retailer, who after all, is perfectly within its right to sell nothing but seven acres of Jumbo Twinkies if the store's buyers are that stupid.

My only point was, it is not the charge of the government to tell a retailer what it must sell. I can understand telling a retailer what it cannot sell, such as dangerous or illegal goods, but how do you justify telling a retailer that it MUST sell Product X if said retailer deems that that product is not profitable, or otherwise a proper fit with its marketing strategy?

[Beaverhausen]

48. Ok- let me explain it to you

If Wal-Mart chose not to carry any or all of your examples- Snowboards, Starbursts, Cialis, certain brands of tampons, etc. - the consumer, while they may be out of luck for this weekends "activities," won't really be affected that much.

If a woman can't get emergency contraception - which is available by prescription only - and she becomes pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy her life will absolutely be affected. Many of these prescriptions are made out for women who are raped- do you think they should have to actually get pregnant and then have to get an abortion instead of merely taking a pill that will stop the pregnancy from happening in the first place?

Pharmacies are under the regulations of the state I do believe. Pills like these are very cheap and in the long run go a long way to help women who find themselves in an "emergency." Why do you think pharmacies shouldn't be made to carry them - especially if there isn't another pharmacy close by- which is the case in many parts of this country?

[Atman]

49. "Why do you think pharmacies shouldn't be made to carry them?"

Because this is supposed to be America.

This "emergency" contraception...uh...are the rape stats really that high in any given Wal Mart town to warrant such government intervention? I mean, really, think about it. Objectively. Seriously. (Now you'll attempt to come after me for trivializing rape or something, right?)

Look, I fear you're going off on a misguided tangent here. You're bitching at the wrong person. I am an avowed Wal Mart hater. I will not step foot in a Wal Mart or Sam's, and haven't for years. I actively advise the same to any and all who'll listen to me. And to many who don't want to listen.

But that changes nothing. You've chosen to focus on a couple of trivial items I mentioned. Kind of a "see the forest for the trees" type of argument. It isn't about snowboards or jellybeans or weekend conveniences.

Hmm. Weekend conveniences...that's an ironic term to use when discussing an "emergency" contraception. Again...can you supply some rape statistics in some of these small towns that would justify government intervention? Perhaps your ire would be better directed at the government, demanding that they open health clinics in these rural and underserved areas, and not demand a private company be required by statute to cover every possible contingency which might arise.

I understand what you're trying to say, I really do. I wish you'd try to understand what I'm saying, and stop doing your damndest to make it sound trivial. Are you one of the people who advocate that the government REQUIRE McDonalds to sell "healthy" food? Do you demand that the government require car makers to only sell 45 mpg Honda Civics? Do you get where I'm going with this? Where do you draw the line? When the government starts telling private retailers what they MUST sell, they're no longer private retailers. That's more akin to socialism/communism/fascism or a combination of all three. If there is a true medical emergency, there are hospitals and doctors. Go to one. Perhaps use this energy to demand that doctors who take any government money (Medicare, which almost all do) be the dispenser of this "emergency" contraception. In fact, I'd think one would be far more concerned with privacy in these cases. Privacy which a doctor is required by law to protect. I mean, who wants to run into their neighbor at the Wal Mart whilst buying some morning after pills? Seems like a doctors office is a much better place for this. And I hear even small towns have doctors!


Wal Mart is great at selling cheap Chinese DVD players and 4 lb bags of Cheetohs. But they can't/shouldn't be required to stock everything for everybody.

[Beaverhausen]

52. I do think the government should make car companies manufacture...

...cars that get 45 mpg. Because the companies can manufacture such cars, and it would be good for all of us and the planet. They should penalize them for not making all cars get that kind of mileage.
(By the way I drive a Prius.)

Do you think the government doesn't have a say in what is sold at Wal-mart? Don't they regulate the pharmacies at all? Are they allowed to sell drugs that are past their expiration date? Are they allowed to sell food that is contaminated? Children's clothes that are flammable? Toys that are proven to harm children?

I'm glad you are informed about Wal-mart but I really don't like your tone about women and "emergencies." There are plenty of reasons a woman needs the morning after pill- condoms break, BC pills are forgotten, and yes, rape happens. The case that started the MA law that this case is based on was about a 12 year old girl who was raped and became pregnant. Rape is a vastly underreported crime so any statistics would be pretty useless.

And what really scares me is that if pharmacies aren't allowed to carry this pill, they will soon stop carrying any kind of birth control. I'm afraid it is a slippery slope.

[Atman]

58. I understand everything you've said.

And I still reply: Doctors, not Wal Mart.

You're making the same kinds of trivial comparison you accused me of. No one REQUIRES Wal Mart to sell ANY pajamas. All the government says is that if you're going to sell pajamas, they must not be prone to bursting into flames and harming children. Wal Mart is not REQUIRED to sell food, but if they do, they must adhere to the same laws as other food retailers.

You are advocating something entirely different...REQUIRING Wal Mart to sell a certain product, not simply requiring Wal Mart to make sure that product is safe.

I knew you'd try to hit me on the rape issue. It's an easy target. Easy to try and make me out to be the villain. I'm just amazed that ANYONE would advocate making Wal Mart, of all places, the "first responder" in a rape case. Maybe you should require Wal Mart to have a full-time doctor on Aisle 3, in Health & Beauty?

Oh, and btw...about your car. Good for you. But still you missed it. The government may well REQUIRE certain mileage out of certain cars. But do you advocate that the government require your local Toyota dealer to sell ONLY Priuses? Is that what you're saying?

[Beaverhausen]

60. I have to run but first...

Pharmacies sell medications. Wal-Mart pharmacies have to adhere to the state regulations about their medications and I stand on the side of requiring that they carry and sell the emergency pill. If they still want pharmacies in their stores, they would have to carry certain mandated products. If that sounds too fascist well...then I'm a feminazi.

If ALL cars are required to get 45 mpg- what else would a car dealer sell? There were laws proposed for that very thing but of course the repukes didn't pass them.

[Atman]

63. Moved to the end of the thread...

sorry...didn't belong here.

[Occulus]

25. goes to corporate personhood

Ifg we revoked their personhood, we could require them to stock it, or shut down.

I personally would very very much love to be able to tell corporations what they will and will not do, what they will and will not sell, what they may fire people for, where they may advertise, what content that advertising may or may not have....

....in short, I am for the end of corporate personhood, the revocation of ALL "rights" claimed by that status, and the relegation of corporations to subordinates of the public will.

Corporations are not human, and do not deserve ANY of the rights thereof. And yes, that's an absolutist position, and I stand by it.

[Maddy McCall]

29. No, it goes toward a huge corporation bullying women...

not just in their reproductive choices, but also in the ways it takes advantage of the many women who work there, and in the glass ceiling it enforces in promotions.

I'm glad to see that women who need medicine, and women who have worked at walmart, are taking it to task for the way it neglects and mistreats women.

[liontamer]

45. what if a pharmacy didn't want to stock Prozac?

A lot of people have strong beliefs about the use of the drug, but should a pharmacy decide that even if someone's doctor decided they needed it they shouldn't get it?

[OzarkDem]

62. Welcome to DU

[wicket]

18. Done

And bless these women for doing this.

[Crunchy Frog]

20. Done. n/t

[Atman]

22. Sorry, I don't agree.

Wal Mart, as much as I hate them, is a retailer.

If you own a shop called I HATE BUSH GEAR, should you be FORCED to sell I LOVE BUSH hats just to be "fair?"

Wal Mart is a retailer. They can sell anything they want. If you don't like their choices, TELL THEM, and don't shop there. But don't demand the government tell them what to sell. That is bullshit.

[Beaverhausen]

23. Don't pharmacies have to be licensed by the state?

There are regulations that they must follow. This isn't just a retailer deciding what they should or shouldn't carry.

[liontamer]

46. there's a difference between political t shirts and medicine

Should a pharmacist be allowed to call itself a pharmacy if it refuses to carry something like insulin?

[Atman]

50. Why would a pharmacy refuse to carry insulin?

You're really reaching here. If you subscribe to a belief system which says your diabetes cannot be treated by drugs, you're probably not going to be splitting hairs over Wal Mart's morning after pills.

[liontamer]

55. A pharmacy could refuse to carry insulin for a lot of reasons:

1) Insulin isn't profitable. I'm a business, I lose money on insulin therefore I won't carry it.

2)If I carry insulin, that means I'm supposed to carry syringes, that leaves me a target for drug users and I don't want that risk.

3) Insulin use can be dangerous, I don't want to risk lawsuits so I won't carry it

4)Insulin can be used to commit suicide, I don't want to carry it

5) I disagree with the use of a drug to treat a chronic illness. Insulin use doesn't cure anything and only acts a crutch to keep patients from treating their diabetes some other way (diet, excersise, prayer etc) I don't want to to carry it.

6)I'm morally opposed to the process by which we get insulin. I don't want to carry it

7)I think the use of insulin is immoral. Plain and simple, I don't want to carry it.

Do you really think that walmart would be allowed to not carry insulin?

[Atman]

61. Except for that those are totally bogus arguments

Sure, you said COULD refuse to carry insulin. Then you made stuff up.

Provide REAL examples of why they wouldn't carry a very real, widely used drug. Many of your examples could be used in regards to everything from tampons (toxic shock!) to notebook paper (who can make money on a $1.29 price point...and oh those paper cuts!), to disposable razors (suicide, you know).

Now, get serious.

[liontamer]

64. you might think they're bogus

but they're arguments people give for not selling a lot of things. My point is that when you apply it to insulin all of a sudden they are "bogus". And I think they are equally ridiculous for any medicine.

[Eugene]

26. Done - 51% Yes

Should Wal-Mart be required to stock the "morning after pill"?

Yes 51% 72551 votes
No 49% 71105 votes

Total: 143656 votes

[Misskittycat]

27. Done n/t

[Mr_Spock]

31. Another reason WalMart MUST be put out of business ASAP

These people think they can make moral decisions that placate the RW morons who shop there?

BOYCOTT WALMART!!!!

[Maddy McCall]

32. It is about moral decisions--and the effect is that...

Walmart gives legitimacy to the pro-lifers who think that life begins after the man goes "UNGHHH!"

[davidinalameda]

33. done

Should Wal-Mart be required to stock the "morning after pill"?

Yes 51% 72631 votes

No 49% 71174 votes
Total: 143805 votes

[AtomicKitten]

34. done - 50/50 now

How could anyone say no?

The audacity of some in imposing their narrow views on the rest of us.

[McCamy Taylor]

36. Solution is give doctors right to sell Rx's. Pharmacies would go crazy.

If the rationale for the new law that allowed doctors to cut into pharmacies' business was that pharmacies were refusing to carry the medications that doctors were prescribing, all of a sudden, pharmacies would stock EVERYTHING. Because doctors would set up pharmacies with birth control pills, heart pills, the works, drive Walmart pharmacy out of business.

So, people who are in states that will not protect women's right to get emergency contraception or other prescribed medication (like methotrexate for your rheumatoid arthritis) consider talking to the state medical society about a bill that would allow doctors to sell medications in their office, on the grounds that they can not practice good quality medicine unless pharmacists are REQUIRED to stock and fill medications.

Watch pharmacy chains change their tunes.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. You are incorrect. Most "pro-lifers" are opposed to contraception as well.

Most 'pro-life' groups in the U.S. are opposed to ALL forms of contraception, certainly to oral contraceptives (the pill) which they widely regard as another form of abortion. The HLA plank as included in the Republican Party Platform for the past several decades would CLEARLY (according to John Ashcroft, among others) criminalize the birth control pill and make it a 'controlled substance'. Likewise the IUD, which could lead to women with IUDs being prosecuted for 'carrying a concealed murder weapon'.

It's no accident that they've got Griswold v. Connecticut in their sights just as much as Roe... The lie is that these Theocratic fascists are somehow 'reasonable' - they're NOT. They want ALL birth control criminalized, and clearly (judging by the foaming-at-the-mouth speech about "nuremberg trials for feminists" given by the leader of this year's DC "march for life") they also intend to prosecute women who have abortions, use birth control, and probably just about anyone else who commits violations of their whacked-out version of "Biblical law".

No, the scary thing is, these folks are totally serious- and they're pretty close to having the power to implement their fucked up agenda.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. The answer to this is to have ALL OF IT- Plan B, the Pill- available OTC.

Sell 'em at the 7-11. Then it wouldn't matter if the one pharmacy in 200 miles doesn't want to stock 'em.

[Sparkman]

47. 51 yes

[rodeodance]

53. but they call it an abortion pill!

.Since even most pro-lifers are for contraception,

[liontamer]

56. only recently

the "morning after pill" is the exact same as regular birth control pills, just administered differently.

[rodeodance]

54. 73026 votes 51% yes

[chaz4jazz]

57. I voted YES

[OneAngryDemocrat]

59. www.shockedandawful.com

Should Wal-Mart be required to stock the "morning after pill"?

Yes 51% 73079 votes

No 49% 71494 votes

Total: 144573 votes

Visit my anti-war website, www.shockedandawful.com

[Atman]

65. Stop relying on Wal Mart

Here is the enemy, and why people are even discussing requiring Wal Mart to carry products it doesn't want to carry...because our government has failed the people.

Stop bitching about Wal Mart, and focus those energies where they're needed...

---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x340198

[imperial jedi]

66. done

n/t

[Vidar]

68. done 51 % yes

[TBreeze]

70. Done. n/t