In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Saturday Repro Rights Blogging

1. A victory for anti-choice protestors in the Supreme Court. Now, this is obviously a major disappointment for the pro-choice movement. Any clinic worker or escort has seen how frightening these protestors can be. And indeed, anti-choice extremists have taken a physical toll:

Among other acts, in the past year there has been an attempted firebombing at a Louisiana clinic and one incident of arson in Florida. In the past decade approximately two murders, one attempted murder, two bombings, 18 incidents of arson, 298 acts of vandalism, 642 anthrax threats, 121 bomb threats, and 27 blockades have occurred at clinics. Since 1993, three doctors, two clinic employees, a clinic escort, and a security guard have been murdered. In addition to these seven murders, 17 attempted murders have also occurred since 1991.

The basic idea in the opinion is that to get an injunction under RICO, there has to be some proof of extortion or robbery. Violence doesn’t suffice. And while this is a major set-back, a narrow reading of the Hobbes Act does lend itself pretty well to the court’s ruling. What we need instead are free clinic entry laws, which bar people from physically blocking health clinics and hospitals, and from coercing people away from entering. Laws in some states require that protestors stay a certain number of feet away from clinic entrances, and those laws have been held constitutional. There is also the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which can be used in cases like these. It isn’t as effective as RICO, since RICO has tougher penalties, but it’s better than nothing.

2. A 95-year-old pro-choicer in Austin is running for Congress in Texas. Awesome.

3. Not so awesome: A Missouri court upheld 24-hour waiting periods in that state. Which is great, considering that the state already only has one abortion clinic, and that clinic is in constant peril of closing. Oh, and any doctor who violates the law faces loss of their medical licenses and misdemeanor charges punishable by up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine. And you know how anti-choicers feel about jailing doctors — they love it. Of course, this is just one more thing in a chain of really bad abortion-related events this week:

The ruling is the latest blow to abortion rights supporters.

A Mississippi House committee voted Tuesday to ban most abortions in the state. The only abortions allowed under the bill would be if the life of the pregnant woman were in danger.

It’s similar to a bill that South Dakota lawmakers passed last week that would make it a crime for doctors to perform abortions in the state except to save a pregnant woman’s life. The bill went to Republican Gov. Mike Rounds on Tuesday, and he has 15 days to act. Rounds has said he’s inclined to sign the bill into law.

And in Kentucky, legislation requiring women to receive face-to-face counseling before undergoing abortions was passed by the Senate on Tuesday, an effort to end the practice of some clinics to use recorded messages over the telephone.

4. Domino’s pizza tastes like greasy crap anyway, but here’s another reason not to buy it: Its founder is an anti-choice crazy man who’s in the process of creating his own crazyville. Which is fine, I suppose, as it moves a lot of the crazy people into one location where they can’t bother the rest of us. It’s not so fine, though, for the people who are living in crazyville involuntarily (i.e., the kids who have to move there with their parents, spouses who are coerced into moving there, and children who are born there). And then, you know, there the issue of whether or not a community should be able to decide that its members should have certain constitutional rights denied to them because they voluntarily moved into the community and agreed to its rules. I’d say that the answer to that is a resounding “no.”

If Domino’s Pizza founder Thomas S. Monaghan has his way, a new town being built in a quiet corner of southwest Florida will be governed by strict Catholic principles, particularly when it comes to sex.

The pizza magnate, raised by nuns in orphanages, is bankrolling the town called Ave Maria with millions of dollars, calling its construction ”God’s will.” Stores won’t sell pornographic magazines, pharmacies won’t carry condoms or birth control pills, and cable television will carry no X-rated channels, he said in a speech last year to the first annual Boston Catholic Men’s Conference.

I love this — “especially when it comes to sex.” I wonder if they’ll follow Catholic rules in every other aspect?

5. We’ll end on a bit of good news: WalMart will carry emergency contraception pills. Their pharmacists won’t have to fill prescriptions for them, but at least they’ll be in stock. Which is a step in the right direction.


54 thoughts on Saturday Repro Rights Blogging

  1. for the people who are living in crazyville involuntarily

    You mean like kids born to immigrant parents not having a say in which country they live?

    I can’t find the argument you’re making against this Catholic Town. If you don’t want to live there, then don’t. Those who do want to live there know the conditions of the arrangement, are free from coercion and are free to leave. This is classic freedom of association.

  2. Does the Domino’s thing remind anyone else of Seinfeld?
    JERRY: Ah, I could’ve stayed home and ordered a pizza from Paccino’s.

    ELAINE: Paccino’s? Oh no. You should never order pizza from Paccino’s.

    JERRY: Why not?

    ELAINE: Because, the owner contributes a lot of money to those fanatical, anti-abortion groups.

    JERRY: So, you won’t eat the pizza?

    ELAINE: No way.

  3. And then, you know, there the issue of whether or not a community should be able to decide that its members should have certain constitutional rights denied to them because they voluntarily moved into the community and agreed to its rules. I’d say that the answer to that is a resounding “no.”

    So if a bunch of pacifists want to start a collective and one of their rules is “no guns”, you’d be opposed to that? Interesting.

  4. You don’t get to establish a community that is exempt from obeying the Constitution. Sorry. They are free to get together and live in Stupidville, but I’m also free to move there, open up a sex shop, tell everybody I’m an atheist, and challenge their laws based on the Constitution. And I’ll win. Likewise, a bunch of pacifists are free to establish Peaceville, but I’m free to move there with my 29 zillion guns.

    Speaking of guns, people who work at clinics should carry guns. They should be protecting themselves from the crazy godbags.

  5. Magis,
    Probably not. I would think that if the bequest doesn’t lay out an alternative then the answer is no. Also, if the bequest is illegal then the court would overturn it. For instance, X bequests money to Y on that condition, and Y does marry. What do the executors of the estate do then? They have no instructions. However, if the bequest states that if X disagrees with this condition then the bequest shall be directed to Z and so on. Also, if X bequests the money to Y on the condition that Y not marry but X puts the money into a trust to be distributed annually so long as the person does not marry and provides for an alternative method of disposition if Y does marry in the future, then I don’t see why a court would overturn the bequest.

  6. They are free to get together and live in Stupidville, but I’m also free to move there, open up a sex shop, tell everybody I’m an atheist, and challenge their laws based on the Constitution

    All of the commerical real estate will be controlled by Mr. Dominoes himself and it is only the residential real estate that is for sale. So, you won’t be able to open your sex shop, you won’t be able to find a pharmacy in town that sells contraceptives, you’ll be in violation of the zoning laws if you try to use your home as a sex shop. They certainly can’t force you to subscribe to their belief system but they can place limitations on what transpires in the town.

  7. TangoMan:

    Usually the court just gives the money to “Y” because the request not to marry is considered “involuntary servitude” believe it or not. Constiutional rights are not only something the Government cannot take away from you but something you can’t give up.

    So, Catholicville, had better tread softly. Still, depending on the issue, they might get away with it.

    Consider this, is the town an area open to “public access?” if so, might I drive to Catholicville and put on a sign that says “The Catholic Chruch is the WHORE OF BABYLON,” and parade up and down the street?

  8. Magis,

    Good question. If I was in the shoes of the planners, I’d create something like a gated community. The roads would be owned, the parks would be restricted to community members, etc. Always keeping an eye on the purpose of this town.

    I suppose women’s colleges might be a good anology.

    Usually the court just gives the money to “Y” because the request not to marry is considered “involuntary servitude” believe it or not.

    Which is what I thought. However, does anyone know what a Court does when the bequest instructs alternative courses of action? If the will states outright that if a court overturns this bequest then X wants the money to go to Z.

  9. TangoMan:

    The courts have usually given the money to “Y” (regardless) because he/she was the indicated ‘favorite’ and a insuperable burden should not have been place upon him/her….but not always.

    A gated community could work but there are limits on “restrictive covenants” such as; thous shalt not sell to a black person.”

    There are numerous examples of these “baby utopias” breaking down over time. A good example would be the little towns in Utah established under polygamy or the early Mormon communisim; i.e., the United Order of Enoch.

  10. RICO is the perfect example of laws run amuck. Originally intended to only apply to gangsters, it’s been applied to, among others, ELF and Earth First!, spammers, George Bush, and the RIAA. You should be glad that it has not, yet again, been allowed to be so broadly used. It would only be a manner of time before it was used against some woman’s rights group that you support and then, of course, you would be all “keep your laws off my pro-choice groups!” (I’d cite some sources, but posting a URL seems to distress your spamblocker to no end)

    I’m there with you on the clinic access rights. Pro-life group may protest all they want, but they have no right to block or obstruct a lawful activity. A parallel could be drawn with hunter harassment laws. Protest bowhunting all you want, but when you disrupt the quiet enjoyment of someone pursuing a lawful activity, you’ve crossed the line.

    The country probably has enough pro-choice consumers, voting with their dollars, to force Wal-mart to carry EC. If not, then they surely would be a big enough market for someone to come along and want to cater to pro-choice people. Consumer choice, it’s brought us a staggering variety of choices for one to fill a sudden pizza craving. Wow, the free market works. However, in this case, Wal-mart probably rolled over because of the threat of thuggish lawsuits from the “keep your laws off my uterus” people. What a hollow victory.

  11. I can’t find the argument you’re making against this Catholic Town. If you don’t want to live there, then don’t. Those who do want to live there know the conditions of the arrangement, are free from coercion and are free to leave. This is classic freedom of association.

    There are a lot of problems with the Catholic town. Like the establishment clause for one thing. Another is, as a town, it is entitled to public funds for things like schools. This then means that the government is paying for a religious community. Or that people who live there will have their property taxes paying for a religious community.

    Someone who is not Catholic might move there because the housing is the best price within commute of their job. Must they abide by Catholic law? Will there be blue laws?

    These aren’t hypotheticals. There’s a community not far from here that has been virtually taken over by ultra-Orthodox Jews. There have been clashes between their rules and church/state separation. One in particular I recall is that the public school buses were transporting a disabled child to school, but these people demanded the bus be sex-segregated in accordance with their laws. So, should a public service be required to cave into a religious law that is not in accordance with civic law? I don’t think so.

  12. Wal-mart probably rolled over because of the threat of thuggish lawsuits from the “keep your laws off my uterus” people. What a hollow victory.

    Wal-mart rolled over for money, according to their own press release. Their competition was carrying EC so they didn’t want to lose business.

    But “thuggish lawsuits”?? Isn’t a “thug” someone who uses violence and/or intimidation to interefere with the body or property of another? The people interfering with my uterus are thuggish. Lawsuits to protect my uterus are anti-thug.

  13. Wal-mart rolled over for money, according to their own press release. Their competition was carrying EC so they didn’t want to lose business.

    Yea, after they got sued in Massachusetts. Lawsuits cost money. Wal-mart wants to make money. Pro-choicers didn’t protest, call for a boycott, vote with their dollars, or write letters, they forced the government to do their dirty work by suing them in a frivolous lawsuit. Once Massachusetts fell, they looked at the potential cost, and decided to change policy. I’m glad the policy was changed,but I don’t approve of the methods.

    But “thuggish lawsuits”?? Isn’t a “thug” someone who uses violence and/or intimidation to interefere with the body or property of another? The people interfering with my uterus are thuggish. Lawsuits to protect my uterus are anti-thug.

    This isn’t a lawsuit to protect your uterus. This is like a lawsuit to require people selling pizzas to sell anchovies as a topping, or loose their business license. That’s thuggish. That’s intimidation.

    Why interfere with the free market without a demonstrated need? The same free market that gives you choices for pizza delivery, the same free market that gives you 6 dozen different products to relive your headache, and not only sells these products at a pharmacy, but at grocery stores and gas stations, also give Massachusetts consumers 1,045 other pharmacies, besides those 44 Wal-mart stores, in which to seek their EC. That’s choice. I’m pro-choice.

  14. Yea, after they got sued in Massachusetts. Lawsuits cost money. Wal-mart wants to make money. Pro-choicers didn’t protest, call for a boycott, vote with their dollars, or write letters, they forced the government to do their dirty work by suing them in a frivolous lawsuit.

    no, they are being forced to obey the law — you are not allowed to discriminate against customers on the basis of their gender. pretending that it’s about ‘values’ is just an attempt to the muddy the waters.

  15. sorry, wrong cite. this is the right one. scroll down to the massachusetts section. there are laws against discriminating against women in public accomodations.

  16. Wal-mart isn’t discriminating against any gender, or any nationality for that matter. They serve all comers with cash. Just because you don’t carry a drug that only gets used by one gender, say birth control pills or Sildenafil citrate, (and I’m sure they carry both), does not mean that they discriminate. It wasn’t like they would only sell Plan B to men or something.

    pretending that it’s about ‘values’ is just an attempt to the muddy the waters

    Nope, Wal-mart had it’s start in the Midwest. There’s nothing wrong with showing the same values as your customers. Wal-mart wants to be “family friendly” and they think they can do that by only carrying certain types of movies and requesting “beeped out” CDs to sell in their store.

    I don’t shop at Target, because they don’t support the shooting sports, and they gave money to the (not anywhere near a) Million Misguided Moms.

    I even called for a boycott of Wal-mart (for just one day) because they cut off sales of critically needed firearms to the survivors of Katrina, after the police were unable to protect the general public.

    (the fear that they might fall into the hands of looters is unfounded. looters aren’t gonna show ID and wait for a background check before buying, they’ll just loot the firearms)

    standardmischief(dot)com/2005/11/08/national-ammo-day-buycott-nov-19

    I also support Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts, if they choose to only offer EC and BC at their online mailorder pharmacy. If they see a market that they think needs to be supported, I’m not going to saddle them down with requirements that they carry every commonly prescribed drug, unless there is an overwhelming public need to meddle.

    www(dot)pplm(dot)org/clinic/services/pills_by_mail_frm(dot)html

    But I would never, ever, sue a store to get it to carry a product that I thought they should be forced to allow me to buy.

  17. Wal-mart isn’t discriminating against any gender, or any nationality for that matter.

    so, where are the hoardes of men going to walmart to face pharmacists who feel entitled to second-guess their doctor’s orders? bleating about values and religious ‘freedom’ is just a cover for refusing to serve a clientele that just happens to be female. are you trying to claim that opposition to hormonal birth control isn’t directed at female customers? where are the men being turned away for their birth control scripts?

  18. Nope, Wal-mart had it’s start in the Midwest. There’s nothing wrong with showing the same values as your customers. Wal-mart wants to be “family friendly” and they think they can do that by only carrying certain types of movies and requesting “beeped out” CDs to sell in their store.

    except when those ‘values’ are really about providing an inferior level of service to female customters.

  19. This isn’t a lawsuit to protect your uterus. This is like a lawsuit to require people selling pizzas to sell anchovies as a topping, or loose their business license. That’s thuggish. That’s intimidation.

    protecting women’s access to LEGAL health care and medical services is NOTHING like forcing a pizza joint to sell anchovies. refusing to sell a topping for a pizza does result in discrimination against a protected class of citizens.

  20. Uh, comparing women’s rights to a commercial product is a GREAT way to introduce yourself on a blog, dude.

    This isn’t a lawsuit to protect your uterus. This is like a lawsuit to require people selling pizzas to sell anchovies as a topping, or loose their business license. That’s thuggish. That’s intimidation.

    Why interfere with the free market without a demonstrated need?

    Er, no. Not only no, but HELL no. This is a lawsuit to protect women’s right to birth control, which religious freaks are denying them in the name of their religion. In fact, as has been pointed out, the thugs here are trying to keep women from birth control. Comparing the basic control of one’s body to a market choice comes very close to being obscene.

  21. Pro-choicers didn’t protest, call for a boycott, vote with their dollars, or write letters, they forced the government to do their dirty work by suing them in a frivolous lawsuit.

    A lawsuit ain’t frivolous if you win it.

  22. Just because you don’t carry a drug that only gets used by one gender, say birth control pills or Sildenafil citrate, (and I’m sure they carry both), does not mean that they discriminate.

    Of course it does. This is not rocket science. If a store fires women for becoming pregnant, the store is not going to get a pass by saying “We don’t discriminate against women–we only fire pregnant PEOPLE!”

    And there were no lawsuits, thuggish or otherwise, that turned their heads–Wal*Mart caved to economic pressure. When blue states start announcing that their gov’t insurance plans won’t reimburse for Wal*Mart prescriptions, and when your competitors (i.e. Target) do happily fill those prescriptions, I guess Wal*Mart decided where the money was.

    Wal*Mart’s been pretty clear that they can afford to fight lawsuits, even when they’re likely to lose. One lawsuit over EC meant zip.

  23. except when those ‘values’ are really about providing an inferior level of service to female customters (sic).

    Wal-mart doesn’t hate women. They fully know that they can’t please everyone. They’re just an amoral corporation trying to make as much money as possible. They get to chose how they present themselves. Donate money to charity? Refuse to sell x-rated movies? Decide that people who are going for their groceries might also want to drop off their dry cleaning and have a mini bank teller station in the superstore? Pay good looking people to act in a commercial acting surprised to hear that Dannon Yogurt donates money to those Misguided Mothers? Unless you have an activist owner (like the above mentioned pizza seller) the company is just gunning for the widest possible appeal so it can make more money.

    Wal-mart might think it can make more money by not carrying a product that many ignorant people (predominantly Midwest) equate with an abortion on demand in a pill. CVS thinks its best way to a bigger share of the healthcare dollar is to make many of it’s stores open 24 hours a day. Here:

    standardmischief(dot)com/2006/02/16/wal-mart-ordered-to-stock-contraceptives-in-massachusetts

    I talk about my problems acquiring a “commonly prescribed” compounded medicine. Passing a law “simply” requiring a compounding pharmacist on duty during all business hours would likely have the unintended effect of many stores not staying open 24 hours, which could restrict the choices you might have at 2 am when the condom breaks. (See my blog anyway for details for $8.20 a dose EC that you can buy now and keep on hand for an emergency)

    protecting women’s access to LEGAL health care and medical services is NOTHING like forcing a pizza joint to sell anchovies. refusing to sell a topping for a pizza does result in discrimination against a protected class of citizens.

    My test was that you shouldn’t meddle without a “demonstrated need”. EC should be cheap and freely available. I think the free market is the best way to achieve that. If you disagree, I’m willing to hear you out provide you provide some evidence that there is a “demonstrated need”. Example: go to Google Maps and find every one of the 44 Wal-marts and Sam’s in Massachusetts. Now find me one store that is not within 2 miles (that’s one mile on foot for a poor downtrodden person without access to a car) of a CVS store (there’s 300+ in the state, all with EC in stock). Just one address.

    Alternatively, produce evidence that EC truly is “commonly prescribed” medicine. However, here the burden of proof I require is pretty high. I want facts, statistics and such. Not emotional arguments.

    And what’s with the “protected class of citizens”? I thought it was illegal to discriminate against anyone, not just a “protected class”.

  24. Wal-mart doesn’t hate women. They fully know that they can’t please everyone. They’re just an amoral corporation trying to make as much money as possible.

    i didn’t say they ‘hated women.’ i said that it is not acceptable to provide an inferior level of service to a protected class of citizens. in this case, they are engaging in discrimination against female customers.

  25. A lawsuit ain’t frivolous if you win it.

    I’m saying it’s frivolous because they have failed to present any proof that EC truly is “commonly prescribed”, and therefore required to be stocked. I’m assuming that those three ladies dropped there lawsuit after Wal-mart agreed to carry EC, so no one really “won” (But it’s still a victory for pro-choice and a defeat for the free market.)

  26. Wal-mart doesn’t hate women. They fully know that they can’t please everyone. They’re just an amoral corporation trying to make as much money as possible. They get to chose how they present themselves. Donate money to charity? Refuse to sell x-rated movies? Decide that people who are going for their groceries might also want to drop off their dry cleaning and have a mini bank teller station in the superstore?

    these are all strawmen. the refusal to provide those services does not result in the violation of any civil rights. we are not talking about forcing a grocery store to provide services that have nothing to do with groceries. we are talking about requiring pharmacies to provide an equal level of pharmaceutical services to female customers. fundy pharmacists are not refusing to serve male customers. they are refusing to serve female customers.

    Pay good looking people to act in a commercial acting surprised to hear that Dannon Yogurt donates money to those Misguided Mothers? Unless you have an activist owner (like the above mentioned pizza seller) the company is just gunning for the widest possible appeal so it can make more money.

    could you please at least try a modest attempt to stick to the subject?

    Wal-mart might think it can make more money by not carrying a product that many ignorant people (predominantly Midwest) equate with an abortion on demand in a pill.

    i am not willing to rely on profit motive as a means to ensure that women receive an equal level of service at a business that serves the public.

    I talk about my problems acquiring a “commonly prescribed” compounded medicine. Passing a law “simply” requiring a compounding pharmacist on duty during all business hours would likely have the unintended effect of many stores not staying open 24 hours, which could restrict the choices you might have at 2 am when the condom breaks. (See my blog anyway for details for $8.20 a dose EC that you can buy now and keep on hand for an emergency)

    they can also require that their employees perform their job duties or be fired. that way, they don’t incur additional labor costs employing one person who will perform their job duties and one who will not perform their job duties as it relates to filling scripts that only female customers will need.

    My test was that you shouldn’t meddle without a “demonstrated need”. EC should be cheap and freely available. I think the free market is the best way to achieve that.

    i don’t think ‘need’ should have to be demonstrated for a place of business to respect the civil rights of *all* their customers.

    If you disagree, I’m willing to hear you out provide you provide some evidence that there is a “demonstrated need”. Example: go to Google Maps and find every one of the 44 Wal-marts and Sam’s in Massachusetts. Now find me one store that is not within 2 miles (that’s one mile on foot for a poor downtrodden person without access to a car) of a CVS store (there’s 300+ in the state, all with EC in stock). Just one address.

    just because there are tons of pharmacies in a given community that do not violate the civil rights of female customers does not justify allowing ANY pharmacy to discriminate against women.

    Alternatively, produce evidence that EC truly is “commonly prescribed” medicine. However, here the burden of proof I require is pretty high. I want facts, statistics and such. Not emotional arguments.

    we are not talking about whether EC is common or not. we are talking about whether a pharmacy should be allowed to refuse to serve the women who have legal scripts from their doctor’s for it.

    And what’s with the “protected class of citizens”? I thought it was illegal to discriminate against anyone, not just a “protected class”.

    they are a protected class of citizens because it has been made illegal to discriminate against them. a pharmacy that will not fill birth control scripts is de facto discriminating against women.

  27. Agreed, you never said that. OK, if you weren’t implying that, what is your theory for your claimed discrimination by Wal-mart, against women?

    reproductive health care is a vital and important part of women’s health care. contraception is a vital and important part of women’s health care. a pharmacy that does not fill those scripts discriminates against women in a systematic and pervasive way.

  28. these are all strawmen. the refusal to provide those services does not result in the violation of any civil rights. we are not talking about forcing a grocery store to provide services that have nothing to do with groceries. we are talking about requiring pharmacies to provide an equal level of pharmaceutical services to female customers. fundy pharmacists are not refusing to serve male customers. they are refusing to serve female customers.

    Nope, it’s not discrimination against woman. These “fundy” pharmacists would also refuse to fill my prescription for Plan B. I’m male. It’s not discrimination when you refuse to sell something to everybody.

    Speaking of freedom, there’s something called freedom of religion in this county. That freedom lets people with religious beliefs worship as they please, or refuse to dispense drugs that they think are abortion pills. Of course, their employers are free to fire them for insubordination. (and if that freedom is ever struck down, I’m gonna convert to Pastafarian, because you get every Friday off, paid, as a religious holiday;)

    i am not willing to rely on profit motive as a means to ensure that women receive an equal level of service at a business that serves the public.

    Read it again. “Demonstrated need” test. The free market is doing just fine here. Meddle and you are likely to increase costs and remove choices.

    they can also require that their employees perform their job duties or be fired. that way, they don’t incur additional labor costs employing one person who will perform their job duties and one who will not perform their job duties as it relates to filling scripts that only female customers will need.

    You have no right to dictate to a company that you do not own, what it’s business model ought to be.

    i don’t think ‘need’ should have to be demonstrated for a place of business to respect the civil rights of *all* their customers.

    See above. No civil rights are violated, just someone’s free choice. Freedom is for everybody, not just you.

    just because there are tons of pharmacies in a given community that do not violate the civil rights of female customers does not justify allowing ANY pharmacy to discriminate against women.

    Above.

    we are not talking about whether EC is common or not. we are talking about whether a pharmacy should be allowed to refuse to serve the women who have legal scripts from their doctor’s for it.

    The original lawsuit was that Wal-mart had to stock the product because of the law that the pharmacy must stock anything that was “commonly prescribed”. See Feministe’s archive. Presumably that rule also forces Planned Parenthood’s pharmacy to stock Viagra and other medicines that don’t meet their targeted mission. The fact that shelf space and capital must be used to stock something I’m willing to bet they don’t sell a lot of is likely to drive the costs up on stuff they do sell. (Unless, of course, the law here is being unfairly applied to only Wal-mart, and not Planned Parenthood. If that’s the case, then that IS discrimination)

    they are a protected class of citizens because it has been made illegal to discriminate against them. a pharmacy that will not fill birth control scripts is de facto discriminating against women.

    Ah, the only group that’s not protected are white males, right? (kidding)

    Agreed, you never said that. OK, if you weren’t implying that, what is your theory for your claimed discrimination by Wal-mart, against women? -by SM

    reproductive health care is a vital and important part of women’s health care. contraception is a vital and important part of women’s health care. a pharmacy that does not fill those scripts discriminates against women in a systematic and pervasive way.

    You dodged that question. Stated again: If you weren’t implying that Wal-mart hates women, what is your theory for your claimed discrimination by Wal-mart, against women? As for the discrimination claim, yet again, above.

  29. these are all strawmen. the refusal to provide those services does not result in the violation of any civil rights. we are not talking about forcing a grocery store to provide services that have nothing to do with groceries. we are talking about requiring pharmacies to provide an equal level of pharmaceutical services to female customers. fundy pharmacists are not refusing to serve male customers. they are refusing to serve female customers.

    Nope, it’s not discrimination against woman. These “fundy” pharmacists would also refuse to fill my prescription for Plan B. I’m male. It’s not discrimination when you refuse to sell something to everybody.

    Speaking of freedom, there’s something called freedom of religion in this county. That freedom lets people with religious beliefs worship as they please, or refuse to dispense drugs against their beliefs that they think are abortion pills. Of course, their employers are free to fire them for insubordination. (and if that freedom is ever struck down, I’m gonna convert to Pastafarian, because you get every Friday off, paid, as a religious holiday;)

    i am not willing to rely on profit motive as a means to ensure that women receive an equal level of service at a business that serves the public.

    Read it again. “Demonstrated need” test. The free market is doing just fine here. Meddle and you are likely to increase costs and remove choices.

    they can also require that their employees perform their job duties or be fired. that way, they don’t incur additional labor costs employing one person who will perform their job duties and one who will not perform their job duties as it relates to filling scripts that only female customers will need.

    You have no right to dictate to a company that you do not own, what it’s business model ought to be.

    i don’t think ‘need’ should have to be demonstrated for a place of business to respect the civil rights of *all* their customers.

    See above. No civil rights are violated, just someone’s free choice. Freedom is for everybody, not just you.

    just because there are tons of pharmacies in a given community that do not violate the civil rights of female customers does not justify allowing ANY pharmacy to discriminate against women.

    Above. No discrimination.

    we are not talking about whether EC is common or not. we are talking about whether a pharmacy should be allowed to refuse to serve the women who have legal scripts from their doctor’s for it.

    The original lawsuit was that Wal-mart had to stock the product because of the law that the pharmacy must stock anything that was “commonly prescribed”. See Feministe’s archive. Presumably that rule also forces Planned Parenthood’s pharmacy to stock Viagra and other medicines that don’t meet their targeted mission. The fact that shelf space and capital must be used to stock something I’m willing to bet they don’t sell a lot of is likely to drive the costs up on stuff they do sell. (Unless, of course, the law here is being unfairly applied to only Wal-mart, and not Planned Parenthood. If that’s the case, then that IS discrimination)

    they are a protected class of citizens because it has been made illegal to discriminate against them. a pharmacy that will not fill birth control scripts is de facto discriminating against women.

    Ah, the only group that’s not protected are white males, right? (kidding)

    Agreed, you never said that. OK, if you weren’t implying that, what is your theory for your claimed discrimination by Wal-mart, against women? -by SM

    reproductive health care is a vital and important part of women’s health care. contraception is a vital and important part of women’s health care. a pharmacy that does not fill those scripts discriminates against women in a systematic and pervasive way.

    You dodged that question. Stated again: If you weren’t implying that Wal-mart hates women, what is your theory for your claimed discrimination by Wal-mart, against women? As for the discrimination claim, yet again, above.

  30. Hmmmm. Y’know, if the “free market” is what is driving companies like WalMart and such to not provide birth control at their pharmacies, why aren’t they advertising this fact? Why aren’t they posting signs on their front door that state “We Proudly Support Life by Refusing to Fill Birth Control Prescriptions”?

    Methinks it just might be because even here in the conservative Midwest (where women are every bit as likely as those on the coasts to use the Pill and ask for Plan B), they would lose more customers than they would gain. A lot more.

    WalMart wasn’t “thugged” into deciding to provide EC by the threat of some lawsuit. WalMart has deeper pockets than that. They chose to provide EC because their market research told them it was a smart, lucrative idea. End of story.

  31. Nope, it’s not discrimination against woman. These “fundy” pharmacists would also refuse to fill my prescription for Plan B. I’m male. It’s not discrimination when you refuse to sell something to everybody.

    except that ‘everybody’ will not be seeking Plan B. only women will be seeking Plan B. Plan B or birth control pills are not part of men’s health care. they are part of *women’s* health care.

    Speaking of freedom, there’s something called freedom of religion in this county. That freedom lets people with religious beliefs worship as they please, or refuse to dispense drugs that they think are abortion pills.

    a person is free to live up to *their* religious by CHOOSING professions that don’t conflict with *their* values. current anti-discrimination law outlines very specific circumstances in which protected classes of citizens can be discriminated against. pharmacies are not covered by those exceptions.

    Read it again. “Demonstrated need” test. The free market is doing just fine here. Meddle and you are likely to increase costs and remove choices.

    we do not rely on the free market to protect civil rights. we rely on the government. the reason why we rely on the government is that the ‘values’ of any given community are often racist or sexist. the ‘free market’ in those communities is unfriendly to certain people against whom it is illegal to discriminate. therefore, we cannot rely on the free market to ensure that the civil rights are protected.

    while you may regard this as an economic issue, i don’t.

    You have no right to dictate to a company that you do not own, what it’s business model ought to be.

    i didn’t make an argument for forcing a company to follow any particular business model. i offered an alternative means for them to obey the law without having to incur additional costs. if it costs them money to maintain more than one pharmacist because one of them won’t fulfill his or her job duties, then they can fire the non-compliant employee. it would be a rational business decision. i personally have no trouble firing someone who won’t perform their job duties. the pharmacists who want special treatment from their employers, up to and including the right to violate the civil rights of female customers, are the ones who are demanding that their employers alter their business model.

    See above. No civil rights are violated, just someone’s free choice. Freedom is for everybody, not just you.

    would you please stop throwing out empty bussword phrases that having nothing to do with what we’re discussing? Opening a pharmacy and then refusing to provide a pharmaceutical service that over 90 percent of all women utilize in their lifetimes *is* discrimination against female customers. Plan B is BIRTH CONTROL. the only difference between Plan B and normal BC is that strength of the dose. it is the same as taking several BC pills.

    the religious freedom cannard is crap. it is a cover for enacting sexist and discriminatory policies. no one holds a gun to a person’s head and forces them to become a pharmacist. a woman doesn’t get to choose whether she’s female or not. she doesn’t get to choose whether her body without intervention is fertile or not. she doesn’t doesn’t get to choose whether she is raped or not, resulting in the need for Plan B.

    just because a man can’t get it either does not mean women are not being discriminated against. men are not the class of people who use birth control bills. women are. i refuse to play cutesy little games of semantics with you.

    The original lawsuit was that Wal-mart had to stock the product because of the law that the pharmacy must stock anything that was “commonly prescribed”.

    fine — the lawsuit was decided on different grounds. i don’t see how that negates my claim that refusing to fulfill scripts that women and only women will be presenting to pharmacies doesn’t violate their right to equal service from businesses that serve the public.

    Ah, the only group that’s not protected are white males, right? (kidding)

    that was annoying and uncalled for, not to mention completely irrelevant to the topic.

    You dodged that question. Stated again: If you weren’t implying that Wal-mart hates women, what is your theory for your claimed discrimination by Wal-mart, against women? As for the discrimination claim, yet again, above.

    i didn’t dodge the question. you asked me how it is discriminatory and i told you — reproductive health care and contraceptives are vital to women’s health care. over 90 percent of all women utilize these services in their lifetimes.

  32. mythago Says:Of course it does. This is not rocket science. If a store fires women for becoming pregnant, the store is not going to get a pass by saying “We don’t discriminate against women–we only fire pregnant PEOPLE!”

    You might have a bit of a point here, but if my pizza/anchovy argument is absurd and irrelevant, surely this one is also. I would feel that you would have to come up with at least one real life example that does not involve someone laughing milk back up their nose.

    And there were no lawsuits, thuggish or otherwise, that turned their heads–Wal*Mart caved to economic pressure. When blue states start announcing that their gov’t insurance plans won’t reimburse for Wal*Mart prescriptions, and when your competitors (i.e. Target) do happily fill those prescriptions, I guess Wal*Mart decided where the money was.

    Wal*Mart’s been pretty clear that they can afford to fight lawsuits, even when they’re likely to lose. One lawsuit over EC meant zip.

    Clearly that lawsuit in Massachusetts had an impact in at least Massachusetts. Them pro-choice groups said so. You are welcome to argue that it did not affect Wal-mart’s decision in other states. Doesn’t matter. I support the economic attempt to sway Wal-marts policy, and abhor the lawsuit method.

  33. Just saying, if a particular business is regulated by the government in that it’s only open to certain qualified operators, then you can’t start making “free market” arguments about that business.

    If you can go and open a pharmacy tomorrow with no more difficulty than opening a shoe-shop, then pharmacies operate in a free market. Is that the case, Standard Mischief?

    You know it’s not. Pharmaceutics, both manufacture and retail, is a highly regulated industry which is protected from competition from the wannabe unlicensed apothecaries aka snake-oil salesman. They fought hard for government regulation to protect their profits from unqualified competitors.

    If you live by government regulation to protect your profits, then you must abide by government regulation requiring you to fill any prescription written by a registered medical practitioner. No free market about it.

  34. emily1,

    because one of them won’t fulfill his or her job duties, then they can fire the non-compliant employee. it would be a rational business decision. i personally have no trouble firing someone who won’t perform their job duties. the pharmacists who want special treatment from their employers, up to and including the right to violate the civil rights of female customers, are the ones who are demanding that their employers alter their business model.

    I’d be much reassured if only feminists had a history of sticking to principle rather than crafting principle to fit the issue of the day. You give no hint on whether you’re driven by principle or issue, so perhaps the criticism below doesn’t apply to you.

    Compare the case with pharmacists wanting special treatment to accomodate their own personal sensabilities against the women investment bankers who object to their male colleagues taking clients to strip bars and thus boosting their ability to close deals. They want special treatment and a banning of the practice. Strip bars are legal, just like EC drugs are legal. So, in the case of pharmacists, feminists want them to violate their sensitivities and perform their job duties, but when it’s feminist sensitivities that are under the scope, what we see is that legal practices must be abandoned and the firm must change its overall policy and that the employees who don’t perform their duties (the women who are objecting) shouldn’t be fired. Who is fired? Four Morgan Stanley brokers (men) who took a client to a strip bar because Morgan Stanley doesn’t want to have to pay another $54 million to women who felt that this practice went against their sensibilities.

    Standing on principle doesn’t mean much when the principle can be bent like a pretzel to fit the feminist agenda.

    For the record, my position is that the pharmacists should be fired if they don’t dispense the drugs and that women should be fired if they agitate and sue to stop the use of strip bars for entertainment.

  35. Compare the case with pharmacists wanting special treatment to accomodate their own personal sensabilities against the women investment bankers who object to their male colleagues taking clients to strip bars and thus boosting their ability to close deals. They want special treatment and a banning of the practice.

    tangoman — i don’t see how this is relevant. this is so far off the tangent, i just don’t see the connection. are the women being forced to take clients to strip clubs? i would object to that because strip clubs don’t have shit all to do with investment banking. filling prescriptions *is* a pharmacist’s job. i don’t know the whole story about morgan stanley and the strip club hoohaa to say whether or not i agree with what you’re calling the ‘feminist’ position on it.

    i don’t think the brokers should have been fired because they took a client to a strip club unless the client complained about it. i find it sleazy, but i don’t think anyone should lose their job over it. it’s another thing if the investment bank is requiring it of employees who don’t *want* to go to a strip club because taking clients to strip clubs is not specifically outlined as a job duty for investment bankers.

  36. i think i’m bowing out of the discussion now. i’ve posted 10 or 11 comments on the thread already, and i don’t want to dominate it.

  37. Hmmmm. Y’know, if the “free market” is what is driving companies like WalMart and such to not provide birth control at their pharmacies, why aren’t they advertising this fact? Why aren’t they posting signs on their front door that state “We Proudly Support Life by Refusing to Fill Birth Control Prescriptions”?

    would you please stop throwing out empty bussword phrases that having nothing to do with what we’re discussing? Opening a pharmacy and then refusing to provide a pharmaceutical service that over 90 percent of all women utilize in their lifetimes *is* discrimination against female customers. Plan B is BIRTH CONTROL. the only difference between Plan B and normal BC is that strength of the dose. it is the same as taking several BC pills.

    Ooops! I know that already. See above where I refer to the $8.20 per dose EC I detailed in my blog. And yes, Wal-mart does carry BC. I already called and confirmed that. I laid that argument out already in two threads here and over at my blog.

    WalMart wasn’t “thugged” into deciding to provide EC by the threat of some lawsuit. WalMart has deeper pockets than that. They chose to provide EC because their market research told them it was a smart, lucrative idea. End of story.

    I said I disagreed with thuggish heavy-handed lawsuit describe here
    www(dot)boston(dot)com/business/healthcare/articles/2006/02/02/hub_women_file_complaint_against_wal_mart

    Again, not the fact with the fact that Walmart changed their mind. Read what you wrote again: “They chose to provide EC because their market research told them it was a smart, lucrative idea. End of story.” That’s the power of the Free Market. Boycotts, education, letter writing, GOOD! Using the courts as your personal blunt instrument, BAD!

    SM: Ah, the only group that’s not protected are white males, right? (kidding)

    that was annoying and uncalled for, not to mention completely irrelevant to the topic.

    It was funny, this was not:

    …she doesn’t doesn’t get to choose whether she is raped or not, resulting in the need for Plan B.

    Playing the rape card eh? For the record I don’t support rape. For the record, I do recommend everyone get EC now, in case of an emergency, broken condom, rape, carelessness, whatever.

    i didn’t dodge the question. you asked me how it is discriminatory and i told you —

    OK,. let me rephrase it so you can understand. Why does Wal-mart discriminate against women? (Remember: 1. I dispute that it’s discrimination 2. You have already ruled out the opinion that Wal-mart hates women.)

    a person is free to live up to *their* religious by CHOOSING professions that don’t conflict with *their* values. current anti-discrimination law outlines very specific circumstances in which protected classes of citizens can be discriminated against. pharmacies are not covered by those exceptions.

    Are you planning to force Doctors to preform abortions also, regardless of their religion and beliefs?

    Thanks to anti-discrimination laws, you can’t ask during the interview if a perspective employee pharmacist would object to dispensing any medicines. However if my employee ever failed to dispense a lawful prescription, I’d fire him/her on the spot.

    Ok, pay attention now, this is where I use your own words against you.

    emily1 Says: Plan B is BIRTH CONTROL. the only difference between Plan B and normal BC is that strength of the dose. it is the same as taking several BC pills.

    Correct. The drugs are the same. Wal-mart does carry BC but not EC, but the drugs are the same. the method of the prevention of pregnancy is exactly the same. EC is not an abortion pill, it merely prevents pregnancy. Why does Wal-mart carry BC but not EC?

    La Lubu Says: Methinks it just might be because even here in the conservative Midwest (where women are every bit as likely as those on the coasts to use the Pill and ask for Plan B), they would lose more customers than they would gain. A lot more.

    Correct. People, predominantly in the Midwest, have a misconception that EC is the abortion-on-demand pill. Many people think that using an abortion-on-demand pill is a sin.


    La Lubu Says:They chose to provide EC because their market research told them it was a smart, lucrative idea. End of story.

    Right, but before they changed their mind to carry EC, they chose not to carry it because they think that made them look like good corporate citizens in the eyes of their (predominantly Midwestern) customers. Remember, amoral corporations. If for one moment they though that they could get more money by not carrying birth control pills [1], Wal-mart would adopt it in a second.

    Here are my arguments again, I think you all are a little confused.

    1.Just like I would totally object to some religious leader passing laws that would impose his/her/their beliefs on you by using the thuggish force of law over your uterus, I totally object to your desire to impose your beliefs over the free market (again using thuggish legal tactics).

    2.The free market is working just fine. EC and BC are available,and inexpensive. No one has disputed that fact. The fact that there are such things as Planned Parenthood’s mail order prescriptions, a not-for-profit group that will mail-out stuff in plain packages, is just another piece of evidence that the market works.

    3.Any right a woman has to the accessibility of certain medications is balanced over the rights that a merchant has to control the stock s/he choses to carry. I am willing to make an exceptions if and only if the free market isn’t working. I am not a “free market fixes everything” kinda person, but I see no need to meddle here.

    Oh and if any of you lament again that Wal-mart is driving out the small businesses by taking over every market niche, I hope you remember this and see your own hypocrisy.

    [1] To appeal to those people who’s religion teaches them that they have an all omnipotent, all knowing God, but to use anything, even a condom is a sin because it’s messing with His will. (Personally any god worth his salt ought to be able to break through a thin latex shield whenever he wanted to, but those people don’t respond well to logic)

  38. SM Says: Freedom is for everybody, not just you.

    emily1 Says:would you please stop throwing out empty bussword phrases that having nothing to do with what we’re discussing?

    It’s just as valid to the discussion as saying “keep your laws off my body”.

    Tigtog Says: If you can go and open a pharmacy tomorrow with no more difficulty than opening a shoe-shop, then pharmacies operate in a free market. Is that the case, Standard Mischief?

    You know it’s not. Pharmaceutics, both manufacture and retail, is a highly regulated industry which is protected from competition from the wannabe unlicensed apothecaries aka snake-oil salesman. They fought hard for government regulation to protect their profits from unqualified competitors.

    If you live by government regulation to protect your profits, then you must abide by government regulation requiring you to fill any prescription written by a registered medical practitioner. No free market about it.

    Well clearly being a pharmacist requires a degree. They go to school for more than just to learn how to count out pills and read funny handwriting. But it doesn’t take a degree to hand out prepackages pills. Since there is no way to really abuse things like EC and BC, there’s no reaI excuse to not make them OTC. Anyone with half a brain is gonna talk to a pro first and the ones with less than half a brain can find plenty of other ways to off themselves, so requiring a prescription is silly.

    In that case, you could get you EC at 7-11, right next to the condoms. That is unless some stupid group manages to shame 7-11 into not carrying the stuff like they did with Penthouse and Playboy.

    I also wouldn’t restrict overseas pharmacies from filling prescriptions too. If the free market is good, it’s good for everybody. Free trade is good for everybody, not just big corporations.

    I’ve also got no problem with the resellers market. If I can sell you and unopened bottle of aspirin, I should be able to sell you an unopened box of clearly labeled BC or EC. Would you call me as a reseller a “snake-oil salesman”.

    I don’t really know how to respond to this because I’d surely like to cut out a crapload of federal regulation.

  39. Standard Mischief, I think you’re misinterpreting what I said. My point is that these pharmacys and pharmacists who want the option of refusing to fill a valid, legal prescription for either birth control or Plan B want it both ways—they want to attract the business of the tiny minority of wingnuts who want to insert themselves into the private medical decisions of strangers, without offending the vast majority of folks who would take their business elsewhere if they knew it wasn’t a “full-service” pharmacy. That’s why they don’t advertise that they won’t fill BC or EC prescriptions. They know that the overwhelming majority of their customers would take their business elsewhere. They know that the vast majority of their customers would have an impromptu, unorganized “boycott” —they’d vote with their wallets and go elsewhere.

    Midwesterners are not more likely to view EC as a sin. Midwestern women use birth control, have abortions, and bear children at the same rate as women in the entire U.S. I bring this up because one of the favorite arguments of conservatives is “local control”, and coastal conservatives like to paint this refusal of pharmacists to fill prescriptions as reflecting “Midwestern values”, rather than the pharmacist’s own personal religious convictions. No—the Midwest not only values birth control (including EC), we also value the time-honored tradition of minding our own damn business. Don’t let the loud mouths of a few anti-BC wingnuts cloud your vision of what folks are really like in the Midwest. Look at the stats. There isn’t any difference between Midwesterners practice and beliefs concerning family planning, and those of our fellow U.S. citizens on the coasts.

    We do have a problem with access out here though, if indeed a pharmacist does refuse an EC presciption (which one did locally, over in Beardstown). This isn’t Massachusetts, with 24-7 public transportation and a plethora of pharmacies. Outside of the handful of urban areas, there are few pharmacies and long drives in between them. One wingnut pharmacist can effectively stop access for a few thousand women. But there’s an easy solution to that—merely require pharmacies to have at least one pharmacist on the clock who is willing to fill these prescriptions! Problem solved. The access is there, and the pharmacist who is not willing to perform his/her entire job can still work, provided he/she has an employer who is willing to accommodate a person who willfully refuses to perform their standard job duties. Agreed?

  40. La Lubu Says: Standard Mischief, I think you’re misinterpreting what I said. My point is that these pharmacys and pharmacists who want the option of refusing to fill a valid, legal prescription for either birth control or Plan B want it both ways—they want to attract the business of the tiny minority of wingnuts who want to insert themselves into the private medical decisions of strangers, without offending the vast majority of folks who would take their business elsewhere if they knew it wasn’t a “full-service” pharmacy. That’s why they don’t advertise that they won’t fill BC or EC prescriptions. They know that the overwhelming majority of their customers would take their business elsewhere. They know that the vast majority of their customers would have an impromptu, unorganized “boycott” —they’d vote with their wallets and go elsewhere.

    1.Wal-mart does sell BC. I checked (for at least in Maryland). If they really don’t sell BC in your state, let me know. I’ll like to call and confirm that fact.

    2.No business is required to disclose how it is NOT serving it’s customers. Wal-mart doesn’t advertise the fact that they sell bleeped out record either.

    3.Agreed. Every day they are walking a thin line in an attempt to please the MOST people. Wal-mart would sell rat poison shaped into little “be mine” heart shaped candies if: They thought there was a profit in it AND there would not be an impact on their future profits.

    Midwesterners are not more likely to view EC as a sin. Midwestern women use birth control, have abortions, and bear children at the same rate as women in the entire U.S. I bring this up because one of the favorite arguments of conservatives is “local control”, and coastal conservatives like to paint this refusal of pharmacists to fill prescriptions as reflecting “Midwestern values”, rather than the pharmacist’s own personal religious convictions. No—the Midwest not only values birth control (including EC), we also value the time-honored tradition of minding our own damn business. Don’t let the loud mouths of a few anti-BC wingnuts cloud your vision of what folks are really like in the Midwest. Look at the stats. There isn’t any difference between Midwesterners practice and beliefs concerning family planning, and those of our fellow U.S. citizens on the coasts.

    It would be nice if you included some links to stats, but for the sake of argument I’ll agree with you. It does not change my argument.

    We do have a problem with access out here though, if indeed a pharmacist does refuse an EC presciption (which one did locally, over in Beardstown). This isn’t Massachusetts, with 24-7 public transportation and a plethora of pharmacies. Outside of the handful of urban areas, there are few pharmacies and long drives in between them. One wingnut pharmacist can effectively stop access for a few thousand women. But there’s an easy solution to that—merely require pharmacies to have at least one pharmacist on the clock who is willing to fill these prescriptions! Problem solved. The access is there, and the pharmacist who is not willing to perform his/her entire job can still work, provided he/she has an employer who is willing to accommodate a person who willfully refuses to perform their standard job duties. Agreed?

    – Please, Please read this part very carefully. Please. –

    I want women over the whole entire nation to have free and ready access to BC and EC. Every one of you on this thread agrees with that. Agreed?

    Therefore the debate is how best to provide access to EC and BC.

    * I argue that we can eliminate the pharmacist, sell the products as OTC. In this way they can be sold in a lot more venues. EC and BC could be as easily available as condoms or chapstck. Womans groups could resell the products at cost to make them as easily available as possible.

    * I argue that mail order pharmacies like the above mentioned Planned Parenthood Mail Order pharmacy, something that exists for a very specific purpose, should not be saddled with any additional regulations or requirements to carry a bunch of “commonly prescribed” medicines that are clearly outside the scope of their mission. La Lubu, this pharmacy will be happy to serve your EC and BC needs, via mail, in plain brown packages, even out there in the Midwest.

    * I did my one leg work, and I published the results in my blog about the least expensive form of EC I could find. $8.20 a dose. I also republished planned parenthood’s list of BC pills that could be used as EC in an emergency. Clearly I support easy access to EC.

    * I argue that it’s OK and generally a GOOD THING to write letters, boycott, vote with your dollars, and spread the word about places that don’t carry EC (I haven’t found a single place that won’t dispense BC though).

    In fact, the only thing I objected to, the ONLY THING, was supporting your “right” to force someone else to sell a products on the open market that they don’t want to.

    Freedom is for everybody, not just you!

    You see, this is something that takes rights away from someone else.

    Freedom is for everybody, not just you!

    I’ve argued that it probably would have the opposite effect, and reduce the level of access to EC and BC, but that’s really tangent to the argument. Just like the “fundys” have no right to push their agenda on you, you have no right to push your agenda on others. Even if you are right (and I think you are)

    Freedom is for everybody, not just you!

    I can’t believe the levels of rhetoric I’m getting here from the “keep your laws off my body” faction!

    Freedom is for everybody, not just you!

  41. Sorry for the double comments. It looks like your anti-spam has classified me as a threat. Debate has been squelched until at least it lets me post again.

    Oh, get over yourself. Nobody cares enough to monitor your posts specifically. Your endless posts simply contain terms that trigger the spam filter, which means they get put in the moderation queue.

    However, if it would make you feel more important, I could put you on the watch list so that you really could feel persecuted.

    In the meantime, stop fucking double posting and wait for your posts to come up.

  42. If somebody works for me, they are going to sell what I have to sell and if they don’t like it they can kick road apples. If you work at the power plant you will work some Sundays whether you are a Christian or not because the power has to be on 24/7. Got it?

  43. zuzu, I was not blaiming you, just the screening software. This was not a personal attack on the the authors of Feministe.

    Then talk to the software; don’t complain on the blog.

  44. If you work at the power plant you will work some Sundays whether you are a Christian or not because the power has to be on 24/7. Got it?

    Got it! Unless of course we’re talking about feminist pieties, then all bets are off.

  45. Got it! Unless of course we’re talking about feminist pieties, then all bets are off.

    Feminist pieties?

    Do tell.

  46. The connection’s oinky right now, so I can’t check directions at the moment, but there seems to be a WalMart in Orange, MA and no CVS closer than Belchertown. Now, the CVS could be just over the border and therefore quite close to the WalMart – as I said, checking that is a pain with the slow connection – but sounds as if it’s not too unlikely there’s WalMarts without next-door CVS.

Comments are currently closed.