Things that suck I: Druggists refuse to give out birth control pills

I haven't had a prescription in nearly ten years or else I'd be right there with you.

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/6/mooney-science.asp

Personally, if this was going on anywhere around me, I'd just lob a brick or two through their windows in the middle of the night.

Well fuck this, if there is such a thing as the "Pharmacists for Life International" then this gives us a list of what pharmacies are involved in this ugly practice.

So people should serve it right back up to them. Don't just boycott them - picket them, harrass them, make their lives hell and put them out of business! I almost wish I lived in the US because if I did, I would seriously start organising such a thing.

I would have thought in the greater scheme of things that doctor's orders trumped pharmacist's wishes. If one was in a one-drugstore town with a zealot in charge and one could experience delays in treatment due to that person's obstruction, there are legal remedies there.

I too would have thought there was some law around scrips that mean if a doctor's issued one, it must be filled, stuff wank what the chemist thinks. I guess not though. I sincerely hope it never comes to that here - but if it does I'll be first in line to organise protests against it. As someone who's had to be on the pill for medical rather than birth control reasons myself, this issue is very important to me.

Tho I've a sinking feeling that perhaps in some small or very close knit religious townships maybe it'd have the opposite effect :/ Also if it was the only one in town as someone said above... god how horrible. Aie, this whole thing upsets me.

This could be a very serious problem when it comes to Plan B emergency contraception, which has a limited window of opportunity. Online and mail-order pharmacies are not much help when you need a prescription filled right away.

Women can all possibly agree on this statement: Until *I* decide I want to be a mother, THAT'S NOT A BABY.

You will notice in the US that those who are making laws against abortion are generally MEN behaving in a paternalistic manner WRT women's reproductive rights and it is touched by their fear of female sexuality generally. I have, in professional and activist situations both, met many anti-abortion advocates who are doing so on life/religious grounds. They are almost always middle-aged men and shall we say their approach to debate suggests that they believe that women are not equal under the law to them and have to be somehow managed or controlled BY THEM PERSONALLY if sexually active. I think this attitude is both prurient and furtive and can be combatted by certain types of wake-up calls.

Women should start from the argument position of 'this is my decision, not yours, and furthermore I am in no way sorry that you have no role to play in this decision-making process which is mine, not yours.'

Also, it's the lower class, without access to computers and/or credit cards that will suffer.... again.

xpost

suzy, while I agree with your overall point of view, I don't think you're 10% correct. I live by a clinic that performs abortions. Most of the picketers (every Saturday) are women and, sickeningly, children.

Also, I think Andrew's remark was that millions of women disagree with when to call a baby a baby. He was responding to the idea that you can't call it a baby until the mother calls it one. When a teenage girl throws a baby into a dumpster, I doubt she thinks of it as a baby.

Again, I think we're all basically on the same side here ..

Women and children making scenes at clinics is somewhat lower on the scale of importance than dealing with who's indoctrinating them in the first place or manipulating them for political gain: neo-conservative men.

You do seem intent on positioning this as a straight battle of the sexes, and while that's mostly true, and matches your experiences, you have to remember that people are fucking crazy, and cannot be relied on to act in their own interest. It's not just men with their foot on the neck of Womankind, many women are happy to perform the contortions that allow them to put their own foot there.

Women are protected from this sort of thing by Roe v. Wade ultimately. Their constitutional right to terminate pregnancies is enshrined in it as-is. Women have to say 'these are my rights' as opposed to 'I'm sorry, but' followed by whatever, because that is the beginning of the dimunition of their rights. No negotiation, no 'compromise'. We need Pink Panthers or something. Also, the Constitution is about permission, not prohibition. That's why the booze ban did not work.

It is not a battle of the sexes. The men that pursue these forms of legislation are in the minority of men overall; the women who support them are in the minority overall.

Refusing to return a script is clearly in violation of the law, unless Texas has some really insane law codes that I am unaware of, Emily. That's grounds to revoke their licencing.

What is disturbing for me is a macro issue, that 'family values' is just diet feudalism and a feudal society is a retrograde step. I've been banging on at the New Feudalism for ages and now all the mainstream press here refers to ' bloodlines' when writing about nepotistic subjects, whether royalty, someone who's Isabella Rosselini's daughter or just from generations of Italian bakers. Feudalism entrenches class divisions and racial divisions on the basis of being part of 'the family' or not. Women are particularly subordinated or placed in 'power behing the throne' or if in power given 'queen bee' status.

Just think about it. Where is this GOING?

Although I will point out that NY also has laws that require any insurance company who wants to issue policies in NY to cover ALL female reproductive issues, and not just pre- and post-natal care, so we might just be extraordinarily progressive. That being said, Arizona also requires doctors to provide full alternative information (including, of course, adoption information as well as abortion information and such). The law's ostensible intent is to protect OBGYNs who cannot perform the services due to lack of equipment et al but obviously also protects those who refuse to provide abortions for moral reasons.

xpost yeah that's basically what I'm implying, there are quite a few legal reasons why taking a script and neither filling it nor returning it to the patient is blatantly against the law and no amount of opt-out "Oh maybe the pharmacy doesn't have this medication" loophole laws can protect that.

I wonder if this is something someone could keep on hand, in case of emergency?