STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

Here's an actual news article on the subject. It's not quite as inflammatory as the above blogger's work. I'm actually a little surprised I haven't come across more news articles on this subject.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/5719821.html

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has accused Target Corp. of putting the religious rights of its pharmacists ahead of the reproductive rights of its customers.

Target allows its pharmacists at 1,150 stores to refuse to dispense emergency contraception, also called Plan B, if it is against their religious beliefs. That's OK, said Planned Parenthood officials, but they take issue with Target for allowing its pharmacists to send customers someplace else to get the pills.

Instead, Target should follow the practices of some other national chains and find a way to accommodate the pharmacist without inconveniencing or embarrassing the customer, said Jackie Payne, assistant director of government relations for the Planned Parenthood Federation in Washington.

"Basically, they don't want to absorb the burden," she said. "They would rather pass that on to the customer."

Target officials said that they believe such incidents occur only rarely and that their policy is reasonable. The policy also applies only to emergency contraception and not to other forms of birth control or any other medication, company officials said. Plan B works primarily by delaying ovulation for about five days, long enough for sperm to die without fertilizing any egg.

The issue is one of many skirmishes in a nationwide conflict that pits religious beliefs about abortion against reproductive rights. Pharmacists throughout the country have made headlines by refusing to provide women with birth control for religious reasons.

No one knows how many in Minnesota or nationwide have done so, but the conflict is resulting in legislation in many states that either gives pharmacists the right to refuse or specifically disallows it.

Some giant retailers such as Wal-Mart refuse to stock emergency contraception at all, although it says that's because there is not enough demand for it. Other retailers, such as Target, sometimes find themselves caught between their employees, their customers and abortion politics.

"We are committed to getting these prescriptions filled," said Lena Michaud, spokeswoman for Target Stores. "But we also have to respect associates with strongly held religious beliefs."

At the same time, Target also accommodates its pharmacists at the other end of the spectrum. For example, its pharmacy at the Quarry Shopping Center in northeast Minneapolis has a special arrangement with the University of Minnesota Health Service. Any woman or student can walk in 24 hours a day and ask for the emergency contraception pills, without having to see a doctor first. The pharmacist will call in the request to the health service's hot line, which provides a prescription for the woman over the phone.

Target's Michaud says the company's policy for pharmacists who choose not to provide emergency contraception is very respectful of customers. Pharmacists are expected to ask another pharmacist in the same store to fill it, she said. If none is available, they are required to call another pharmacy to make sure that the drug is in stock and that the customer can get it, Michaud said.

But that's particularly burdensome for women who need emergency contraception, Planned Parenthood officials said, because time is critical. The sooner the pills are taken after unprotected intercourse, the more effective they are.

Some groups opposed to abortion say they object to emergency contraception because it could result in an abortion, but medical experts say that's not so. When taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, it prevents pregnancy by delaying ovulation and has no effect on an established pregnancy, the experts said.

E-mail and protesters

Planned Parenthood has launched a nationwide e-mail and telephone campaign against Target because of its policy. Officials said Target has heard from 90,000 people via the group's Fill My Pills Now website.

And Thursday, the protest went to the street in front of Target's flagship store on Nicollet Mall in downtown Minneapolis. During the height of afternoon rush hour, a crowd of protesters walked in a circle in front of the store carrying signs and chanting, "In store without delay, Target fill my pills today."

Payne, of Planned Parenthood, said other national retailers such as Kmart and Costco have found better ways to solve the problem.

They require their pharmacists to fill the prescription in the store. Or the prescription will be dispensed at another store and delivered to the customer, according to letters from pharmacy chains posted on Planned Parenthood's website.

"All I want [Target] to do is to offer a minimum standard that the customer gets what she needs," Payne said. "And they won't do that."

Chris Serres contributed to this report. Josephine Marcotty • 612-673-7394

I thought this was the ongoing policy at most pharmacies. Maybe I'm wrong though...

ETA: I completely disagree with that policy as well. Didn't want it to sound like I think that's ok, cause it's not!

-- Edited by laken1 at 08:48, 2005-11-17

This is absolutely ridiculous, and it makes me SO mad! We talked about it in one of my Journalism classes last year. I'm not a big fan of Target's customer services to begin with (one time my friend tried to return an UNOPENED ink cartridge the same day he bought it, and they refused to give him his money back or give him credit), but this just makes me like them even less.

If you're a pharmacist, it's your responsibility to serve people by filling the prescriptions they need, not to pass judgement on them and their moral beliefs. I think that this practice should be outlawed!

-- Edited by wetbandit42 at 11:21, 2005-11-17

Wow.  Now I have to add Target to my list of places I won't shop.   If a pharmacist has a problem dispensing a prescription, they should quit being a pharmacist.  Like it or not, Plan B is (for now, anyway) legal, and therefore they should be required to dispense it if a customer has a prescription.  I get so mad when I read things like this.  Some stores let their pharmacists refuse to fill regular birth control pills.  When I go to the pharmacy to get the Pill, I expect to get the Pill, not moralization from a complete stranger.   

tri_sarah_tops wrote:

---

Also, and I am aware that this is an extreme point, but refusing to fill these prescriptions will actually result in abortions.  Say a woman is raped and she wants this pill but she can't find a pharmacy who carries it and a druggist who will give it to her within 72 hours.  Later she finds out she's pregnant and she gets an abortion.  The abortion is a direct result of the pharmacist's actions, which is obviously counterproductive because that's ultimately what the pharmacist wanted to prevent. 

 

TST, that is not an extreme point at all, it's 100% true and not exaggerated. I read the other day that scientists who submitted research to the FDA for OTC approval of plan B--which is a whole other issue of women's rights being trampled on--estimate that OTC access to plan B would reduce unwanted pregnancies by about 50%. I don't think they extrapolated to how many abortions would then be avoided, but it's obvious that a lot would be spared.

sephorablue wrote:

---

tri_sarah_tops wrote: Also, and I am aware that this is an extreme point, but refusing to fill these prescriptions will actually result in abortions.  Say a woman is raped and she wants this pill but she can't find a pharmacy who carries it and a druggist who will give it to her within 72 hours.  Later she finds out she's pregnant and she gets an abortion.  The abortion is a direct result of the pharmacist's actions, which is obviously counterproductive because that's ultimately what the pharmacist wanted to prevent.    TST, that is not an extreme point at all, it's 100% true and not exaggerated. I read the other day that scientists who submitted research to the FDA for OTC approval of plan B--which is a whole other issue of women's rights being trampled on--estimate that OTC access to plan B would reduce unwanted pregnancies by about 50%. I don't think they extrapolated to how many abortions would then be avoided, but it's obvious that a lot would be spared.

---

My husband and I were talking about this and he brought up another point and a great example.  When he was 16, his gf got pregnant when a condom broke.  She had an abortion, and then years later, when she was ready for a child, she had a very hard time concieving.  Her dr said it was due to scarring on her uterus from the abortion.  She did eventually get pregnant and had a healthy baby boy, but sometimes in this situation, the woman is never able to concieve.  Had the option of EC been available to her at that time, she never would have had to have an abortion and she probably would have been pregnant years ago.  I can't even imagine the heartbreak involved in a situation where the woman is unable to concieve due to a prior abortion.  EC is definitely something that needs to be available immediately to anyone who wants it. 

I am still baffled by this.  I really don't get how beliefs concerning BC can be considered more important than any other religious or personal beliefs.  If a vegan worked at McDonald's would he have the right to refuse someone a hamburger?  Can someone who is against premarital sex refuse to sell a 15 year old a box of condoms?  The line between law and religion has pretty much vanished, and this really concerns me. 

Also, as other people have mentioned before, it's such an infringement on WOMEN'S rights.  A couple of days ago, Jerry Springer (I love his show on Air America) said that if men could get pregnant, abortion clinics would be on every corner, and I absolutely agree with him. 

blubirde wrote:

---

tri_sarah_tops wrote:   I am still baffled by this.  I really don't get how beliefs concerning BC can be considered more important than any other religious or personal beliefs.  If a vegan worked at McDonald's would he have the right to refuse someone a hamburger?  Can someone who is against premarital sex refuse to sell a 15 year old a box of condoms?  The line between law and religion has pretty much vanished, and this really concerns me.  Also, as other people have mentioned before, it's such an infringement on WOMEN'S rights.  A couple of days ago, Jerry Springer (I love his show on Air America) said that if men could get pregnant, abortion clinics would be on every corner, and I absolutely agree with him.  I agree with you 100%. It doesn't make any sense to me either. In the first blog I posted, the author lists similar situations where people's moral and/or religious views could infringe a person's rights. It's a very slippery slope and I don't like the path it leads down at all.

---

yeah I thought that part of the blog article made a lot of good points--for example someone refusing an AIDS patient his medicine because she thinks homosexuality is an abomination and AIDS is god's punishment. I absolutely expect that to start happening, if people are entitled to refuse birth control and EC. And that is so sad about your husband's ex, I'm glad she was able to conceive in the end.

NCshopper wrote:

---

Why on earth would any person who finds birth control morally reprehensible become a pharmacist in the first place?  I just don't get it. 

---

I KNOW!! This is what kills me! It's the pharmacist's JOB to put pills in bottles. Their job doesn't even put them in the position to make a decision about whether the woman should receive a prescription or not--that is the doctor's job--their job is, simply and exclusively, to execute the doctor's request to provide the patient with the medicine to which they are legally entitled. I think it's insane that companies are indulging this, and even more insane that Target won't even take a backup measure to avoid embarrassing or inconveniencing the patient.

Okay, we are talking about the morning after pill here, right?  Not all birth control.

I would have less of a problem with this if it was the company as a whole that decided not to sell the morning after pill. I don't think that the individual pharmacists should have a choice because then yes, it is like they are judging you.  Also, how would you know which pharmacist would be there and if they would fill the prescription?  I think that they have to go one way or the other:  either they fill the prescription all the time or none of the time. 

I DO think that the company should have the right to refuse to sell it.  It is okay to take a moral stance.  If they don't want to prescribe a medication that will terminate a pregnancy, they shouldn't have to.    A woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy through the morning after pill, but someone who is against the pill should have the right NOT to administer it.  Why should the right to terminate a pregnancy come before any other person's right?  However, again, I think that if a pharmacist has a moral objection to administering the pill, they should work for a pharmacy that won't sell it.  I don't think it is something that can be done on an individual basis.