Birthcontrol, women and drug stores

Post Reply New Topic

Here are some links to news stories about the pharmacists that wont fill woment birth control scripts, and some background on it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158875,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183090,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164689,00.html



It isnt JUST about the "morning after pill", there is a greater issue involved. It isnt about abortion or right to life. Its about being able to access meds that are legal by script and being able to have the RIGHT to decide some health care matters.

Its also about womens rights. Women have the right to prevent (im not talking terminating the life of a viable fetus) pregnancy. And we have the right to equal access to medicines that may prevent and treat health issues (the harmones in "the pill" are often prescribed for that).

I bet these SAME folks that wont fill a script for "the pill" fill plenty for drugs that treat "erectile disfunction".

Insurance even covers ED meds, but not "the pill" for women unless "medically required"..... THAT IS a double standard.

Oh and the newest "pill" that redices a woman's cycle to just 4 times a year, well that is never covered.

Ladysmokeeater, as I've said many times before, it's not about these people's religious beliefs. It's all about control.
We're now at a point where women, for the first time, can run every aspect of their lives and there's still this faction that does not want this. For one thing, if people can make their own decisions without religion's or men's say so, then that's a big loss of power for them.

Power is a very hard thing to give up and people will do it kicking and screaming before they give in. It's like a rabbit that's being squeezed by a python. He knows he's about to die and right beforehand, he lets out a "death kick". These people trying to deny access to birth control and legislating anti-gay marriage laws are letting out a death kick because they know their days are about over.

you'd think that by this time in human development that we'd be beyond that.....

The tv said its because it makes their sex drive go away. Thats stupid.

Last edited by ilikedragons on 31 Jan 2006, 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's just about control, not religion. Fundamentalist Christians are upset that they're losing control over women who are in charge of their own lives, including reproduction. I'm just fortunate to live in a state where my insurance not only covers birth control, but I am able to pick it up from the pharmacy every month. For me, the Pill not only prevents pregnancy as I'm not able to afford a child, it makes my PMS symptoms milder than they are when I'm off the hormones. I have no cramping during that time of the month, and I don't need a heating pad with ibuprophen like I once did. I chose to wait until I'm financially secure before even considering having a child, which upsets these extremists.

Please don't assume that all these 'extremists' preventing women's access to the pills, are staid conservatives. Maybe they fear losing the notion of women as people warm and understanding, to the brutish city and capitalist market because, they know it does many women more harm than good. Since the 80s women's depression has risen dramatically because they can't maintain the work/family balance. Men who don't understand, have killed themselves---young male suicide increasing threefold since that period.

What are you talking about? If they take birth control why would they have kids?

Its not birth control but what if a phamacy decided that I need prayers instead of my meds some fundies think anything to do with people who are different its becuse demons afecting them I live in a well populated area with many chocies but I have family in areas where theres just one drug store what if they would not provide certian meds it goes beyond birth control phamacies are licened by the state and should provide all meds or have its licence yanked

what does women more harm than good? Being baby machines or being liberated?
I think that linking depression in women and suicide in men to women's rights and loosing the "notions" had about women is a bit off base. There are a thousand reasons why those numbers could have gone up. More pollution, more access to health care (thus more access to diagnostics), TV, chemical additives in food, etc. When a person claims a "moral objection" on the basis of his or her religion not to perscribe something and that coincides with the very conservitive viewpoint, then I pararell them with the conservitives that shair their beliefs. How else would you classify them?

This talk saddens me. Women don't need liberated from having children. We are made for it. Isn't that a bit obvious? We live in tough times. Economically it is difficult to let nature run it's course and have lots of kids. I have six and I speak from experience. Sometimes I even feel a little irresponsible. But I know that in the end, we are glad we did it. My kids are terrific. I wouldn't trade them for all the birth control in the world.

The problem with birth control is that it is not a cure-all. I became pregnant with my first, second, fifth and sixth while using the pill and other forms of birth control, faithfully. Another concern is the risk of cancers and the difficulty becoming pregnant once that is desirable. (I have seen this a number of times)

If a doctor or Pharmacist has a personal, religious, or moral objection to prescribing certain drugs than I think it's unfair to force him/her to do it against their conscience. In this same way, many doctors will not perform abortions. In the future, there will probably be marijuana or suicide/"dignified death" drugs that some won't be willing to dispense. There will probably be doctors getting sued because they won't "assist" in a death. As we move further from our nation's roots and moral heritage, and as convenience dictates, we will be increasingly embroiled in these types of ethical/moral debates.

I don't know why some are under the impression that we need to revive the old, "I am woman, hear me roar" stanza because I don't think that society today, as a whole, tries to keep women from doing much of anything they want.
Rare is the family who doesn't have to succomb to the two-wage earner family model that is necessary in this economy. In fact, I see a reverse discriminatory pattern, belittling women who want to be mothers and believe it is more important than personal gain, financial or otherwise.

I know that posting this will not win me friends, but is likely to create a backlash of fury, but I think it should be known that not all women reject certain aspects of their feminity. Women are multi-taskers. Women can do many things well. But I reject the notion that we can "have it all" at least not all of the time. No one can.

My bookstore would be a lot more crowded.

This "we are made for it" stuff sounds like you believed women are made for one purpose only. I'm not an object or tool or something which has one use only. If women did not have contraception, many of them would have 12-15 children like they had in the past.

If a pharmacist has moral objections to the pill, s/he doesn't have to be a pharmacist, everyone is free to choose their own profession, but s/he has to be able to fulfill the requirements of that job. What would happen if a soldier had moral objections to shoot at the enemy, or if a firefighter has objections to to climbing ladders, etc.?

Women are made for having babies. (that's a no-brainer)
And I never implied that you had to have one or a million.
I also never said that women can't do other things instead or in addition to.
(maybe you should reread the last couple of sentences in my post)
I simply stated that no one can do it all, all of the time.
I, personally feel that's the lie that's been sold to women. That we should be like men (stereotypical career-driven, self-fulfilling goal-oriented) or that we're not really women (reject the idea of children and family as burdens to be disdained) or You must accomplish all of this or you're not a real woman.

I can't believe someone would get hot because I said that women are made for having babies. The anatomy certainly bears this out. That doesn't mean you should have one though, especially if you consider it "beneath you". (That's the impression I get from some of these posts)

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the nation. (These days, I guess that would mean government-run daycare)
Bringing up people is serious business and is in no way demeaning or underachieving. Self-sacrifice is noble, not despicable. Besides, someone has to do the job. Okay, you don't have to because I've already made up for your portion. There, ya happy?! (in fact, I've made up for 2 other women)
(don't blast me for this, I'm just poking fun at myself)

Firefighters, as far as I know, do not have any moral or religious objections to climbing ladders. If they did, they could still drive the truck, hold the hose, or operate from ground zero. But this is not a fitting comparison. That would be like saying that Pharmacists who are against drugs shouldn't be pharmacists. You see, if a firefighter believed that using the ladder would endanger more than help, then he would find a more appropriate tool to use. (a cherry-picker?) But since the comparison doesn't really fit the situation, I'll go back to the medical profession. Many doctors won't prescribe certain drugs or perform abortions no matter how much their patient demands it. There are doctors who refuse to prescribe sleeping pills, pain meds, thyroid medication, ect.....
I don't think that we should try to tell them all that they have to go against their better judgement. I think the real issue is that the angry customer who doesn't like being thwarted in their quest for the "I want what I want and I want it now!!" lifestyle.
Another matter of importance is women's health. Do you really believe that the medical industry and the pharmeceutical industries as a whole, care about your health? New, as well as "tried and true" drugs are being pulled off of the market regularly because they are proven to be unsafe. Could it not be that some pharmacists don't feel that the drugs are proven safe? (or in my case, proven effective?) I don't know, I'm just asking the question.

I would like to see women think for themselves instead of learning the lesson the hard way, (burn-out and regret), that the so-called "women's liberation" movement has been helpful and also unrealistic and damaging in some ways. We don't have to swallow everything that comes down the pike. There is a natural and historic, cultural wisdom that should not be overlooked. (not to mention practicality)

Before you answer, don't get me wrong. I am not opposed to birth control, I have used it before. (now I don't need to because of that wonderful little operation called, vasectomy)

I have very mixed feelings on this.

On one hand, I understand that people should be able to get their legally prescribed meds without someone else making it more difficult becasue that person has a moral issue with it.

On the other hand, to make someone do something that they find morally offensive is just forcing your moral stance on them and that is just as wrong.

Take this example and turn it around. What if the pharmacist had to say a prayer before giving out meds because it was the law. It would be wrong to force them to do that too. But if we argue that they have to follow law, that's where we end up.

I hadn't thought about Misty Blue's point about those people being in the wrong profession. I'll need to think that one out.

I am a feminist. For centuries black people, disabled people, ret*d people, woman, all had a "place" in socitiy and it wasn't a good one. Now we open all options to these people. I perfer that all options remain open for all people.

We can't have it all but we should be able to pick which parts we want.

BeeBee

Why cant a man stay home and the woman go to work? I dont know why I thought of it.

That's a great point. I have a feeling a lot of the difficulties that come with the increased freedom women have in terms of their choices and options (having to balance work with children, for instance) arise from the fact that this freedom still exists within a system that is still as a whole patriarchal, and that this is also a big reason why options such as the one you mentioned aren't explored as much. Women can stay home with their children, work, or do both, (of course, they're sometimes made to feel guilty for whatever they choose-i.e, if she stays home with her children, she's not reaching her full potential, and if she works, she's being selfish) but other than that, society's expectations haven't changed much-men are still expected to be the providers, and women the nurturers and homemakers in addition to their careers if they choose to have one. And then of course there is the fact that our workplaces are generally not very family-friendly, which makes it all the more difficult for couples with children to come up with a work plan that benefits everyone. That's true that no one can do everything all the time, and it is really too bad we're sometimes expected to.

That's true that certain parts of our bodies are made to facilitate or for the express purpose of having babies, which is a wonderful, beautiful thing, and our bodies are pretty amazing to be able to handle something like that and usually come out of it strong and healthy-healthier, even, as pregnancy and breastfeeding can help prevent ovarian and breast cancer. However, for some people, it can be more dangerous or even life-threatening for both themselves and their baby. For people like me who are quite small and at an increased risk for toxemia, people with kidney and heart problems, people with anemia, people with damage to their reproductive organs, people who are not in the right emotional or financial state to care for a baby, and probably for many others, pregnancy is a serious health issue, physically and mentally. In fact, I'd say it's a pretty big health issue for all women, as it affects just about every part of our bodies and can really take a physical and mental toll. I think that when this issue is being debated having babies is often seen more in terms of being a lifestyle choice rather than also being a health issue. To do their job effectively, pharmacists and doctors should put the health of the patient first and do no harm if they can help it, and for some, pregnancy is harmful physically, mentally, or both, and measures must be taken to avoid it and thus avoid the harm it would cause. I can understand both sides of the issue though. Someone made a good point that making someone do something they find morally offensive is forcing your moral stance on them and that this is wrong. I also agree that we live in a culture of excess and materialism and instant gratification that it really takes it's emotional and physical toll on women and men alike in the long-run.

It saddens me that when it comes to pregnancy and birth control, most if not all, of the burden and the blame is put on women. Last time I checked, you can walk right into a drugstore and buy a condom and no one will make a fuss. You won't see store owners refusing to stock it, you won't see stories about it all over the news, you won't hear a guy's right to one being debated everywhere from Capitol Hill to the dinner table (and not only is it a heckuva lot easier to get one, but they don't have all those nasty side effects like increased risk for blood clots, heart attack, stroke, and breast cancer either). And to think that all this time I thought it took two to make a baby. I have now accepted that my womanhood is defined in terms of my reproductive organs and my worthiness as a sexual partner (i.e, appearance) and that it is man's right to my body and my responsibility to take care of the consequences. (Note: this isn't in response to anything anyone has said, I respect all of your opinions, I'm just ranting at the world in general )