Log In | Register
This is absolutely crazy. These sex-obsessed busybodies need to get their noses out of everyone else's sex lives and just do their jobs - instead of trying to obstruct access to contraception and punish them with unwanted pregnancy.
Pharmacist Refuses To Sell Man Plan B For His Wife Because He 'Might Be Giving It To Rape Victims' | Crooks and Liars
Seeded on Sun Jan 8, 2012 7:09 PM EST
Article Source: Crooks and Liars- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (530)
Jason Melbourne had already visited four pharmacies in search of Plan B for his wife when he was referred to a CVS in Mesquite, Texas, some 15 miles away from his home. They had one box left:
But when he finally got there, the overnight pharmacist, Minni Matthew, told Melbourne she wasn’t going to sell it to him.In order for him to buy the meds, the pharmacist said, she’d need to talk to and see the ID of his wife, who was at home with their two young children. He asked why, and she pointed to the fine print on the medication’s box, which says it can only be sold to someone age 17 or older. Melbourne pointed out that he was well over 17.
“I’ve bought this plenty of times in my life, and it’s never been a problem,” he said. “Are you telling me every other place I’ve bought it from has been wrong?”Didn’t matter, Matthew said, since the medicine obviously wasn’t for him.“Why don’t you show me the law that says you can’t sell this to a man?” Melbourne replied.
The situation got worse from there.
- 38 votes
But that's not the only place this is happening. The sex police are in other states too. This is from the article:
Jezebel notes that Melbourne’s ordeal happened around the same time that a Houston CVS store refused to sell another man Plan B. CVS apologized for that last month, calling it an “isolated incident.” It wasn’t.
In fact, in 2010 ACLU received reports that Walgreens stores in Texas, Mississippi and Oklahoma were refusing to sell emergency contraception to men. Walgreens relented when the ACLU confronted them publicly.
It's disturbing enough that they refused to sell to him when he was legally able to purchase it, but then they accuse him of being a criminal:
Melbourne put his wife on the phone and even Googled the medication to show the pharmacist there was no law against selling it to a man. But “she didn’t want to see it,” he said.
That’s when a male pharmacy technician informed Melbourne that they didn’t want to sell emergency contraception to men because they might be giving it to “rape victims.”
- 37 votes
I’ve bought this plenty of times in my life
Uh.. did no-one else find that bizzare?
- 22 votes
ACLU needs to sue them. Theses people should not be pharmacists if they can't do their job. They aren't the fricken morality police.
- 36 votes
I’ve bought this plenty of times in my life
Uh.. did no-one else find that bizzare?
Err, no! Why do you? Plenty of times could be 3 or 4. But, I guess in your eyes it's probably dozens of times.
- 37 votes
So needing to use plan b 4 times doesn't seem excessive? It's not intended for birth control. Jesus.
Great job.
- 9 votes
And just to correct that, it's not intended for RECURRING birth control. If you need to use plan b "plenty of times" then you probably shouldn't be having sex any more. You're clearly not responsible enough.
Now, that doesn't mean he shouldn't get it. He shouldn't be denied the pill.
- 10 votes
It's not intended for birth control. Jesus.
Actually, that's exactly what if IS for, and there are quite a few circumstances which would indicate its use. Condom breakage, condom slippage, forgetting to take the usual daily birth control pill, having a stomach upset (vomiting or diarrhea) after taking the pill, etc. I've used Plan B myself for one of those reasons and even if I'd had to use it for ALL those reasons over any given period of time, I wouldn't consider myself either irresponsible or a candidate for being disallowed from having sex ever again.
Also? It's not a preferred "recurring" method because it's freaking NOT cheap at $50 a pop. You shouldn't be so judgmental.
- 55 votes
It appears obvious that LEE doesn't know what he's talking about.
- 27 votes
What business does a man have being in posession of the plan B drug? Call me old fashioned, but to me the only person that has any business posessing pharmaceutical drugs are pharmaceutical reps, pharmacists, and the end user. Since this guy doesn't fall into any of those categories, he has no business trying to get it. If his wife wants to take it, she can get it from the pharmacist. What's to say he's not slipping this drug to her without her knowledge, or using it's ingredients to concoct a harmful narcotic?
- 2 votes
I've bought this plenty of times in my life
Uh.. did no-one else find that bizzare?
Yes Lee my husband and both cracked up when we read that. Just buy a box ladies and keep the damn thing at home then way when you need it for all those numberous "oops times" it will be there and your husband doesn't have to drive to 4 pharmacies to find it and then get the run around from the pharmacist on duty. That's seems pretty simple.
- 5 votes
I sympathize with the man and I understand his frustration in this circumstance. However, I see no reason to beat the pharmacists up too much over this. It seems as though their policies are genuine and were created with the best of intentions. It looks like there needs to be a lot more communication between the FDA, makers of the drug, and pharmacists.
If you think about it, there's really no reason not to sell the drug to any adult who asks for it. I get that they want to prevent abuse, but that can happen with any drug. I also get that they don't want to assist a rapist. I doubt this is an actual problem, but even if it were, I would still want his victim to have the drug. In fact, I want that person to have it more than anyone.
- 6 votes
Okay, for contraception substutute liquor or cigarettes. Do you think you could waltz into the liquor store, announce you were buying alcohol for your minor child or girlfriend, and get served? In my state, if a couple walks into the liquor store they card BOTH of them, not just the one doing the purchasing. The pharmacist was protecting his license by asking for ID. The state legislature demands an ID, blame THEM.
- 3 votes
Boy, these people have no problem butting into somebody elses life, do they? And since when does the person who wants to use the product have to be the one to buy it? Where is the damn "freedom and liberty" the right pisses and moans about?
- 26 votes
Okay, for contraception substutute liquor or cigarettes. Do you think you could waltz into the liquor store, announce you were buying alcohol for your minor child or girlfriend, and get served? In my state, if a couple walks into the liquor store they card BOTH of them, not just the one doing the purchasing. The pharmacist was protecting his license by asking for ID. The state legislature demands an ID, blame THEM.
But he was there by himself, and he said it was for his wife... How is this at all the same?
This is yet another reason why Planned Parenthood is so critical. What's next, you can't buy Condoms because: "Well, I don't know... how do I know your girlfriend is 18?"
- 31 votes
The arguments in favor of this pharmicist's decision get worse all the time.
As to the store's policy, I doubt the store policy is to refuse to sell Plan B to men because they might be rapists. Nothing in the article said it was. This isn't the first time that it happened and in previous cases, the stores denied they had a policy of refusing to sell Plan B to men.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/reader-diaries/2010/11/17/walgreens-continues-gender-discrimination-pharmacy
As to him buying it for someone underage, where did you get that idea? If the underage girl was his daughter, doesn't he have the right to buy it on her behalf?
As to the pharmacy protecting itself from a lawsuit, they didn't do a very good job since he went to the ACLU and is suing. They'd better have proof he is a rapist and the law forbids them to sell to rapists, or they're up the creek without a paddle.
- 24 votes
What's next, you can't buy Condoms because: "Well, I don't know... how do I know your girlfriend is 18?"
The age of consent is actually 16 in many states including my own, and we all know some young men carry a condom in their wallet for years without ever getting the chance to use it. Anyway the pharmacist wasn't selling sex (at least I hope not.) She was selling a form of birh control which by law requires an ID.
- 4 votes
Yeah, every rapist is concerned about the fate of his victim -- and wouldn't mind leaving a trail of evidence to help prove her story about being forced to take Plan B.
Loretta, a stepfather or mama's shack up stud who is a rapist is probably VERY concerned about his victim since he doesn't want to get caught. A pregnancy would be proof of rape in his case--even if the child was aborted they could check the DNA. Consent isn't an issue if the girl is 14.\
Please stop assuming all rape happens on ghetto street corners. You know better. I will say it: you are being disingenuous.
- 4 votes
There's no shortage of @!$%#s in the world, that's for sure!
- 13 votes
Didn't the guy get his wife on the phone and the pharmacist would not talk to her?
There are also some pharmacies that refuse to sell the birthcontrol pill period even although they may be the only pharmacy in the ares.
It is time that these T'pubcons take their hands out of women's uterus and keep away from men who are trying to be responsible by not ' fathering' another child they may not be able to afford to support.
These reproduction police need to mind their own reproductive issues business instead of minding everybody elses own.
Many of these reproduction police and uterus monitors are only interested in the egg and sperm or the fetus but never in the a living breating on its own child outside the uterus. They do not mind seeing those babies starving, homeless, sick and without healthcare of any kind, as they are also against any public assistance to the parents of these children.
They do not mind having these children being taken and placed in orphanages or fosterhomes and should the child survive this harsh environment, then not to have access to an education (why else are these T'pubcon closing schools, laying off teachers, calling for the Dept of Education etc to be gotten rid of or defunded) so that they can grow up lacking in love/caring, social skills, hardened to the world around them, ignorant and fodder for the many private for-profit prisons that are being built all over our country.
These frigid, sexless, unloving prigs want everyone to be like themselves no wonder they push abstainance as the only method of reproduction control. They want enough children to be born into a life of lack (so they can make money off of them) to fill the private prisons or be ready for the draft should this be necessary for the next war/conflict as we do have a volunteer Armed Services now and after 10 years of war there may not be many young people who may want to re-up or volunteer.
It is time for these reproduction/sex police T'cons who should be known as or called the 'rigidfrigids' to mind their own business instead of impringing on the rights of the rest of the population who do not ascribe to their ideology or rigidfrigidity.
Peace.....
- 22 votes
Well said. Rigidfrigids...ROTFLOL. I gotta try to remember that one.
- 15 votes
The situation got worse from there. Melbourne put his wife on the phone and even Googled the medication to show the pharmacist there was no law against selling it to a man. But “she didn’t want to see it,” he said......That’s when a male pharmacy technician informed Melbourne that they didn’t want to sell emergency contraception to men because they might be giving it to “rape victims.”
But they will dispense Oxycodone by the boatload...how do they know the person they are giving it to won't sell it to school kids?....
Said this before I will say it again..if women were to incorporate their Uterus, Republicans that hate regulation would leave them alone...
- 23 votes
I want these "conscience clauses" removed from all pharmacy policies and legislative protection.
If someone waits until they get through schooling and certification to figure out that their religious beliefs are going to interfere with the job in some cases, then they should either take responsibility for their decisions ( remember that one, Republicans?) and deal with whatever difficulties a career change involves, or STFU and do the job they signed up to do.
Please stop assuming all rape happens on ghetto street corners. You know better. I will say it: you are being disingenuous.
Ah, so that's why these folks who use "conscience clauses" are really doing this. It's not about trying to use yet another angle to dictate morality to others, it's about preventing the rape of minors. A 30-year-old woman buying the pill who has a 10-year-old daughter with her in the store could be getting it to help her husband/boyfriend cover up the rape. A guy who's obviously in his 30s stopping by to get some condoms could be on his way home to rape a daughter or stepdaughter and not have consensual sex with his wife. Based on that possibility, we should let these jackasses not do their job?
Who's being disingenuous?
And, of course, there's the fact that in whatever small number of cases where the customer is a such a monster, the policy forces the girl involved to either have to deal with an abortion or "make lemonade" as the great Sharron Angle put it. I'm a man and not going to presume to speak for women who've dealt with the crime of child molestation, but forcing that to happen ( since "getting caught" doesn't seem like it would be that much of a deterrent to someone sick enough to rape a child ), especially with so many politicians wanting to make abortion illegal even in the cases of rape and incest, doesn't seem like a particularly effective solution for the actual problem for all the trouble. It seems a lot more like yet another rationalization for treating the vast majority of people who are there to buy contraception for use by consenting adults like criminals if the pharmacist has some moral objection to sex outside the rare times it's actually intended to produce children.
- 20 votes
I got the impression that the pharmacist didn't want to give the pill because the person the man was buying it for might not be of age. Every state is different when it comes to age of consent and statutory rape. But I could understand if the pharmacist was worried that the man might be buying it for someone under age. We obviously don't want to make it so a man sleeping with a girl who is under age can go around getting these pills for her so he doesn't get caught for statutory rape. I think every woman over 17 should have access to this but I don't blame the pharmacist for using caution in the situation.
- 2 votes
What business does a man have being in posession of the plan B drug? Call me old fashioned, but to me the only person that has any business posessing pharmaceutical drugs are pharmaceutical reps, pharmacists, and the end user. Since this guy doesn't fall into any of those categories, he has no business trying to get it.
LMFAO. First of all you start with a ridiculous notion that completely ignores the fact that every day thousands of people in this country and elsewhere need to get others' pharmaceuticals for them. Then you go from a list of the only people you feel should possess those drugs and then using that standard say that this guy shouldn't have the drugs because he does not fit in those categories. However there is no law against him having them or transporting them for someone else. So, there is still no reason why he should not have them, and he has every right to get the drug for his wife or girlfriend and is therefore completely in the bounds of what is his business.
- 15 votes
They don't control the sale of condoms by gender, nor of spermicides, nor do they prevent people from buying them because they may be used for under-aged or rape victims, so why the plan B pill? No reason other than it's put under the control of the pharmacist instead of out in the aisles. And the petty little pharmacists want to pretend they are gods of morality.
Plan B is not something you plan on using often. At $50/dose it's too expensive. And it's not something you buy "just in case" since you don't anticipate using it before an expiration date. But it's something that's good to have for the time you and your husband get carried away, and don't use the regular BC correctly. (Hopefully, we all have some wanton moments in our lives.) My daughters know about it, and know to ask for it if they make a mistake. And I know just where to get it. The sympathetic pharmacist at my local CVS, who clearly regrets having to make me ask for it and then charging me so much for it.
- 17 votes
We obviously don't want to make it so a man sleeping with a girl who is under age can go around getting these pills for her so he doesn't get caught for statutory rape.
Wait a minute. Never-mind the fact that the scenario of a statutory rapist buying birth control for their underage victim is pretty outlandishly unlikely, you'd rather the underage girl has to have either an abortion OR a baby so it can be used as evidence to prosecute her rapist?
- 21 votes
What business does a man have being in posession of the plan B drug? Call me old fashioned, but to me the only person that has any business posessing pharmaceutical drugs are pharmaceutical reps, pharmacists, and the end user. Since this guy doesn't fall into any of those categories, he has no business trying to get it.
Yeah...the end user. Well just slap granny up out of home-care traction and make her go get her own damn pills.
And why shouldn't a man participate in the prevention of unplanned pregnancies?
Hells bells, my high-school true-love test-o-meter was to make my boyfriend purchase my tampons. What would you say to him? "Excuse me. You are male. I can't sell you these."
I know, I know. Tampons vs. birth control. But not as much of a stretch as one would think.
- 21 votes
What business does a man have being in posession of the plan B drug?
My gf has me buy her feminine products all the time - wouldn't be surprised if she decided to throw Plan B on the shopping list at some time or another, we get carried away sometimes.
- 19 votes
"Real" men aren't afraid of picking up their woman's feminine products. Even though that aisle can be pretty intimidating with the gazillion variations of the same damn product! [LOL]
I find it interesting that so many on here are immediately jumping to the conclusion that this Plan B was going to be put to use for some under-aged girl or rape victim. Get your minds out of the gutter people! Shame on you, and read the dang story for goodness sakes.
- 17 votes
What business does a man have being in posession of the plan B drug? Call me old fashioned, but to me the only person that has any business posessing pharmaceutical drugs are pharmaceutical reps, pharmacists, and the end user.
And that makes sense how? You mean to tell me you have never bought your wife cold medicine when she needed it?
- 16 votes
Even though that aisle can be pretty intimidating with the gazillion variations of the same damn product! [LOL]
I think that's why they put the condoms and KY on the same aisle. At least in my local drugstore, they do. At the opposite end of the baby food and diapers and next to the home pregnancy tests LOL! It's like a product placement ad. Who's not gonna buy four or five more boxes of condoms than you went in for when, to get to them, you have to go past what'll happen if you DON'T use the condoms?!
- 18 votes
I find it interesting that so many on here are immediately jumping to the conclusion that this Plan B was going to be put to use for some under-aged girl or rape victim. Get your minds out of the gutter people! Shame on you, and read the dang story for goodness sakes.
No jumping to conclusions here. The pharmacy tech said it.
- 5 votes
"Real" men aren't afraid of picking up their woman's feminine products. Even though that aisle can be pretty intimidating with the gazillion variations of the same damn product! [LOL]
I do it frrequently for my 15 year old daughter.
- 7 votes
She was selling a form of birh control which by law requires an ID
Which he had and which showed he was over 17. The pharmacy was wrong.
- 18 votes
the reason why we have "reproduction policy" and "moralizing busy bodies" is because of the Roman Catholic Church and their evangelical rightwing goons.
- 8 votes
is because of the Roman Catholic Church and their evangelical rightwing goons.
Well actually most evangelicals (the worst offenders) belong to various protestant faiths, and not the RCC.
Although that doesn't mean the Catholics aren't a powerful voice in the anti-birth-control nonsense. They are just secondary to the Baptists and others here in the United States.
- 7 votes
Most thoughtful boyfriend I had was the one in college who, after his condom slipped, got out in the cold, wet night, and drove 20 minutes to the nearest open pharmacy to buy spermicide. Now, maybe he was thinking more about himself, but I still like to pretend he was being thoughtful to me. And many thanks to the sales person who did not stop him. College was better being not pregnant.
- 15 votes
People like this pharmacist need to pull their head out of their a$$ instead of bullsh1t excuses as to why they have any right to push their ideals on others. They don't realize that if rights are taken by others, their own right to choose is also affected. If you want a right to practice your own religion and or way of life then don't contradict others because that is only bringing attention to the flaws of their own beliefs / religion.
- 10 votes
I’ve bought this plenty of times in my life
Uh.. did no-one else find that bizzare?
Yes I did. That guy and his wife need birth control, education on how to use that birth control or the ease of sterilization for birth control.
I think women need access to this medication, I definitely think women who are raped NEED this medication, even if this guy needs to sell it to them, but a married couple several/many times?.... this excuse about his wife needing it again is crap!
- 3 votes
Smells like CVS is going to be shelling out some out of court settlement payments in the near future. I bet their decision to hire a RWNJ pharmacist has paid off for them - next time, hire someone with a @!$%#ing soul.
I got no truck for these fools - just sue the company for a couple of million in punitive damages. Eventually the pharmacy companies will learn the damn lesson.
Or did I misread the article - is there a Mesquite in Iran I don't know about??
- 8 votes
What a crock. The man has the right to buy it. PERIOD. The wife has the right to use it. PERIOD. Any fool trying to prevent him has the right to get a different job or get his/her ass sued off.
Hell, I can't recall the number of times I picked up the Pill for my wife. Feminine supplies, different medical supplies, etc. And now that my Mother-in-law lives in our home, I'm often picking up HER meds, too. So I should drag a 65 year old woman to the drug store while she's ralphing from her chemo meds to buy her anti-nausea meds??
An ignorant statement if ever I heard one. I've bought my wife's BC Pills many times. Also feminine supplies and prescription meds of other types. Now that my Mother in law lives with us, I should make a 65 yr old woman ralphing from her chemotherapy meds ride 20 minutes to get her own anti-nausea meds? Sheesh, some people need to think before they post.
- 5 votes
Never-mind the fact that the scenario of a statutory rapist buying birth control for their underage victim is pretty outlandishly unlikely
actually it's highly likely and happens all the time in the case of incest or even just a garden variety underage girl dating an older guy. Please think this through; the last thing the guy wants is for her to have a baby, because he will go to prison. Remember, too, that even though they are committing felonies, some of them believe they truly care for their girlfriend. It's not a defense in court, but it is in their own minds.
- 1 vote
the last thing the guy wants is for her to have a baby, because he will go to prison.
Condoms are a lot cheaper and nobody will suspect him for buying them.
happens all the time in the case of incest or even just a garden variety underage girl dating an older guy
Got anything to back that up?
- 12 votes
actually it's highly likely and happens all the time in the case of incest or even just a garden variety underage girl dating an older guy.
if it happens all the time, one would think you would back that up with at least 1 link showing where it has happened ever.
- 8 votes
Ask any woman who had an older boyfriend back in the day if he didn't try to get them birth control, especially since it was often pretty hard for a minor to get at the time. (Yes, any pharmacist could refuse to sell even condoms to a minor at the time; I'm not sure if he was actually required to refuse it or if most of them just did it, but they did. Society and the laws were very, very different. Ask your own mother if you don't believe me.) At very least, condoms were used. This is isn't the sort of thing you would find a news story about, since the whole point was to keep it OUT of the news. Do you think these guys WANT to get caught and go to prison? PLEASE, even if the notion of intellectual honesty is anathema to you as a liberal, do use a little common sense. Of course a guy who is doing a minor will move heaven and earth to avoid getting her pregnant. Sheesh!
- 1 vote
It's disturbing enough that they refused to sell to him when he was legally able to purchase it, but then they accuse him of being a criminal:
... a male pharmacy technician informed Melbourne that they didn’t want to sell emergency contraception to men because they might be giving it to “rape victims.”
i really had to wonder at the "logic" of this, how, even if he was a rapist -- perhaps all the more interesting now that the FBI has updated its definition of rape -- it shouldn't be given to a hypothetical rape victim. the evidence of rape -- even with that new defintion -- is not whether a woman becomes pregnant, and as far as i'm aware, "Plan B" does nothing to destroy evidence such as vaginal tearing or breakdown the DNA of semen, right? is this one of those bull@!$%# "personhood" beliefs?
and if they fear men may be giving it to rape victims, for gods' sakes, why aren't they calling the police whenever a guy comes in to buy it? by their own rationale, they're letting a potential rapist go! no doubt because they know it's utter bull@!$%#, and the police may well set them straight damn quick, even charging them with false reporting.
and while they didn't directly slander this man by calling him a rapist, that implication shouldn't be left out of his suit against CVS ("Christian Values Store"??) or the pharmacists personally.
Call me old fashioned, but to me the only person that has any business possessing pharmaceutical drugs are pharmaceutical reps, pharmacists, and the end user. Since this guy doesn't fall into any of those categories, he has no business trying to get it.
you're old-fashioned. so much for husband and wife being as one under the law.
What's to say he's not slipping this drug to her without her knowledge, or using it's ingredients to concoct a harmful narcotic?
how about the belief of being "innocent until proven guilty"?
I meant "reproduction police"
"repro men" (and women). #funnybutnotreally
- 9 votes
Reading comprehension issue alert. Do you not, even now, understand the difference between STATUATORY RAPE and forcible rape? Statuatory rape involves a real victim. She is a victim for one reason; the law says she is too young to consent. There would never be any evidence of vaginal tearing or other violence because she CONSENTED, HELLO!!!! What part of that don't you get? There was NO violence. She most likely thinks she is madly in love with this guy but it is still legally rape. It is still called rape only because she lacked the legal right to consent, but there was NO FORCE and therefore, no evidence of force. What part of that don't you get????
- 2 votes
Maybe the solution is for pharmacies to clearly state the job duties on all applications and interviews. Tell any applicants that they must dispense any prescription drug to the person with the prescription - or designated person to pick it up. Same for OTC that has to be signed for. If they ever refuse to fill a prescription or sell an OTC to someone of legal age or whatever other criteria established BY LAW, then they lose their job - first time. No exceptions. If an applicant isn't on board with all that, the applicant can find another job to interview for. That's an easy one.
As for sneaking in on her without her knowledge, that's extremely unlikely - the pharmacy called and talked to her on the phone. She knew what he was there for. So that argument's off the table.
The idea above to have this on hand in case of an "oops" is a good idea. There are a million scenarios - legitimate ones - where this alternative would be appropriate.
Have it on hand before an 'oops' and no one can play God with your life. Not even some petty little pharmacists in a small Texas town.
Heck, just order it over the Internet and eliminate the middlemen for that matter. As they say in Texas, there's a lot of ways to skin a cat.
The wife should sue, too, on a separate issue - potential harm to health and interference with her rights - whatever those are in TX.
As I wrote in another seed on this, I hope they end up owning CVS and a clear message is sent to all pharmacies about contrary, arbitrary, personal decisions which interfere with job performance.
- 7 votes
Again, Oom, the druggist did not allege he was buying it for a child, not even a child rape victim. Please stop with the inaccuracies and stay on topic.
- 13 votes
Reading comprehension issue alert.
i was not reading your comments. i started with Loretta's and the others just caught my eye while scrolling. yours didn't, or they were sufficiently addressed (read: shot down) by others already.
Do you not, even now, understand the difference between STATUATORY RAPE and forcible rape?
i do.
There would never be any evidence of vaginal tearing or other violence because she CONSENTED, HELLO!!!! What part of that don't you get? ... there was NO FORCE and therefore, no evidence of force. What part of that don't you get????
there's no evidence or even reasonable suspicion that he's a rapist of any kind. what part of that don't you get??? if they thought he was a rapist -- either violent or statutory -- why didn't they call police?
- 11 votes
She was selling a form of birh control which by law requires an ID
Which he had and which showed he was over 17. The pharmacy was wrong.
Is this medicine legal for an adult to give to a minor? The law says over the counter for over eighteen and by prescription for under 18 for sales, would this guy break the law if he gave it to a minor? If this guy told the pharmacist it was for his 16 year old daughter would they be breaking the law selling it to him? If so, it might not of been so unreasonable the pharmacist's objection to not knowing who he was giving it to.
- 2 votes
If you'd bothered to read the article, you would know he specifically told the pharmacist it was for his wife, and the pharmacist talked to his wife on the phone.
- 12 votes
Jave,
It would be legal for a parent to purchase the drug for their own child as the parent has the right to make medical decisions for their child (I will ignore Oom's ludicrous scenario of incest because quite frankly it doesn't happen enough, however tragic it is when it does happen, for it to be a serious consideration in this. That is like saying that we should execute all jay walkers because one of those jaywalkers may end up robbing a bank and killing one or more persons). The prescription requirement would be a further complication, but there would need to be an indication that the person was purchasing the product for the minor rather than for someone else. All the pharmacist would have to do is ask who it is for, and once that question was asked, the legal obligation is resolved.
If the adult does not have custody of the minor, then purchasing the drug for that minor would/should be a criminal offence, but that is exactly the same thing as buying alcohol for a minor or any other similar action.
- 9 votes
It would be legal for a parent to purchase the drug for their own child as the parent has the right to make medical decisions for their child
It might not be. It is illegal to give even your own child prescription medications not prescribed for them. Just because mom figures they need an antibiotic doesn't make it legal or safe to give the kid some of hers.
If the adult does not have custody of the minor, then purchasing the drug for that minor would/should be a criminal offence, but that is exactly the same thing as buying alcohol for a minor or any other similar action.
I'm not sure that is true. Plan B is not a controlled substance. It's against the law to give a minor beer but the law is very different if you give a minor a Tums or some Tylenol. I doubt this law has a special clause equating giving it to a minor the same as alcohol.
hence my last sentence in that paragraph.
And plan B is a REGULATED substance, and therefore what I said would apply, and no, there wouldn't be a special clause, but would be part of the guardianship responsibilities. If a person is not a guardian of the minor, then they have no legal authority to conduct medical decision making for that minor, hence that alone would be a violation of law.
- 5 votes
You mean to tell me you have never bought your wife cold medicine when she needed it?
No I haven't. I've watched enough cops episodes to know what happens when someone is in posession of prescription medicine for which they don't have a prescription for. So I drive my wife to the drive-through pharmacy to pick up any medicine when she is sick, and if she's too sick to do that, she goes to the hospital.
1.59 This is not prescription medication. It is completely LEGAL for men to purchase this medication.
- 6 votes
but a married couple several/many times?.... this excuse about his wife needing it again is crap!
It doesn't matter if you think it's crap, there is nothing in the law that prevents someone from purchasing or using it multiple times.
- 8 votes
if the bottle/bag is sealed, then their isn't anything wrong.
- 6 votes
No I haven't. I've watched enough cops episodes to know what happens when someone is in posession of prescription medicine for which they don't have a prescription for. So I drive my wife to the drive-through pharmacy to pick up any medicine when she is sick, and if she's too sick to do that, she goes to the hospital.
Huhhhhhh?????? Uhhhhhm you are legally allowed to purchase or pickup another person's prescription for them. Pharmacies allow this all the time and there is nothing illegal about it, or they wouldn't do it..... ALL the time. In a given day at a particular pharmacy more prescriptions may be purchased and picked up by someone who is getting it for another person. Ya know, that whole sick thing keeps many people incapable of moving around and all. Durrrrrr
- 10 votes
When I read that post, my reaction was "What is he doing that makes him paranoid about cops stopping him?"
I've never been stopped to examine the prescriptions in my possession and have never even thought about the possiblity. No cop is going to charge someone with a crime for helping someone in need, which is what we're doing when we pick up prescriptions for others.
But Plan B isn't a prescription. It is legal for everyone over the age of eighteen to purchase OTC. So why would anyone over the age of eighteen worry about having it in their possession?
- 9 votes
This is isn't the sort of thing you would find a news story about, since the whole point was to keep it OUT of the news. Do you think these guys WANT to get caught and go to prison? PLEASE, even if the notion of intellectual honesty is anathema to you as a liberal, do use a little common sense. Of course a guy who is doing a minor will move heaven and earth to avoid getting her pregnant. Sheesh!
LMFAO, this rant just cracked me up! OMG OMG OMG kidnappers and robbers use Duct tape all the time to constrain people...... better stop selling it to everyone!!!! I wonder how this guy would feel about selling a stranger a gun. Hysteria is hilarious.
- 10 votes
Yup, paranoid to an extreme.
If you're driving so recklessly you get pulled over with someone else's meds, maybe you should rethink your approach to the road. A cop won't know you have someone else's pills if you obey traffic laws.
And it's legal to purchase someone else's drugs. You have to show your photo ID and sign a log book so if there's a problem, you can be found to explain yourself or be arrested.
- 7 votes
Loretta
yeah but he also said 'I've seen enough COPS shows to ...'. That to me was a red flag as to the validity of the comment.
- 6 votes
LOL. I know. I saw that too. I try to keep reality separated from TV shows made for entertainment.
- 8 votes
My husbands going to be so upset when I tell him that all the time I have devoted to "diners, dives, and drive ins" does not make me an expert cook. :/
- 5 votes
I just hope his wife wises up and tells him to get the prescription or get an attorney. PATHETIC. If I told my wife "Sorry you're in pain from the hysterectomy. Get in the car and I'll drive you to the pharmacy to pick up your scrip." I'd be up @!$%#'s creek for ever. The sad part is, I'm on his "ignore" list, so he'll never even read this!
- 5 votes
sometimes I wish I was on more people's ignore list.
And seriously, it has been about a year since I have picked up my prescriptions (and I do have severely controlled substances in that list), if it was illegal the pharmacy would be just as culpable for giving the medication to the non patient individual. That goes FAR beyond selling a non prescribed plan b drug to someone on the extremely small chance it might be going to an underage rape victim. WOW!!!
- 4 votes
Do you think these guys WANT to get caught and go to prison? PLEASE, even if the notion of intellectual honesty is anathema to you as a liberal, do use a little common sense. Of course a guy who is doing a minor will move heaven and earth to avoid getting her pregnant. Sheesh!
I find it ironic that someone who didn't even read the article before commenting has the audacity to question my intellectual honesty. I'm a left leaning centerist who is liberal on some topics and conservative on others...so stop with the bs generalizations. There was NO reason this man should have been suspected to have been a rapist. He was attempting to purchase a legal over the counter drug for his wife.
- 8 votes
This is not prescription medication.
Well that's different then.
Question: Could this drug in that quantity be used to abort a pregnancy that is already past the legal window (I forget which trimester the legal cutoff is anymore)? Perhaps that's why he's trying to pick it up for his wife... because if she was trying to pick it up and was obviously showing, the pharmacist might report her or something... just a possible explanation maybe?
- 1 vote
It is not an abortifcant. It will not cause an abortion at any stage and is only for the first few days after sex.
Why would he need any explanation at all? He has the legal right to purchase the product even if he does not know any woman.
- 9 votes
just a possible explanation maybe?
No. Plan B is not an abortifacient in any way whatsoever. It prevents egg and sperm from meeting in the first place, that's all.
- 8 votes
Why would he need any explanation at all?
We each have our own reasons behind every single action we take, whether it be something life changing, or whether it be something entirely routine. These reasons are the explanations to our actions. I ate an apple because I was hungry and wanted to satisfy that hunger. Eating an apple is perfectly legal but I still had an explanation for why I chose to eat one because I'm a human being, and human beings are rational creatures. We also sometimes try to figure out why other human beings did things that are perfectly legal.
If you're going to speculate on why someone would choose to buy Plan B, then you should first learn what Plan B actually does. There is no use speculating fiction if you're truly trying to figure out why he would want to buy it.
- 10 votes
Plan B is not an abortifacient in any way whatsoever. It prevents egg and sperm from meeting in the first place, that's all.
True. It seems a small difference. If an abortion pill was legal under the exact same terms would many people have different objections to the pharmacist not selling it to the guy? I doubt many people's objection to the pharmacist's actions are based on the difference between a floating embryo and a newly implanted one.
plan B is a REGULATED substance, and therefore what I said would apply, and no, there wouldn't be a special clause, but would be part of the guardianship responsibilities. If a person is not a guardian of the minor, then they have no legal authority to conduct medical decision making for that minor, hence that alone would be a violation of law.
The law is a bit unclear on the matter from my limited understanding. A controlled substance, alcohol or tobacco is illegal. An over the counter medication is not, if not intended to cause harm. The administration made Plan B tricky by regulating for some people and not others. Obama punted this call for political gain.
You are wrong about the part that only parents/guardians are allow to make medical decisions for a minor. Especially regarding issues like abortion, birth control and STD's that is not true in many states. Someone else bringing a minor for an abortion without parental permission is not illegal in many states. It's illegal for me to buy the 14 year old kid some beer if I buy him condoms it is not a crime regardless of parental decision.
- 2 votes
If an abortion pill was legal under the exact same terms would many people have different objections to the pharmacist not selling it to the guy? I doubt many people's objection to the pharmacist's actions are based on the difference between a floating embryo and a newly implanted one.
I don't think you know what you're talking about anymore.
- 7 votes
He obviously does not know or does not acknowledge that no embryo is involved in Plan B. He's proven in other posts he does not even know the stages of development from ovum to fetus or what an embryo actually is.
- 8 votes
If you're going to speculate on why someone would choose to buy Plan B, then you should first learn what Plan B actually does. There is no use speculating fiction if you're truly trying to figure out why he would want to buy it.
I see you've figured out the reason why I asked the question of if it could be used that way, well done. Most people had that figured out a long time ago; though perhaps it is not surprising that you're lagging behind in figuring out the motives behind my actions as you don't seem to be in the habit of ascertaining people's motives behind their actions.
Instead of coming here to post inane speculations, you need to use google to get your info. It is disrespectful toward others on this seed to use their time and energy to get your education.
- 6 votes
I see you've figured out the reason why I asked the question of if it could be used that way, well done.
Explain your understanding of how you think Plan B works (or doesn't).
- 7 votes
Explain your understanding of how you think Plan B works (or doesn't).
Prior to being evicerated by some arrogant people on here, I like many people assumed that it prevented a fertilized egg from implanting in the wall of the uterus and that a drug causing such changes to the uterine wall could potentially be harmful to an established pregnancy as well. Don't worry, I've already been set straight by those who sit all high and mighty in their ivory tower.
Z1P2
We also sometimes try to figure out why other human beings did things that are perfectly legal.
If it is perfectly legal, why someone does something (esp. something personal and private) is none of your business.
Most people had that figured out a long time ago
Most people on this thread figured out a long time ago that Plan B has nothing to do with abortion.
Don't worry, I've already been set straight by those who sit all high and mighty in their ivory tower.
If you had read some of the very first comments, you'd have been "set straight" long before now.
And the only tower I know of is the one you seem to be sitting in.
....................HD
- 7 votes
Insults are against the CoH. Please review it before you post again.
- 5 votes
Z1P2
no feminist would ever take the position that someone other than the woman and her doctor should have control over what she puts in her own body as you and others here have.
Actually, since the woman herself talked to the pharmacist, I'd say she made the choice of what she wanted to put in her body, and she made the choice to make her husband go fetch it for her. Since it was an OTC drug, no Dr. was needed. I do that with my hubbies all the time, and not just for medicine. When I don't feel like going through the hassle myself, I send one of my hubbies to the grocery store (with a list, of course), to the bank (with clear directions on what I want him to do; I handle the bills in my family...it just works out best that way) to the occult store (again, with a list), to, well, anywhere I don't feel like going. It works out well for us, and in February, the three of us will have been together 14 years. They're my men, and they take good care of me. If, after a night of sex, I realized I needed Plan B, I certainly wouldn't get dressed and go out in the cold. I'd stay snuggled under the blankets and send one of my men!
- 6 votes
Hecate, you are a brave woman. I sometimes have a hard time living with one man...I could not imagine living with two. :)
- 5 votes
It's ok Loretta. He's just trolling because everyone made him look so ridiculous. Better question why everyone at the hardware store is buying rope. They may be on their way to kidnap someone. We also better question everyone who's buying food because they might be feeding someone they are keeping locked as a slave in their basement. LMFAO
- 8 votes
Well little old ladies are often times stopped from buying cat food. The fact they also have cat litter does not stop a store clerk from assuming the little old lady does not really have cats and is only going to eat the pet food.
[eye roll]
Not a large leap for some folks to jump blindly, both feet, all in, to stupid land.
- 7 votes
If someone tried to stop me from buying cat food, I'd sure complain long and loud -- as would my cats. The least happy critter would be the clerk who thought s/he could control my life.
- 7 votes
If someone tried to stop me from buying cat food, I'd sure complain long and loud -- as would my cats. The least happy critter would be the clerk who thought s/he could control my life.
I saw a convenience store clerk refuse to let an old woman include cat food with the purchases she was making with her food stamps. That in itself wouldn't have been so bad, except for what an ass he was about it. "You can't use food stamps to buy cat food. Not unless you're gonna EAT the cat food." I was horrified, but too young and shy to speak up at the time. I'm older and crankier now, so I wouldn't let that pass anymore.
- 9 votes
Actually, since the woman herself talked to the pharmacist, I'd say she made the choice of what she wanted to put in her body
That wasn't what I was referring to. I was referring to the comments that said basically that it would be fine if he were giving it to rape victims because they need it most... no feminist would say it's ok for a rapist to force a victim to put drugs in her body.
- 1 vote
It always gives me a good laugh when anti-feminist men try to define what feminists can/should/would do and say. It's as if they have not yet realized feminism is anti-patriarchal privileges granted to men enabling them to control and define women.
- 7 votes
Actually Loretta, I've always taken the side of feminists... but you're REALLY trying very hard to get me to change sides and be an anti-feminist... and that's fine... I understand that you don't speak for feminists though, you're just one .... nah, not gonna say it, that'd be a COH violation.
See Ya. This'll be my last post on any of your seeds.
When your posts consistently reflect support for women and feminists, I'll believe you support fwomen and feminists. It's relatively easy to claim you support women's equality and the advocates for women's equality. It's a bit harder to accept women's equality really means women are equal, women get to define and control themselves, women get to speak for themselves and to support their right to do so.
Anyone who uses the slurs you do because women do speak for themselves is not a supporter of women or feminists.
- 8 votes
Personally I support equality throughout, doesn't matter if you are a man woman, gay, straight, trans, black, white, asian, native american etc... We are all people, and we all deserve to be treated as such.
While many would hate the concept of laws to enforce this, the fact is, if there wasn't a problem, there would be no need for affirmative action, equal rights etc.. And if there wasn't a problem with men trying to control women's bodies, there would be no need for people to question it. I just remember the signing photo when the partial birth abortion ban was signed. NOT A SINGLE woman was present. It was ALL middle aged and older men. If that doesn't say something, then I don't know what does.
- 6 votes
He obviously does not know or does not acknowledge that no embryo is involved in Plan B.
From my understanding they still have not figured out if Plan B prevents ovulation or interferes with implantation.
From my understanding they still have not figured out if Plan B prevents ovulation or interferes with implantation.
They, who?
- 8 votes
They, who?
The drug companies that make and others that studied the pill.
They are not fully sure of how it works but believe it delays ovulation. There might also be an effect on fertilization and implantation. From what I read it seems to delay ovulation but also prevents a pregnancy from a newly released egg, so it seems there is a second action then only preventing release of the egg.
What has been figured out is that it does not change the lining of the uterus. Thus it does nothing to prevent implantation. If it did have an affect on implantation by changing the lining of the uterus, it would also act as an abortifacient which it does not. It has NOT effect whatsoever on an existing pregnancy. It simply prevents ovulation.
Good try though.
- 7 votes
The FDA doesn't seem at all confused about how it works:
How does Plan B work?
Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work.
- 8 votes
All I know is that when I took it in the past, it worked. I didn't get pregnant and that is the result I wanted.
- 8 votes
Not poking at you Loretta, but I think the FDA needs an update.
Emergency contraception pills (ECPs) may theoretically prevent pregnancy through several mechanisms. The most likely mechanism of action is the inhibition or delay of ovulation.
Several clinical studies have shown that combined ECPs containing the estrogen ethinyl estradiol and the progestin levonorgestrel can inhibit or delay ovulation.1-4 Although early studies indicated that alterations in the endometrium after treatment with the regimen might impair receptivity to implantation of a fertilized egg, more recent studies have found no such effects on the endometrium.5,6 Additional possible mechanisms include interference with corpus luteum function; thickening of the cervical mucus resulting in trapping of sperm; alterations in the tubal transport of sperm, egg, or embryo; and direct inhibition of fertilization.7-10 No clinical data exist regarding the last three possibilities.
- 4 votes
If that's the latest research, then yes, they need to update their info. Does it surprise you that they haven't? LOL
But even with that, the claim no one knows how it works is bogus. No one creates or markets a product without knowing its purpose, its effectiveness and the way it works. No insurance company would issue a policy on such a product. The FDA would not have approved such a product.
To claim otherwise is false propaganda meant to scare women out of using it.
- 6 votes
No one creates or markets a product without knowing its purpose, its effectiveness and the way it works.
From the research I've done on it, the proposition that hormonal birth control (i.e., the Pill) might also prevent pregnancy by inhibiting the ability of a fertilized egg to implant was put forth in the 1960s when the Pill first came out, and that has been extrapolated to also apply to EC. The fertilized-egg fetishists weren't very active back in the 1960s, though, so the "hostile endometrium" idea only served as an addition to the drug companies arsenal of "information" on the Pill's effectiveness in preventing pregnancy, which is really all they were concerned about.
The link above (along with lots of others I've found) indicates that there is no clinical data in existence that proves hormonal contraceptives work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. In fact, others state that, currently, there is no scientific way of even obtaining that data. So you are entirely correct, Loretta, about the false propaganda. Not only is it being used to scare women out of using hormonal birth control, it's sometimes being used to bully them out of even having access to it.
- 6 votes
Good try though.
Don't take my word for it ask the FDA and the drug companies. There is debate if delaying ovulation is the only effect. It is the only way they are sure of. It seems, but I'm not positive that Plan B also reduces pregnancy with eggs that are already released. It's success rate and effective time span seems greater then the window of follicule rupture.
No one creates or markets a product without knowing its purpose, its effectiveness and the way it works.
Read up on the pharmacutical industry.
To claim otherwise is false propaganda meant to scare women out of using it.
It is unfair to claim that is my intention. I have already said I support Plan B over the counter and likely would support an early 1st trimester abortion pill.
- 2 votes
From my understanding they still have not figured out if Plan B prevents ovulation or interferes with implantation.
Preventing implantation is the same thing as preventing pregnancy. Once a woman is pregnant Plan B doesn't work.
- 6 votes
Preventing implantation is the same thing as preventing pregnancy.
Not for the fertilized-egg fetishists who want to restrict access to hormonal birth control. They still consider it to be an abortifacient despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence that it prevents pregnancy by keeping a fertilized egg from implanting.
- 8 votes
If they could ever get hormonal birth control outlawed, they'd go after barrier methods next. (some are actually going there now) Because now we are just being mean preventing the 'possible' fertilization of that sweet wee little egg by standing in the way of god's intentions.
Ugh!
- 8 votes
(some are actually going there now)
After BARRIER methods? Who's doing that?!
- 6 votes
You find it mainly in the more extreme fundamentalists. Can you say Santorum? : p
Here are a few links for your enjoyment, or should I say disgust?
Birth control
Contraception is wrong because it's a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.
But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God's gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.
And it goes on to back up their claims that contraception, even barrier method, or "pulling out" is against god's law through scriptures.
Silent Voices
This site addresses several methods of birth control. (in some cases offering a nice bit of BS as fact) It concludes with a very long diatribe of scriptures against any form of preventing conception.
There are literally tons of sites like these to be found. But mostly I hear much of this first hand from fundamentalists (I know) whether Catholic, Evangelical, Baptists, etc.
It is not a stretch at all for me to believe that the pharmacists in this story are working more from personal belief rather than their stated veiled accusation to this husband.
- 5 votes
Meant to add a bit Silent Voices also had to say about using the "barrier method"
New research also indicates that women who are not exposed to their husband's sperm before the conception of their first child are at a greater risk of developing preeclampsia during pregnancy. There is strong evidence that the father's semen prepares the woman's immune system to somehow "recognize" the baby and exempt it from attack as a foreign object.
Now I honestly can't find anything to back up that statement. So I'm calling bull pucky until I can find something credible on it.
Credit is given by this website to Quiver Full Ministry. That says a lot, to me anyway.
- 4 votes
Credit is given by this website to Quiver Full Ministry. That says a lot, to me anyway.
Okay, I get that these people preaching against it, but what I meant by "going after" it is are there people actually trying to legislate against barrier methods of contraception.
Sorry if this is too far OT, Loretta. My mind is just a bit blown.
- 2 votes
The latest theories on why women menstruate is because the woman's body is preparing a block to protect her from the parasitic embryo.
Biology isn't telling anyone to deprive women of reproductive control
Emera suggests [the reason why women menstruate] is entirely evolutionary, and involves maternal-fetal conflict. The mother and fetus have an adversarial relationship: mom’s best interest is to survive pregnancy to bear children again, and so her body tries to conserve resources for the long haul. The fetus, on the other hand, benefits from wresting as much from mom as it can, sometimes to the mother’s detriment. ... Like little parasites sucking the life from its mother.
- 5 votes
Currently trying to legislate against barrier methods? I don't think so. Right now the big push is for hormonal methods and things like IUDs to be effectively outlawed due to 'person-hood' legislation.
Being it is the same folks against any method of birth control, including barrier pushing these 'person-hood' and anti abortion legislation, it is barely a baby step towards furthering their goals.
- 5 votes
The personhood laws would outlaw every form of birth control, plus IVF and medical intervention to save a woman's life.
- 6 votes
Loretta-Your reference to personhood laws outlawing medical intervention to save a woman's life is complete BS. Please show me your references. Besides, aren't you getting a little off topic yourself?
You're right. It is venturing off topic, so I won't post references here other than this one:
http://an-uncommon-scold.newsvine.com/_news/2011/11/09/8718440-mississippi-voters-reject-controversial-personhood-initiative-latimescom
- 6 votes
Not for the fertilized-egg fetishists who want to restrict access to hormonal birth control
Just like people who still believe the sun rotates around he earth, it's their fault for not understanding science. ;D
The latest theories on why women menstruate is because the woman's body is preparing a block to protect her from the parasitic embryo.
IDK if I agree with that theory.
The reason women menstruate is because the endometrium of the uterine wall can't sustain its hormone-induced proliferation without pregnancy. I don't see it as protective, I see it more as an evolutionary fluke that is great when it works but causes a lot of common problems when it doesn't.
For example: it is most common cause of iron deficiency anemia in adult women and the sudden drop in hormones can be linked to cyclic migraines and cyclic fibrocystic breast changes. I don't believe it conserves resourses as the ntire menstruating process utilizes probably more enegy than it saves.
Menstruation is also pretty ineffective way protect the woman from a parasitic embryo. The embryo's placenta is pretty aggressive. If the timing is right it can hormones to the corpus luteum, prevent it's involution and halt menstruation. It can implant anywhere, even the abdominal wall if it gets the chance too.
It is an interesting link, LK. Thanks for sharing. :)
- 6 votes
The reason we menstruate is because we develop an endrometrial lining. The question is why do we do this when other species don't? The theoretical answer to the question is that lining is needed before implantation in our species in order to protect the mother from the fetus' parasitic tendencies. The difference in how the human fetus attaches and draws nutrients compared to other species.
- 6 votes
Loretta-I have had to put a diaper on a dog to keep her from bleeding all over the house, so animals do menstruate. The only time a woman would need to be protected from a fetus is when she has an Rh negative blood type. For most, this only happens starting with the 2nd prenancy. The first pregnancy usually results in a normal gestation, but then the woman with Rh negative blood will develop an immunity to any new egg implantation. A shot is available to these women to allow the prenancy to continue.
Laura, please read slower. Lorretta stated "The difference in how the human fetus attaches and draws nutrients compared to other species." She did not state that other species do not menstruate, but that we are different in how our fetus attaches and draws nutrients.
- 5 votes
Laura, please read the article. It does not discuss Rh negative. That's a whole different set of issues.
I happen to enjoy learning new concepts, and this article presents a concept I had not considered before. If you like learning new concepts, you will enjoy it too. If not, then you probably won't.
- 6 votes
The reason we menstruate is because we develop an endrometrial lining. The question is why do we do this when other species don't?
Why do we have hair limited to our heads when other species don't? For hair dye of course ;D
Seriously, though not everything we have evolved came to be because of a rhyme or reason.
The process of menstruation is quite crude, the endometrium wall keeps growing until the lining collapses onto itself shearing the uterine vessels and leaving a necrotic layer that has nothing to do but be sloughed off. Sometimes there is an error women can develop hyperplastic uterine walls and are at high risk for cancer.
Also, as uterine cells die off, the cells release inflammatory molecules and other waste metabolites. Then new cells have to use energy to repair damaged wall. It is a very wasteful process.
The theoretical answer to the question is that lining is needed before implantation in our species in order to protect the mother from the fetus' parasitic tendencies
But that's just it, it doesn't protect the mother from a fetus at all. For every mechanism that a woman has a fetus can simply override it. And it isn't the fetus so much as it is the placenta. The placenta is very aggressive. If they implanted in your arm it would drill itself down and through your bone. This is why molar pregnancies are so dangerous. There is no fetus releasing its hormones to stop the placenta from growing.
- 5 votes
I can't discuss what the article said with you unless you read the article.
- 3 votes
Do you mean me LK? I read it, enjoyed it and thanked you for the link. I just don't personally agree with their theory that it is a conservation process that protects women. Menstral issues are the most common complaint of women of reproductive age and costs the health care system billions to try to treat. For women who post-menapausal, it is one of the most common risk factors for pathological diseases of the reproductive tract.
The estrous cycle is an inflammatory process that causes more stress on the female reproductive tract than is necessary. It is a wasteful process for many mammalian females and only a few mammalian species, such as rabbits, have avoided this waste it comes to reproduction.
It's an evolutionary fluke. The menstrual cycle evolved poorly, hence all the errors with the system. Another example of an evolutionary fluke is our knees. Evolutionary it would have been better to have legs similar to animal haunches. The inefficient mechanism causes humans mechanical complications simply from it's instability.
- 3 votes
So we'd be better off with knees that bend backwards, like the storks, and are designed for propulsion at speed? What about all the other abilities we would lose with that design? They're not important? You really believe storks legs are better for us?
This remark is akin to Laura's in that she also did not demonstrate an understanding of the body processes involved:
I have had to put a diaper on a dog to keep her from bleeding all over the house, so animals do menstruate
When a dog bleeds, she is not menstrating. She is in the middle of estrus. She is in heat because her ova are ready for fertilization. Menstruation in humans occurs after the ovum has been passed from the body. That is the opposite of ready for fertilization. Those are two different body processes, just like the comparison of legs that have two different body processes.
What you list could also occur if we did not grow endomitrial tissue prior to implantation, which is the only alternative. We would still need endomitrial tissue during pregnancy. You say the placenta is very aggressive and then dismiss their theory saying the same thing: we need protection from that aggression, which is why we grow a protective layer prior to implantation.
From the article:
Within the mammals, there is variation in how deeply the fetus sinks its placental teeth into the uterus. Some species are epithelochorial; the connection is entirely superficial. Others are endotheliochorial, in which the placenta pierces the uterine epithelium. And others, the most invasive, are hemochorial, and actually breach maternal blood vessels. Humans are hemochorial. All of the mammalian species that menstruate are also hemochorial.
That’s a hint. Menstruation is a consequence of self-defense. Females build up that thickened uterine lining to protect and insulate themselves from the greedy embryo and its selfish placenta. In species with especially invasive embryos, it’s too late to wait for the moment of implantation — instead, they build up the wall pre-emptively, before and in case of fertilization. Then, if fertilization doesn’t occur, the universal process of responding to declining progesterone levels by sloughing off the lining occurs.
That isn't a fluke unless you consider the continued well-being of the mother as unnecessary. I realize some people do believe a mother's life is less valuable than the life of a fetus, but I have to say I'm glad nature does not agree. The article goes on:
Bonus! Another process that goes on is that the lining of the uterus is also a sensor for fetal quality, detecting chromosomal abnormalities and allowing them to be spontaneously aborted early. There is some evidence for this: women vary in their degree of decidualization, and women with reduced decidualization have been found to become pregnant more often, but also exhibit pregnancy failure more often. So having a prepared uterus not only helps to fend off overly-aggressive fetuses, it allows mom a greater ability to be selective in which fetuses she carries to term.
Those bonuses don't sound like a fluke to me. Better able to detect defects in the developing embryo helps the entire human race. It certainly spares the embryo from much pain by being sloughed off rather than born, then dying. Helping the mother stay healthy while carrying a healthy fetus to term sounds like a winning evolutionary strategy to me.
BTW, this "fluke" is shared with several other species.
- 4 votes
So we'd be better off with knees that bend backwards, like the storks, and are designed for propulsion at speed?
Haunches, not backward knees.
Our hip joint, knee joint and ankle joint are in a direct line. Creating cumulative tension on each joint. If they were articulated at different angles (not backwards like flamingos,) each joint would decrease the tension not add to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqPvCG7EDDc (cute kid!)
This is a leg prosthesis for a child. Notice the design. If you have ever wondered why leg prosthesis aren't designed exactly like a human's, this is why. Human legs are not efficient. That is why nearly everyone who lives to 50 will have back, knee or ankle trouble in their lifetime.
Evolution is not always beneficial.
This remark is akin to Laura's in that she also did not demonstrate an understanding of the body processes involved:
You should speak to Laura about that.
Those are two different body processes, just like the comparison of legs that have two different body processes.
It's called Comparative Anatomy. I wouldn't be too quick to put down Laura if you think that comparing biological processes between species is far-fetched. These hormonal drugs are tried first on animals with similar yet different body processes.
(Also, I went to med school, not vet school so I have no clue about the estrous cycles of dogs!!!)
What you list could also occur if we did not grow endomitrial tissue prior to implantation, which is the only alternative
Anything is possible but not everything is probable. What is the probability that women would have these issues if we didn't go through an inflammatory and necrotic process ~480 times in our life time? The most common risk factor for endometrial cancer is a the total number of menstral cycles that are higher than the average. The more times a woman's endomentrial tract is sheared, sloughed and rebuilt, the higher she is at risk.
That’s a hint. Menstruation is a consequence of self-defense
Sickle cell Anemia is also a consequence of self defense. It also protects from a parasite. Do you think SC is a conservation process? And if not, why not? It is the same logic being pushed by these authors.
Those bonuses don't sound like a fluke to me.
It doesn't have to. It's my opinion, as I've stated before. But I'm biased because I've seen too many errors with menstruationto be convinced that it provides a net benefit.
BTW, this "fluke" is shared with several other species.
Plenty of flukes are shared between species, embryological development of the digestive tract comes to mind.
- 3 votes
I don't want to derail, but I thought you might like this LK. Pretty amazing!
- 2 votes
Hi, I'm going to keep this short. I spent the day editing chapters in a book and my eyes are tired of staring at a computer screen.
I looked at both videos. The second one I couldn't hear. I'm a laptop with lousy speakers, so it's a problem I often have. I read the blurbs on both. I don't know enough about the subject to really understand the types they're talking about.
I'll try to get back by here tomorrow. I need to let my eyes rest for now.
- 1 vote
I've rewatched the first video. I didn't rewatch the other because I can't hear it. I don't know what it has to do with the haunches of animals or whether people should have the exact same setup or not.
Our bone structure is similar. Take the horse. What people call the knee or hock (on hind leg) is the heel structure in people. The bone below the knee or hock are the same as our toe and foot bones. Except people have greater versility in movement because our toe, heel and foot bone structure is more complex.
The human knee equivelent in horses is the stifle. The hip is the same. See this diagram:
http://www.theequine.co.uk/users/UserFiles/Image/skeleton%201.gif
The hock does bend backwards compared to our knee. It bends in the same direction as our heel.
Now, this setup, which is similar to other four-legged creatures including cats and dogs, is for propulsion. They need their forelegs to catch that forward propulsion and to balance the body as the rear legs are brought forward. This set up is prone to injury. It needs a tail to balance the body too, especially in turning.
If we were to use the angle of their hips, we would experience more back injuries because the angle of the spine would be radically changed.
So I don't see how having their haunches would benefit us.
As to menstruation, yes, I can see your argument. I can also see the argument in the article that we need that extra lining to protect us from the placental aggression. If we did not have it, then the host mother would suffer. The only way to change this, from what I've read, is to have an entirely different type of reproductive system.
Just because we differ from others does not mean ours is a fluke or a detriment, although I admit hated dealing with menstruation and often wished I didn't have to.
Because of the arguments in that theory, I have to wonder if a woman taking the pills that suppress menstruation would be in additional danger if they became pregnant and the lining was not thick enough.
- 2 votes
Our bone structure is similar. Take the horse. What people call the knee or hock (on hind leg) is the heel structure in people.
The horses leg is similar but the differences that I am talking about has to do with the angle of the each of the articulating joints. See how the femur articulates with the hip joint as well as how it articulates with the knee joint. Unlike humans, the horse's leg and many other animals legs are angled to relieve tension.
http://www.kidport.com/reflib/science/HumanBody/SkeletalSystem/images/SkeletonLateral.jpg
Compare now the humans bone structure. Although there is mild angulation at the hip joint (not seen in this lateral view), the overall structure creates cumulitive tension on each succesive joint.
We get tension on our legs not only from gravity, but also from walking. The impact is dispersed back towards the spine. And although the spine, like a horses leg, is structured with alternating angles to relieve tension, what ever it gains it loses because of the structure of our legs.
I suppose I see things as a fluke because I personally don't believe in intelligent design. Unlike ID, every evolved trait comes with pros and cons. If we develop a badly evolved structure, and it doesn't kill us, we keep it. The hope is that the pros of the evolved trait will outweigh the cons, but it doesn't always work that way.
Anyway, while I may not agree with the authors on the net benefit of menstration, I still loved the article. Thanks again for linking!
- 2 votes
As to the angles, I agree. They are different. However, the difference has a reason. The angles we have are necessary for walking upright. If we had their angles, we'd be on all fours or moving like chimps, using our arms and knuckles as front legs. I don't see that as an advantage to my life. LOL.
- 2 votes
The angles we have are necessary for walking upright. If we had their angles, we'd be on all fours or moving like chimps
Not true or the orthopods would never be able to develop leg prosthesis the way that they do to fit amputees.
Alternating articulation does =/= walking on all fours and our spine is a testament to that. It has alternating articulating curves (see above link) and our spine is still upright ( not like the spine of a chimp. )
Our legs could have developed the same way as our spine, in a way that relieved tension on our joints. But that would have only have happened if we had an Intelligent Designer.
Ohiogal-I don't see how you think you're more intelligent than the God who designed the beautiful universe and everything in it. If you take the time to read the Bible, you will see that there was a time when mankind lived to be hundreds of years old. I don't think they had to deal with too much joint pain to live that long and still travel the way they did. :)
Can you provide scientific proof of that assertion? If it really happened, there should be proof.
- 7 votes
If you take the time to read the Bible, you will see that there was a time when mankind lived to be hundreds of years old...
Because a scribe dropped the decimal - the commonly used (at the time) single digit decimal place to denote age.
- 7 votes
@Laura
You've already received a few verbal smackdowns, why are you gunning so hard to add another?
You can believe whatever fantasy and myths you want to. You can believe that people lived to be hundreds of years old with no joint disease, just as you can believe that joint disease occurred because of the original sin. That contradiction sits within the first several pages of the book and thank you for exposing it.
- 4 votes
There are no contradictions in God's Word. If you've read it, you would know this to be true. The problem is that too many people look over the pages trying to find something wrong, without even trying to understand it.
Do you even know what the original sin was?
Do you even know what the original sin was?
Stealing all our Pagan holidays, erecting "churches" on our holy sites, and removing our Goddess and God just to replace them with 2 guys and a ghost?
Blessings of the Goddess to all, HD
- 6 votes
HD-Nope. It was when Lucifer the angel decided he was going to rebel against God and tried putting himself above God. That's when God cast him out of Heaven.
I would have to agree with HD on that one.
I do know the bible story on that, I also know the history of persecution, torture, death and destruction the early Christian church perpetrated upon all who were not Christian. Nasty. Evil. Horrid business.
- 5 votes
Laura, I don't know where you got your info, but Lucifer was not blamed for original sin. Original sin isn't even in the Bible. Read Augustine's sexually obsessed musings if you want to hear it from the source of the nonsense.
I noticed you don't have the scientific evidence for the claims you made about human longevity, so I'm going to ignore that. You can't cite the Bible as proof the Bible is true.
We all know it is flawed. You almost admitted that yourself, so let's not pretend anymore, okay?
- 5 votes
There are no contradictions in God's Word. If you've read it, you would know this to be true. The problem is that too many people look over the pages trying to find something wrong, without even trying to understand
Again, you can believe whatever myth you want to. No one is saying you don't have to!
With that said, perhaps you should pick up a science book and try to understand it, at least before you display inaccuracies on a seed.
The only time a woman would need to be protected from a fetus is when she has an Rh negative blood type. For most, this only happens starting with the 2nd prenancy.The first pregnancy usually results in a normal gestation, but then the woman with Rh negative blood will develop an immunity to any new egg implantation. A shot is available to these women to allow the prenancy to continue.
Wow, just wow.
I almost let this one go. Because it was both too ridiculous to even comment on and because LK asked us not to go this route. But seeing as you are insistent on coaching me on your fiction, I think I owe you the same courtesy and will teach you a little fact.
Rheses antigen (RhD) is located on Red blood Cells (RBC). An Rh- woman does not have problems with RH- blood anymore than a person with type A antigen will have trouble with type A blood. So not any pregnancy is at risk with these women. Similar to the way that not any blood type is bad for any type of blood.
The only time there is an issue is if the Rh- woman is exposed to Rh+ blood. If all her babies are also Rh- (e.g. the father of the children is negative as well) There will not be any issue. No shot is necessary.
And no the shot does not magically make a previously exposed mother be able to continue with a2nd pregnancy. The Rhogram shot is given in the FIRST pregnancy to prohibit mother from possibly creating an immune response. It is given once at ~28weeks gestation and then again after pregnancy if the baby is Rh+.
If a mother is not treated after blood exposure she will develop immunity and no shot will prevent her immune system from attacking the new baby's RBC. The only thing you can do with the second pregnancy is monitor it closely, give blood transfusions for fetal anemia and reduce the effects of hemolytic disease of the newborn.
Last thing: the egg is not at risk once it implants!That is an absurd statement as this is a blood problem and the implanted egg has not begun to make blood!
It isn't until ~2nd trimester, when the baby starts producing enough blood to be witnessed by the preexposed mother's immune system that problems begin. And again, there will be no problem with any Rh- fetus.
Laura, Here's to hopin' you at least read and understand your fiction a lot better than you read and understand facts!
- 3 votes
Who would need emergency contraception more than a rape victim? Do they think the rapists getting the meds? This is so typical of how screwed up medicine is/has become. More people die from RX overdoses (now) than ever before, yet if you are truly in need, getting access to needed meds gets you treated like a drug trafficker. Little wonder so many go to Canada or Mexico or online.
- 33 votes
Yeah, I don't think it's illegal to give contraceptives to rape victims. Or to anybody else.
- 23 votes
Geezer...
You have an excellent point! No one needs plan b more than a rape victim.
E
- 16 votes
The way I read it was they didn't want to give it to the man because it might be intended for a rape victim. The thought process could have been this: if they gave it to the man for a rape victim then part of the evidence would be destroyed and the woman could come back and sue them for giving it to the man. Not that they refused to give it to the rape victim.
In our sue happy world, things are just much tougher....not to mention....make NO sense.
- 4 votes
if they gave it to the man for a rape victim then part of the evidence would be destroyed
There's less destruction of evidence of a rape with using Plan B than there is with using condoms.
- 14 votes
Funny how people think it is logical to deny birth control because it might imply the man is a rapist, but our gun happy society doesn't seem to see anything wrong with selling a gun to the same man because it might mean he intends to kill someone.
- 31 votes
Wouldn't it be a more perfect world if rapists actually thought about an unwanted pregnancy? (I jest, of course.)
It just boggles my mind that a pharmasist would actually come up with this kind of reasoning--I don't know any rapists, but it is kind of a stretch to think that they spend a whole lot of time thinking about whether their victim is going to get pregnant.
Also, for a husband to pick up items for his wife is really pretty routine, normal behavior, especially, when young children are at home. It takes alot of energy to take young children shopping, and in this instance it sounded like it would have required going to another community.
- 20 votes
I've worked for registered nurses at an insurance company. They are scared to death of losing their licenses if they do anything even questionable, let alone illegal. Give the pharmacist a break for wanting to protect his hard won license, which is the equivalent of a doctoral degree. The law demands that a woman be over 17. The wife could have gone herself, or put the kids in the car and they could all go. This husband sounds like a gold digger and a first class jerk.
At one point one of my kids was on Adderall, which is a form of amphetimine. It is a drug of last resort when Ritalin doesn't work. You wouldn't believe what I had to go through just to get his scripts filled because it is of course a scheduled drug, but I didn't blame the pharmacist, I blamed Congress. If I had put one of his pills in an unlabeled bottle so there'd always be some in my husband's car, my husband and I could have been arrested for possession of narcotics (no kidding, that is federal law.)
- 1 vote
Also, for a husband to pick up items for his wife is really pretty routine, normal behavior, especially, when young children are at home
Not in the case of controlled substances. My Jewish aunt would give her children some watered down wine on Shabbos, but even that benign custom was technically breaking the law.
- 1 vote
I've picked up/signed for controlled substances for my family many times.
- 17 votes
Plan B is not a restricted drug requiring prescriptions to obtain. It is an over the counter drug. You know, like condoms, aspirin, cough syrup, contraceptive sponge, etc. Available WITHOUT prescription to anyone 17 and older.
It has been available OTC since 2006 for 18+ and since 2009 for 17+.
FDA Approves Plan B's Over-the-Counter Sale
FDA to OK over-the-counter Plan B for 17-year-olds
- 20 votes
Were you in the same state as this incident? Each state is different.
The Adderol is not the fault of the pharamicist. It doesn't take all that much to get it if you follow the law and get the triplicate prescription from the doctor. Without it, the pharmacist is right to not sell it to you.
It's different for Plan B. Anyone over 18 -- including men -- can legally buy it. She denied him his legal rights. She endangered her license by that denial, not the other way around.
Your whole "it was for someone underage" argument is nonsense. It was for his wife who spoke to the pharmacist on the phone.
No, the wife should not have to cart the kids all over town looking for a pharmacy to fill the prescription. That's nonsense too. Her husband was willing to pick it up for her, and that's a reasonable thing to do.
Were you in the same state as this incident? Each state is different.
Proof please. The feds decide the legal age, not the states. If you want to argue different, please present proof.
- 23 votes
I regularly pick up my husbands contolled meds, this is an otc drug and there is no to not have sold it to the man...especially since he went to the effort of getting her on the phone to talk to them.
- 12 votes
loretta,
it sounds like it is a company policy, of which they should just state it outright. It sounds stupid. Now my question is, does a pharmacy have the right to not sell those types of products, or must they sell it by law.
- 4 votes
You really think a company would have a policy of not selling to men because they might be rapists? Really? Wow. Guess they're planning on being sued into bankruptcy.
- 15 votes
Now my question is, does a pharmacy have the right to not sell those types of products, or must they sell it by law.
Many states have what they call "conscience laws" where for 'religious reasons' a pharmacy owner can choose not to stock contraceptives and/or antiabortionists. Pharmacists and doctors can also choose not to write/fill a prescription for these items. However, they must by law either have a second pharmacist on hand who will sell the item (if the store stocks it) or tell a patient where they can purchase the prescription, if the store does not stock the item. (In the case of doctors or hospitals who refuse to give/write these prescriptions, or give the OTC meds, they must transport or send the patient to where it is available.
Now there have been many cases over the past few years where pharmacists not only refuse to honor a legal prescription, will not give the prescription back or tell the patient where the prescription can be filled. The same holds true for some doctors and hospitals. It is illegal.
- 12 votes
This is the Morality Police in action.
Oom, a pharmacy degree isn't a patch on a doctoral degree. What a silly comparison to try making.
And your alcohol and cigarettes argument? Laughable. Why do conservatives always trot out the alcohol analogy, as if it makes sense and is applicable?
In five years, using only condoms as birth control, I can see the need for Plan B at least a couple of times a year, if not a couple of times a month. Those one-size-fits-all condoms don't; they are easily broken and easily lost. Contraceptive pills are easy to forget to take.
No birth control is 100% effective, and abstinence is beyond unreasonable. We do not need the morality police in positions of power. The fact that this minni woman could possibly have been the one to force this family to have another child, which they might not be able to afford, and which they might not want, is ludicrous! Her tiny little brain shouldn't making family planning decisions for other people.
If it were me, and a pregnancy resulted from this woman's actions (okay, refusal to act), I'd be suing her for hospital costs, childcare costs, educational costs, every cost associated with that child I could come up with. She'd be a financial member of our family for the next 22 years!
What a self-righteous, prurient prude! Clearly her mind is in the gutter!
- 14 votes
I've worked for registered nurses at an insurance company. They are scared to death of losing their licenses if they do anything even questionable, let alone illegal
Why are they scared? Part of getting a license is learning what is legal and what is illegal. If they have forgotten what they can and can't do, they owe it to their patients to look it up. There aren't too many people who want to go see a health care professional that doesn't take the time to learn what s/he can and can not do.
- 9 votes
ohiogal, one thing you need to learn about Oom, is that no matter what seed she posts in, she's done it, she's lived it, she's been there...and all much, much better than any of the rest of us have.
- 15 votes
learn about Oom, is that no matter what seed she posts in, she's done it, she's lived it, she's been there...and all much, much better than any of the rest of us have.
And that is why she is on my ignore list...
- 7 votes
Oom, a pharmacy degree isn't a patch on a doctoral degree. What a silly comparison to try making.
You're wrong. The profession has changed. It's true there are still some pharmacists who got their licenses under the old law and they are grandfathered in, but today, they ALL earn a doctorate, certainly in my state, PA, but I believe nationally. Other health professions such as physical therapy are moving in the same direction. Please try to keep up.
- 3 votes
Here's proof.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_4966477_long-does-finish-pharmacy-school.html
About 10 years ago my husband did apply (unsuccessfully) to pharmacy school and was told this was now the law everywhere. Pharmacists get to be called "doctor". Please don't confuse them with the technicians who only have a two year community college degree. Check the name tag.
- 3 votes
You don't even need a BA to go to pharmacy school!
Getting a doctor of pharmacy is not the same thing as getting a medical degree to practice medicine on living bodies.
- 6 votes
You have no idea, none, what you are talking about. What was true 30 years ago is no longer true, and my link proved they come up of pharmacy school with a doctorate degree today.
Do you think pharmacists aren't responsible for living bodies? Guess what, physicians make mistakes, and pharmacists often catch them. A pharmacist saved my life once. My doctor had ignorantly prescibed two drugs that were incompatible with each other. This happens all the time.
- 4 votes
A professor in history gets to be called doctor, doesn't make him/her a medical doctor.
While the requirements to become a pharmacist have toughened up quite a bit, and rightly so, it still isn't the same as being a medical doctor.
- 8 votes
Oom, I read your article, and it said you don't need a BA to get into pharmacy school.
- 6 votes
ohiogal, one thing you need to learn about Oom, is that no matter what seed she posts in, she's done it, she's lived it, she's been there...and all much, much better than any of the rest of us have.
lol!
- 7 votes
nica
learn about Oom, is that no matter what seed she posts in, she's done it, she's lived it, she's been there...and all much, much better than any of the rest of us have.And that is why she is on my ignore list...
Yeah, but at least she provides us with something to laugh at...
ohiogal LOL x2!
- 8 votes
HD, that could very well be, but I couldn't take her nonsense anymore after awhile - especially when she tried to tell me how I should feel about things. She annoyed me so pop onto the ignore list she goes, but so many of you copy her words I still get the laughs.
- 6 votes
nica So long as you aren't missing out on the humor!
Blessings (and laughter) HD
:)
- 8 votes
Thanks, and no I am not... You all seem to get the best gems posted from her rants, tirades, or whatever she wants to call them...
- 6 votes
I would guess she calls it "thinking/her thoughts"...but that would require a new definite for the word "thinking"....
LMAO!!! HD
- 3 votes
Insults are against the CoH. Oom isn't the topic. Let's get back on topic.
- 4 votes
Sorry, Loretta. I was reading the thread, starting at #2.20, and got a bit carried away with the giggling. I will behave now.
As for the topic, I am still surprised that this pharmacist's actions could be defended in any way. Usually it is women who get discriminated against, but in this case, this man was clearly treated poorly simply because he was male! And if I were him, I'd sue not only for discrimination, but slander as well. The pharmacist basically admits to "profiling" him as a rapist, even after his wife got on the phone!
Peace, HD
- 8 votes
I love these instances in which the CoH is optional if the person is unpopular......... *rolls his eyes*
Cheers for doing the right thing Loretta.
- 2 votes
Who would need emergency contraception more than a rape victim? Do they think the rapists getting the meds? This is so typical of how screwed up medicine is/has become. More people die from RX overdoses (now) than ever before, yet if you are truly in need, getting access to needed meds gets you treated like a drug trafficker. Little wonder so many go to Canada or Mexico or online.
My initial take on the pharmacists' actions and the tech's statement of the reason was a little different.
I think what they were concerned about, if a man purchased the product, was that the man purchasing the product could, in fact, be a rapist -- and could be purchasing the product to prevent his victim from becoming pregnant, and the pregnancy thus becoming evidence of his crime.
This would make sense especially in incest or statutory rape cases, when consent is not an issue. In those cases, DNA evidence that the child was the rapist's would be sufficient evidence of rape to secure a conviction, because the victim's "consent" would be invalid in any event. The prohibition against dispensing the drug to girls under 17 would seem to validate this concern. How do you know the man at the counter isn't buying the drug for his daughter, niece, or another minor he just raped?
I certainly didn't get the impression that they were against providing the drug to rape victims. I got the impression that they were against providing it to men who might be trying to cover up the fact that they had just raped someone.
- 8 votes
Poor argument, I'm sure a rapist will really go back and what, force his victim to take her medicine,the ruling on a pharmacist not to dispense legal meds is one of the stupidest things I've seen in a long time, stop being so interested in private matters all you right to lifers.
- 23 votes
@Geek-#7: Uh------------------! Please read your last paragraph again, and a little more slowly.
So a guy commits rape. And is going back to the victim (risking arrest) to provide her with birth control?
That is either one classy rapist-----or one really stupid dude. Which one would that be, Geek?
- 20 votes
Yeah, every rapist is concerned about the fate of his victim -- and wouldn't mind leaving a trail of evidence to help prove her story about being forced to take Plan B.
When he called his wife, that should have wiped out any suspicion, shouldn't it?
Are you in favor of people being accused of a crime because they purchase other products that could be used to cover it up? Perhaps we should start carding all purchasers of bleach because it can be used to get rid of blood stains.
But let's get more direct: how about gun control? Guns are lethal weapons, often used in crimes. Are you in favor of taking them off the market in light of those facts? If not, why not?
A rapist would not buy his victim birth control after the fact. He would simply murder her and dump her body if he was worried about evidence. So the whole "you might be a rapist" argument is beyond insulting and defamatory. It's stupid.
- 27 votes
So the guy was going to cover up the evidence of his rape by going to a store showing his face and I.D to a person, signing it, leaving finger prints, possibly using a credit card all while being on camera.
That alone is good enough reason to sell it to him, if by chance and I mean very small chance he is a rapist the pharmacist would made this a open and shut case.
- 24 votes
A rapist would not buy his victim birth control after the fact. He would simply murder her and dump her body if he was worried about evidence.
Yeah, he would buy condoms to use so as not to leave any evidence behind when he DID dump the body.
- 11 votes
Good Lord, why are you all in attack mode?
I never said I agreed or disagreed with the pharmacists' acts. I merely shared my initial impression of why they said what they did:
My initial take on the pharmacists' actions and the tech's statement of the reason was a little different.
I think what they were concerned about, if a man purchased the product, was that the man purchasing the product could, in fact, be a rapist -- and could be purchasing the product to prevent his victim from becoming pregnant, and the pregnancy thus becoming evidence of his crime.
Such angry people you are, that you respond so viciously to a mere speculation that was even stated as such.
@Loretta:
A rapist would not buy his victim birth control after the fact. He would simply murder her and dump her body if he was worried about evidence. So the whole "you might be a rapist" argument is beyond insulting and defamatory. It's stupid.
Firstly, aside from being inflammatory, your comment makes no sense. The majority of rape victims are not murdered after being raped.
Secondly, my speculation specifically involved a man who had had sex with his own child or another minor family member, who he might be a tad reluctant to kill.
Thirdly, I never made such an argument in any case. I was speculating on the possible motives of the pharmacists.
Seriously, people. I think you need to chill out a bit. I've been in military exercises that were less hostile than this. Jeez.
- 4 votes
Good Lord, why are you all in attack mode?
Nobody's attacking YOU, personally, they're arguing against any defenses offered up for the pharmacist.
- 16 votes
@Geek-#7: Uh------------------! Please read your last paragraph again, and a little more slowly.
So a guy commits rape. And is going back to the victim (risking arrest) to provide her with birth control?
That is either one classy rapist-----or one really stupid dude. Which one would that be, Geek?
Barry, again, I was merely speculating on the possible reasoning of the pharmacists. In addition, I framed that speculation, quite clearly, in the context of a man who had had sex with his own daughter or another minor in his family, that is, a statutory rape, where "rape" is defined by lack of legal ability to consent by reason of age.
So he would neither be "classy" nor necessarily "stupid" (although the latter could go either way, but would not be relevant in any case). The premise was that he had raped a child in his own family or otherwise known to him, not a stranger; so he would be "going back to the victim" in any case.
I'm not sure how much more clearly I could have framed that speculation, nor expressed the fact that it was mere speculation about what may have been the pharmacist's motives, based on nothing more than my own first impressions upon reading the article.
- 3 votes
You ignored my question: would you support this same man being denied the ability to buy a gun because it might mean he intended to kill someone? If not, why not?
- 12 votes
Nobody's attacking YOU, personally, they're arguing against any defenses offered up for the pharmacist.
It's not a defense. Personally, I think if someone has moral qualms about doing their job, then they need to find a new job. Defending the pharmacists wasn't why I shared my impressions.
Rather, I believe that if you're going to have an intelligent discussion about the acts of people you don't know, and about which said acts you have no direct knowledge, then it's all speculation. Accordingly, that speculation should include varied lines of thought which might shed better light on the actors' possible motivations.
Isn't that a more reasoned approach than automatically assuming a motivation that paints the actors with the worst possible brush?
- 3 votes
your comment makes no sense. The majority of rape victims are not murdered after being raped.
Your speculations don't make sense. Why would he care about Plan B with a victim old enough to say, "He raped me"? How would that silence her or destroy the evidence she'd been raped? You do know that rape leaves its marks on the body, don't you?
If he was that concerned about being caught (to risk being on video, having to identify himself and sign for it) why wouldn't he kill her and dump her body instead? There would be less evidence to convict him.
Accordingly, that speculation should include varied lines of thought which might shed better light on the actors' possible motivations.
The stated motivation -- that he might be a rapist -- is absurd and defamatory, as I stated. If she really believed he was a rapist, she should have called the police (which she is probably mandated to do).
So ignoring that stupid excuse, why else would she think she has the right to deny him a product he has the legal right to purchase if she did not think she was morally superior and had the right to operate as the sex police?
- 12 votes
You ignored my question: would you support this same man being denied the ability to buy a gun because it might mean he intended to kill someone? If not, why not?
Loretta, I am at a loss to come up with any clearer way to say this, so please try to follow this:
What I said was just speculation about why the pharmacists might have been reluctant to sell the drug to men. I never said that I agreed with them. I never even said that I was sure they felt that way. It was just speculation about how they may have felt.
I don't know why that's so hard to understand. When I re-read my post, it seems perfectly clear to me.
Again, I believe that the pharmacists should follow the law; and if they can't do so in good conscience, then they should find new jobs. So I think they were wrong in their actions. Maybe that's the part that I didn't make clear.
But I do believe that their wrong actions might have, maybe, possibly, could have been based on good intentions, namely, a suspicion that a man buying Plan B might be trying to cover up a statutory rape, and not wanting to be complicit in that.
Do I agree with their reasoning? No. I just think it might have been what they were thinking.
I can't make it any clearer than that.
I don't think your gun question is relevant because, again, it assumed that I was advocating a position that I was not. But since you asked...
Most people who intend to commit murder don't buy guns from legal gun dealers. They buy them on the street, where the sales can't be traced. But if I were a legal gun dealer, and I had doubts about the guy standing before me wanting to buy a gun, I would refuse to sell him one.
More to the point of the post, however, if I were a pharmacist and I sincerely believed, for whatever good reasons, that a male customer wanting to buy Plan B was trying to cover up a rape, I would all the police. Otherwise, I would dispense the drug.
- 3 votes
Okay, perhaps I did misunderstand. If so, I'm sorry.
Now to your gun example. Don't you think it is absurd to think a rapist would try to buy Plan B legally where he would have to identify himself and sign for it, might even be videotaped when he could buy it on the street just like he could buy a gun on the street if he intended to kill someone?
It's a stupid, defamatory excuse used because she wanted to control the options of his wife, who she talked to on the phone. She knew he had the legal right to buy it and still refused to sell him the product. I'm betting she doesn't sell it to anyone for any reason. I don't have proof of that, but I think it is highly likely.
She accused him of being a felon. She destroyed her professional reputation with that. There is no good reason why she accused him of being a criminal. There is every reason to believe she is unprofessional and had unprofessional motivations.
- 11 votes
Okay, perhaps I did misunderstand. If so, I'm sorry.
Apology accepted. :-)
Now to your gun example. Don't you think it is absurd to think a rapist would try to buy Plan B legally where he would have to identify himself and sign for it, might even be videotaped when he could buy it on the street just like he could buy a gun on the street if he intended to kill someone?
Yes and no.
On the one hand, I see your point. A man who was trying to cover up a rape would not want to leave evidence of his buying Plan B. So in that regard, yes, I agree with you.
On the other hand, if he went to a pharmacy somewhere out of town, where no one knew him, his being videotaped and leaving a paper trail would just become part of that day's mundane records and would be filed away somewhere. I doubt anyone routinely follows up on every purchase of Plan B.
But would he be thinking clearly enough to reason that out? I suspect not. So most likely, your position is the truer of the two.
It's a stupid, defamatory excuse used because she wanted to control the options of his wife, who she talked to on the phone.
Quite possibly. Like I said, I was just suggesting a possible alternate explanation. It is also possible that she did have good intentions. A bad actor can be motivated by what they believe to be the best of intentions. Because I don't know her, I can't say.
She knew he had the legal right to buy it and still refused to sell him the product.
Agreed. And as I said, I think, three or four times now, if she has moral qualms about her job, then she needs to find a new job.
I'm betting she doesn't sell it to anyone for any reason. I don't have proof of that, but I think it is highly likely.
I have to disagree with you there, Loretta, but mainly because she doesn't own the pharmacy. I doubt her employers would tolerate her not selling a pricey medication simply because she doesn't want to.
EDIT:
She accused him of being a felon. She destroyed her professional reputation with that. There is no good reason why she accused him of being a criminal. There is every reason to believe she is unprofessional and had unprofessional motivations.
I agree with regard to her actions. I reserve judgment on her motivations because I don't know her, but I agree that her actions don't speak highly of her ethics.
- 3 votes
I'm sorry, but the whole rape scenario was ridiculous. It makes no sense at all, just wild speculation pulled out of thin air.
- 7 votes
The pharmacist's only mistake was coming up with the rape scenario, which was beside the point. He should have said, the law says I must see ID. He was right, and he will be vindicated. I hope he can turn around and sue this jerk of a husband for harrassment. Please don't assume that common sense reigns in these situations. Ask any licensed professional in the health care field. They must obey the law, period. Poor baby, she actually had to bundle up the kids and get in a nice warm car and drag her lazy butt to the drug store. I don't even have a car, and when my kids were small I had to drag my kids with me in all kinds of weather, paying bus fare for all three of us, unless someone could watch them. Why should anyone feel sorry for these self-righteous, money-hungry spoiled brats?
As for the life issue, it doesn't seem to be the case here. But what if I prefer to go to a prolife doctor and get my scripts from a prolife pharmacist? There are more prolife women than prolife men. Don't I have rights, or do only left wingers have rights? I was pressured into amniocentesis I didn't want, and the baby ended up being stillborn. I couldn't prove the amnio killed him, or I would have sued that b-----. I am now too old to have kids, but I still prefer to choose prolife health care professionals. "And aint I a woman?" Don't you dare say you can't go into health care, a lifesaving field, unless you are willing to kill.
- 2 votes
Poor baby, she actually had to bundle up the kids and get in a nice warm car and drag her lazy butt to the drug store. I don't even have a car, and when my kids were small I had to drag my kids with me in all kinds of weather, paying bus fare for all three of us, unless someone could watch them. Why should anyone feel sorry for these self-righteous, money-hungry spoiled brats?
Wow. You got all that out of the article? Not hostile much, are you?
She has every right to ask her husband to pick up her needs at the story, including this.
He could have shown his ID and he had the legal right to purchase it, so why do you keep ranting about how the pharmacist would have lost his license? Provide proof please.
- 17 votes
Plan B is an OTC drug. And how exactly is the husband a "jerk" and it is "harassment" that he wants to pick up what his wife asked him to get? They even spoke to the wife on the phone.
He proved he was over 18, the ONLY requirement for purchase.
Poor baby, she actually had to bundle up the kids and get in a nice warm car and drag her lazy butt to the drug store. I don't even have a car, and when my kids were small I had to drag my kids with me in all kinds of weather, paying bus fare for all three of us, unless someone could watch them.
Is this why you have such a hate on? You had bad husband, (as per so many previous posts throughout the vine) so all other wives with GOOD husbands should pay for that?
As for the life issue, it doesn't seem to be the case here. But what if I prefer to go to a prolife doctor and get my scripts from a prolife pharmacist? There are more prolife women than prolife men. Don't I have rights, or do only left wingers have rights?
Your right to be "Pro-life" does NOT supersede anyone else's right to be "Pro-choice". Nor should any health care professional's supersede the health care and rights of any woman.
I couldn't prove the amnio killed him, or I would have sued that b-----.
and you have the nerve to call this man and his wife:
Why should anyone feel sorry for these self-righteous, money-hungry spoiled brats?
Wow, just wow.
- 15 votes
Why didn't he simply drive home, get his wife's ID and show it?
- 1 vote
Didn't you read the article? He was fifteen miles from home. Besides, he had his own ID and didn't need hers.
- 19 votes
I guess nobody with a car ever drove 30 miles. Or even thought, gee, I should go to a different pharmacy. I guess I'm a city girl, but I currently have several major pharmacies within walking distance including a CVS and a RiteAid. I use one a 10 minute bus ride away. A man who loves his wife goes to another pharmacy. The bus runs every half hour. A man who doesn't forces a young mother the trauma of court. What a JERK. She deserves a divorce based on cruelty. PIG!!!
Okay, Oom, you definitely haven't read the article. Please do before you comment further. You're making a fool of yourself.
He'd already been to other pharmacies.
You're trying to demonize him when he did nothing wrong. That tells us who you are quite well.
- 19 votes
he went to 4... read the article...your response makes no sense in the context of the events
- 11 votes
He should have said, the law says I must see ID. He was right, and he will be vindicated.
Showin' yer ass again, Oom. He did show ID... his. Which is all that the law requires.
- 9 votes
I'm sure a rapist will really go back and what, force his victim to take her medicine
Why would he have to force her when she is in love with him? Please educate yourself on the meaning of "statuatory rape". It isn't forcible rape. It only means the girl is underage. Most of these girls imagine they are in love, and often the guy feels the same. That doesn't mean they necessarily want to get pregnant at 15. Statuatory rape has nothing whatsoever to do with force, violence, or threats. Many women who were that age in the 60s or early 70s were involved in at least one such relationship; in some states of course the age of consent was very young indeed. Laws have changed since, drastically in some cases.
oom, you're probably right that the amnio caused your baby's death. My grandmother was a nurse midwife with three masters degrees (UCSF Medical Center. She was one of Terman's Children), and she told me flat out the amnio process is collecting data, and that 20% of pregnancies spontaneously abort as a result of amnio, and of the 20% miscarried, 80% of the fetuses were found to be completely normal. Not a publicized statistic or no woman would cooperate!
I was bullied like you wouldn't believe, and even made to do genetic counseling, but flat out refused to have an amnio done myself at 35 when everyone was telling me my son would be born with down syndrome, or worse... (well, I was so old!) He's a healthy, normal 16 year old boy who spends too much time gaming and thinks learning to drive is the coolest.
I'm sorry for your loss. I'm sorry you're one of the statistics.
- 2 votes
Ahh, yes, more GOTP minions carrying out God's plan. Sounds like this pharmacist chose the wrong career if she doesn't want to sell contraception. This pharmacist should lose her license for discriminating against the husband and implementing the law in a way to her liking.
- 15 votes
Many states have a "Conscience Law" where pharmacists and doctors do not have to dispense, prescribe or fill any prescription they feel is against their religious beliefs.
Personally I think you are in the wrong profession if you can't do everything you may be called upon to do. This 'excuse' is a poor one and doesn't wash. I hope he sues the snot out of both pharmacists and the pharmacy. And if the wife got pregnant, then both pharmacists and pharmacy should be on the hook for the expenses. From prenatal through post university.
So what is next here? Refusal to sell feminine hygiene products to guys because they might be child molesters? Honestly, its not that far a stretch after the excuse used to not sell him Plan B.
- 16 votes
This pharmacist should lose her license for discriminating against the husband and implementing the law in a way to her liking
How can an age requirement possibly be enforced unless the person actually using the drug is the one to buy it and show ID? Please be sensible.
- 1 vote
He was old enough and legally allowed to purchase it. What part of the law are you having trouble understanding?
- 12 votes
Please prove it. You keep making outlandish claims. You need to back them up.
- 13 votes
By that reasoning Oom, any store clerk can deny selling alcohol or cigarettes to anyone because, gee how do we really know the guy making the purchase is actually buying it for himself? Gosh he might be buying it to ply some kid for sex!
Or how about condoms? Should I be denied the right to buy those as quite obviously I'm not the one going to "wear" it. Or how about my insulin, needle tips or nail polish remover? How do you know I'm not the one who is diabetic? Or won't use them for drugs? Or sell them? How do you know I don't wear nail polish and might want the remover to get high?
You don't.
Always assuming the worst in people doesn't speak well for anyone.
- 13 votes
I'm almost reluctant to post this because of the previous firefight I precipitated, so let me say right at the outset that I DO NOT disagree with the following quoted comment. I'm just trying to provide another possible contextual factor that possibly, maybe, could have influenced the pharmacist's acts.
By that reasoning Oom, any store clerk can deny selling alcohol or cigarettes to anyone because, gee how do we really know the guy making the purchase is actually buying it for himself? Gosh he might be buying it to ply some kid for sex!
Or how about condoms? Should I be denied the right to buy those as quite obviously I'm not the one going to "wear" it. Or how about my insulin, needle tips or nail polish remover? How do you know I'm not the one who is diabetic? Or won't use them for drugs? Or sell them? How do you know I don't wear nail polish and might want the remover to get high?
You don't.
Always assuming the worst in people doesn't speak well for anyone.
I am the one who bolded the last sentence, to emphasize it, because it reminded me of an experience from my own life. I think it may possibly bear somewhat on the discussion, specifically in terms of why the pharmacist (and others, apparently) was reluctant to dispense the drug to a male. Again, this is just speculation, nothing more (although the incident I'm going to relate is true).
Some years ago, I was babysitting my then-lady friend's two granddaughters (who were staying with us for the summer) for three days because my lady friend was away on business out of state. Late one night, the little one (she was, I guess, 7 or 8 at the time) started crying in pain while in the shower.
I asked her what was the matter, and she sobbed through the door that her "privates" hurt. She had complained a hour or so earlier about pain when urinating, and I'd planned to take her to a friend of mine who was a pediatrician the following morning. I figured she probably had a UTI. But she was in so much pain that I decided to take her to the ER instead.
Once we got to the ER and explained the immediate reason why we were there, both children was taken from me by a nurse, and I was told to wait in the waiting room. After a little more than an hour, I was invited in.
The doctor told me that there was no evidence of infection, and no evidence of sexual abuse. She said that the little one had a some minor, but painful vaginal irritation, most likely from leaving her wet bathing suit on for too long after swimming at the over-chlorinated city pool. She gave me a tube of hydrocortisone ointment and told me to have the older girl apply it to the little one every four hours. I thanked the doc, and we left.
On the way home, however, I was informed by the girls that both of them had been examined and questioned about sexual abuse -- in particular, whether I had ever abused either of them. They were pretty matter-of-fact about it. Apparently, the examination and questioning had been done in a professional way that didn't traumatize them.
Nonetheless, I was furious -- at least at first. How DARE they suspect me!
But I was also a former paramedic, and I knew that health care practitioners are required to take certain steps when faced with suspicious situations that might possibly point to child abuse. Here I was, a man showing up with two young girls not related to me, and the younger one is complaining of vaginal pain.
If I were in the hospital's position, I probably would have been suspicious, too.
Where I faulted the hospital was in that they never secured permission to examine the older girl. They didn't even try to call their mother or my lady friend (their grandmother). But my friend the pediatrician later told me they weren't legally required to ask anyone's permission to examine the children if they suspected possible child abuse, and that they usually didn't do so. They're afraid that other adults might "tip off" an offender.
So how does this relate to this thread? Well, just as with the man trying to buy Plan B, there was no reason to suspect me of anything, nor to believe that the situation was anything other than what I stated. The only reason that they were suspicious was because I was a man.
I don't like that. The vast majority of men are not rapists or pedophiles. But society has become so sensitive to these issues that all men seem to be at least potential suspects nowadays.
Somewhere there has to be a balance, but I don't think we've found it yet.
Always assuming the worst in people doesn't speak well for anyone.
I agree. But as is often said these days, it is what it is. Men are viewed suspiciously with regard to all matters sexual. That's just the way it is.
Again, I'm not defending the pharmacist. But I'm not ready to crucify her, either. Her actions were wrong. You'll get no argument from me there. And again, I'm just speculating about her reasons, not endorsing them.
Is it possible that the generalized publicity about sex crimes has caused pharmacists to be suspicious of any man who wants to purchase this product -- even absent any specific reason in a particular case? I think that's within the realm of possibility -- especially because not just one, but four stores refused to sell the drug to him.
So again, I agree that her actions were wrong. But without being inside her head, I'm not going to assassinate her character, because "Always assuming the worst in people doesn't speak well for anyone."
- 2 votes
It wasn't 4 stores that refused to sell Plan B to him. The first 3 were out of the product. The 4th store had it, and even after his calling his wife to talk to them the pharmacists insisted on practically accusing him of being a rapist.
That is just wrong on every level and inexcusable, imo.
- 6 votes
Geek_on_the_wing I'm really sorry for guys like you and the one in this article who get jammed up with the "All men are sexual predators" stereotype.
- 10 votes
So how does this relate to this thread? Well, just as with the man trying to buy Plan B, there was no reason to suspect me of anything, nor to believe that the situation was anything other than what I stated. The only reason that they were suspicious was because I was a man.
your being male wasn't the only reason...the fact that the girls were unrelated to you and you were male...is more probably the full reason. It is sad that it came to that for those 2 girls, but heck even my daughter was questioned about potential sexual abuse when she took my granddaughter in for a UTI. Sadly, I think it is becoming standard operating procedure.
Edit: I lost a bunch when I tried correcting a misspelling....oh well.
- 9 votes
By that reasoning Oom, any store clerk can deny selling alcohol or cigarettes to anyone because, gee how do we really know the guy making the purchase is actually buying it for himself?
Absurd analogy, because in the case the guy couldn't possibly be buying it for himself.
If you are a 21 year old who walks into the liquor store with his 20 year old girlfriend or vice versa, the liquor store will card both of you and refuse to sell to you. (I've seen it happen.) You cannot ask your date to step outside and then make the purchase either; you are barred for that night.
Really, I think this is much ado about nothing. If a pharmacist refused to sell me something, or if he were simply out of stock which happens, I would just walk across the street to another pharmacy.
Sadly, I think it is becoming standard operating procedure.
I can see how it is overkill but the intention is to protect kids, and I doubt it is entirely the practitioner's choice any more. It is probably either the law or the policy of the HMO.
hmmm plan b pills have this nice crunchy texture when used on salads, and besides, they give me a warm fuzzy feeling when I eat them, and besides, they do wonders for my man tits. /sarcasm.
- 5 votes
Absurd analogy, because in the case the guy couldn't possibly be buying it for himself.
you are right, but he could be a responsible father who is realistic in that he realizes teens have sex and would rather buy that for his daughter just in case of an accident like a broken condom, momentary lapse in judgement and having unprotected sex, etc etc, or...... like the article says, a good husband who is picking it up for his wife. I have picked up birth control prescriptions for my wife and daughter, when my wife and I felt our daughter was at the age where she might start having sex, I went and bought condoms which my wife gave to her after a mother / daughter talk, NOT because we were encouraging her to have sex but because we are not naive enough to believe our daughter is any different from kids in our day.
There are many legitimate situations that a man would be picking these types of things up, and it is not the pharmacists place to pass judgement.
- 5 votes
the intention is to protect kids
Show me in the article the pharmicist said it was to protect kids.
- 6 votes
Loretta, she was responding to my post 4.12 not the article.
- 3 votes
*repeated slapping self in face*
Oom, when this many people are trying to tell you something, wouldn't it stand to reason that your assessment of the information in this article might be incorrect?
If that hasn't occurred to you, please...for the sake of us all...let it occur to you now.
- 10 votes
formerstew
Oom, when this many people are trying to tell you something, wouldn't it stand to reason that your assessment of the information in this article might be incorrect?
This is also occurring with Oom on another article seeded by Soph. 4 people have tried to explain a simple point and we have been told to "stop lying". It is unbelievable. We understand your frustration.
You can slap yourself in the face until your nose falls off but facts just don't seem to get through. Just give up; it's not worth getting upset over.
Peace to Everyone, HD
- 9 votes
Look, I read the article. We have different interpretations of the same set of facts. Several people have tried to say the pharmacist must be a religious nut although we have NO evidence of that whatsoever. She could well be an atheist who was simply trying to obey the law, or what she believed to be the law. Pharmacists are trained, licensed professionals who get to put "Dr." in front of their names. I would certainly be willing to inconvenience a customer to protect that, wouldn't you? Pharmacy technicians are also licensed and must work under the supervision of pharmacists who inform them of the rules. Personally, if I had been the pharmacist I would have sold the pills to the father and shut up about it, but then, rules are rules, policies are policies, and neither employees nor professionals can just do whatever they please. The state needs to clarify just what the law actually is, and so does the drugstore chain. As usual on the Vine, everyone is jumping to judgement with very few confirmed facts.
- 1 vote
. Several people have tried to say the pharmacist must be a religious nut although we have NO evidence of that whatsoever.
check yourself.... you are quick to defend the pharmacist on this point because you say there is no evidence of that whatsoever, yet you are willing to accept instantly that men buying this could likely be raping young girls, despite the fact there is no evidence whatsoever that thats true either. What a joke.
- 10 votes
I wonder if Minnie Matthew, the CVS pharmacist, is one of those "christian crusaders" who purport to be conservative. And maybe in her heart she believes she is saving America from--------------------------------------------------who knows. I can not say, but I wonder if she voted for GWbush twice.
So this is one conservative that wants to get government off your back unless you're raped?
Scotty. Beam me up. Its too complicated down here.
- 14 votes
#5 - Sun Jan 8, 2012 9:25 PM ESTyep its the "moralists bigoted evangelical rightwing dominionist christian crusaders" who are absolutely ruining this nation....they have infected everything...they have destroyed our love for one another and as a nation for itself, they incite hate and racisms, they scream and rant and rave for war, they are busy body morality police, they would rather save a 1 day old "fetus", than save a starving actually alive child...they have a mental disease, and their churches and tv channels should be shut down, and they should have to go to reeducation camps or be put in mental institutions, and those who are violent should be put in the highest security prisons...
- 2 votes
Has this entire country lost its collective mind and gone stark raving bonkers...OR...are these wack jobs/federalists/fundie/bigots just getting braver and crawling out from under their rocks??
- 19 votes
#7 - Sun Jan 8, 2012 9:36 PM ESTUm Alex, I'll take "Crawling out from under their rocks" for a $1000.
- 12 votes
There is way too much of people bringing their personal sense of morality into what is none of their business.
TSA and Airline employees. Police officers, teachers, nurses and now this pharmacist.
There was baker who called the authorities because she was asked to write HAPPY BIRTHDAY HITLER on a cake.
- 7 votes
#8 - Sun Jan 8, 2012 9:37 PM ESTWhile it can not be sold to anyone under 17, a father should certainly be able to get it for his daughter if she wanted to keep the mistake of one night from altering her life. The medical evidence is that Plan B is safe for minors as well, it is sanctimonious and spinelessness that has prevented the FDA from making it available to minors.
- 15 votes
#9 - Sun Jan 8, 2012 9:40 PM ESTThe point is it is a legal drug, sold under certain guidelines. The pharmacist interposed her own morality over the guidelines. She pronounced herself as JUDGE over this man and RULED. She should be censured for her behavior.
I agree with no sale to minors because they are minors. If minors can't buy booze and cigarets then drugs should be included.
What a minor can buy is a condom.
- 7 votes
While it can not be sold to anyone under 17
That is not accurate, it can be sold to people under 17 with a perscription. Honestly it wouldn't even take a dr's appointment for my daughter to get a script if she needed one. She has her pediatrician's direct line.
- 6 votes
This is the U.S.A. People that violate our civil rights and prefer to live under religious rule need to be deported to Iran or Saudi Arabia. Starting with this pharmacist.
- 21 votes
#10 - Sun Jan 8, 2012 9:46 PM ESTLawsuit time :)
- 12 votes
#11 - Sun Jan 8, 2012 9:48 PM ESTLawsuit time :)
Ain't tht the truth. And then they wonder why there are so many lawsuits? When you have idiots like this pharmacist working in your company, it's no wonder you need a department of lawyers on call.
- 11 votes
Oh yes. Lawsuit BIG time! All pharmacies need to get the message that if they allow their employees engage in this type of behavior, severe financial consequences will result. As for the pharmacist, she not only needs to be fired, but have her licence permanently revoked as well. She is clearly unable to properly perform the duties required of a pharmacist.
Thank you for seeding this one, Loretta. The more publicity this story gets, the more likely action will be taken to keep this nonsense from occurring again. HD
- 12 votes
It's really amazing how many people of how many roles or classes, rich man, poor man, cardinal or imam, Senator or jerkwater pharmacist, seem to think that they somehow have the authority to dictate what sort of rules of sexual conduct other consenting adults must live by. Just how the devil do they presume to decide how any of us may live our intimate lives?!?
- 15 votes
#12 - Sun Jan 8, 2012 10:04 PM ESTThis broad is definitely in the wrong business.
I hope she was reported to the Department of Professional Regulation.
- 12 votes
#13 - Sun Jan 8, 2012 10:17 PM ESTWe can't let people let their personal religious views dictate what kind of medical care the rest of us receive. If we do that for a Christian, next thing you know, we'll have to allow Muslims to deny emergency care to Christians or women, and so on and so on. No effing way! If religion means that much to you, become a priest or pastor or mullah. Don't go into medicine.
- 13 votes
#14 - Sun Jan 8, 2012 10:53 PM ESTpull their licences... Plain and simple. You refuse to do your job, you lose your licence.
If the job interferes with your religious beliefs then find a different career. It's like working in a slaughter house and then refusing to do your job because you are an animal rights activist.
If you are a pharmacist and you refuse to sell a legally prescribed medication by a doctor or a medication that is available over the counter, then pull their licence on the spot, they can go jointhe ranks of the unemployed.
- 15 votes
#15 - Sun Jan 8, 2012 10:55 PM ESTThe pharmacist needs to loose her license. She is there to sell any medication the store stocks. She is not there to pass judgement or make a decision for an adult, period.
- 12 votes
#16 - Sun Jan 8, 2012 10:57 PM ESTThe FIRST mistake was sending the husband. The wife should have gone with the husband staying with the kids.
The SECOND mistake was refusing a male to get the prescription.
The THIRD mistake (the most important) was for the people behind the counter to not serve the public but let their religious or persons beliefs to intervene with their professional duties.
If you can't perform all the duties of your job, then you are in the wrong job. Get a new career.
- 5 votes
The THIRD mistake (the most important) was for the people behind the counter to not serve the public but let their religious or persons beliefs to intervene with their professional duties.
I disagree. Consider the case of 'OctoMom'. What he did was legal and what the patient desired. Many have said it was unethical what the doctor did. Should a doctor of been compelled to do it even if they thought it a bad idea?
There are many things science and medicine can do but it is not always best to do it. The relatively few cases of hick pharmacists refusing to dispense these pills is not worth what we lose if healthcare providers are required to do everything as long as there is no law against it.
- 3 votes
Why should sending the husband be considered a "mistake"?
What's next? Not allowing husbands/fathers to buy feminine hygiene products or women to buy condoms?
A husband, being the other half of a committed relationship, should be able to pick up anything his wife needs without condemnation by self-righteous twits behind a counter.
- 20 votes
Well said, daMamma.
The Octomom's doctor lost his license for malpractice on her and other patients. He knew the standard was to implant only a couple of embryos. She claims she did not ask him to implant them all, but even if she did, he's the one who holds the license and knows the standards.
But that is different than this pharmacist. They did not refuse to fill the order based on danger to the patient but their own need to dictate to others about birth control.
- 12 votes
Beg your pardon, but Octomom has nothing to do with the current posting. It is entirely another issue and not relevant.
- 5 votes
Octomom has nothing to do with the current posting. It is entirely another issue and not relevant.
I disagree, it seems a good example of why healthcare workers shouldn't be compelled to do something just because it's not against the law.
Octomom and abortion are different topics. If you wish to discuss them, here are two options: seed or write an article on your own column or post it to the off topics group.
While here, please stay on topic because your off topic posts are disrepectful to people who are trying to discuss this topic.
- 6 votes
I thought the topic was if healthcare workers should be compelled to do procedures they object to? There doesn't seem great differences between making a pharmacy dispense the morning after pill, compelling a nurse to take part in an abortion and requiring a doctor to honor a woman's wish to load up her womb with embryos.
The topic is a man was refused his right to purchase Plan B simply because he is a man. Please stay on topic.
- 7 votes
At the heart of the pharmacist's refusal is, should a healthcare worker be able to refuse something or should they have to do it regardless of misgivings.
I think the pharmacist was wrong for not dispensing it. I also don't think it would be a good idea to force healthcare workers to do things they think are unethical.
- 2 votes
So if medical professionals of any kind think something perfectly legal is 'unethical' according to their religious views, they should be able to compromise another person's health? Seriously?
- 11 votes
They probably should not put themselves in a situation that would conflict with their religious beliefs, like say, a pharmacist who distributes medication that might conflict with their dogma. If they feel they are being forced to do things that are unethical, perhaps they are in the wrong job field.
- 7 votes
So if medical professionals of any kind think something perfectly legalis 'unethical' according to their religious views, they should be able to compromise another person's health?
There are reasons other then religious for people to have ethical objections to a range of scientific and medical procedures. Many things are legal but unethical. I'm not sure the "It's legal you have to do it" is always the best way to go.
There has to be balance between the boss ordering workers to do things they think are wrong and not treating a person.
- 1 vote
So if a person believes heart meds are bad for you but the doc says you need them to keep from having another heart attack, that person should be able to deny them to you?
- 8 votes
How about those people that mixing of blood is wrong & sinful... do they let the patient die that needs a blood transfusion & the "right" kind is not available?
- 5 votes
There has to be balance between the boss ordering workers to do things they think are wrong and not treating a person.
And what exactly is that balance? How exactly does someone else's opinion about what they think is ethical or not ethical trump another's health care?
If it is not your uterus, quit making rules about it.
- 10 votes
what exactly is that balance? How exactly does someone else's opinion about what they think is ethical or not ethical trump another's health care?
Consider this. Two parents have a child with failing kidneys. They decide to have invitro to have a child with the same tissue type and then junior will donate a kidney to his sibling. There are a number of ethical issues involved. It is fair to say that some people will find that unethical even though it is legal. Should they be forced to perform the procedure just because the parents want that and it is legal?
if a person believes heart meds are bad for you but the doc says you need them to keep from having another heart attack, that person should be able to deny them to you?
do they let the patient die that needs a blood transfusion & the "right" kind is not available?
They have someone else do the case. In a matter of life or death they place their ethical concerns aside and treat the patient.
- 2 votes
Stay on topic please. This seed is about a pharmacist refusing to sell a legal product to a man who has the legal right to buy it.
- 8 votes
This seed is about a pharmacist refusing to sell a legal product to a man who has the legal right to buy it.
So you say, Loretta. Apparently there was enough ambiguity in the law that the pharmacist didn't believe that.
Somehow I suspect that is a child WERE proven to have been the victiim of statuatory rape, with this drug given to cover it up, you would be furious at the pharmacist for selling the drug and you would want her in prison as an accessory after the fact. Funny how hindsight is always 20/20.
- 2 votes
Oom, there was no child involved. The pharmacist did not refuse to sell it to him because there was a child involved. If you want to argue there was, then please provide proof. If you want to argue this man didn't have a legal right to purchase the product, please provide proof.
- 9 votes
You mean this girl wasn't a minor?
As you have been repeatedly advised: Read the article. There was no minor girl involved.
- 9 votes
As you have been repeatedly advised: Read the article. There was no minor girl involved
such a simple solution, yet one not likely to happen..
- 8 votes
The pharmacist didn't refuse to sell it because of the statutory rape cover up reason. It was the pharmacy clerk that said that is why they don't like selling it to men.
The pharmacist said her reason was because she didn't know who he was buying it for. The law says you may buy and use it over the counter if 18 and above. The law says you need a doctor's prescription to buy and use it under that age. Is it against the law for an adult to give this drug to a minor? It might be. I would imagine the doctor's oversight is also required for use, not only the sale of the product. The pharmacist had no way to prove the age of the person on the phone.
- 2 votes
The law says he can buy it. He is over 18. It does not matter who he was buying it for. There are a previous incident of refusing to sell to a man at a CVS in Houston. CVS promised ACLU it would not happen again.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/06/399503/cvs-refuses-to-sell-texas-man-emergency-contraception-for-his-wife-suggests-hes-a-rapist/?mobile=nc
In an email about the Houston incident, CVS spokesman Mike DeAngelis insisted they’d briefed all their stores on official company policy, which is “to follow FDA regulations for the sale of emergency contraception, which allows this product to be sold without a prescription to customers who are at least 17 years old, regardless of gender.”
Lisa Graybill, the legal director of the Texas ACLU, says refusing to sell Plan B to men based on this baseless “sensational story” is “misguided.” “I’m not aware of a single case of a man reportedly buying it to push on his underage pedophile victim,” she says.
“I’m outraged,” Melbourne says of the situation. “I chased this thing all over town, then I get accused of using this for rape, even after they’ve talked to my wife on the phone. It makes me feel like a piece of crap.”
So:
It is legal, per the FDA and CVS, for men to buy Plan B.
It is not company policy to violate FDA rules.
CVS had previously told this and all of their pharmacists men can legally buy Plan B.
This means the pharmacist knew she was defying FDA rules and CVS company policy when she refused to sell Plan B to Melbourne.
- 9 votes
It does not matter who he was buying it for.
I'm not sure about that. If a man gives it to an underage girl it might well be illegal even though he could legally buy it.
is legal, per the FDA and CVS, for men to buy Plan B.
It is not company policy to violate FDA rules.
Then in fairness to the pharmacies the government should hold them non liable if an adult gives this drug to a minor. If they didn't have to worry about getting sued or in trouble for that, the pharmacist would of likely sold it.
CVS spokesman Mike DeAngelis insisted they’d briefed all their stores on official company policy
Sounds like someone didn't get the memo. It does seem that this was against company policy before.
Please reread my prior post:
Lisa Graybill, the legal director of the Texas ACLU, says refusing to sell Plan B to men based on this baseless “sensational story” is “misguided.” “I’m not aware of a single case of a man reportedly buying it to push on his underage pedophile victim,” she says.
From a second source:
http://jezebel.com/5873618/another-cvs-claims-uterus-is-required-for-purchase-of-plan-b
Lisa Graybill, the legal director at the ACLU of Texas, responded:
I don't know where these ideas comes from ... I'm not telling you there's never a case that that's happened, but I'm not aware of any. That's a sensational story that would get coverage if someone was criminally accused of doing that.
We have an idea about where people are hearing these stories about imaginary rape victims. While arguing that Plan B shouldn't be available to women under 17 without a prescription, those opposed to the measure claimed the drugs, "open the door for all sorts of abuse," and suggested that rapists might be giving the drugs to underage girls. Graybill is right that if this had ever actually happened, we'd never hear the end of it. In all likelihood, it's just a hypothetical situation cooked up by those who don't want a slut-enabling "abortion pill" (that doesn't actually cause abortions) on the shelves.
There are no reported underage victims or even rape victims, okay? That's a hoary bit of vile nonsense cooked up by the forced birth crowd who opposes Plan B.
- 8 votes
loretta,
from all that has been discussed, it sounds like the jobless stats will increase by one, and there will be a job opening up soon. (or at least there should be).
It really appears to be someone trying to justify their personal beliefs in this event, and that is wrong.
- 6 votes
There are no reported underage victims or even rape victims, okay? That's a hoary bit of vile nonsense cooked up by the forced birth crowd who opposes Plan B.
I agree the cases of this used as a statutory rape cover up are less then the intended use. I have no objection to it being on the market as I don't also an early 1st trimester abortion pill. I also agree it was an issue more hyped by those that don't wish for it to be on the market.
I disagree that is won't be used to cover up rapes more times then very rare. Loretta you seem well versed on the issues of step dad, mom's boyfriend, teacher and the cool guy doing wrong with underage girls. It is not an uncommon thing. In many cases the girl 'consents' to the affair. The one big thing that can trip them up is the girl becoming pregnant. Then 'consenting' or not, the cat is out of the bag.
I think the pro's and con's of over the counter morning after and early 1st trimester abortion pills are very similar. The difference between an embryo that floats and a freshly implanted one is very small. I imagine there are some that support Plan B over the counter and are opposed to early 1st trimester abortion pill being OTC. I guess most people will shoot 2 for 0 on the question.
It is not that all these people are confused about the different actions of morning after vs abortion pills it is that they see the issues as very similar. The possibly religious based refusal of the pharmacist is the same. The issue of a man buying it for another person to use is the same. The issue of a guy saying "I'll slip this into her drink and she won't get pregnant is the same."
An early 1st trimester birth control pill would most be used as intended. It will also be the drug most slipped into a drink by non-rapeists. One would think Plan B with the President's wacky law would be a good place to practice.
If a college guy slipped this into the girl he hooked up with's morning tea would it be a crime or a significant one? Both legal age to buy and take it. Would the law treat it like slipping in an aspirin or like a controled drug?
I think the pro's and con's of over the counter morning after and early 1st trimester abortion pills are very similar.
That's because you apparently have no idea how either of them works so you should stop talking about them until you figure out the difference.
- 5 votes
I've asked many times for people to stay on topic. Please do so.
- 3 votes
“I’ve bought this plenty of times in my life, and it’s never been a problem,” he said. “Are you telling me every other place I’ve bought it from has been wrong?”
It sounds like the pharmacist should of referred this clown over to the condom section. I have little objection to this medication, but using abortion as birth control is wrong. Abortion is a necessary evil, but it is still killing someone. Few with @!$%#ty lives wish they were never born at all. The Good Lord gave us the intelligence to prevent unwanted pregnancy, even the stupid among us can learn to use a condom or bring the Mrs. in for a Depo shot. Someone should clue this idiot that the corner gas station sells condoms so he doesn't have to buy this plenty of times.
The issue of selling it to rapists is interesting. In the past the father/step dad/ mom's boyfriend had to bring the kid to the abortion clinic. Depending on the place, they would either report it or have to overlook it. Now these guys can cover it up with an over the counter med.
This guy doesn't have a very sympathetic story. I don't think we should make it illegal for men to buy these types of drugs. We should expect to hear stories of boyfriends sneaking this into their girlfriends food and drink. Depending on the fetus is life laws of the state it will mean the difference between murder and maybe assault.
- 3 votes
OK, I'll bite. Jave, how does Plan B work? Last I checked in inhibited implantation which is not the equivalent of an abortion.
- 12 votes
I think he's confusing it with RU486.
What some folks don't seem to realize is that sometimes condoms break, leak, slip, or have other issues. Also, if the wife is on the 'pill' and is/has recently taken antibiotics, the 'pill' won't work.
I'd much rather see people take care not to have children they do not wish to have.
- 12 votes
using abortion as birth control is wrong. Abortion is a necessary evil, but it is still killing someone.
We understand that it is your opinion that a fetus is "someone," and you are certainly welcome to make your personal decisions on that opinion. But you know, a lot of other people disagree and distinguish between a potential person and an actual person.
If you would object to a woman being forced to have an abortion, you should not force her to have a pregnancy that she does not desire. That "Do not do those things to others that you would not have them do to you" cliche, you know?
- 10 votes
Last I checked in inhibited implantation which is not the equivalent of an abortion.
It seems a technical question and one of opinion. Is birth control Ok but 1st trimester abortion wrong? Is 1st trimester Ok but 3rd wrong? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
It is fair to say these medicines prevent a pregnancy you don't want. In the past the choice was the woman's. Now a boyfriend can make that decision off the record. There exists also drug combos that will end an early pregnancy. The pro and con with the over counter issues are the same.
There is a reason Plan B is called 'Emergency Contraception'. It was not intended as a medicine to take on a regular basis. It's not a birth control pill. Flooding your body with so much hormones to achieve the intended result on a "plenty of times in my(Her) life", basis is doing bad things to this guys wife.
Should a man accused of incest or spousal abuse be allow to buy this?
- 2 votes
We understand that it is your opinion that a fetus is "someone," and you are certainly welcome to make your personal decisions on that opinion. But you know, a lot of other people disagree and distinguish between a potential person and an actual person.
Some of us know someone or are that someone with a horrible childhood with wicked parents. Do the overwhelming majority of them wish they were never born at all?
- 1 vote
I think he's confusing it with RU486.
I'm aware of the difference. Are the arguements pro or con different about making each drug over the counter? Few that support 'Plan B' over the counter are opposed to 'RU486' over the counter and vice versa.
One would imagine in a hick town where this guy is traveling over a hundred square miles to meet up with this pharmcist are unlikely to provide abortion services. Why not allow these women an abortion pill? Should they all have to fly to a big city?
Last I checked in inhibited implantation which is not the equivalent of an abortion.
Actually, it doesn't any more than any other hormonal birth control does. It's only ever been speculation and can't be either proved or disproved, scientifically.
- 8 votes
Jave, your assumption that your opinion is more important than the woman who wanted the pill is invalid. It's time to start respecting the intelligence and wisdom of women.
The rest of your supposition is also invalid. He called his wife and let her talk to the pharmacist. She has the right to send her husband to get whatever she needs from the pharmacy or any other store. I pick up stuff for other people all the time, including medications. Should they be denied their medications because there are reasons why they could not pick them up for themselves?
The whole "he's a guy, therefore doing something wrong" is nonsense. If he was trying to force her into pregnancy and refusing to allow her to take Plan B, no doubt your argument would be he's wonderful --even if he raped her, committed incest or battered her. In fact, I doubt you would even question what he did to her if he was into forced birth -- but a man who was into forced birth is more likely to have harmed her to cause the pregnancy than the other way around.
- 11 votes
I have little objection to this medication, but using abortion as birth control is wrong.
Naturally and normally 50% of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterine lining and end up being flushed down the toilet. Are those "someone" also? Are they "people"?
Plan B does the same: makes a *possible* fertilized egg not implant.
It's not an "abortion", it just prevents the pregnancy from starting.
- 14 votes
If you would object to a woman being forced to have an abortion, you should not force her to have a pregnancy that she does not desire. That "Do not do those things to others that you would not have them do to you" cliche, you know?
I wouldn't force her. I'm pro-choice. I see abortion as a necessary evil. We kill for many reasons, it's only one more. That still does not mean we should not see it as killing a human.
Calling it just a "Fetus" makes it easier. It is little different then calling the Afghan kids "Collateral damage". They both have to die for our needs, but why spin it as a good thing?
It's only ever been speculation and can't be either proved or disproved, scientifically.
The FDA approved it's use over the counter. I think some studies have been done.
- 4 votes
Jave, your assumption that your opinion is more important than the woman who wanted the pill is invalid. It's time to start respecting the intelligence and wisdom of women.
My opinion is my own. I work in a female dominated field. My peers have never doubted my respect for women.
Seriously, how much wisdom does this woman have sending her man out for yet another dose of emergency contraception as she is home with the kids?
Should they be denied their medications because there are reasons why they could not pick them up for themselves?
As I said, I would not outlaw men buying these medicines. You really can't see how a bad man will buy these drugs to feed to his girlfriend or the kid he is molesting?
If he was trying to force her into pregnancy and refusing to allow her to take Plan B, no doubt your argument would be he's wonderful --even if he raped her,
Sweety Cakes, don't assume you know what a real man thinks.
a man who was into forced birth is more likely to have harmed her to cause the pregnancy than the other way around.
Not when she is the prego 14 year old step daughter.
It is called a fetus because it is a fetus, unless it is a zygote or embryo. It would only be an ova or at most a zygote at the stage when Plan B is used -- if it exists at all outside of the ovary. It may not. If it is still in the ovary, then Plan B does nothing to it. If it is an ova, Plan B does nothing to it. If it is a zygote (the most unlkely of the three), then Plan B does nothing to it. It merely keeps it from implanting. Since most zygotes don't implant anyway, there's no real harm done.
- 10 votes
It's not an "abortion", it just prevents the pregnancy from starting.
If it was a legal abortion medicine would your opinion change?
What ever makes you sleep well at night. If it was a 2 week pregnancy should she have to keep it?
My peers have never doubted my respect for women
and yet, in the same comment...
Sweety Cakes, don't assume you know what a real man thinks.
FAIL.
- 14 votes
If it was a legal abortion medicine would your opinion change?
Mine would. RU486 shouldn't be sold over the counter because it's dangerous if taken after the 9th week of pregnancy. Plan B is a contraceptive, not an abortifacient.
- 11 votes
It is called a fetus because it is a fetus
Few women I know call it that. They just call it "The/our/my Baby". It what significant ways is a zygote different then an embryo? Why does a fetus hold higher standing then an embryo during the first week the kid makes it's change?
It's mostly an angel dancing on the head of a pin question in my opinion.
and yet, in the same comment...
I'm sorry. My sarcasm translator had a glitch. Cheap made in China crap, you know how it is Sugar Buns.
- 3 votes
Mine would. RU486 shouldn't be sold over the counter because it's dangerous if taken after the 9th week of pregnancy. Plan B is a contraceptive, not an abortifacient.
I don't doubt you. Still, public opinion would think it a good thing. The opinion of a bunch of government scientists would mean little. Politically,I could not see a Left of center blocking of legalised abortion medications in common stores.
There is something attractive with giving women in abortion hostile states the ability to terminate their pregnancies in the privacy of their own homes.
The risks you express are real. I doubt the politicians will rock that boat for the safety for those kind of people. The donor's daughters will not have to do that, they'll go to a real doctor. They will not shop the store aisles.
I'm sorry.....Sugar Buns.
methinks you do not understand a lot of what you say or how you sound, but I'm guessing you were pretty satisfied after you posted that, weren't ya slugger?
- 10 votes
Jave, if you don't know the difference between a zygote and an embryo, then you really shouldn't be trying to lecture others about Plan B.
As to women calling "it" a "baby," at the stage when Plan B is used, there is nothing to call anything except a possible "oops, I forgot my pill" or a "oh no, the condom broke."
You don't seem to understand the stages of a woman's cycle or the development of an ovum. Until you do, you can't understand how silly your arguments sound.
- 12 votes
If you would object to a woman being forced to have an abortion, you should not force her to have a pregnancy that she does not desire. That "Do not do those things to others that you would not have them do to you" cliche, you know?
I wouldn't force her. I'm pro-choice. I see abortion as a necessary evil. We kill for many reasons, it's only one more. That still does not mean we should not see it as killing a human.
Calling it just a "Fetus" makes it easier. It is little different then calling the Afghan kids "Collateral damage". They both have to die for our needs, but why spin it as a good thing?
"That still does not mean we should not see it as killing a human." It is VERY different than calling the Afghan kids "collateral damage;" kids are clearly humans - people - they have an independent life outside of the woman. You are, again, entitled to your opinion that a fetus and a kid are the same thing, but I completely disagree. Nearly a third of fertilized eggs/embryos "spontaneously abort" - miscarry. I would not say that a "person" has died when that happens. Again, there is a difference between a potential person, and an actual person, in my perspective. Human DNA in a clump of reproducing cells is a very low standard for what constitutes a human.
However, as long as you do not support legally enforcing your personal belief on women, we have no serious argument.
- 9 votes
Politically,I could not see a Left of center blocking of legalised abortion medications in common stores.
Why do you keep talking about abortion medications when this article is about a contraceptive?
- 11 votes
No, actually, that's not its method of action.
Thanks for the update, I wasn't aware of new findings that it could possibly be acting to even prevent fertilization. Still not an abortifacient anyway.
---
I work in a female dominated field. My peers have never doubted my respect for women.
Is this like "I have lots of black friends"?
Sweety Cakes, don't assume you know what a real man thinks.
...you know how it is Sugar Buns.
I now doubt your respect for women.
- 14 votes
methinks you do not understand a lot of what you say or how you sound, but I'm guessing you were pretty satisfied after you posted that, weren't ya slugger?
They didn't have sarcasm in the town you grew up in? Don't worry, me and my kitty cat will show you the way.
- 1 vote
You don't seem to understand the stages of a woman's cycle or the development of an ovum. Until you do, you can't understand how silly your arguments sound.
A woman getting her period can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on the time. Many women are thankful when they get it and they are not pregnant. Many are also sad they are not pregnant. That said, I'm a man. I only understand what I experience from women, what they tell me and what I perceive.
Why do you keep talking about abortion medications when this article is about a contraceptive?
Sometimes it is better to think of what can be, instead of what is. Our world works in small steps. A drug that you can put into stuff and keep zygotes from forming can be bad. It has great potential for misuse in common society and in other ways.
I'm not saying to keep Plan B type drugs out of stores, but we should understand the misuse, challenges and effects of our actions.
Read this very post and the common opinion. I'm not sure most of you would be against an abortion pill for the same reasons of the medicine in the article. Why should the hick girl have to drive 100 miles to end her pregnancy?
As long as the drug company states "Opposed by the Right wing" people will fight to put it on the shelf. As a common man, I am aware of the evil that men do.
Allowing a woman to take a couple pills and place the embryo in the toilet of maxi pad might not be so bad in a place with limited abortion services. It also is a goldmine for the men that have control over girls and women in a bad way. Those girls can't get the pill, a Depo shot, an IUD or an abortion without entering the healthcare system. A drug you can put in the soup could be bad.
It can also be dangerous to women or their men folk that don't read the instructions on the box. Look at the man and woman in this story. Even advocates of emergency contraception do not argue it should be used as frequently as this guy and his wife use it.
Which ever side, I'm not confident our politicians will make the choice for the greater good over politics.
kids are clearly humans
Only by seconds in all 50 states. In some states if you wack the kid in the womb before it is out, it is only assault on mom. That is why those women fall down the stairs.
- 3 votes
You are, again, entitled to your opinion that a fetus and a kid are the same thing,
Don't take my word for it. Ask most women carrying a child in our world.
- 2 votes
No OB/GYN ever calls the fetus a fetus to the mother, because she will take offense. They always say, "your BABY is fine." While fetus is a medically valid term, everyone knows what it means politically--a nonentity of no value.
- 2 votes
I believe Jave derailed this conversation.
The issue is whether a health professional can refuse to do their job, not whether abortion is right or wrong.
- 10 votes
You are, again, entitled to your opinion that a fetus and a kid are the same thing,
Don't take my word for it. Ask most women carrying a child in our world.
You are correct, they DO call it that - if they want a child.
I'm sure that the experience of having something growing and moving inside of you is a unique experience. And, as a father, I found the development of our child inside of my wife extraordinary. However, if she had miscarried, while we would have been sad, because we wanted a child, it would not have been "our baby died." No, the biological entity that could have become a baby would have died.
I'm repeating myself, but there is a difference between potential and actual; if you had a fried egg for breakfast you don't go around telling people you just had fried chicken.
- 12 votes
What some folks don't seem to realize is that sometimes condoms break, leak, slip, or have other issues.
Don't I know it, thats how my son came to be. I wasn't able to tolerate the pill, we had planned on having another child just not so soon. My daughter was only 7 months old when I got pregnant with my son.
- 6 votes
No OB/GYN ever calls the fetus a fetus to the mother, because she will take offense. They always say, "your BABY is fine."
Really? All of my OB/GYNs have referred to my fetus as *gasp!* a .... Fetus! I've been treated by a number of OB/GYNs too.
While fetus is a medically valid term, everyone knows what it means politically--a nonentity of no value.
Really?
- 10 votes
My OB/GYN never used the word baby until she was holding my son in her hands. Before that, she used the term fetus... I have never had a OB/GYN tell me "my baby is fine". When I suffered a miscarriage, I was told the fetus was not viable & has therefore spontaneously aborted. No "you lost the baby" BS. It was not a "baby".
When I went into pre-term labor my OB/GYN told me the fetus was in distress, due to my preeclampsia. She sent me to the hospital that specializes in neo-natal care before I delivered. Guess what? When I got the bill for the ambulance - no mention of a "baby" as a passenger - just me. Did they forget to bill me for the "baby", no - they couldn't bill for someone that was not transported. I was transported and delivered a baby at the hospital.
The funniest thing I have heard recently is from my niece (whom I love dearly & I would never ask her this), but she said that her son is GOING to be a big brother at the end of the summer. She is devout & believes life begins at conception, or does she???? If she truly believed that why would she not have said, my son IS a big brother?
- 8 votes
jave - whether or not a fetus and a living human being are the same thing is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the pharmacist had any grounds to refuse dispensing a medication based on personal perception and/or values. Good grief.
- 9 votes
whether or not a fetus and a living human being are the same thing is not the issue here
It was brought up by a writer that objected to my use of the word "Someone" to describe a fetus when I wrote, I have little objection to this medication, but using abortion as birth control is wrong. Abortion is a necessary evil, but it is still killing someone.
The issue is whether or not the pharmacist had any grounds to refuse dispensing a medication based on personal perception and/or values.
The matter was also discussed when I was told I had no understanding of the Ova, zygote embryo, fetus process.
- 2 votes
JAVE, not always! A Dilation and Curettage procedure (abortion) may be performed because of an incomplete miscarriage which is causing hemorrhaging. The fetus has partially spontaneously aborted. There is no pregnancy to save, only a woman who is in danger of bleeding to death if the placental abruption isn't addressed.
An abortion is not always the death of a fetus. Sometimes, the fetus is already dead.
- 6 votes
The pharmacist's objection would likely be the same with both Plan B and an early 1st trimester abortion pill.
Only if they don't understand the science behind how those things work.
- 5 votes
Only if they don't understand the science behind how those things work.
I think it is fair guess if the pharmacist had an objection to selling Plan B she would also object to selling abortion pills.
I don't see a great difference between a floating embryo and a freshy implanted one. Does it suddenly gain it's soul at that moment? Does the thing suddenly grow a head? What is the great difference between the two?
The difference between the two is irrelevant in this case, because even if Plan B were an abortion pill (which it isn't) abortion is legal and so is Plan B! If a pharmacist cannot stomach selling legal medications, for whatever reason, then that person needs to find a new job. What part of this do you not understand, Jave? If you are against Plan B, DON'T USE IT, and don't become a pharmacist. I have read your multitude of posts, all which stray beyond the context of this article, and I am left wondering if you are just bored, or what. We get your opinion, fine, if you want to argue about abortion, write your own article about it. This is about a man who was denied HIS right to purchase a legal, FDA approved drug for his wife. Please, give it a rest already!
HD
- 8 votes
I think it is fair guess if the pharmacist had an objection to selling Plan B she would also object to selling abortion pills.
Again, only if they don't understand the science behind how those things work. Plan B, like other hormonal birth control, does not function by causing a fertilized egg to fail to implant. That was supposition put forth back in the 60s when the Pill first came out, and not only has it never been scientifically proven to happen, it can't be scientifically proven.
- 7 votes
The funniest thing I have heard recently is from my niece (whom I love dearly & I would never ask her this), but she said that her son is GOING to be a big brother at the end of the summer. She is devout & believes life begins at conception, or does she???? If she truly believed that why would she not have said, my son IS a big brother?
Is it honestly so weird? People all around the world, even in primitive cultures understand that pregnancy is kind of an in between time of personhood. Children observe.
We buy these little kids "I'm the big sister" and "I'm the big brother" shirts before the kid is born. Everyone understands the kid is still in the womb, but women still have showers (sans the Jewish folk) and guys raise a toast to the child on the way. Our various cultures perceive the loss of the 2 month old miscarriage differently then the 8 month miscarriage.
Most people pro-life or choice don't think in terms of ovum, zygote, embroyo, fetus and human.
- 1 vote
Jave
We buy these little kids "I'm the big sister" and "I'm the big brother" shirts before the kid is born.
No one buys one of those shirts until after a woman becomes pregnant. Plan B works before a woman becomes pregnant. What does your comment have to do with a man being denied the right to buy Plan B?
- 5 votes
Most people pro-life or choice don't think in terms of ovum, zygote, embroyo, fetus and human.
People who are knowledgable do. People who have trouble with fertility and are paying for IVF do. People who want to understand their reproductive options do. People who want to understand the stages of development so as to have an optimal pregnancy and birth do. Women who work closely with their doctors do. School and college students do when they take health and biology classes. Medical school, nursing school and related school disciplines do, as do all medical professionals.
The main group of people who don't think in those terms are those who just want to lump all reproductive options into one group they can designate as "evil" in their effort to force all women to be baby machines.
- 5 votes
hmmm I Have this feeling of deja vu,
do we have to reiterate this pro-life/choice argument every bloody time something even remotely related comes up? geez.
- 4 votes
The forced birth crowd are only too willing to force the rest of us to talk about their need to control women rather than allow us to rationally discuss the topic of any remotely related seed. It does get tiresome.
- 6 votes
Most people pro-life or choice don't think in terms of ovum, zygote, embroyo, fetus and human.
Most people do not contemplate the difference between their thumb and fingers. Does that mean the difference doesn't exist?
- 4 votes
loretta
maybe when the conversation descends into it, it is time to close comments lol.
dr truth,
my ex would often say, any woman that doesn't know the difference between their thumb and finger really has no clue on how to take care of herself. Probably one of the few jokes that she ever made (yeah, financial analyst, the humour module is generally removed from them).
- 5 votes
Most people pro-life or choice don't think in terms of ovum, zygote, embroyo, fetus and human.
People who are knowledgable do. People who have trouble with fertility and are paying for IVF do. People who want to understand their reproductive options do. People who want to understand the stages of development so as to have an optimal pregnancy and birth do. Women who work closely with their doctors do. School and college students do when they take health and biology classes. Medical school, nursing school and related school disciplines do, as do all medical professionals.
I doubt they look at their own, friends and families pregnancies that way. Even if they did, they are few in our world.
do we have to reiterate this pro-life/choice argument every bloody time something even remotely related comes up? geez.
I guess so. It seems to get your fingers flying sporto.
The forced birth crowd are only too willing to force the rest of us to talk about their need to control women rather than allow us to rationally discuss whatever the seed is. It does get tiresome.
Yesterday my sarcasim meter was a bit off. Do you Honestly believe these issues are only opposed by people that want forced birth? It's a big world honey. Everyone you talk to is not looking to @!$%# you over.
- 2 votes
Jonathan, You are tempting me so close to the blue gutter with that comment. I keep trying to stay clean and innocent, but you all just keep setting me up with great lines. It is never a good time to have me in these convos when I am teaching human sexuality.
- 3 votes
It's a big world honey. Everyone you talk to is not looking to @!$%# you over.
Oh, gosh, golly, gee whiz, when you talk to me so respectfully, you really do convince me you're "not looking to @!$%# you over." Yep, yep, yep, I'm all convinced now.
/sarc (just in case you don't recognize the sarcasm)
- 4 votes
Loretta, look back on your comments. I didn't start the "Sticky Buns" type talk until you accused me of having that type of attitude.
Think I'm a liar? Then restore my comments for all to see.
- 3 votes
Jave why do you keep posting here? If you agree with the pharmacist, fine. With all the posts you've made you could have written your own article...or two! I think maybe you just want attention. If you have an actual point to make, can you just make it in ONE post, while staying on the actual topic? Btw, just to help you out, the topic is a pharmacist who judged a man to be a criminal, based solely on the fact that he was male, and was so convinced of this that she was willingly broke the law and refused to sell him an OTC drug. The topic is NOT:
1. abortion
2. the difference between a fetus, a zygote, a sperm, or an ovum
3. the sex life of the man and his wife
4. child molesters
5. rapists
6. or anything else you're on about. The topic is ONLY the part of this comment written in bold.
Lastly, in all honesty and seriousness, if you really have such a strong opinions about all these things that have nothing to do with the topic of this seed, and you aren't just trying to drive Loretta insane, why don't you write an article and publish it to your column? I promise you I will read it and comment, and on your own column with your own article, we can all talk about whatever you want. Please. You may even have some good points to make about the things I have listed, but this seed is not the place to make them, and any points you have are being lost.
If you don't understand why we are frustrated with you, think of it this way. If you posted an article about Ford pickup trucks, and all the comments were about airplanes, wouldn't you be a bit irritated?
People are getting the impression you are trolling. Write your own article and prove us wrong, okay? HD
- 7 votes
willingly broke the law and refused to sell him an OTC drug.
What law states that they are required to sell OTC drugs to anyone that asks for them?
- 1 vote
JAVE - A great deal of restraint has been shown to you and you should make an extra effort to conduct yourself according to the CoH.
- 5 votes
Z1P2
What law states that they are required to sell OTC drugs to anyone that asks for them?
The federal statute that states companies must not discriminate against people based on sex, race, etc. The same one that was used to sue Denny's restaurants when they refused to serve Black people. If you sell a product or service to the public, you cannot refuse to sell it to a certain group of people unless it is specifically prohibited by law (like selling tobacco to minors.) If Walmart decided not to sell Tylenol to Hispanics, they'ed be sued. The statue is called "The Consumer Protection Act" and is an addition to and part of "The Federal Civil Rights Act". You can google it for more info.
On top of that, there are the FDA regulations for the sale of contraception, and then there is CVS's own company policy:
CVS spokesman Mike DeAngelis insisted they'd briefed all their stores on official company policy, which is "to follow FDA regulations for the sale of emergency contraception, which allows this product to be sold without a prescription to customers who are at least 17 years old, regardless of gender."
So...that's the law.
hope that helps, HD
- 8 votes
BTW: The Consumer Protection Act covers a lot of areas (including fraud, truth-in-lending, etc.) To find the law pertaining to selling of legal items, google it using the key words: "anti-discrimination", "sales", "products", and "minorities", and put quotes around "Consumer Protection". There is a lot to wade through, but it's actually really interesting.
No wonder the ACLU took the man's case. He stands to win a bundle.
Blessings to All, HD
- 8 votes
That's petty Loretta. Hecate asked me how the topics she listed were directly related to this case about the pharmacist refusing to sell this guy the medicine. I answered it and gave a specific example to each of it's relivancy to this specific case.
I didn't ask that you agree with Ol' Jave, but at least don't delete my words so no one else can read it.
If my words are so foolish then let them stand on their own. If they're offensive or break the COH then I'll get banished. You left my offensive comments up, why not my reasonable ones? At least give Hecate the respect of letting her read her response.
You know I'm right, that is why you deleted this comment for others to see. I guess like you will this one.
- 1 vote
Jave, I've asked time after time for you to stay on topic. I'm going to delete every post that is off topic. You were also warned after the offensive posts and I did not see anymore. It is against the CoH to deliberately derail the topic. Please read the CoH if you have any questions.
- 2 votes
Jave, I've asked time after time for you to stay on topic.
That's my point, I did say on topic. I gave specific examples to Hecate's points why I thought it was related to the issue of the pharmacist not selling it to this guy.
Loretta, honestly I didn't mean to be a pain in the ass and devil you. I guess it was this. I am intregued by the idea of early 1st trimester birth control sold over the counter. The fight and issues regarding Plan B are the most similar.
- 1 vote
She pointed out all the things I've said were not on topic. She did not ask a question. She stated facts. While you might want to debate those facts, that too is off topic. When in doubt, reread the seed and then stay within its parameters.
RU-486 is the pill you seem to want to discuss. But that is not Plan B and does not do the same thing. They use two different time schedules and ingredients. I suggest you find an article on RU-486 and seed it. If you don't want to seed it, find one and I'll seed it if it has an interesting angle.
I'd go looking for one but I'm really busy today...and am running behind because I sprained my big toe....don't ask....something really stupid...going to be fine, but need to get my work finished while propping it up so it won't swell too much. Fortunately, I have a laptop and am not tied to a desk.
- 4 votes
Loretta, it was off topic from the start. From the beginning people assumed and wrote the pharmacist really had a religious objection instead of a concern about rape. If it was all about just sticking to the facts the conjecture about the pharmacist lying to cover up their true religious based reasons would not of been acceptable.
- 1 vote
This is my last reply. Speculating why the event we're discussing happened is far different than bringing in whole new topics. You know that.
- 3 votes
The FIRST mistake was sending the husband.
Why shouldn't the husband buy the Plan B? Mine picks up my BC prescription all the time. What's the difference?
I agree with your #2 and #3, though.
- 14 votes
#20 - Sun Jan 8, 2012 11:06 PM ESTShan,
I'm not getting into the rest of the discussion, but why does he need be getting it multiple times. That's the thing I'm wondering about.
- 3 votes
why does he need be getting it multiple times.
Does it matter within the context of the article? Whether it was his first or his fifteenth time getting it, the pharmacist was out of line, don't you think? If I ever have to go get it again myself, that'll count as "multiple times" for me. Should that make a difference as to how I'm treated as a customer? I don't think so.
- 9 votes
No, Shan, I'm not arguing with you. I agree it shouldn't depend on how you're treated as a customer, anymore than if you brought a medicine for a yeast infection several times. Having said that, the article seems as if he bought this many times, unless I'm reading it wrong. I'm just wondering is that all their using....do they faulty condoms, .....maybe they should switch to another brand ;P
- 4 votes
rescue
I asked myself that very same question but decided to not bring that subject up.
- 4 votes
I'm just wondering is that all their using....do they faulty condoms, .....maybe they should switch to another brand ;P
I'm not arguing with you either, RD. I agree that they would probably be better off finding something more reliable and less expensive. Apparently, he and his wife had a newborn at the time, and his wife was breastfeeding. If she was on POPs, which is standard for that situation, and she didn't take it EXACTLY on time (there's only a 3hr window), that could be why they needed it.
Anyway, that's their business and I don't think we have any more reason to judge him for why he was buying it than the pharmacist did.
- 8 votes
For some people, "many times" could mean as little as 2 or 3 over the course of years. Rather than "many times" as in a monthly purchase of tampons.
- 7 votes
but using abortion as birth control is wrong.
Plan B is not an abortifacient. It does not affect an existing pregnancy, it only prevents them from happening in the first place.
The Good Lord gave us the intelligence to prevent unwanted pregnancy,
Plan B is one of those ways. It's not an abortion pill any more than any other hormonal birth control is.
- 12 votes
#21 - Sun Jan 8, 2012 11:09 PM ESTShouldn't people(#19) know something about the subject their commenting on? Jeez.
- 7 votes
Multi-level bothersome, this is. The potential rapist rationale is absurd. The fact that she actually gave voice to her idiotic thought is beyond all reasoning.
- 9 votes
#22 - Sun Jan 8, 2012 11:43 PM EST15 freaking miles to get simple prescription. And they say the bible-thumping pharmacists are the true victims here...
- 9 votes
#23 - Sun Jan 8, 2012 11:45 PM EST15 freaking miles to get simple prescription.
Plan B doesn't even require a prescription, just someone willing to sell it over the counter.
- 10 votes
Im curious if anyone has information regarding if his wife actually became pregnant? any updates on this story?
- 3 votes
#24 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:18 AM ESTAvoiding an egg from implanting is far superior to an abortion not only from a physical stand point but also from a psychological one. Most women do not want to inflict suffering on any living creature much less one growing in their womb. Most women would agree that electing to have an abortion is very difficult decision to make. There should not such a moral outrage by pro lifers about this option. Abortions will take place regardless of their efforts to stop them and this is by far a more humane method to stop an egg from growing. It amazes me how crazy people can act when it comes to controlling others. The more controlling they become the more they will be resisted.
- 11 votes
#25 - Mon Jan 9, 2012 1:26 AM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
