On Tuesday, the Massachusetts pharmacy board ordered Wal-Mart to stock emergency contraception pills at all its stores in Massachusetts. Massachusetts is the second state to require the world’s largest retailer to carry the morning-after pill.
The unanimous decision by the pharmacy board came two weeks after three women, backed by abortion rights groups, sued Wal-Mart for failing to carry the drug in any of its 44 Wal-Marts and four Sam’s Club stores in Massachusetts. The women had argued that state policy required pharmacies to carry all “commonly prescribed medicines.”
For those of you who may not be familiar with the morning-after pill, it provides a high dose of hormones that, if taken up to five days after sex, can prevent pregnancy. Many right-to-lifers believe that this emergency contraception is a form of abortion since it blocks the fertilized egg from being implanted on the uterine wall.
I’m interested in knowing what you think. Is the morning-after pill a means of abortion, or should it be viewed as simply another form of birth control?
If you’re interested in reading more about the Wal-Mart story, click here.
February 16th, 2006 at 1:48 am
Well…I may be crucified for this but…in most cases if the child isn’t wanted, I think that’s the best idea on the table. I mean, I think we can all agree that shit happens, but why not call it what it is, and take care of it before it becomes a human form.
I’m not sure I’d necessarily agree that abortion is the way to go, but I don’t really call this abortion. It’s not a human. It’s a cell. It hasn’t sprouted arms and legs yet, and doesn’t even have the beginning of them. I’d rather this than having the “mother” go in and have a surgical procedure, or worse yet, to have and screw up a child that’s unwanted.
sdk
February 16th, 2006 at 2:06 am
Morning After Pill? What we need is a 9 Months After Pill.
February 16th, 2006 at 3:08 am
In the overpopulated world I think it is right to give women the choice to abort their child if its not wanted.
The morning after pill, whether you see it as contraception or abortion is perfectly valid I think.
February 16th, 2006 at 10:12 am
I am pro-choice when it comes to the subject of abortion. We all should have the freedom to make a decision without the goverment or big business placeing any kind of limits.
February 16th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Will ‘they’ consider an IUD a form of abortion next because it works in the same way, prevents implantation.
If a doctor writes a PX then the pharmacist should have to fill it, plane and simple.
February 16th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
everybody needs to take care of their own needs all those people that make it their business need to but out!
February 16th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
It’s my damn right to take it. I am pro choice, even though I would never have an abortion myself. Who am I to tell the next woman what to do? Kalani has a great point. Is IUD the next target or are the prolifers just not clued into this? I wish everbody could see the shades of gray with this topic…
February 16th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
i like what wirthy said…..sarcasm avoiding the question. I too am from the great K-town! LOL! come on over!
February 16th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
What type of sticker would this be on the calander?
Wow, I didn’t know the pill got approved in the US. That it did with our current administration is awesome.
I could talk about the science of an egg, not having a nervous system or anything else for that matter to make it a person, but this is a matter of law imho.
Being a *real* consertive it’s clear the founders do not want laws mixed with religion, so any arguments based on such don’t make it in the door. Next, rights only apply to citizens. No where is an unborn child treated as a citizen by the goverement. No SSN, I can’t claim him at tax time, and he can’t get medicare for the treatments he needs while in the womb. As a matter of law, an unborn child does not exist - so there is no way for it to hold rights.
The framers gave us a right for happiness, and I think many would say sex makes you very happy. Blocking this drug, it can be argued, would affect the right to happiness - and since there is no citizen who’s rights are taken away by it, there is not reason not to do it. After all, the pill is linked to several health conditions and doesn’t work while on anitbiotics (trust me on this people), condoms break, and standing up doesn’t work (damn you middle school rumors). We do after all, have a right to safe sex*
*and the right to unsafe whips and chains sex, if we so choose.
February 16th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
I have mixed emotions on this one.
I think in cases when it is best for a child to not come into this world by the parent who uses this at the time it may be a good idea.
I just don’t want to see it become a casual form of birth control.
People make mistakes in the heat of passion.
I have known women who have brought the baby to term and then have it be adopted and I find I respect them immensely for their choice.
February 16th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Is Wal-mart the only place in Mass that people can buy the pill? Look at it this way, how can the Government force a private business to sell or not sell a legal product? Should they? Can’t people just go to Albertson’s, Kroger’s, Osco, Walgreens or a dozen other pharmacies to get the pill?
If I choose to sell pork but not beef can beef lovers ask the government to force me to sell beef? Should they? Don’t we as citizens howl in anger when the government “forces” us to do something against our wills (ie. pay taxes, stand in line at the DMV all day to renew a drivers license, buy car and flood insurance, etc.)? Why is big business any different? I don’t think that government should be a part of the equation period. I think anyone that bitches about the government interfering with their rights but then petitions that government to interfere with the rights of others(ie: Wal-Mart) on their behalf is just a bit hypocritical. IMHO, if you want Wal-mart to sell the pill and they don’t, protest, write letters to the editor, organize your friends and if you can’t change their mind, boycott them. If enough people stay away from the store to hurt their bottom line, they will change. If there are not enough people that give a crap to put a dent in their books, get over it and go to Walgreens. Your (the imperical “Your”, not any one person specifically) rights are not any more valuable or precious than mine. All rights are equal in the eyes of God and the law. If you read this, God bless you. But if you read this and feel I’m full of shit … feel free to stop by http://www.tommysdarkside.blogspot.com and tell me so. If you agree, you are invited as well. I’m not prejudiced. If I don’t get back to you right away, it’s because I’m meeting with my lawyers about that “7-11″ store selling weed lawsuit. LOL Great discussion starter Tish. Love you.
TG
February 17th, 2006 at 1:55 am
my understanding of it was that in most cases it prevents the egg from being fertilized period. either way i would say that no it doesnt count as a form of abortion since the egg never establishes itself to the wall. ive tried to isolate the time when a fetus becomes human and i can only come up with when its heart begins beating.
i disagree philosophically with the idea that if a child is unwanted a woman should have the right to abort. that argument doesnt work if the child is 2 years old. so the argument should focus on where the line is drawn. at what stage is it termination and what stage is it murder?
February 17th, 2006 at 9:12 am
I agree with Brico. At what stage is it termination and at what stage is it murder? I am of the feeling that as soon as those cells are formed, it is a life. Are there circumstances, though, in which a termination might be necessary? Absolutely. Just because a child isn’t wanted isn’t a good enough reason, to me, to terminate.
I understand that “mistakes” (not that a child is ever a mistake!) can be made in the heat of passion, but…here is my thing…..If a child isn’t wanted in the first place then either keep your legs closed or use protection. The morning after pill just makes it so much easier to be nonchalant about sex.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
You raise an interesting question and debate–when does life begin?
As a person who knows the wonder that adoption can bring to a family, part of me is against it. But part of me also says, it’s a form of birth control. For some reason, I don’t find it quite as deplorable as what happens to a fetus when it’s aborted…
February 17th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
wear a damn condom.
but seriously i don’t have a problem with it. it does bother me tho, when people are careless and then resort to extreme measures to avoid a pregnancy that may or may not have already started. especially when it becomes routine. sorry i just know people who’ve had numerous abortions rather than use a damn condom. honestly! creates a bad image for those who genuinely need it.
harumph.
February 18th, 2006 at 2:22 am
Here’s my understanding of the whole situation, which could probably be wrong.
First, the morning-after pill shouldn’t be confused with the abortion pill. The abortion pill is for after the egg is fertilised by the sperm and attaches itself to the uterine lining. The morning after pill could potentially rid the body of a fertilised egg which has not yet implanted into the lining. This typically happens within a week of fertilization and that is why the pill is only good for the 5 days (although I’ve been told 72 hours) of implantation.
While I believe in choice, I do not believe I could choose to have an abortion. I have been faced with the decision before, and my personal feeling is “let life live.”
I have, however, taken the morning after pill in the past and do not feel, in any way, that it was an abortion.
All of these things don’t matter a hill of beans, though, because I’m with Tommy Gunn on this one. And I’m a left-winger, at that. The government has absolutely no place in telling private industry what it must sell. That’s the beauty of a free market–if you don’t like what’s being done at one business, go to another one. The market should decide what is sold and not sold in certain stores. Should a Buddhist bookstore be forced to sell a Holy Bible because the consumers want to go to that store to sell it? No.
So if Wal-Mart doesn’t want to sell something, don’t go there. There’s a million other good reasons not to shop there anyway.
I understand the need for certain regulations in business–anti-trust laws, minimum wage, working standards, etc–but when the government steps in and starts telling retailers what to sell, it’s going too far. I may be a liberal left-winger, but I wholeheartedly believe the government needs to step back and get out of the way of free enterprise. It’s exercising too much control when it steps in to this degree.
While the abortion discussion is interesting, the main issue here is the interference of the government into private business, a place where it has no right to be. hear, hear, TG!
And I’m with Clara, too. Wear a friggin condom!
February 18th, 2006 at 2:23 am
oops, didn’t realize that comment was so long. sorry!
February 18th, 2006 at 6:02 am
I see little difference between using birth control and the morning after pill…
It’s apples and oranges where abortion is concerned.
It is distrubing however that a retailer be forced to carry any type of product. I tried to purchase a sudafed product at a pharmacy who declines to carry it because of it’s use in meth labs.
(In Oregon, one much show ID, be over 18 and they are tracked in a database for sudafed purchases. Buying it or selling it is a pain.)
Excellent post and discussion!
February 18th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
i think im going to have to do a post based on what sissy b brought up in regards to free enterprise.