Pharmacist calls mother of 6 a murderer & refuses to fill pill prescription

>>"Condoms are sold there, very easily, very accessible. Viagra ...<<

I guess it´s okay if you aren´t the one accountable.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that Walgreens supports this kind of bullshit.The woman should be fired immediately! She should look for a new job!

I would love to see the grocery store clerks of the USA start doing the same thing. Sorry sir, I can´t ring up that sausage and ham for you, I´m jewish and it´s against my religion. Sorry maam, I can only ring up your fresh fruit and vegetables because I´m a fruitarian, please return your other 95 items to the store shelves & come back tomorrow on my day off. Hey grandma, don´t you know that your pound of hamburger is really your dead mother reincarnated as a cow and murdered, put that back I´m hindu.

In the meantime I will stop shopping at Walgreens.

16684,

If anybody should happen to want to voice their pissed-offedness at Walgreens here´s the contact info:

Walgreen Company Corporate Office
200 Wilmot Road
Deerfield, IL 60015
(847) 914-2500

Have it and give it for adoption ......

many buy it with paying the mother hospital bill ...

Abortion is murder , the solution is adoption
by childless parents (An there are a lot out there in adoption waiting lists .... )

The heart doesn´t start beating until 22 days after conception. It isn´t a person until then, it´s just growing cells.

Furthermore, women pass fertilized eggs all the time that didn´t implant. I know, why don´t we all start wearing, under penalty of death if we forget, a vaginal collection bag in case one comes out, complete with a vulva monitor to alert us to this ´murder´, and we can drop what we´re doing and speed to the nearest egg depository and drop the vaginal collection bag into the drive thru window at the clinic (just like at the bank). Inside, childless women will be waiting with their legs up in the stirrups and attendants will whisk the eggs from the donation bin straight to the turkey baster for implantation.

Cool, huh.

Why discriminate against the underdogs of embryos? Or are they still zygotes?

16684 Straight up-wouldn´t that bring it full circle. Very good 16684

Where the vegetarian refuses to do her job due to the whale blubber in the cosmetics-what a can of worms...likewise, if one doesn´t support fascism, we cannot support tptb...




Soon, they won´t dispense hard narcotics to the dying cancer patient-no morophine for you, you might of sinned and now are struck with disease...

I will not shop walgreens-at this rate I will have very few options-so many businesses have lost my business due to these bizarre moralistic folks, who see themselves as superior...for shame

I am amazed that on this bulletin board, of all places, there should be posters demanding that employees be *forced* to participate in state-sanctioned murder.

Yep, and PETA members should all start working at KFC restaurants and other animal activists at shoe stores, etc etc etc. There is no end to it really. Any muslim would be able to deny a woman anything if she wasn´t wearing a headscarf. The anti-booze people would be able to run into catholic mass and abscond with the wine. The clothing store clerks would be able to not let people try things on together if they were different fabrics.

It´s endless.

The inmates have wriggled out of their straightjackets and are trying to take over the asylum.

If anybody doesn´t know their agenda, birth control pills are next on their list. They want it so no woman can have birth control pills. No kidding. They take things baby step by baby step so their dogma doesn´t seem so harsh and leave time in between so people get used to the idea.

This trend isn´t going to stop anytime soon. The rabid are on the warpath and a society based on punishment is their methodology.

Old fashioned catholic - nobody forces anybody to work at a job they don´t agree with. If people do not want to fulfill the duties of their job they should seek another line of work. Happens all the time. People switch careers every day and there is no entitlement about it.

Also, Old fashioned catholic, how will you like it when people like Lester on the forum here start refusing to serve any catholics anything at all because they think you are satanists? They could deny you anything they felt like, and string you up from the nearest tree, all in the name of God. Or maybe they´d do the old witch test on you - throw you in the water and if you drown you were innocent but if you don´t drown they´ll burn you at the stake.

BTW, paganism within 10 years will be the nation´s number 3 religion. Gosh, if it were to overtake the others then what would happen?

Are we really wanting to rule by the most popular religion of the moment?

Stop imposing, people, and live in peace.

PLEASE!

New arena for birth-control battle
By RENE SANCHEZ
Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune
May 05, 2005

- Rebecca Polzin walked into a drugstore in Glencoe, Minn., last month to fill a prescription for birth control. A routine request. Or so she thought.

Minutes later, Polzin left furious and empty-handed. She said the pharmacist on duty refused to help her. "She kept repeating the same line: ´I won´t fill it for moral reasons,´ " Polzin said.

Earlier this year, Adriane Gilbert called a pharmacy in Richfield, Minn., to ask if her birth-control prescription was ready. She said the person who answered told her to go elsewhere because he was opposed to contraception. "I was shocked," Gilbert said. "I had no idea what to do."

The two women have become part of an emotional debate emerging across the country: Should a pharmacist´s moral views trump a woman´s reproductive rights?

The question is gaining urgency as more contraceptive drugs become available to women, and it is drawing familiar foes in the nation´s struggle over abortion into new battles in state legislatures and Congress.

No one knows how many pharmacists nationwide are declining to fill contraceptive prescriptions. But both sides in the debate say they are hearing more reports of such incidents - and they predict that conflicts at drugstore counters are bound to increase.

"Five years ago, we didn´t have evidence of this, and we would have been dumbfounded to see it," said Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. "We´re not dumbfounded now. We´re very concerned about what´s happening."

But M. Casey Mattox of the Center for Law and Religious Freedom said it is far more disturbing to see pharmacists under fire for their religious beliefs than it is to have women inconvenienced by taking their prescription to another drugstore. He also said that laws have long shielded doctors opposed to abortion from having to take part in the procedure.

"The principle here is precisely the same," Mattox said.

Two cases in the Midwest are a focus of the growing fight.

In Illinois, Gov. Rod Blagojevich issued an emergency order last month that requires pharmacists to fill prescriptions for any kind of legal birth control their employer carries, regardless of their religious beliefs.

The governor took the step after two women complained that a pharmacist in Chicago refused on moral grounds to give them prescribed contraceptive pills that were in stock.

"No delays. No hassles. No lectures," Blagojevich said.

But several pharmacists, backed by Christian legal groups, have filed lawsuits to overturn the governor´s order, which they say violates state law. Other pharmacists are vowing to ignore the governor´s requirement.

In Wisconsin last month, the state pharmacy board reprimanded pharmacist Neil Noesen for refusing for religious reasons to fill or transfer a woman´s birth-control prescription at a Kmart three years ago.

Noesen was arrested this year for allegedly refusing to leave Snyders Drug Stores´ corporate headquarters after he was fired for rejecting other birth-control prescriptions, according to a police report of the incident.

Snyders and an attorney representing Noesen declined to comment on that incident or his reprimand in Wisconsin. The attorney said Noesen was not giving interviews.

Nationally, legislators in more than a dozen states are reexamining the rights of pharmacists and women with prescriptions for birth control.

Some legislatures are reviewing new bills that would grant pharmacists protection from lawsuits or disciplinary action for refusing to dispense contraceptives. Other states may require pharmacists to fill birth-control prescriptions despite their moral qualms, unless they can direct women to convenient alternatives.

In Congress, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., introduced legislation last month to require pharmacies handling Medicare or Medicaid accounts to fill all legal prescriptions without delay or harassment, or refer customers to a place that will. She has said the bill is intend to protect access to contraceptives.

[link to www.knoxstudio.com]

Pharm stand
Anti-choice pharmacists opposed to all forms of artificial contraception are seeking the power to mess with women’s everyday lives
BY DEIRDRE FULTON
-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------







-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------






THE MAJORITY of women, whether they’re pro-choice or not, are more familiar with the look and feel of their local drugstore than they are with the inside of an abortion clinic. An estimated 95 percent of women use some form of artificial contraception at some point during their child-bearing years, while statistics from the New York–based Alan Guttmacher Institute show that if current rates continue, about 35 percent of American women will have an abortion during their reproductive years. We certainly can do more to continue reducing the abortion rate, but the fact remains, many more women are preventing unwanted pregnancies than are terminating them.

So, when the religious right enters pharmacies and emergency rooms to undermine access to contraception — "a very important part of women’s basic health care," says Massachusetts ACLU lobbyist Norma Shapiro — the intrusion is not abstract. By expanding their opposition to reproductive rights beyond the context of abortion, a growing movement of anti-choice extremists in the pharmacy profession is messing with women’s everyday lives.

Some religiously conservative pharmacists affiliated with organizations such as Pharmacists for Life International have long objected to synthetic birth control, such as the Pill. In the past, many have quietly passed such prescriptions on to colleagues unfettered by such qualms. These days, however, technical refinements to the "morning-after pill," or emergency contraception (EC) — a highly concentrated form of birth control that works within five days after unprotected sex to prevent ovulation, fertilization, or, in very few cases, implantation of an egg in the uterus — along with efforts to expand access to and awareness of it have prompted conservative pharmacists to mount organized opposition to all forms of artificial birth control.

No doubt emboldened by right-wing political rhetoric and an increasingly anti-choice climate, these pharmacists are seeking protection through what are called "conscience clauses," which allow health-care providers to bow out of providing services that conflict with their moral or religious beliefs. That may sound reasonable enough. Trouble is, there is every indication that, in today’s political climate, activist pharmacists are unwilling to settle for conscience clauses alone.

Four states already have laws on the books that permit pharmacist refusals; now, 12 more are considering similar legislation. Only some require pharmacists to refer (to another pharmacist or a different drugstore entirely) a prescription they refuse to fill. Meanwhile, just four other states are considering legislation that would do the opposite by requiring pharmacists to fill prescriptions.

With several states, including Massachusetts, considering expanding EC access, and the federal Food and Drug Administration weighing the benefits of over-the-counter access to the drug, the drugstore battles are bound to heat up even further.

GEORGE W. BUSH’S re-election sounded a wake-up call to pro-choice advocates across the country (see "Last Choice," News and Features, November 26, 2004). With conservatives controlling two branches of government — and ready to pounce on a third as soon as a Supreme Court seat opens up — women’s-rights organizations prepared for an onslaught of federal and state legislative attacks on reproductive rights. Their concern was not misplaced. During Bush’s first four years, right-wingers launched a series of incursions into reproductive rights — passing anti-choice legislation; de-funding international health-care agencies that merely offer information about abortion; nominating extreme religious conservatives to key positions, such as the failed attempt to name David Hager head of the Food and Drug Administration’s Committee on Reproductive Health; and promoting abstinence-only rather than comprehensive sex education in public schools.

After November’s elections, the anti-choice movement gained momentum. Just last week, the US House passed a bill that would make it illegal for an adult other than a parent or guardian to transport a minor across state lines (presumably to a state with less-stringent parental-notification laws) to get an abortion. Women’s-rights groups say the measure places undue strain on young women and families, and argue that it’s just one more angle from which to chip away at abortion rights. The bill, and its US Senate counterpart, are on the GOP’s top-10 list of legislative priorities this session.

In Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Dakota, state laws or pharmacy-board regulations already allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions, including those for birth-control, if doing so conflicts with their personal beliefs. (Mississippi’s statute passed in 2004; the others have been on the books for years.) As of April, legislators in 12 other states (including Rhode Island, Vermont, Texas, and West Virginia) had filed similar legislation for the current session. More legislation will likely lead to increased public acceptance, and then, more refusals.

The movement, meanwhile, is not content merely with pushing for conscience clauses. Reflecting the extreme social conservatism of its deceased founder, Sam Walton, Wal-Mart refuses even to stock EC (and given the behemoth super store’s market share, it’s sure to be the only pharmacy serving many rural areas). There are also reports of pharmacists flat-out refusing to transfer a prescription to a more-cooperative colleague. Even more disturbing are scattered accounts — including some in Massachusetts — of pharmacists offering lectures in lieu of prescriptions.

"If it’s about conscience, that’s one thing," says Judy Waxman, vice-president for health and reproductive rights at the Washington, DC–based National Women’s Law Center. However, she adds, the pharmacy isn’t a pulpit. "If it’s about extremists trying to get in the way of women’s health care, it’s inappropriate."

Especially since, like most other women’s-health issues, this one has the potential for a disproportionately harsh effect on women who are poor, young, or live in rural areas. These women will have more difficulty traveling to fill a referred prescription at a different pharmacy. In addition, studies show that poor women and minorities are less likely even to know about emergency contraception. Unaware of the drug, or of how and when to obtain it until the last minute, women seeking EC might arrive at a pharmacy later in the five-day window of the drug’s effectiveness — with less time to waste dealing with moralizers and bureaucracy.

In Massachusetts, pharmacists who refuse to fill a prescription are violating the state’s policy, which contains "no morals clauses or conscience clauses," says Donna Rheaume, spokesperson for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. "The Board of Pharmacy expects that all prescriptions will be filled by pharmacists," unless there’s a medical reason (such as drug interactions) why one shouldn’t be.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean it can’t happen here. Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts (PPLM) reports hearing of a handful of refusals; the organization is in the process of confirming the nine official complaints it has received in the past year and a half. "Sometimes it’s not even a refusal, it’s a lecture," says PPLM spokeswoman Erin Rowland. "It’s the same imposition of ideology on a patient who’s very vulnerable."

In one publicized case last year, a CVS pharmacist in Amherst refused to fill the regular birth-control prescription of a University of Massachusetts Amherst sophomore, the school’s Daily Collegian reported in December 2004.

Of course, these are isolated incidents in a state with 9940 state-licensed pharmacists who work in 1044 pharmacies. In fact, most of the industry — including the Massachusetts Pharmacists Association and the Massachusetts Independent Pharmacists Association — is on record as supporting expanded access to EC. Extreme pharmacists’ refusals have been "raised to such a high level of visibility, and I think it really represents a very small fraction of pharmacists that are practicing," says Doctor of Pharmacy Daniel Robinson, dean of Northeastern’s Bouvé College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences.

But the more legislative support they have, the more bold anti-choice pharmacists might become. One tool they could soon have at their disposal is the proposed Workplace Religious Freedom Act, a federal bill co-sponsored by Massachusetts senator John Kerry. The bill would reinforce existing protections offered by Title XII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by ensuring freedom of religious expression on the job — concerning such matters as religiously appropriate clothing and leave time during religious holidays — as long as it doesn’t affect the employer’s bottom line. Combined with its bizarre and unpalatable co-sponsor (Pennsylvania’s homophobic senator Rick Santorum), the bill worries some women’s-rights advocates, who fear it could give pharmacists greater legal latitude to refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions.

"The bill is broad and vague," Judy Waxman says. "It maybe could be interpreted to allow a pharmacist to actually obstruct a woman’s ability to get the drug." The National Women’s Law Center has shared its concerns with the bill’s co-sponsors and "they have been listening to us," Waxman says. The bill is certainly one to watch as it moves forward.

Meanwhile, Senators Barbara Boxer, of California, and Frank Lautenberg, of New Jersey, have proposed bills that would ensure contraceptive access at pharmacies across the nation. They acknowledge individual decisions of conscience, while placing the burden on pharmacies to make sure a woman gets served in a timely manner.

Women’s-rights advocates like to illustrate how absurd pharmacist refusals would sound under different circumstances. What if a pharmacist decided to stop filling prescriptions for diabetes medications, asks Aaron Payson, a Unitarian Universalist minister in Worcester who served as president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Or scrips for Viagra, Rowland asks. Or those for Retin-A, offers Shapiro: "Does the pharmacist say, ‘Gee, I don’t approve of women who want to get rid of their wrinkles?’ Where do you draw the line?"

LOCALLY, THE controversy will continue to boil if the state legislature passes a popular measure (known as the "EC Bill") that would increase EC access in Massachusetts hospitals and pharmacies. In addition to requiring all hospital emergency rooms, including those in Catholic hospitals, to offer information about EC to sexual-assault victims, the EC Bill would also facilitate voluntary, collaborative agreements between pharmacists and physicians, allowing patients to obtain EC without a prescription. (Maine, California, Alaska, Washington, New Mexico, and Hawaii have enacted similar legislation.)

It’s a good step for women, Robinson says. "Every one of them, in their community, have access and are served by a pharmacy 365 days a year — and that’s the beauty of getting a pharmacy involved. They’re already there, they’re available, they’re strategically located, and they’re there holidays, weekends, anytime that would be needed by a woman in need of EC."

To that end, Planned Parenthood and other experts are training pharmacists across the state to dispense EC. "I can’t tell a pharmacist what to believe, but I can sit them down and talk to them and educate them," says Kristyn Napoli, a Neponset Health Center pharmacist who leads continuing-education EC programs for colleagues. "We don’t know where that patient is coming from. We’re not there to judge her, we’re there to give her timely access to health care."

Because the arrangements would be voluntary, any pharmacist uncomfortable with dispensing the contraception would not have to do so. But that doesn’t placate the Massachusetts Catholic Conference (MCC). They have seized on the emergency-room portion of the bill, claiming that it violates their religious freedom.

"It would mandate certain actions in Catholic hospitals which we could be opposed to," says Maria Parker of the MCC. "It’s kind of a nuanced thing. Contraceptives can act as a true contraceptive or as an abortifacient. And when it acts as an abortifacient, that is problematic, because now you are jeopardizing the life of a human being. And that is opposed to our Catholic position."

(Nuanced indeed. If a woman is pregnant, EC doesn’t have an effect. It cannot induce abortions, and is entirely separate from RU-486, the medical-abortion drug. Their so-called abortion objection, therefore, refers only to the few cases in which EC prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.)

Of the state’s nine Catholic hospitals, some already dispense EC to rape victims, according to a 2004 NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts study. An informal Phoenix survey, conducted by calling Catholic emergency rooms and asking, "Do you dispense emergency contraception?", found only one hospital, Holy Family in Methuen, that offers EC to rape victims. Two phone operators, at Caritas Good Samaritan Medical Center in Brockton, and Mercy Hospital in Springfield, offered referrals without being asked (to Brockton and Bay State Hospitals, respectively). St. Vincent Hospital in Worcester suggested Planned Parenthood, and St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center in Boston advised going to "any ER that doesn’t have a Catholic affiliation." At Caritas Norwood Hospital, Carney Hospital in Dorchester, Saints Memorial Medical in Lowell, and St. Anne’s Hospital in Fall River, the answer was a simple "No," followed in two cases by the explanation, "We’re a Catholic hospital." When pressed, they did not offer referrals.

Yet all these institutions take public money, employ people of all religions, and accept patients from all faiths, the ACLU’s Shapiro points out. While they have Catholic roots, "they’re not religious institutions," she says, and don’t have the right to act like them.

In any event, the problem runs deeper than simple mixed-up facts about how the drug functions, says Payson, of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Payson’s religious philosophy is one that embraces women’s freedom and liberty to care for their own bodies. However, his argument concentrates on institutional hypocrisy. "Conscience is one thing," he says. "But these are institutions that say they want to forego carrying this medication and yet accept federal funds. I understand individual conscience; I don’t understand institutional conscience."

[link to www.bostonphoenix.com]

Glad the guy down at the gun store wholeheartedly believe that everyone should have as many guns as they want.

What if the pharmacist is a firm believer in eugenics?

Shouldn´t the clerk at McDonalds be able to say to every obese customer ´Sorry fatso, no big mac supersized meal for you, I´m not going to contribute to your imminent death. Have a side salad or get the fuck outta here´.

On the link in the lead article there´s a picture of the offended pharmacist - she is quite the lardass. I hope all people who interact with her in the future will deny her goods and services that would otherwise contribute to her death from obesity. Taxi drivers and bus drivers should tell her sorry, you need to walk maam and burn off some of that fat so it doesn´t kill you. The clerk at the convenience store should dutifully slap that hershey bar right out of her hand and hand her a bag of rice cakes. Popcorn at the movie theater - forgettaboutit - I´m saving your life lady and you´ll thank me for this some day.

Contact Walgreens NOW!

Did the pharmacist volunteer to pay all the expenses of raising an unwanted child?

Murder IS murder ! Always has been, ALWAYS WILL BE!

Your just a bunch of liberals, FREE Love advocates, wanting your pleasue FIRST, with NO responsibility for your actions.

Hell is nearly FULL of your kind.

898

If i may,

Do you care when you take a walk in the bush about the fact that you probably killed hundreds of small insects during your journey?

Ho yes sorry, only when convenient aint it?

Insects dosent count?

Or, maybe you were not given the choice at one point in your life and now you feel like everyone should live your misfortune?

Either way, i am starting to feel hungry.

Great thread! You are the bomb 16684 and I salute you. This is huge folks and you don´t want to invite this methodology in. Complacency is the best way to give free reign so start complainin´ and boycottin´! Get the message across.

Wrong, 898. Your simplifying a complex issue doesn´t make it so.

I´ve never had an abortion and I have a boatload of happy healthy good kids. I would be happy with a no abortion society when a) men stop raping women b) men stop committing incest c) parents stop prostituting their children d) pregnant women no longer have to worry about being murdered by their baby´s father e) men pay their child support so women don´t end up on welfare raising the kids.

The number 1 cause of death for pregnant women in the USA is murder at the hands of their baby´s father.

And we´re not even talking about abortion here. We´re talking about birth control. If the embryo/zygote is already implanted, Plan B will not discharge it. It only prevents implantation, IF there is something to implant, which may not be the case in most incidents. It also prevents fertilization just like a condom does. It can also prevent ovulation, no egg coming out to meet the sperm that escaped from the broken condom.

This is birth control. Not abortion. Not murder.

16684

i am sure the info your are giving us are accurate.

Those women, had a child with a man that forced them to?

Then the man decided to kill the women?


People should learn how to use good judgement, and not get implicated with a tatood mister look at me i have hair on my chest. Or a drug addict, or a women beater.

If women could understand that image is nothing, they might have less of that happening.

But no, look at high school today. Girls wears nothing, they are inviting this sort of behaviour.


The look "i am a prostitute" but pretend not to be is getting old now. People should see whats comming.

And sorry for all the lady that got forced to have sex with man.

bumping for women who may not know yet how their birth control supply is being threatened.