Walmart sued: No morning-after pill?!

[quote name='organicow']only a matter of time before this is moved into the hell that is the VS. section.[/QUOTE]

:rofl: Sometimes I wonder why we even have that section. Gives the same people the chance to rant and complain to each other, i guess.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']religion deciding a company's selling of products is idiotic, unless its a religous store.[/QUOTE]

Almost as dumb as suing a company for not selling something, if you ask me.
 
[quote name='Brak']Almost as dumb as suing a company for not selling something, if you ask me.[/QUOTE]


I agree with you for the most part, but if Walmart ran most of the pharmacy's out of an area then I feel it should have to sell that stuff to make up for it did.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']I agree with you for the most part, but if Walmart ran most of the pharmacy's out of an area then I feel it should have to sell that stuff to make up for it did.[/QUOTE]

Right.

I didn't even know places sold them... I thought you had to make doctors appointments or go to those Planned Parenthood-esque places.
 
[quote name='Brak']Right.

I didn't even know places sold them... I thought you had to make doctors appointments or go to those Planned Parenthood-esque places.[/QUOTE]

I thought that, too.
 
[quote name='Brak']Right.

I didn't even know places sold them... I thought you had to make doctors appointments or go to those Planned Parenthood-esque places.[/QUOTE]
In many (most? all?) states you need a doctor's prescription, but they can be bought at any regular pharmacy.
 
[quote name='Brak']Almost as dumb as suing a company for not selling something, if you ask me.[/QUOTE]
But not quite as dumb as not dispensing medication that you are legally required to, with a prescription.

A number of states have laws requiring that pharmacies have this. A pharmacist is generally allowed to not have to if they have a religious or moral issue with it, but its required that another pharmacist fill that prescription immediately. How that usually works, is that you have to tell your employer if you would or would not, and they'll make sure that theres at least 1 pharmacist scheduled that will at all times.

I like how that works. People have religious beliefs and moral dilemmas. Corporations do not. Walmart is now often the only pharmacy in many areas, and allowing them to not carry this gives them the power to practically ban it from many places. This isn't a product, this is medication.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']But not quite as dumb as not dispensing medication that you are legally required to, with a prescription.

A number of states have laws requiring that pharmacies have this. A pharmacist is generally allowed to not have to if they have a religious or moral issue with it, but its required that another pharmacist fill that prescription immediately. How that usually works, is that you have to tell your employer if you would or would not, and they'll make sure that theres at least 1 pharmacist scheduled that will at all times.

I like how that works. People have religious beliefs and moral dilemmas. Corporations do not. Walmart is now often the only pharmacy in many areas, and allowing them to not carry this gives them the power to practically ban it from many places. This isn't a product, this is medication.[/QUOTE]

That's the thing though, the law doesn't say Wal-mart needs to have the morning after pill. It just states commonly prescribed pills by doctors. It's very ambigious, and it's the state legislator's fault for leaving it open to interpretation like that.

Any judge will laugh this case out of court.
 
[quote name='AFStealth']That's the thing though, the law doesn't say Wal-mart needs to have the morning after pill. It just states commonly prescribed pills by doctors. It's very ambigious, and it's the state legislator's fault for leaving it open to interpretation like that.

Any judge will laugh this case out of court.[/QUOTE]
Over a million prescriptions per year is not a commonly prescribed pill?
 
Well, normally, I'd say that this lawsuit was going nowhere, but McDonald's got sued for coffee that was too hot, so anything some dumb fucker comes up with is probably fair game.

I'm going to EB Games tomorrow and get pissed because they don't sell cars. Then I'm going to sue the Ford dealer for not selling Toyota's. I think you get the point.

Suing a store for not carrying a product is asinine, but will probably win the case. Stupid fuckers.

TBW
 
Wait, I'm getting an idea for a movie here.

A woman goes in for a morning after pill but walmart won't sell it. Surprise, she ends up pregnant. THEN, she sues Walmart and the judge decides that Walmart is forced to adopt the unwanted baby.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Over a million prescriptions per year is not a commonly prescribed pill?[/QUOTE]


Oh I think we've all had a girlfriend who's been there.

"No, I promise I'll pull out just before..."
 
[quote name='TheBlueWizard']Well, normally, I'd say that this lawsuit was going nowhere, but McDonald's got sued for coffee that was too hot, so anything some dumb fucker comes up with is probably fair game.

I'm going to EB Games tomorrow and get pissed because they don't sell cars. Then I'm going to sue the Ford dealer for not selling Toyota's. I think you get the point.

Suing a store for not carrying a product is asinine, but will probably win the case. Stupid fuckers.

TBW[/QUOTE]

It's MEDICATION at a PHARMACY, NOT a PRODUCT at a STORE. There is a difference.
 
[quote name='TheBlueWizard']Well, normally, I'd say that this lawsuit was going nowhere, but McDonald's got sued for coffee that was too hot, so anything some dumb fucker comes up with is probably fair game.

I'm going to EB Games tomorrow and get pissed because they don't sell cars. Then I'm going to sue the Ford dealer for not selling Toyota's. I think you get the point.

Suing a store for not carrying a product is asinine, but will probably win the case. Stupid fuckers.

TBW[/QUOTE]
This is a medication at a pharmacy that they are required by law to have. If they don't agree, they're not legally required to run a pharmacy. They can either obey the law or not have pharmacies in Massachusetts, its up to them.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Over a million prescriptions per year is not a commonly prescribed pill?[/QUOTE]


That's relative if you compare it to other prescriptions.
 
[quote name='AFStealth']That's relative if you compare it to other prescriptions.[/QUOTE]

I want to see some data that shows other prescribed medications and the percentage of pharmacies that do and don't carry them.

Make like math class and show your work.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I want to see some data that shows other prescribed medications and the percentage of pharmacies that do and don't carry them.

Make like math class and show your work.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that would make it better. I've always thought that most pharmacies have to carry certain medications and/or their generics.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I want to see some data that shows other prescribed medications and the percentage of pharmacies that do and don't carry them.

Make like math class and show your work.[/QUOTE]

What, high school math class?

Anyways, no. Consider for a second that walmart would be getting themselves into some shit for breaking said law, and how the law in question is open to interpretation.

Also, the 'over a million' was obviously pulled out of someone's ass, seeing how it's not mentioned in the article. Nice try, but I don't feel like digging around to call someone on their bullshit.
 
[quote name='AFStealth']What, high school math class?

Anyways, no. Consider for a second that walmart would be getting themselves into some shit for breaking said law, and how the law in question is open to interpretation.

Also, the 'over a million' was obviously pulled out of someone's ass, seeing how it's not mentioned in the article. Nice try, but I don't feel like digging around to call someone on their bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Its not mentioned in the linked article, no. Google is your friend.

Preven, a similar pill, sold 1.3 million units in its first 3 months on the market alone.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990621/miller

Barr doesn't release hard numbers on Plan B, but they make 25 million per year on it, and it costs under $20 per dose... You do the math.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060123/ap_on_bi_ge/barr_plan_b_woes
http://www.go2planb.com/section/health_professionals/additional_resources/


With a 4 year shelflife, and a relatively low cost per unit, I call bullshit on it not being 'profitable enough' to keep in stock.

Considering that this was approved by an FDA commitee for over the counter sales, 23-4, and then overruled by senior officials, this is nothing more than politics. The FDA's director of women's health resigned over it. If not for Bush trying to delay this, it would have already been a popular over the counter medication that could prevent millions of abortions per year. Ironically, Walmart would be well within their rights not to carry an over the counter medication for any reason they want. It would be like not carrying Tylenol.
 
[quote name='AFStealth']What, high school math class?

Anyways, no. Consider for a second that walmart would be getting themselves into some shit for breaking said law, and how the law in question is open to interpretation.

Also, the 'over a million' was obviously pulled out of someone's ass, seeing how it's not mentioned in the article. Nice try, but I don't feel like digging around to call someone on their bullshit.[/QUOTE]

your concession here, and dafoomie's post, made me giggle this morning. Thanks!
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Wait, I'm getting an idea for a movie here.

A woman goes in for a morning after pill but walmart won't sell it. Surprise, she ends up pregnant. THEN, she sues Walmart and the judge decides that Walmart is forced to adopt the unwanted baby.[/QUOTE]

Quick! Someone get Steve Guttenberg on the phone! :D
 
The plaintiffs argued that state policy requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines."
Click to expand...

State policy? Meaning not state law? How the hell can you sue a company for not violating any law? They should be lobbying the state legislature to make a law here if that's what they want.

Personally I think Wal-Mart are idiots for not carrying it, and not just for business reasons.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']That didn't take long.

http://boston.metro.us/metro/local/article/State_board_requires_WalMart_to_stock_Plan_B/1141.html[/QUOTE]

"State Board Requires Wal-Mart to Take Measures to Make More Money Than It Would on Its Own."

That's how I read it. It's hard to reconcile the caricature of Wal-Mart as simulataneously the corporate, profit-driven at any cost behemoth at the same time that it's accused of taking measures that promote certain morals (via the availability of products, such as pharmaceuticals or christian material goods). Not impossible, but hard, certainly.
 
[quote name='AFStealth']What, high school math class?

Anyways, no. Consider for a second that walmart would be getting themselves into some shit for breaking said law, and how the law in question is open to interpretation.

Also, the 'over a million' was obviously pulled out of someone's ass, seeing how it's not mentioned in the article. Nice try, but I don't feel like digging around to call someone on their bullshit.[/QUOTE]

By not digging around (doing a google search), you basically admit that you are full of shit and lazy. Congratulations. You lose by default. Dafoomie FTW!
 
Wal Mart policy as should exist.

Why yes, we do stock the morning after pill!

It's right over there next to the condoms.

$5,000 per dose.

Problem solved. They carry it. Will never have to sell it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top