?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Eugie · Foster's · Self-Indulgent · Musings


Boycott Target

Recent Entries · Archive · Friends · Profile

* * *
I don't usually go into political diatribes here. I find the sorts of political arguments that one gets into on the Internet tedious. But I'm making a rare exception here, because it's something I feel strongly about. I'm shaking out the ole boycott rug to protest pharmacists that refuse to fill contraception prescriptions. The idea of someone, anyone at all, mucking with my or any woman's decisions about her body and her life gets me spitting mad. As such, Target will no longer be receiving my consumer dollars until they revamp their policies since apparently, Target is A-OK with their pharmacists being righteous misogynists.

For more links and rants, check out cmpriest's information-filled post and jinzi's very eloquent letter of protest.

   

Writing Stuff

New Words: 600
Back to work on the heroic fantasy tale, "Rue and Ruin."
Zokutou word meterZokutou word meter
5,155 / 7,500
(68.7%)

Club 100 For Writers
      32

500/day
      86
I'm feeling:
enraged enraged
* * *
* * *
[User Picture]
On November 5th, 2005 04:03 pm (UTC), m0nkeygrl commented:
I don't like the idea of people being forced to do something they find morally objectionable. Would you like being forced to do something you thought was wrong? I wouldn't like it. Though I disagree with this pharmacist scientifically and morally and think his/her opinions are severly misguided, I don't think they should be forced to perform an action that conflicts with their moral code.

Of course, in this particular instance, I think the best course for the pharmacist who refused to fill the prescription would be for them to find another profession. (Why someone would even enter a profession knowing their duties might require them to do something they find morally objectionable is beyond me.)

Also, in this case, Walgreen's got the woman's business, not Target. If this happens enough, Target will have to take a look at their policy in this particular matter.
[User Picture]
On November 5th, 2005 10:27 pm (UTC), dude_the replied:
I sympathize with your desire not to force people to do things they object to on moral or ethical bases. Certainly, I would object to being forced to do something that I felt was wrong, and, depending upon the nature of the something, it would be very difficult to make me do it irregardless of policy or law.

That said, I'm deeply troubled by the idea that pharmacists would be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription based upon their personal beliefs. Obviously, birth control is what everyone is talking about now, but if they can refuse to dispense birth control then what keeps them from refusing to dispense psychiatric medication on religious grounds or medications to treat STDs or any medication to people of a certain ethnic group by claiming a non-existent religious prohibition? Of course, this last bit highlights the problem in trying to force them to fill these prescriptions. Even if the law says they have to fill them, they can always lie and say they've run out or just never order any.

The problem with relying on the capitalist process to solve this issue is that capitalism cuts both ways. Yes, Target lost the business to Walgreens in this case. But, that's just one customer. In a conservative community, many more customers may switch from Walgreens to Target because of a Target pharmacist's refusal to sell birth control, leading to a net gain in customers for Target and a net loss for Walgreens, forcing Walgreens to look at refusing to sell birth control.

Yup. Deeply troubling all this is. *nod*

PJI
* * *

Previous Entry · Write something · Share · Next Entry