Pharmacists Refusing to fill Birth Control

chpal said:
wow. bullshit indeed. I doubt they will ever refuse to sell you condoms though.

actually, in college, my RA was the head of the christian group there, and though the RA's were supposed to hand out free condoms when you ask, he refused, saying that we would have to go to an RA on another floor because he didn't believe in them.
 
I have heard of this sort of thing happening before. We had a class discussion about it one time in English, wether pharmacists had the right to refuse filling a prescription based on morale beliefs. So it would not suprise me if it was true. As it is I think they have no right to refuse to sell birth control based on their morale beliefs, if that is the case then they need a new line of work.
 
After being transferred around for 4 hours, I sure as hell got to talk to a CEO. I was raising hell with everyone. One of my not so good days.
 
If you actually called wal mart HQ, at best you will get a wal mart rep, not a CEO. I pity whoever had to put up with your uninformed call though, complaining about stuff that didn't even happen at wal mart and going off propaganda information. Mind sharing with us the name of this "CEO" you spoke with? I'm sure it was 4 hours. :wink:

Honestly, do you have any idea how many fanatical, angry people call Wal mart HQ every day to shout at CEOs about something? Just a hint, its in the thousands, but they don't get to reach the CEOs. That's what Wal Marts Reps are for.
 
Last edited:
/sigh

I wasn't on the line with the CEO for 4 hours. I was transferred repeatedly for 4 hours. And about 3 1/2 hours of it was on hold waiting for another person.

The name was Lee Scott or something like that. I don't freakin remember. I was too annoyed with being on for 4 hours.

Rones, have you even tried to do some damn research on it instead of sitting here arguing with me? It was just in the paper here that Illinois passed the law stating pharmacists must fill every prescription, regardless of their beliefs. Meaning other states obviously are going through the same thing. It's always a domino effect. "Oh my god, one state is doing this, let us do this!"

Hopefully every state will finally get that law.
 
Has it happened to you? Has it happened to any friends? Friends of friends? Do you have reports of it in reliable mainstream media (cnn, foxnews, etc)? You tell me to do research, but you have provided nothing but that vague, propaganda, fund raiser e-mail which is devoid of facts. You want research? Enjoy. :rtfm: Even if one pharmacy refused in a state that doesn't have the law, most cities have many pharmacies. There will be one that provides it.

My biggest problem is you are letting emotion lead you blindly. You are not looking at this rationally. Instead you are letting that propaganda letter incite your emotion and guide your actions. That is why I'm arguing with you. Most states already have laws on this now or are in the process of making them. So there really is no point in wasting peoples time by making angry phone calls and writing/fowarding inflamatory emails. Its like calling up Wal Mart telling them not to rape and murder their customers, its obvious and already covered by law.

As for Mr. H. Lee Scott Jr., 56. He is Chief Exec. Officer, Pres, Director, Chairman of Stock Option Committee and Member of Exec. Committee of Wal Mart. He earns $ 5.37M a year and was listed in Time's magazine 100 most influential people for 2004 and 2005. Someone at that level in the corporate world does not take calls from angry random people, they have no time for it and there are far too many of those calls. At best you would get one of his many secretaries who would try to answer on behalf of Lee Scott's office. You might as well claim to have talked with Bill Gates, he at least interacts with the public more. :wink:

I also wouldn't be too outspoken in the claim to have phone tapped wal mart's president. :nono:
 
what I’ve read is just telling me that women cant get birth control, but men still have plenty of options too. I read the whole front page, and never did it say anything about condoms. ladies, if your out clubbing and you find a cute guy, make sure you force him to wear a condoms. the pill wont prevent any STDs, you know. if your married, that’s great! there are many different ways for women to get protection too, not just the pill, so I find it ridiculous that so many people are angry about this. if your old enough to have sex, your old enough to drive. drive your lazy bum over to the next drug store, they're not rare treasures, there’s another one around the block.
 
I think people are ignoring the point that this is not a birth control pill, this is the morning after pill, a form of abortion.

Not to say it makes it wrong to deny it. But to say it's a different thing entirely.
 
I have a question. I don't know much about this morning after pill. Do you take said pill because you "are" pregnant or because you "may" be pregnant because you had unprotected sexual intercourse?

IF it is because you "may" be pregnant, how in the hell can anyone in their right mind say it is a form of abortion? I just don't understand this. How can you be aborting a child, if there is no child conceived as far as you know, and you're just covering your ass.
 
How long a time frame do you think there is between sexual intercourse and conception? From my understanding the pill was designed to kill the pregnancy in its infancy(pardon the pun).
 
Firestreak said:
How long a time frame do you think there is between sexual intercourse and conception? From my understanding the pill was designed to kill the pregnancy in its infancy(pardon the pun).

I understand that, but the thing is you don't know for sure if you are or aren't. It's a precaution IF you are. In my mind, I feel it should not be considered abortion. Again, I am pro-choice. I also feel a "seed" is not a "plant". That is my opinion, whether you agree or not.

*Edit*

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you in fact know you're pregnant, and decide to dissolve the pregnancy, it is indeed abortion. But, if you are just covering your ass, and you may be doin' it for naught, I honestly cannot see how this would be considered abortion.
 
Last edited:
Blaine said:
I read the whole front page, and never did it say anything about condoms.


Um, I think you not only need to reread the first page but the whole thread in general.

Post #4
chpal said:
wow. bullshit indeed. I doubt they will ever refuse to sell you condoms though.

Post #8
Skaw said:
The problem with that, Chpal, is that neither the pill, nor condoms are sure-fire. They're extremely preventive methods, but not 100%. Using them both in tandum is the best method, as that 0.1% left over from either is turned in to a 0.001%.

Post #9
Kat said:
Lastly, do you know that there are hundreds of children born every year because said condom broke.

And that is just the first page. There are several more posts referring to condoms.
 
Morning after pill kills a fertilized egg. Whether you know you are pregenent or not doesn't matter much. If you aren't pregenent it does nothing, if you are recently pregenent it aborts the pregnency by killing the egg. Ignorance of whether you are pregnent or not does not change the action.

Quick google search returns this:
The emergency contraceptive/morning-after pill has three possible ways in which it can work (as does the regular birth control pill):

1. Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released;
2. The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
3. It can irritate the lining of the uterus so that if the first and second actions fail, and the woman does become pregnant, the human being created will die before he or she can actually attach to the lining of the uterus.

In other words, if the third action occurs, her body rejects the living human embryo, and the child will die. This result is a chemical abortion.

Like fire said, it is not birth control pills these places refuse to distribute. It is the abortion causing morning after pill that all the controversy revolves around. If I really believed what my religion says about abortion being murder I doubt I could give out the pill in good faith either.
 
Last edited:
The question being, it takes 72 hours for sperm to reach the egg, where does the pill fit in exactly? Does it fail to work after fertilization, or is it designed to work after those 72 hours?
 
Last edited:
Sorry guys, mebbe this is a bad example, but it's sort of like a chicken and the egg. To fertilize the egg and have a chicken, or to not fertilize the egg and ... well ... breakfast anyone.
 
From my understanding fertilization of an egg happens much faster than 72 hours. The up to 72 hours is the time for the fertilized to travel down the filopean(sp) tubes and embed in the uterus wall. I'll see if I can find more, female biology is not my strong point.

I'm not sure what you are getting at Kat.

Edit: Ok found some detailed info on it here. Egg is only in a fertilisable state for 24 hours and after that it takes about 8 days for it to reach the uterus lining at which point pregnency tests can reveal it. If you read here you will see the sperm fertilize the egg within 2 hours of ejaculation (assuming an egg was in the right stage). So it does not take 72 hours.
 
Last edited:
An egg is an egg, whether is be human or animal. Eggs either are fertilized and therefore become babies, or hatch cuz of a chicken fertilizing them to evolve into baby chicks.

Basically, what I'm trying to get at, is, there is a time period where there is not that fertilization. They take this morning after pill, therefore there is no "seed" to speak of. So, again my question is, how can this be considered aborting.

I realize I may be very wrong here, and that is why I'm asking the questions I am. I just don't see how it can be considered out and out aborting an embryo, tadpole, baby, etc.
 
Last edited:
Check my previous post. Egg is fertilized within 2 hours of sex. Taking a morning after pill 2-72 hours after sex is thus killing a fertilized egg. Even taking the pill immidiately following sex would likely kill a fertilized egg because it takes the medicine from the pill longer to effect your body than for the sperm to reach the egg. Normal birth control though prevents the fertilization from ever taking place.
 
Yah, I do see your point there Rones, as far as some people in their religious views calling it abortion. Therefore, I guess it comes down to a woman in her own mind feeling the "egg" is a baby forming or just a tadpole, etc.

I'd just like to point out, and I believe I've said this in a few other threads, while I am pro-choice and feel what a woman does with her body is her own decision, I myself don't think I could ever abort.

BUT!!! I would never judge another woman's choice to do so.
 
Last edited:
I have very strong conflicting opinions about abortion myself. As a general rule I am a libertarian, and I believe that the less government interacts with people the better. Nor do I agree with government imposing views on society. But part of me as well views abortion as no different than dumping a baby in a dumpster after birth and walking off... most of the pro-choice arguments's merits would unfortunately apply to doing that as well. The question is just if you believe the fetus is alive...

It's very... iffy...

Which is why I question the idea of forcing someone to pass out medication to do it... If you very strongly see that as murder, that's a real ethical dilemna for a lot of people. Afterall you can't force a doctor to perform an abortion if they don't want to... and there are so many better methods of birth control than abortion...
 
Back
Top