Posted on 02/20/2006 7:59:43 AM PST by XR7
Should the government really be telling businesses what products they can stock on their shelves? That‘s debatable, but it is happening.
Wal-Mart was ordered this week by the Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy to carry the morning after pill. It‘s an emergency contraceptive and a commercial one. The directive came after three women, backed by abortion rights groups, sued Wal-Mart to carry the pill in its Massachusetts stores.
Dr. Rebecca Guy is one of those women. Dr. Guy, along with her attorney Mr. Sam Perkins, joined Tucker Carlson to discuss the case.
CARLSON: Doctor, why should government be telling businesses what they can and cannot sell? Or why should anyone be forcing businesses to sell things they don‘t want to sell?
...You don‘t own Wal-Mart. I mean, you‘re not—right. You don‘t have a business relationship with Wal-Mart, I assume. Wal-Mart is owned by its stock holders. And so why shouldn‘t they get to decide what Wal-Mart sells? I guess I‘m missing this.
...But she can go somewhere else and buy it...How is it that you get to choose what a store sells? You could make the same argument about grocery stores. I need to eat to live, right? But I‘m not allowed to tell a grocery store what has to sell, and neither is government—yet.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Dude, can you stay on topic?
Besides, this is more about libertarian and fascism issues, and very little about conservative issues.
Does the government have the right to dictate what a store stocks and sells?
It certainly has the right to RESTRICT sales. But does it have the right to ENFORCE sales?
Any consumer who wants this should go somewhere where it's available.
A pharmacy should make all legal products available to those with perscriptions,
A pharmacy should make available those products it chooses to make available.
the gubmint should STFU.
Agree.
This is a doctor/patient issue.
Then let the doctor fill the prescription.
Between Bush's budget busting and fascist gubmint intrusion, conservatism is dead.
We don't want to see the morning after pill and the RU486 being sold by illegal drug dealers. Far better to obtain them legally, under a doctor's care.
This is the underlying philosophy of the post-bourgeios, permanantly adolescent culture that is being built for us.
Somebody correct me if I got this wrong. As I understood it, Walmart itself didn't make the decision about whether to carry or not to carry this particular drug. I understood that the decision was left up to individual pharmecists at each Walmart store so it was inconsistent on whether a particular Walmart would or would not carry the drug.
Then let the doctors sell them.
By giving the government the power to do the former, you give it the power to do the latter.
WalMart Ping
We can thank the mentality of the anti-smokers for these situations.......they insist it has to be their way and use government force to get it, instead of using the common sense God gave them to go elsewhere.
What really burns me about this lawsuit is these women KNEW that WalMart was not stocking this and did this anyway even knowing the product was readily available elsewhere.
I'm totally behind WalMart on this, and would be regardless of the business involved.
It really doesn't matter. Wal-Mart is the one the slimeball lawyers and their anti-life clients sued.
Who are "we"? "We" should simply go to a pharmacy that carries the pill. Or ask the gubmint to force the doctors that prescribe the morning after pill to supply it to their patients. No need to try and coerce Walmart.
The Great American Pastime: "Casebuilding."
Build a case. Sue. Maybe get rich.
Hmmm. Since money changes hands, it appears that business is being conducted. At a place of business. A PRIVATE business.
We don't?
What is the principle here? It SOUNDS like,"People will break the law in a way dangerous to themselves, so we should make what they want to do legal."
I agree that it is sad if an armed robber is gunned down by the, um, robbEE, if the robbee has the wits and guts to be prepared and to act on the preparation. But I don't think we should make robbery legal in order to make things safer for the robber.
What am I missing?
Is it a legitimate principle of licensing that the issuer of the license gets to require you to do stuff you think wrong? If so, then some pharmacists have a duty to look for another line of work, or the same line in another place.
Some "conservatives" at FR are more interested in banning headscarves and forcing Saudi Arabia to let women drive Jeeps, than they are in reducing government tyranny here.
loonies running the asylum alert...pillar of salt alert...sodom and gomorrah alert...mass is wacked alert...
they should carry one pill in each store
I think it does matter, if the decision had been made by Walmart itself I think they would have stood on stronger ground.
It would be more "progressive" if they tried to force the Saudis to let women drive hybrids. Global Warming, you know...
"A pharmacy should make all legal products available to those with perscriptions, the gubmint should STFU."
You're missing the point when you say the "gubmint shoud STFU". I agree that they should but it's the government here that's mandating that Wal-Mart carry it. Since when is that the governments role?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.