Store Owners forced to sell what they don't want to

I'm not sure what forum this would go in ....
So I picked this one.

This is awful. People own pharmacies. They sell
items to the public. If certain items are against their
belief process or their political thinking, they shouldn't
be forced to sell those items.

Likewise - Someone who is on the left side politically and who
owns a car dealership shouldn't be forced to sell SUVs
or hummers. Someone who has a religion that doesn't
believe in abortion shouldn't have to sell 'the morning after'
pill. Heck .. if the customer doesn't like the service (or lack of
service) at that store, the customer and his/her money will
go elsewhere.

This is being pushed as a bill to help women get birth control.
Hey ... women can get birthcontrol just about anywhere. There
is no reason to force someone to sell things they don't want to.
I wouldn't force a car dealer to carry SUVs if he didn't want to.
I'd just go down the road and buy a SUV from someone else if
I wanted one.

www.reuters.com...


Excerpt coming -

U.S. Bill Would Help Women Get Birth Control
Thu Apr 14, 2005
By Joanne Kenen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Addressing the growing controversy over
U.S. pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control or emergency
contraceptives, several lawmakers on Thursday unveiled a bill that
would require pharmacies to fill all prescriptions.

Led by New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg and New York Rep. Carolyn
Maloney, both Democrats, the bill would require all pharmacies to fill
prescriptions including birth control pills and the so-called morning
after pill. The bill applies to pharmacies, not to an individual pharmacist.

Lautenberg said that if pharmacies fill prescriptions for Viagra, a drug that
treats erectile dysfunction, they should sell prescription contraceptives as
well.

According to the law center, legislators in at least 26 states have
introduced "refusal" laws backing pharmacists who refuse to fill certain
prescriptions because of moral or religious beliefs. Three states have
already passed such laws, and a fourth state has issued a similar
regulation.

In four states, lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require
pharmacists to fill prescriptions for contraception.



[edit on 4/15/2005 by FlyersFan]

There's a difference between a store owner and a pharmacist. Most pharmacists work FOR stores and can't afford to own a pharmacy.

Now... there is an implcit contract when someone becomes a pharmacist -- it says that "I am the one you can turn to and trust. I supply (and will order) any medication that your doctor recommends."

Let's see the consequences of your proposal -- that pharmacists only stock and sell the drugs THEY believe in:
* 7th day Adventist pharmacists could then deny insulin to diabetics.
* Holistic pharmacists could refuse to sell blood pressure medicine, offering only homeopathic remedies for blood pressure.
* Mormon pharmacists could refuse on religious grounds to sell any ADHD drug (no matter how badly your child needed it) or any antidepressant since both are abused.
* Christian Scientist pharmacists could hand out religious tracts instead of drugs when you came in for your heart medication.

What if you got prostatitis (as many men do) and your pharmacist converted to Christian Science. What if your local pharmacist refused you drugs for your condition?

Imagine you're my daughter, suffering with endometriosis (she would have a period that lasted 35 days... longer than a month. Can you imagine unstoppable bleeding from YOUR body for 35 days at a time?) Birth control pills kept her back to normal.

Do you know what the options are for women who have this horrible condition if they can't use birth control? I'll tell you -- they can put up with unending pain and bleeding (suppose your WIFE had this and couldn't engage in intercourse for two months at a time because of pain and heavy bleeding) or they can start going in for surgery. Lots of surgery.

And the surgery may mean removing their ovaries and uterus -- imagine YOUR poor wife having to do a complete hysterectomy at age 20 (like my aunt had to have) because birth control pills aren't available and the ONLY other option is a total hysterectomy.

The minute someone's ideals gets in the way of their delivering health care, they need to go into some other profession.

I understand what you are saying .. but you missed my point
(or you just disagree with it).

OWNERS of stores shouldn't be forced to sell that which they
don't want to.

If someone wants birth control pills and a particular pharmacy
doesn't carry it because they don't believe in it .. so what?
They won't 'bleed to death' or whatever ... the person just
goes down the road to the next pharmacy that DOES carry it.

If a store owner is a 7th day Adventist and doesn't stock diabetic
medicines ... so what? The person can get the perscription filled
at a hospital or a different pharamacy.

A store owner shouldn't be forced to sell something that
they don't want to. Now ... if the store owner believes in selling
diabetic meds and the people who work there don't ... then those
workers need to leave the employ of the owner. But if the owner
doesn't believe in something then they shouldn't be forced to.

I don't think there are any Christian Scientist pharmacists. And even
if for some strange reason there were and they handed out religious
tracts instead of drugs .. then the store would be out of business in
a few weeks anyways.

I don't have to imagine I am your daughter ... because I had severe
endometriosis. The surgeon said it was the worst case she had ever
seen in her entire career.
YES I do know what the options are for women who have the condition. I had it. I heard it all.

I am a married woman so I don't have a 'WIFE'. I have had a complete
hysterectomy because of the endometriosis which - at the risk of being
too personal - turned both ovaries into baseballs, the tubes were
completely shut, the tubes from my kidneys were completely covered as
well as my Gallbladder, my appendix, every organ except my liver, and
it was all over my bowels.

If I went to a pharmacy and they didn't carry what I needed .. which has
happened .. I just go down the road to the next pharmacy and get what
I need. It's very simple and it doesn't infringe upon the rights of that
other store owner to carry what he/she wants.

If selling birth control pills is against their belief process then they're in the wrong business.

They were discussing this on Scarborough Country last night and the woman in favor of this made some good points.

She says if you're a vegetarian, you don't ask KFC for a job and then refuse to sell chicken. If you get a job at a bar and refuse to pour drinks the owner has a right to fire you.

That's what I said .. if an EMPLOYEE doesn't sell the goods that
the owner wants sold ... then fire him/her. However, if the OWNER
of the store doesn't want to sell goods ... they shouldn't have to.

The law is made to protect you, you say you can go down the street and buy it from another pharmacy, probably not. This country is controled by contracts and legal obligations, so if on big name pharmacy decided not to sell birth control it would effect every store within that franchise in the whole country except where law stops it. You see when you belong to a franchise you gotto do what that franchise says because it is part of a legal contract that you agreed to at the start of your business. now many towns in this country only have on pharmacy and if that was the only pharmacy you could get to you would be in trouble. Now think about it most big franchises (corporations) try to do as the other does, this in turn would cause a domino effact and then there would be a limited amount of pharmacies selling this drug in the country, not your town.

For once I agree with the law. Imagine if the pharmacist or store refused to carry mood stabilizers because for whatever reason they didnt believe in them. Now someone without that medication goes out and hurts themselves and someone else because their perscription was refused? Under nomral circumstances they wouldnt have snapped because the medication levels them out, but someone refused them the medication. Whos responsible there? the person who didnt get the medication, or the person who said they couldnt have it?

Also another thought, without this law (and now that the topic has been broached) groups could purchase rights to companies like Walgreens, Rite-Aid, etc and then decree once they have 51% control that they will no longer sell certain drugs. This might not seem like a big deal to those in urban areas where you can drive two blocks and find another store but think about smal rural areas where sometimes one store is all you have, and suddenly they refuse to give you your Prozac or Lithium. The idea of stores turning you down for things that are important to your health based on personal reasons that should have no place in the line of work is a very scarcy concept. Hopefully the legislators will see the potential for problems here and stop this before it becomes an even larger issue.