Target's response to my letter

[graywarrior]

Target is extremely disappointed that Planned Parenthood is spreading misleading information about an alleged incident at a Target pharmacy in Missouri and our policies on emergency contraception. The accounts being reported are inaccurate and exaggerated. Our policy is comparable to that of many other national retailers and the recommendations of the American Pharmacists Association.

Target consistently ensures that prescriptions for emergency contraception are filled. As an Equal Opportunity Employer, we also are legally required to accommodate our team members’ sincerely held religious beliefs as required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the unusual event that a Target pharmacist’s sincerely held religious beliefs conflict with filling a guest’s prescription for emergency contraception, Target policy requires our pharmacists to take responsibility for ensuring that the guest’s prescription is filled in a timely and respectful manner. If it is not done in this manner, disciplinary action will be taken.

Target abides by all state and local laws and, in the event that other laws conflict with our policy, we will follow the law.

We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our position and correct misinformation.

Sincerely,


Jennifer Hanson
Target Executive Offices

[nickinSTL]

1. hope this is true...

as I shop at Target frequently...

but, it does make me wonder what planned parenthood was talking about

[Zenlitened]

2. A timely and respectful manner?

Uh, that would be: mind your own business and fill the prescription now.

:grr:

[napi21]

3. Is this part really true?

"As an Equal Opportunity Employer, we also are legally required to accommodate our team members’ sincerely held religious beliefs as required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

I thought I understood Title VII and I don't recall it referring to any religious beliefs?????

[Xithras]

40. Title VII has always protected religion.

If a Christian refuses to hire a Muslim because of his religion, that Muslim has a major civil rights suit on his hands. Of course, if an atheist refuses to hire a Christian because he thinks religion is stupid, he has a heck of a civil rights suit as well.

Here's where things get sticky: Under the terms of Title VII, employers are required to make reasonable accommodation to accede to a persons protected status. In the case of religion, this means that they can't be fired for their religious beliefs, and that you can't force them to do things that violate those religious beliefs.

The question, which typically gets answered by the courts, is this: What is "reasonable" accommodation? Could McDonald's refuse to hire a Hindu? Surprisingly, the answer is NO. There are plenty of jobs that Hindu's can do which don't require touching beef...from cleaning the tables and windows, to washing dishes, to running the registers. Staff duties at a place like McDonald's are "as assigned", so exempting them from one part of that job duty is legally recognized as a reasonable accommodation.

Now, if a Hindu applied to a beef slaughterhouse as a butcher, they would NOT have to accommodate him because those accommodations would prevent him from doing any part of the job he was hired for.

Pharmacists, despite the protestations of people on this board, probably are protected under Title VII. Why? Because the reasonable accommodation in this case is simply not handing out one or two drugs. If a pharmacy has 1000 different drugs in stock, penalizing or terminating employees because they can only prescribe 998 of them probably WOULDN'T be described as reasonable accommodation, and the pharmacy would be facing a major suit if they fired someone in that circumstance.

Legally, Target is probably right. That doesn't make them actually right, but legally they're on firm ground. Religious people are a protected class, pregnant people are not. When balancing their federal responsibilities with their desire to serve their customers, federal responsibilities win. A pharmacist can do a direct legal cite to show why they shouldn't be forced to provide the pills. Pregnant women, on the other hand, have no such legal protections.

[jmowreader]

63. This occurs to me...

What's a Target pharmacist make? Fifteen an hour?

Consider this: if a pharmacist applied to Target and was hired, then admitted that her religious beliefs prevent her from dispensing Plan B or contraceptives because these products promote promiscuity and murder the unborn, what would prevent Target from leaving this associate on the pharmacist pay scale but moving her to a different department?

Target, Wal-Mart and Kmart have an advantage very few other providers of prescription drugs enjoy: those stores are large enough and employ enough people that they can reasonably accommodate fundamentalist pharmacists by getting them out of the pharmacy.

[Sgent]

83. Uhh no

Phaarmacists usually make 60-80K a year. That comes out to quite a bit more than 15/hr. They will make more in larger cities as well. In addition, those who work late nights make additional amounts on top of that.

[wildeyed]

4. I don't see how filling a prescription for contraceptives can violate

employee's religious beliefs. No one is forcing the employee to TAKE the contraceptives. And if a Hindu employee at McD's decided that serving and handling meat violated their religious beliefs, wouldn't they be out of a job? I doubt there would be any talk of civil rights in that situation.

[CoffeeCat]

6. Excellent point! Your analogy clarifies the real issues very well! (nt)

[ProdigalJunkMail]

11. the thinking goes something like this

you cannot force an OB/GYN to perform an abortion...can't do it...period. Forcing a pharmacist to provide a means by which an abortion is accomplished is along the same vein...

subjektProdigal

[Beaverhausen]

13. Emergency contraception is not the same as an abortion

get your facts straight. Please stop quoting right wing propaganda.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

15. emergency contraception (to my knowledge)

is designed to prevent a fertilized egg from emplanting on the uterus...is that not right? It is not designed to stop ovulation...nor is it designed to kill sperm.

subjektProdigal

[Beaverhausen]

18. Yes, and that is not the same as an abortion

an unimplanted egg does not a pregnancy make.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

19. to someone who believes that life begins at conception it is

and that is a purely religious belief. So who are we to say their belief is wrong and ours is right. They believe as they believe and forcing them to participate in something that is abominable to them is disgusting...

subjektProdigal

OnEdit : my facts are straight...it is your perception of someone's beliefs that are the problem here

[MountainLaurel]

28. If they're that ignorant about science and medicine

They SHOULD NOT be working in a medical field.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

31. when does life begin? aye? can you definitively answer that question?

if not, then you cannot say when this is acceptable. If you CAN answer that, then there are some scientists AND philosophers that would love to talk to you...

People here scream about these fundies making moral judgments...and yet you are making judgments of them just the same...hmmmm

subjektProdigal

[NYC Liberal]

86. Difference: WE don't force OUR morals on THEM.

OUR view does not force them to go along with what we think. OUR view gives everybody a CHOICE what to do or not do. THEIR view forces everyone to adhere to their moral standard.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

140. forcing them to provide the means for a termination

IS forcing your view on them...like it or not...I suppose the only people that are allowed to have their views respected are ones that agree with you???

subjektProdigal

[gkhouston]

141. bullshit. No one is forcing them to *use* the pill and no one is

forcing them to administer the pill. This is not analogous to an abortion. The pharmacist is not taking direct action to terminate a confirmed pregnancy. All the pharmacist does here is sell pills. At the time of sale, he doesn't know whether the woman intends to take the pills right away or whether she's merely getting the prescription in case she needs them in the future. Even if she intends to take the pills right away, the pharmacist doesn't know whether she actually has a fertilized egg inside her, much less whether that egg will result in a successful pregnancy, yet by refusing to sell the pills, he/she has substituted his/her personal views for his medical training and decided that she is pregnant and it will be a living baby and he/she is committing murder. That's irrational bullshit and I don't respect it. Any pharmacist who is so pathologically concerned about life that they're worried they might be "murdering" an unimplanted egg when a woman asks for Plan B meds would be better off devoting his/her time to the living, breathing people who are already starving on this planet -- but maybe that's not as gratifying as the false feeling that you've "saved" one of the unborn.

[JerseygirlCT]

46. They are entitled to hold their beliefs

They are not entitled to force theirs on someone else.

Still goes back to the same -- no one is asking them to take the medication. As a pharmacist, their job is to fill prescriptions -- whic are the result of private medical decisions made between a doctor and a patient. In other words NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

They cannot know, nor are they entitled to know, what the medication is to be used for. No one should have to clear medical decisions with a pharmacist. If they cannot fill prescriptions and serve their clients, they need another line of work, period.

[hiaasenrocks]

51. Or Target shouldn't carry the product.

Problem solved.

[JerseygirlCT]

139. Not really

a pharmacy customer ought to be able to expect that the pharmacy carries a full range of regular medications.

Again, what the medication is to be used for is the business of the doctor and the patient. Not the pharmacist.

[electron_blue]

57. So do you support pharmacists who do not want to give bcp's

because that is abominable to them?

[insane_cratic_gal]

24. Again.. not abortion

your basically say that rubbers, birth control pills, pulling out all forms of abortion.

No they are all forms of Birth Control.. been legal and used for centuries.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

26. not what I am saying at all...

it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting...and to some people, like it or not, a fertlized egg is no longer just a thing...it is a person...some people believe that...and they may not like the idea of killing said person...

subjektProdigal

[insane_cratic_gal]

34. But does it make it right

to enforce and punish those who don't believe that?

When your refusing to fill a legal prescription, in the same respect you are enforcing your religious objection upon a person. If no one is coming in until 2pm that can fill it.. and you have a rape victim standing in front of you.. and it's 9 am.. what on earth do you say? Sorry Lady I think you should be forced to potentially carry a child born of rape?

I realize your pointing out the other side of the arguments, but the same argument can be used in reverse..

I strongly believe "they" (those with very pro life agendas) should never be scheduled alone so they are put in the position of refusal. The person getting the prescription should never even know there was an objection .. discretion.. Doctors have it, it should be extended to the entire medical field( and generally is). You shouldn't be allowed to nail your religious beliefs home at the expense of the person who's just there to get their meds.

I still think a chain of stores catering to that belief system should be opened up. Be it Walgreen's or whatever, this is simply not acceptable means of doing business.

[JerseygirlCT]

47. Fertilized eggs fail to implant all the time

for all sorts of reasons.

Are women everywhere guilty of manslaughter according to those terms?

Holding scientifically iffy beliefs does not in any way grant them the right to hold other people's choices captive to those beliefs.

Don't believe in any kind of chemical birth control? Fine, don't use it. That's the extent of one's choice in the matter.

[Xithras]

41. I know a pharmacist right now who won't hand out condoms.

The guy is very religious and he works for WalGreens. He won't even tell you where they're at...if you walk up to the pharmacy and ask him, he'll reply "We don't have them back here, they're out on the shelves somewhere". He does this because his religious beliefs dictate that God decides when we should and shouldn't get pregnant, and that condoms interfere with God's will. By handing out a condom, or even by telling people where they're at, he's participating in the thwarting of God's will which is sinful.

How do they get around that? He's not the only pharmacist there. When someone needs a birth control prescription filled, or an emergency contraceptive, the other pharmacist fills the request. Likewise, when someone asks where the condoms are, it's typically one of the other employees who answers. His fellow employees are aware of his beliefs and accomodate them.

He's Muslim, by the way.

[insane_cratic_gal]

42. by giving someone heart meds

is he not interfering with gods will? didn't go intend for that person to have a heart disease? Or the next person to have diabetes? What about bad medicine? Pain killers?, addictive substances? FDA half ass-ed approved meds that end up in liver failure and death.

That is how I deal with it, you can't be a hypocrite.. if your afraid of interfering with life and death issues by handing out pills, you shouldn't be handing out pills.

Why do they only care what is going in or out of my body when it's baby related? =p

[Xithras]

45. I'm not commenting on how valid or invalid his religious beliefs may be.

His religion says it's his duty not to end life, and it's his duty to help others live, so I'm sure that's how he reconciles it. How he deals with the need to hand out an abortificant to end a life threatening pregnancy is between him and his Imam.

By the way, your theory has made it all the way to the Supreme Court before, and they disagreed with your assessment.

Just last year there was a case where a cop was fired because he refused to patrol around a casino. The cop was fired with the excuse that if his religion banned certain activities needed for the job, then he needed to find a different job. The case went to the Supreme Court and the officer won...he's now quite wealthy at taxpayers expense.

It's not enough to say "Hey, these are the requirements of the job". If you can make reasonable accomodations to allow for the special needs of a person in a protected class, you're legally required to do so. Religious beliefs are protected under Title VII, so unless you can show that those beliefs make them incapable of performing any part of the job, you have no choice but to hire and accomodate them.

[insane_cratic_gal]

21. Correct, however

Look at this way.. I'm not walking into the door of OB/BYN's office that offers the procedure yet can deny you the procedure. I'd walk into a clinic I know performs the procedure. I'm NOT being blind sided. And this is regards to a dose of birth control pills that prevent an egg and swimmy tadpole from meeting and implanting. It's your period on steroids. Not a medical procedure that is much more traumatic and personal.

We are talking about a drug store that dispenses drugs of all varieties. How is fair for me to be refused birth control.. because someone decides they have a moral objection and sits their and tells me to my face? Isn't that religious discrimination not protection? When me the buyer, is refused a service that is LEGAL prescription given to me by my doctor because of moral objection to a performance of a drug?
If that's case don't allow Scientologist to be pharmacist, they'll refuse to fill all antidepressants and it will be morally acceptable?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

25. I can agree on those points...the policy should be made clear up front

if certain perscriptions may not be filled. But forcing someone to participate in what they view as the killing of another human being (and yes, that is what they see it as if they are being true to their objection) is not ok.

subjektProdigal

[Beaverhausen]

29. It's a legal medical prescription. If a pharmacist "can't" fill it...

...he needs to find another profession.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

32. so, an OB/GYN should stop their profession if they don't wish

to perform abortions? Same logic...

subjektProdigal

[Beaverhausen]

35. If they won't perform a legal medical procedure why would they want to

be in the medical profession?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

36. because they might love side of that profession

which involves delivering babies and operating on women with ovarian cancer that would otherwise die...

just maybe...

subjektProdigal

[Beaverhausen]

37. sorry...it doesn't work that way

Can you say to your employer..."hey, I like to do a, b, anc c here but not x,y, and z so I'm just not going to do it. Get someone else to."

[ProdigalJunkMail]

38. actually it can work that way

and in many cases does...if the employer upholds your right to your religious beliefs then i certainly can happen that way. It is up to the employer and if the employer takes action against you for it...well, the lawsuits are there...

subjektProdigal

[insane_cratic_gal]

39. OB/GYN's who refuse

procedures usually do not work at a clinic, nor is the procedure don't right there in the office with the duck bills.

It's usually done in a separate facility, with a referral given by the refusing OB/GYN, never is the word against my religion used.. more like Subtle.. "It's not my area of expertise."

I've never met an OB/GYN that was against a woman's right to choose.

[DefenseLawyer]

56. The question is

whether or not allowing the employee to refuse to perform his job on religious grounds is necessary as a reasonable accommodation of his religion. No, you can't force an OB/GYN to perform an abortion, but if the OB/GYN was hired at a women's clinic where that was his or her primary duty, would it be a reasonable accommodation to keep him or her on the payroll if he or she said "I found the lord and I won't perform my job anymore"? What if you hired a bartender who refused to serve drinks on religious grounds? These are fact sensitive, as all such cases are, but it doesn't seem cut and dried to me that filling valid prescriptions, not just the ones you feel like, isn't a necessary part of the job that would overcome a discrimination claim.

[northzax]

84. ahh, but your analogy breaksdown

on the point that emergency contraception is only a tiny part of a pharmacists job, you can't really compare it to an OB/GYN at a woman's health clinic that offers abortion as a major part of their operations. it's more comparable to an OB/GYN taking a job at a hospital where 99 percent of the job is delivering babies, and once or twice a year there is an abortion to be performed. As long as they are upfront with restrictions, AND the employer makes accomodations to handle emergencies with the lowest possible level of inconvenience to the patient. Target has an obligation to fill an emergency scrip in a timely manner, the individual does not. If that means that two pharmacists need to be on duty when that one is, then so be it, it's Target's job to make that possible.

This needs to be stated, in advance, by the employee in question, not at the point of obligation. If I tell my employer I need a religious holidar, for instance, I don"t just call in that morning and claim it, I tell them, in writing, in advance so they can prepare.

[DefenseLawyer]

126. There's the question really.

Filling emergency contraceptive prescriptions is a small part of the pharmacist's job, but it is a component of his primary job, that of filling valid prescriptions, not a separate and distinct task. While delivering babies and performing abortions are distinct tasks, I would argue that filling valid prescriptions is ONE task, that the act of filling each particular prescription isn't a separate job. Can one perform the job if he refuses to fill certain prescriptions that he has arbitrarily determined he will not fill? By your argument it is the percentage of prescriptions that he refuses to fill that makes the difference. So another guy who refuses to fill any prescription that contains opiates (presumably a larger percentage)would get less protection? Or if a pharmacy was the only one to carry emergency contraceptives within a large geographical area, the percentage of such prescriptions there might be a larger percentage of their total. Would that change the analysis?

[northzax]

133. I've already stated that it is the responsibility of the pharmacy

especially one owned by a public corporation like target, to make accomodations so that no customers are inconvenienced or denied access to scrips because of a pharmacists' religious beliefs.

a privately owned pharmacy can make it's own decisions about what to carry on hand, right? I agree with that.

[DefenseLawyer]

136. The bottom line is

whether or not Target is full of it when they say they have no choice but to allow their pharmacists to refuse service when the refusal is based on "religious grounds". That seems to me the gist of the letter: "We agree with you but the law ties our hands". I just don't think it does. Of course they could do all kinds of things to accommodate everyone, but I don't think they would violate the Civil Rights act by firing the pharmacist if they wanted to. In the letter itself, Target says that by law it must allow him to refuse, but then it says that when the employee does refuse, that they CAN make him help the person get the script filled elsewhere. How can they make him do that, if he says even telling her where another pharmacy is would be against his religion? I think that shows that their conclusion isn't based on a legal analysis, but rather an attempt to use doubletalk to try placate women's groups while not alienating the Dobson crowd.

[gkhouston]

142. I agree

and the rubber will really meet the road if Plan B ever gets the go-ahead to be an over-the-counter medication. It will be interesting to see who carries it and who doesn't.

[Horse with no Name]

14. and nobody is forcing him to be a pharmacist

He should be the one to seek change.

[SnowGoose]

23. So a hindu or jain checker could refuse to ring up a leather belt?

After all, we're talking about Target. They sell leather belts/handbags/whatnot....

Target sells some pretty (fun) outlandishly violent video games. I guess clerks can refuse to ring those up as well?

Can Seventh-Day Adventists refuse to ring up jewelry?

I call bullshit.

[LostinVA]

27. Yup, that's corrrect.... this letter is BULL

[Xithras]

44. No, they couldn't

Hindu and Jain checkers aren't religiously prohibited from ever touching leather. The Hindu concept of Ahimsa dictates that we must live a non-violent life and that wearing leather means supporting violence, but it doesn't prohibit them from touching leather that other people will wear. As long as they aren't putting it on themselves, it's fine. Same goes with Seventh-Day Adventists. They may not wear jewelry, but their religion says nothing about coming into casual contact with it as would happen when ringing it up. There's no actual religious imposition with those examples.

[gkhouston]

53. so why should a pharmacist consider

himself/herself any more responsible for what is done with the morning-after pill than the stockboy who takes the box off the truck? They are neither taking the medication nor prescribing it; all they're doing is counting out pills and slapping a label on a bottle. I could understand a prescribing physician feeling like he/she had some "responsibility" for what was going on, but the pharmacist is merely a delivery mechanism.

[Zenlitened]

132. That's an interesting question. Should the person stocking shelves....

... have the same right to opt out of handling certain items?

Is this the path that pharmacists want to go down?

[SnowGoose]

71. Missin' the point friend, and I think you're mistaken to boot.

I'm no expert on hinduism, but I can claim a bit of expertise when it comes to Adventists. And contrary to your initial reaction, I think the Adventist analogy is *particularly* good.

Here's why: no one is asking the pharmacist to *take* the medication, just as no one is asking the Adventist to *wear* the jewelry. Only sell it. The pharmacist is refusing to fill the 'script because its use by someone else violates his/her beliefs.

Maybe the pharmacist could argue that he/she doesn't want to be an enabler of someone else's sin, but the Adventist could make the *exact* same argument.

By all means, if you see a flaw in this logic, point it out. Me, I don't see one.

[SnowGoose]

73. dupe

sorry, dupe.

[wildeyed]

115. I think you are being a little bit too literal.

Let's say that religion X says meat is murder. Waiter Y at a restaurant is an adherent to religion X and refuses to serve meat. So now if you go into that restaurant, are assigned to waiter Y and order meat, you have to wait around for another waiter to serve you or maybe you have to go to another restaurant. But by that time, it is too late anyway 'cause your lunch hour is over. :eyes:

I say waiter Y needs to go work at a vegetarian restaurant. Or maybe find another line of work altogether. And pharmacists who refuse to dispense medication on moral grounds need to find a chain that won't require them to dispense that medication, or find another profession.

[Bluerthanblue]

138. or could a mormon work at Dunkin Dognuts?... coffee is forbidden..

this could become pretty ridiculous- Could a Christian Scientist be a pharmacist? Or a Jehovah's Witness BE a doctor, phlebotimist or in a situation where they would be called to 'draw blood', or administer a blood transfusion? Could they sell 'christmas' items? or halloween items??

This issue opens up a huge can of worms in my view- I completely agree with Wildeyed- dispensing a product that is legal, and a part of your job, one that you were trained to do, has nothing to do with that persons OWN personal life choices. Hell, how could any self respecting devoted Christian sell guns or ammunition- or cigarettes or beer? All of which quite frequently have the unfortunate side effect of causing illness, injury and death.

pretty frickin weird.

[enlightenment]

5. Well, at least Ms Hanson uses more than one form letter.

Here's the one I received (I like yours better):

Dear Target Guest,
Target places a high priority on our role as a community pharmacy and our obligation to meet the needs of the patients we serve. We expect all our team members, including our pharmacists, to provide respectful service to our guests, particularly when it comes to their health care needs.

Like many other retailers, Target has a policy that ensures a guest’s prescription for emergency contraception is filled, whether at Target or at a different pharmacy, in a timely and respectful manner. This policy meets the health care needs of our guests while respecting the diversity of our team members.

Your thoughts help us learn more about what our guests expect, so I’ll be sure to share your feedback with our pharmacy executives.

Thanks for taking the time to share your questions, thoughts and comments. I hope we’ll see you again soon at Target.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Hanson
Target Executive Offices

[DU9598]

7. I got the second letter

I replied that the response was not good enough for me. The EEOC laws have nothing to do with this issue. Perform the essential functions of the job or quit. It's the pharmacist's own choice. The Target policy is BS with no legal requirement.

[enlightenment]

17. Ahha -- that explains it. I just read mine, sighed, and

went to bang my head against the wall.
I absolutely agree with your assessment, btw -- but my rage levels were low when I received that formulaic pap.

[MostlyLurks]

16. MMM, that letter is fudgy.

"Target has a policy that ensures a guest’s prescription for emergency contraception is filled, whether at Target or at a different pharmacy"

Doesn't that mean Target's policy is that you can get your prescription at Target or, if you are refused, you can go somewhere else? What am I missing here?

Mostly

[murielm99]

50. Planned Parenthood says that Target has refused

to clarify their position and policy on filling prescriptions.

I have not gotten my letter yet. I will certainly reply if it is anything like this letter. It says nothing.

[Nickster]

8. Weasel words. She isn't saying that they will fill the prescription at all

just that "Target policy requires our pharmacists to take responsibility for ensuring that the guest’s prescription is filled in a timely and respectful manner."

Filled where? Doesn't say Target, just that they ensure the prescription will be filled in a timely and respectful manner. Does that mean they can say go down the street and see the Walgreen pharmacist, they will fill it in a timely fashion. Or does it mean that, only 1 pharmacist will fill it in this county, he'll fill it in a timely fashion once you get there. If it's too far away, well, we did the best we could.

I'd like to see a little more black and white language, but who am I kidding?

I'd also like to see an explaination of how they'd react if a Jehovah's witness refuses to fill any prescriptions and other assorted belief/job duty conflicts.

Also, can they justify this policy against the state certification that the pharmacist goes through? Does the pharmacist take a pledge when he gets certified about how he'll dispense medication? How does that conflict with the store policy?

[insane_cratic_gal]

12. by that wording

the person asking for the prescription could wait for 4 hrs to 4 days while they called all their pharmacists to see if their religious beliefs allowed them to fill the prescription.

Your right it says nothing about it being filled at target stores.

I just want to know why moral objections are being raised to a dose of hormones that prevents implantation of an "might be" fertilized egg. It a huge dose of birth control pills! So they hire people who object to women's ability to control their own ovaries.

I still say fundy pharmacist need to open their own chain of drug stores and that would be the end of it. They wouldn't get my patronage but they may get the rest of the fundies. Then they can refuse to fill Viagra, birth control, spermicide, and anything else they want.

[Nordmadr]

9. She doesn't go on to say HOW the reports are

"misleading" and "innaccurate", other than to say the incident is "alleged".

What a bunch of horse shit!

Olaf

[CatBoreal]

10. Forward her email to PP....

and then fire back their response with your comments back to her, just to see what happens.

Personally, from the tone of the letter, she's not at all happy to be fielding these questions.

[kevinbgoode]

20. I'd like to know exactly. . .

how they determine what is a "sincerely" held religious belief? We all know that the people doing this are being very selective and this is nothing but subversive political theater, NOT exercising a "sincerely" held religious belief. Moreover, unless someone can show me that a pharmacist who puts these pills in a bottle is somehow violating religious tenet and NOT violating the religious tenet of the person with the prescription, I consider this an inappropriate answer.

A sincerely held belief is not about other people - it's about yourself. If the pharmacist is against the use of EC, that should mean his/her sincerely held religious belief is about HIM/HER taking the medication, not imposing said belief or causing harm to someone else with an obviously different point-of-view.

Someone should be asking Target just how they seem to be honoring the sincerely held religious beliefs of their CUSTOMERS who come to their pharmacy with the idea that they will have their beliefs HONORED and prescriptions filled without being subjected to the "sincerely" held religious proselytyzing of their employees.

To me, that is the heart of this matter.

[hiaasenrocks]

22. Target (or any store)

would be better off just having a policy of filling all prescriptions (and making it clear to job applicants that they have to fill prescriptions) or announcing that they will not fill certain prescriptions under any circumstances, and just not carry the product.

Then there would be no problems like this. People would know what they can and can't get at Target (or whatever store).

Target is not legally obligated to carry a product. And no individual has a "right" to get a product at Target, or anywhere for that matter.

I wish companies would have the courage to do one or the other.

[Nickster]

30. They also don't have the "right" to my tax dollar which helps to subsidize

their very existence in my town.

[hiaasenrocks]

33. Didn't say they do.

All I'm suggesting is that these stores could avoid this problem by the two things I suggested above:

1. Carry the product and require employees to sell it
or...
2. Just don't carry the product

[Nickster]

43. I don't disagree with you necessarily, but when my tax money goes to

subsidize these stores, I think they owe an obligation to the community to serve it properly. Having some pharmacist preach to me is not serving the community.

I sincerely wonder what the licensing rules are for these pharmacists. There has to be something that states they can't meddle with a doctor-patient treatment plan. They can't just call up and say, "hey we aren't going to fill this Rx, but we found a nice substitute that we think will work out nicely." If I was involved directly, I'd start looking to see what I could do to revoke the pharmacist's license.

[hiaasenrocks]

49. This reminds me of a local case in which

a guy who worked at K-Mart refused to deal with customers in the gun department. He was fired, and local liberal groups cheered him for his principle. Conservatives cheered K-Mart for firing him. The exact opposite of this situation.

I like cases like this that illustrate the hypocrisy of some of these folks on both sides who act so indignant. Funny stuff.

[yankeedem]

78. Pharmacies are state licensed

The state should require all pharmacies to fill all legal prescriptions in 24 hours. If they don't have the drug, they can get it. The pharmacy I worked at 20 years ago got daily deliveries from the distributor, it shouldn't even be an issue to fill the prescription in 24 hours.

[graywarrior]

48. It's this part of the letter that concerns me

In the unusual event that a Target pharmacist’s sincerely held religious beliefs conflict with filling a guest’s prescription for emergency contraception (meaning that it has happened), Target policy requires our pharmacists to take responsibility for ensuring that the guest’s prescription is filled in a timely and respectful manner(by sending them to Walgreen's, CVS, or a heathen drugstore?). If it is not done in this manner, disciplinary action will be taken.
(I'd love to read their Team Members Guide.)

[Zenlitened]

59. And I wonder... is the prescription filled before or after the "guest"...

... has been lectured on why the so-called pharmacist won't fill it?

Is the announcement made within earshot of other "guests"?

And does the scarlet "A" go above the left breast or the right?

Puke.

I can't wait for a "guest" of one of these places to sue for being made to suffer humiliation while trying to get a simple, legal prescription filled.

[yankeedem]

81. What bothers me is

What if no nearby pharamacy will fill the prescription? In fundie-land, that is a real possibility.

No, all pharmacies should be legally required to fill all prescriptions within 24 hours.

[hiaasenrocks]

52. Just so I'm clear on this...

What did the customer do after the "alleged incident"? Did they go to another pharmacy somewhere? I think that's what I would have done.

[mzteris]

54. That's a different letter from the one I got

I guess they didn't like the responses they got to the first one.

**Target is extremely disappointed that Planned Parenthood is spreading misleading information about an alleged incident at a Target pharmacy in Missouri**

I think it's kinda funny they're "blaming PP" for this when their first letter alluded to the fact that they send people elsewhere.

They still don't say that they DON'T in this one, either, do they?

** Target policy requires our pharmacists to take responsibility for ensuring that the guest’s prescription is filled in a timely and respectful manner**

Does that mean they can quickly and respectfully tell them to take a hike to another pharmacy?

[hiaasenrocks]

58. What would be the problem with

a store referring customers to another pharmacy?

It seems at some point like the customer/patient would take responsibility for their own needs and just go get the product where they knew they could get it.

That's why I am curious about the rest of this story. What did this customer do?

[Beaverhausen]

62. Some towns only have one pharmacy

in smaller towns especially. And if your only pharmacy is at Wal Mart you are really screwed.

and why should a woman who has been raped have to go all over town to take a pill that will keep her from getting pregnant?

Before you anwer that read this link:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/04/13/lawmakers_hear_testimony_on_emergency_contraception/

Lawmakers hear testimony on emergency contraception
By Theo Emery, Associated Press Writer | April 13, 2005

BOSTON -- When the 12-year-old rape victim and her mother arrived at the hospital, doctors began caring for the traumatized girl. But they didn't mention or offer emergency contraception that could have prevented the girl from becoming pregnant.


Three months later, the girl and her mother were horrified to learn the girl was pregnant -- a story that occurs too often in Massachusetts, according to Dr. Karen Lifford, who recounted the story to lawmakers hearing testimony Wednesday on bills that would increase access to the so-called "morning-after" contraception.

"It's not an uncommon story," Lifford, medical director of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said of the girl outside the hearing room. "This is a specific example of a scenario that we see repeated in different forms on a weekly basis."

***more at the link***

[hiaasenrocks]

64. So the customer in this case was

raped? And there was only one pharmacy in town? Or are these two extremes used to illustrate a point?

When it comes to contraception, I'm 100% for it. As far as abortion, I really don't care if its legal or not. It just doesn't matter to me. So I have no axe to grind here. My argument is about who has what rights. Therefore, my solution would be for a store to simply not carry a product if they aren't willing to require their employees to deal with that product. There is no "right" to be able to purchase a product (including medicine) at a particular store.

[Beaverhausen]

66. But that's a moot point. Taget carries the product.

if a pharmacist won't sell a product they carry, that pharmacist needs to go somewhere else to work.

[hiaasenrocks]

67. I am saying that Target (or any store)

could solve all of these problems by either making their employees sell the product or just don't carry it.

However, if it is their current policy to allow pharmacists to use discretion when dispensing medicine, then they need to make that known so people can go where they can get their medicine.

Again, you don't have a "right" to buy drugs from a particularstore. You can use your purchasing power to influence them, but that's about it.

To me, this isn't even about the specific product in this case. It's about a store's right to conduct business how they wish, and a customer's right to do business elsewhere if they don't approve. I thought that's how free enterprise worked.

[Beaverhausen]

68. No, this is about whittling away the rights of a woman to have...

...reproductive choices and freedom.

You don't see pharmacists refusing to refill any other prescriptions do you?

[hiaasenrocks]

69. So Target is out to remove your

right to end a pregnancy?

Target could decide to never carry any form of contraception (from condoms to drugs that end pregnancy) and I'm sure other stores in the market would be happy to pick up the slack. Again, free market and all that.

By the way, Target isn't responsible for protecting your "reproductive rights." Anyone who expects them to do so is fooling themselves. They're in business to make money, which, if you think about it, will ultimately decide how they respond to this.

I still don't see what all the hysteria is about. Don't like a store? Find one you do like and shop there.

[Beaverhausen]

70. since your profile is turned off I can only guess but...

...I'm guessing you are a male, right? and you probably live in a large city but I'm not as sure of that.

[hiaasenrocks]

72. LOL. Here we go.

Is it time--already!--to attack my motive? :)

Maybe this is the part where the female tells the male since he can't have a baby, then he shouldn't have an opinion on this. Funny how they never say that to pro-choice men. Why is that?

I'll tell you again. I have absolutely no care in the world whether abortion is legal or not. I couldn't care less either way. I use and support contraception and would like to see it available wherever I shop but if it isn't...I go elsewhere. Too easy?

Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

[Beaverhausen]

74. attack your motive? really?

how was I attacking your motive?

[hiaasenrocks]

75. I didn't say you did.

I thought that's where you were going with the question about my gender and my geographical location. You know, me being male and not living in a small town having an influence on my view.

Maybe you weren't doing that?

I guess you were just making small talk. My apologies...

[Beaverhausen]

96. please read this

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=32283&nfid=rssfeeds

[hiaasenrocks]

99. Okay, I read it.

As I said before, I have no dog in the abortion fight. I couldn't care less either way.

Still, none of that has anything to do with a store's right to carry or not carry an item, or whether or not they have a policy allowing pharmacists to use discretion. Which is what I was proposing as a solution. Let a store inform its customers if they aren't carrying a certain item. Customers can shop where their needed products are sold.

[yankeedem]

106. Don't you think that some items will be unavailable

in wide geographic areas, because of lobbying by fundie groups? You probably don't know this, but in certain areas of the country, abortion services are unavailable for hundreds of miles because abortion providers were hounded out of business by the anti-choice lobby.

You really don't think that this won't happen here? Women deserve some protection. The "market" can't solve all of our problems, sometimes government regulation is necessary.

[hiaasenrocks]

112. I definitely agree with you.

The market is not perfect, by any means. And as far as fundie groups go...they can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned. (If there's a hell.)

My entire point, the reason I got in the discussion in the first place, is because this story seems kind of incomplete, first of all, and it also seems to lack any information regarding the responsibility of the customer in this matter.

I do believe that a store has the right to decline to carry a product. But they should make it well-known so customers won't try to get something they can't. A private store can carry or not carry whatever legal products they wish. And a customer can shop where their needs are met.

Just because a certain geographical area may not have certain products or services, doesn't mean we should or can force a store to provide it. You'd think they would though, since they are there to make $$$...and I think that's how this will ultimately resolve itself.

[yankeedem]

123. We can require the store to provide it

it is a state licensed pharmacy.

The "story" is irrelevent- she presented a lawful prescription and the "pharmacist" refused to fill it. What does the patients responsibility have to do with it?

You are proposing another person to get between a woman and her doctor. It is NONE OF THE PHARMACISTS BUSINESS why they need that prescription.
Their job is to fill prescriptions, period.

[hiaasenrocks]

124. I guess that would depend on the state.

But I see your point.

As long as it's a private company, and there is no state law, I think Target is perfectly within their right to not carry a product.

Again, if they wish to do that. Otherwise, as I've suggested many times already, make it clear to employees that they have to serve a customer. Target could solve this by choosing one or the other here.

[yankeedem]

128. And that is the way it must be approached

Target and every other pharmacy that may sell Plan B will be targeted by fundie groups, and believe me, they are a lot more organized than we are. Most pharmacies don't want the bad publicity and aggravation, so they will pull Plan B.

So a simple law- all legal prescriptions must be filled within 24 hours of tendering will stop the pharmacist from practicing medicine.

[hiaasenrocks]

130. Okay so we agree.

And you're right about the fundies being more organized than those of us on the left. My "pet issue" is freedom of speech for broadcasters, writers, musicians, etc. and they are, unfortunately, better organized than those of us who respect the First Amendment.

[Beaverhausen]

111. You are arguing a point that isn't relevant

Target carries the pills. The pharmacist won't sell them to the customer. If they didn't have the pills there would be no discussion here.

And some of us do have a "dog in the abortion fight" and we don't want to see the slow loss of our freedoms. Because as that article pointed out that is exactly what this kind of action represents.

[hiaasenrocks]

116. Again....

I offered my view as a SOLUTION. Let Target decide if they are going to carry the pills, or if they are going to require their employees to sell them, and what their policy on discretion is. Then, people can decide whether they will shop there or not.

I've said that from my first post on...

[mzteris]

80. Not your motive

But your comprehension of the subject.

If men got pregnant, this would never BE an issue.

Keeping women barefoot and pregnant (and subservient) IS a motive of the fundamentalists.

[hiaasenrocks]

85. Oh, I see.

I guess that's why Jennifer Hanson from the Target Executive Offices doesn't understand it?

How did Jennifer get involved in this male conspiracy?

Are all the other stores that carry this drug run by females? Only female pharmacists?

I guess I'm not up on all the conspiracies.

[mzteris]

103. Target -

maled owned and operated. :)

Jennifer does what she's told or she's canned.

Why are you here, anyway?

[hiaasenrocks]

107. Target may be male owned.

I don't know if Jennifer is the mercenary you make her out to be or not. Don't know her.

What do you mean why am I here? Just like you, I'm discussing this issue.

Why are you here?

[mzteris]

110. You're not discussing this issue

you're baiting the issue.

Why do YOU think a person has the right to refuse anyone service?

[hiaasenrocks]

114. I see.

If you don't like my view, I'm baiting.

Let's try to stick to the issue.

You can check all of my posts in this thread. You will see I state my view and try to back it up.

I'm not interested in debating why I'm debating. If you want to discuss the issue, that's fine.

As for your question...read my posts. I've explained my view (and my possible solution) at LEAST five times.

[mzteris]

117. Not to me you haven't -

how about six?

The problem is that you don't see the problem?

If you were gay, would it be okay for the pharmacist to not give you medicine?

How about if you were black?

How about if you were disabled?

"Religious bigotry" is still bigotry.

I understand Religious "reasonable accommodation" probably better than you do. I was an HR manager for 20 years.

[hiaasenrocks]

120. This isn't about the consumer.

It's about the product. Target didn't refuse to let this person shop in the store. That's a different matter.

And, as I've said several times already:

Target could solve this problem one of two ways.

1. Carry the product and require all employees to sell all products

or

2. Don't carry the product, and let customers know it isn't available in their store

I entered this discussion offering that as a solution (since none were being offered). That's all.

[mzteris]

76. Why should they have to?

Because this person won't do their job??

Does an ER doc refuse to work on gay patients because their "religion" says homosexuality is WRONG?

Does an adherent to the Aryan Church refuse to wait on minorities?

Sorry. REASONABLE accommodation does not include humiliating a customer.

[Zenlitened]

79. That's the overlooked issue, IMO.

Can you imagine standing at the counter with a line of people behind you... and being told "we're not filling your prescription because we think it's morally wrong"?

It's just abusive. :grr:

[hiaasenrocks]

82. Again, that's why I wanted to

know the whole story.

How was this customer humiliated?

Was this an emergency?

Was there no other way for them to get this product?

And what did this customer do in terms of their own responsibility for their health care? Did they go to another pharmacy and take care of their needs?

[Zenlitened]

87. But this is not about one customer, ultimately.

The issue affects all women, everywhere. So to demand specifics of this one case seems beside the point.

[hiaasenrocks]

90. Wait a minute.

The only reason we're talking about this case is because we know some specifics. Why are the others irrelevant? Because they don't lend themselves to your view?

[Zenlitened]

105. Uh, yeah. That must be it.

Care to put any more words in my mouth?

[hiaasenrocks]

122. Well, you tell me.

Why are some specifics relevant but others aren't?

[Zenlitened]

As I 've already said, this is a wider societal issue.

It's not about one person, or one instance. There are implications for all women everywhere.

[hiaasenrocks]

127. There could be.

I am not concerned about that, as I said. I'm just not. I was simply offering a solution choice for Target to solve the problem. Carry it (and sell it to all legally) or don't carry it (and make it known to customers).

[Zenlitened]

137. Well, I think that solution still leaves room for women to be victimized.

I'd much rather see something in the licensing requirements that says if a doctor prescribes it, a pharmacist has to fill it. I don't think the free-market can adequately ensure that a patient will get the medication her doctor has prescribed. As others have pointed out in this thread, there are places where there is only one pharmacy nearby.

Edited to add: Or... maybe ensure that all doctors have access to a mail-order prescription service that can overnight the meds directly to the patient's home. Skip the pharmacies entirely -- that'll get their attention!

[yankeedem]

88. The woman went to a state licensed pharmacy

and asked for a legal prescription. THAT is the only responsibility required.

[hiaasenrocks]

92. Target is a private company.

Do we know their policy on letting pharmacists use discretion?

It would be helpful to know that. Not only for this discussion, but as customers. Then we would know whether to shop there or not for particular items.

[NYC Liberal]

93. It doesn't matter! They have a legal prescription, they are entitled to

the medicine. The pharmacist doesn't need to know WHY they are getting it. Their job is to fill the prescription. If they cannot do that, then they should find another job.

Pharmicists not filling prescriptions are like me becoming a defense lawyer, and then refusing to defend people charged with a crime.

[hiaasenrocks]

94. A lawyer does have that right.

And should. So should any private sector entity.

[yankeedem]

97. Women have a right to health care

That trumps any right of a "private sector" entity. That is why hospitals can't turn down emergency room patients.

[hiaasenrocks]

102. Correct.

But we don't have a "right" to buy something at a particular store just because we want the store to carry it.

Two different issues here.

[NYC Liberal]

Right, but the point is, it would be incredibly STUPID of me

to become a DEFENSE attorney and refuse to defend people charged with a crime.

Not an exact analogy because that's not dealing (necessarily) with potentially life-threating health issues. But it still stands: if you can't perform your duties in a particular career, then don't go into that career.

[hiaasenrocks]

104. Defense attorneys turn down work all the time.

I've known some who refuse to represent a client because the client is asking them to lie, isn't cooperating, is making decisions detrimental to the case...all kinds of reasons.

[NYC Liberal]

109. What if I was a defense attorney and, on moral principles,

refused to defend anyone charged with a crime?

Would be kind of STUPID to be a defense attorney then, would it not?

[hiaasenrocks]

118. That analogy would be accurate

if we were talking about a pharmacist who refused to sell any drugs to every customer.

[NYC Liberal]

121. The difference is, lawyers are more accessible than pharmacies can be.

In a lot of towns, you only have one pharmacy.

What if you needed contraceptives in an emergency, and the pharmacist at the counter didn't want to give it to you?

People should not be forcing THEIR views on OTHERS.

My view allows each person to choose whatever view they want...it doesn't force my view on anyone else.

Your view allows others to force their "beliefs" on women.

[hiaasenrocks]

125. You and I agree more than we disagree.

If Target decides not to carry a product (one of the solutions I proposed) they are not forcing their view on anyone. They make it clear that they don't carry it, and the customer knows they need to buy it elsewhere. The other choice in my solution idea allows choice, where Target would make it clear to employees, if you work here you will sell this product, otherwise you can work elsewhere.

[NYC Liberal]

129. Yep. I agree completely. Target cannot advertise that

they carry a product and then allow employees to refuse to sell it.

Either sell it, or don't.

[hiaasenrocks]

131. Agreed. That's pretty much all I'm saying. n/t

[NYC Liberal]

98. Right, but the point is, it would be incredibly STUPID of me

to become a DEFENSE attorney and refuse to defend people charged with a crime.

Not an exact analogy because that's not dealing (necessarily) with potentially life-threating health issues. But it still stands: if you can't perform your duties in a particular career, then don't go into that career.

[yankeedem]

95. Not to mention they are practicing medicine without a license.

nt

[dsc]

134. Defense lawyers refuse clients all the time

Even public defenders can refuse to take a case if they have a compelling enough reason.

[mzteris]

101. the "whole story"

does it make it any less humiliating that it wasn't - at that exact point in time - an "emergency". It just so happened that it wasn't. The exact same thing would have happened had it been so.

Another way to "get the product"? Maybe. But again - why should she have to?

It IS humiliating. It's kinda like being told, "we don't serve your kind here" or "sit in the back".

[mzteris]

55. That's a different letter from the one I got

I guess they didn't like the responses they got to the first one.

**Target is extremely disappointed that Planned Parenthood is spreading misleading information about an alleged incident at a Target pharmacy in Missouri**

I think it's kinda funny they're "blaming PP" for this when their first letter alluded to the fact that they send people elsewhere.

They still don't say that they DON'T in this one, either, do they?

** Target policy requires our pharmacists to take responsibility for ensuring that the guest’s prescription is filled in a timely and respectful manner**

Does that mean they can quickly and respectfully tell them to take a hike to another pharmacy?

[BlueStateBlue]

60. Damn! I thought you were talking about target letters!!! n/t

[graywarrior]

61. I thought the thread about target letters was about Target

When I realized it was about target letters, I posted this.

Either way, I'm getting ready to send a fuck you letter back to Target.

[skipos]

65. As a vegetarian, can I work at McDonalds and refuse to serve burgers?

That would be pretty cool.

[northzax]

89. sure, you can work the fry machine.

or slice the tomatoes, or toast the buns. you don't have to work the grill.

[skipos]

119. Kick ass!!! nt

[bigwillq]

77. ! (nt)

[yankeedem]

91. If you want a better answer

Try contacting shareholder relations. That is where you will get the REAL answer. If you are in a 401k you probably own TGT anyway. Write them as a stock holder (they won't verify) and DEMAND an answer why Target is turning away business.

[graywarrior]

100. That's a great idea.

How do you know they won't verify?

[yankeedem]

108. I don't

but since so many people trade in and out of TGT daily, I can't imagine they will. If it makes you feel better, say you are considering taking a position in Target, but want to know if they meet your ethical standards. Which is true, right?

[graywarrior]

113. Yes, as a matter of fact, it is.

[jmm]

135. So basically their policy hasn't changed

All that changed is that in this form letter they decided to attack planned parenthood. Unless another pharmacist is on site and can immediately fill the prescription then it cannot be filled by another pharmacist in a timely manner and telling a customer I'm turning away your business because you are immoral can never be done respectfully.