Nine complaints filed

Navigation

User login

Online users

Logarithm
JMK
agathafrye
oldtimeydave
emmettoconnell

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

Sara Ballard
GooseKaler
LongRider
non illegitimi ...
acreatureapart

Nine complaints filed

Submitted by Rick on Tue, 08/01/2006 - 6:45am.

Women contest Plan B stances - The Olympian:

TUMWATER - The battle over an Olympia pharmacy's refusal to stock emergency contraceptives intensified Monday as nine women filed complaints with the state against a handful of South Sound pharmacies that failed to have the Plan B morning-after pill on hand recently.

The pharmacies targeted include Ralph's Thriftway, which has been the focus of a boycott by activists that is beginning its second month today. Also named were an Albertsons Sav-On in Olympia, which was out of stock several times, as well as a Walgreen's and a Rite-Aid, both in Lacey.

"I hope this brings the focus on how stocking or inadequate stocking affects women's access to emergency contraception," Janet Blanding of Olympia said as she and other activists filed paperwork with the Department of Health in Tumwater.

Blanding was one of nine women to file complaints based on her personal experience of trying to obtain Plan B emergency contraception at local stores. She said she not only wants to make the medications more available to women who need them, but to clarify state policy so that pharmacies must stock emergency contraceptive medications.

Way to go Janet. Go here to see a refusal caught on video.

Rick's blog
Login or register to post comments

To me it's not even about

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Tue, 08/01/2006 - 9:11am.

To me it's not even about Plan B.

I hope Storman's, along with Frankie's (protesting the smoking initiative), stay strong and fight to defend private property.

I cannot tell you how much I believe that ability to be "king of your castle" is the backbone of a free people.

I'm really curious how all of this will come out in the end.

"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance."

You always say this...

Submitted by Rick on Tue, 08/01/2006 - 9:41am.

...but you never answer when people point out the following implications of your view:

Car makers could continue sell dangerous automobiles without any safety features.
Textile companies could continue to sell flamable pj's for children.
Food producers could use any chemicals in food whether they cause cancer or not.
Tobacco companies could continue to sell products that kill people every day.
Etc.

Please tell us why companies should be allowed to do this. Oh, and a response like "the market will sort it all out" really doesn't cut it. That approach assumes that the deaths caused by these products are just "collateral damage." That position is deeply immoral and indefensible. If you are unable to answer, then please cease with the constant hammering on private rights over public good.

I'm not against

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Tue, 08/01/2006 - 3:41pm.

I'm not against regulation.

I've said before that regulation is simply ensuring the product is safe, not forcing a business to carry the product.

For instance, your car example. The government should be involved with safety standards in order to regulate what a rational person would have no prior knowledge to.

How would someone know whether the Ford Escort they just bought has been made to a certain standard? It would be unreasonable to make every person to take their car apart.

Regulation shouldn't mean you're forced to carry the product, though. Continuing with the car example, just because the government has been involved with regulating how a car is made doesn't mean they should be forcing the local Ford dealership to carry the Escort.

It's the same with food preparation. I think it's perfectly fine that the government regulate how food is cooked in a restaurant.

It would again be unreasonable to expect every customer to go to the kitchen to watch their food being prepared.

Does this mean every restaurant should have to offer a certain food? No, it doesn't. It just means that if they do offer the specific product, it has been produced to meet a minimum set of standards.

Ralph's has a product...

Submitted by Rick on Tue, 08/01/2006 - 5:06pm.

...It's called a pharmacy. There are certain expectations and responsibilities that go along with offering that product.

A pharmacy is not a

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Tue, 08/01/2006 - 8:31pm.

A pharmacy is not a product.

As I said before, you wouldn't be saying there are "certain expectations and responsibilities" for a bar to carry a certain beer.

Of course it is.

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 6:22am.

That's why there's a pharmacy board.

And as people have responded to you in the past: a bar is not a part of the health care system. Your analogy is a bad one.

The thing that's interesting to me about the Ralph's situation is that the pharmacist's practice is actually being infringed upon by the store owner. Some of the people demonstrating against the grrrlcot had signs saying "Protect Pharmacists' Right to Choose") actually had the wrong end of the stick. That pharmacist wanted to dispense Plan B, but wasn't able to because of Storeman's policy.

And my point is intended to

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 8:13am.

And my point is intended to question why the pharmacy board has the power to force the owner to carry a product.

The bar example is a perfect one. There is a Liquor Control Board, which regulates the alcohol industry in Washington State. Would you think it was ok for the Liquor Control Board to force bars across Washington State to carry Busch Light?

And that if they didn't carry Busch Light, they would risk the Liquor Control Board revoking their alcohol license?

My first response to the second portion of your post is this: Was the pharmacist being paid by Ralph's or was he operating his own practice and was simply leasing space within the Ralph's building?

So how exactly...

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 8:35am.

...is a bar part of the health care system? To give another example, an ambulance company is part of the health care system, and thus is required to provide certain services. It doesn't matter who owns the ambulances, or whether they rent or lease their offices. Like an ambulance company, a pharmacy is also part of the health care system, and is subject to the same kind of requirements.

A bar is not part of the health care system. There is no basis for comparison. You can keep repeating this bad analogy, but saying it doesn't make it so.

Sorry, Rick, I'm gonna have

Submitted by Meta Hogan on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 12:42pm.

Sorry, Rick, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one. A bar is a legitimate and necessary part of a web of community-health-maintenance facilities. The minute they stop selling industrial-strength tranquilizers is the first minute of the collapse of civilization. Surely you can see the analogy! ;)

Oh, yeah.

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 12:51pm.

I forgot about that particular function of our beverage dispensing establishments. My bad.

I'm not trying to argue that

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 3:51pm.

I'm not trying to argue that a bar is part of the health care system.

Here's how I've been looking at it:

Both are fields (liquor and medicine) regulated by government.

Why is it acceptable for one regulatory agency (pharmacy board) to have such a tremendous amount of power that we would never give to the liquor board or most other regulatory agencies?

Because...

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 3:57pm.

...health care is a lot more important than inebriation (sorry Meta). Think about the difference between the regulation of nuclear power plants vs regulation of meat packing plants. There is no expectation that there would be the same level of oversight.

I've just spent the last

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 7:00pm.

I've just spent the last while looking through the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission website.

I'm really not sure if there are "different" types of nuclear power you can produce, but throughout all of this I can't find any statements which would lead me to believe you must sell a certain type or quantity of nuclear energy in order to keep your license.

Part 50 ("Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities") is where I spent most of my time browsing.

Breaking it down to the most basic foundation, this is no different than a regulatory guide for the food service industry (e.g. you have to construct Building A to certain standards, have a minimum number of employees in a station and so forth).

And we obviously don't force a grocery store to carry a certain meat just because it's regulated.

The only intent of regulation should be to ensure that, if a business does decide to carry a product, it has met a minimum standard.

I could use Norm or Olycop on this one to tell me if this is making sense, because I'm about 10 minutes from putting tinfoil on my head, walking around in a bedsheet, and turning the blinds up.

Using your logic...

Submitted by jlw on Tue, 08/01/2006 - 5:17pm.

... would it be appropriate for a feminist pharmacist to refuse to carry Viagra? How about a health nut who didn't want to give insulin and heart medicine to overweight people? How about a patriotic pharmacist who didn't want to dispense drugs to Muslims? Is all that okay? It's the king of the castle's right, or possibly the queen's right, to discriminate, right?

would it be appropriate for

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Tue, 08/01/2006 - 8:37pm.

would it be appropriate for a feminist pharmacist to refuse to carry Viagra?

That's up the pharmacy. I'm not going to do an about-face simply because Viagra is a product meant for older men.

How about a health nut who didn't want to give insulin and heart medicine to overweight people?

Again, that's a choice being made by the store.

It's the king of the castle's right, or possibly the queen's right, to discriminate, right?

Yes, it is.

Is this the acceptable mindset in the United States? At one time it used to be.

Don't worry, though. I'm pretty confident my line of thinking is dead in the mainstream. It won't be too long before Ralph's is either forced to carry Plan B or stop offering a pharmacy altogether.

Wow.

Submitted by jlw on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 9:56am.

If you think it's a pharmacy owner's right to discriminate, we're going to have to agree to disagree. We are very far removed, ideologically. Fortunately, the law protects members of protected classes from discrimination in places of public accommodation, but does not protect a pharmacist or pharmacy owner's right to discriminate.

Why should the gov't be

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 08/01/2006 - 11:35pm.

Why should the gov't be involved in one way (car safety or food prep), but not another (Plan B)? Don't you think avoiding unplanned or unwanted pregnancy is a health and safety issue? One might say that people should simply abstain from sex, but that's a values judgment, and quite frankly, a matter of opinion. I don't know about you, but I'd like to avoid opinions being legislated.

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." - T.P.

I didn't say the government

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 6:17am.

I didn't say the government shouldn't be involved with Plan B.

They should be involved with, the same as the others, ensuring the product has met a minimum standard.

Just because the product has met a minimum standard, though, doesn't mean anyone has to sell it.

This is why I used the car example. Not every car dealership offers every available model. Sure, they've all met minimum government safety standards, but that doesn't mean the government goes around and says, "You're a car dealership. You need to be selling X-model in order to maintain your car dealership status."

Avoiding unplanned or unwanted pregnancy is the responsibility of the individual, not society at-large.

No

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 9:21am.

Health issue, sure, safety issue, absolutely not, being pregnant isn't considered a dangerous health risk. Diabetes, heart disease, cancer, these are safety issues, pregnancy has been happening for a long time and the mortality rates are pretty slim at this point. So how else should we legislate this country? Maybe decide what everyone can eat, decide when they have to sleep and when they have to work. You may not like opinions being legislated but that's only when it's not your OWN opinion. I, on the other hand, would just like to avoid legislation period. Personal responsibility would be ideal.

It's not about legislating

Submitted by chaney on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 12:22pm.

It's not about legislating personal activity. It's about legislating commercial activity. If you don't regulate the activity of those with wealth and sway in the market, then the owners of companies rule the country. Owning a grocery store with a pharmacy should not give a person the right to make health care choices for their community, based on their personal ideology. I really don't see how anyone could debate this.

Owning a grocery store with

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 3:55pm.

Owning a grocery store with a pharmacy should not give a person the right to make health care choices for their community, based on their personal ideology.

Storman's is not making a health choice for the community, though. He didn't issue a decree to Olympians saying they could not use Plan B.

He made a choice that his business wouldn't offer a product.

I don't even know why I try to argue any of this, because the complaints are going to be found with basis and it will only be a few months before Storman's is forced to offer Plan B (or close up the pharmacy).

Heh

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 4:23pm.

and you wonder why small business in this country is failing. Big companies get away with all kinds of crap because they can afford it, but the little guys can't. It's not worth the effort to jump through all of the hoops that the government creates for a small business. Being told what you can and can't sell in your store is pretty ludicrous.
I'd make this post longer but I really have to use the restroom and unfortunately I haven't filled out my form 4458.2 "Government Permission to Urinate Before 6 o'clock PM." and if I don't finish it soon I'll have to fill out the one for not making it to the bathroom...I forget the number of that one though

People said the same thing...

Submitted by jlw on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 4:46pm.

...when restaurants were forced to de-segregate. They whined and moaned because they couldn't discriminate against African-Americans anymore. Change is hard.

Errr, yeah

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 10:16pm.

Sure, refusing to serve black people because of the color of their skin, and refusing to sell a product because you morally believe it's contributing to the death of a fetus, YEAH those are comparable. Come on Janet.

A fetus?

Submitted by jlw on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 6:23am.

Read up on the reproductive process. There's no fetus involved within 72 hours of having sex. As for discrimination, men can buy any kind of birth control that works for THEM at Ralph's Thriftway, not to mention Viagra, penis pumps, and supplements for their prostate health. Only women have been turned down for the morning after pill.

As far as being told what to

Submitted by chaney on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 12:00pm.

As far as being told what to sell and not to sell, I'm pretty annoyed that I can't open a hash bar in Olympia. There seems to be money to be made there, and it doesn't conflict with my personal ideology. Why can't I do it? Drug markets are regulated more tightly in this country than Everyproduct markets, and I think the majority agrees with that approach (even if they don't always agree with the specific regulation). Personally, I think that if someone comes to own and operate a pharmacy without jumping through regulatory hoops, then something is wrong with the country. We used to sell heroin at the corner drug store, you know...

Also I agree that big business needs to be targeted more than small in regulation, but the way to solve that problem is absolutely not to abandon regulation.

Actually

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 1:55pm.

I'm not one of those guys, Norm. I don't think anybody's opinion should be legislated.

Not a safety issue?

Submitted by yogi woman on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 8:15pm.

What if the pregnant woman drinks alcohol and/or does drugs? What if she is in an abusive relationship? I think that makes it pretty risky.

Or...

Submitted by Jade on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 9:26pm.

a history of high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, or a physical disability that could make pregnancy dangerous? What if she is extremely over- or underweight or has a serious eating disorder? What if she is still in early puberty? What if she has had numerous cesarean births and is at risk for uterine rupture? What if she has a family history of severe genetic abnormalities? What if she can't access prenatal care because of her nationality? What if she is related to the father of the baby? What if she has a job that exposes her to dangerous chemicals?

Do I need to go on? Why don't we just make it accessible and assume we don't know what all the ifs are.

Jade

(A Rose in the Pumpkin Patch)

Access to birth control...

Submitted by jlw on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 9:38pm.

... is correlated with both lower maternity mortality rates, and lower infant mortality rates. "A 2002 report from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health estimates that each $1 milion decline in contraceptive assistance results in 360,000 additional unintended pregnancies, 150,000 more induced abortions, 11,000 more infant deaths, and 800 more maternal deaths." -- from the PR Newswire, June 6, 2002.

The End of Poverty

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 9:43pm.

Janet and Jade,

You should read "The End of Poverty" by Jeffrey Sachs. Not only is it an all around good read about worldwide poverty, but he talks quite a bit about infant mortality rates as a product of poverty. I have a copy if anyone would like to borrow it.

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." - T.P.

oh c'mon

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 10:12pm.

You are talking about health risks that are outside of pregnancy that are already obvious and the person should be addressing them instead of relying on a pill that is what, 85% effective? If she is extremely overweight being pregnant probably isn't anymore dangerous than her already being overweight, are you claiming fat women don't get pregnant and have kids? Serious eating disorder more than likely means she isn't menstrating and can't/won't get pregnant, if she somehow does then maybe she should get some therapy from the doctor and gain some weight because she's in serious health problems BEFORE she was pregnant. Her pregnancy isn't the health crisis here. numerous cesareans? Get your friggin tubes tied! or get your mans tubes tied! can't afford it? get on the pill or the shot or whatever the heck you want. Ok, ladies, if you have a family history of severe genetic abnormalities, you aren't going to kill yourself with a pregnancy, but for the sake of the gene pool please get fixed, thanks. MANY women have had babies without prenatal healthcare, aren't you a doolah (sp? ) shouldn't you know that? being related to the father of the baby, and being exposed to dangerous chemicals may not be good for the baby, but it's not a health risk for the mother.
Again....and I'm only going to say it ONE more time. I'm not against plan B. There are enough friggin people on this planet. You want to kill your own offspring before they are ever born, you go right on ahead and expel them from your body. Don't try to convince me that it's NECESSARY to be able to do that though. There are a few cases where the mother's health can be in trouble and that's great, it's necessary then, but it should be done by a healthcare professional and not by popping a few pills on the toilet at home.

You really need to learn how Plan B works

Submitted by jlw on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 6:28am.

You don't pop a few pills over the toilet. (Perhaps you're thinking of RU486?) It doesn't kill a fetus. It prevents pregnancy, it doesn't end one. Plan B has no effect on an existing pregnancy. If a woman is already pregnant, it is too late for Plan B.

blah

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 8:10am.

I was being colorful and was on a roll. I'd edit it but it won't let me at this point in the game. So for fetus, insert "possibly" fertilized egg. My point still stands though. This medication isn't anymore necessary than viagra, or birth control pills or condoms or a TUMS. Yes, it is a good medication, yes it makes life more convenient, yes it could help our society by preventing some women from turning out more puppies ( although the ones that REALLY need not be having children, probably won't take the drug....wonderful ) BUT for as much good as it may do, I still can't say that I agree with it being a necessity.

A possibly fertilized egg is pretty different from a fetus

Submitted by jlw on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 8:31am.

And access to birth control affects maternal and infant mortality rates. I consider it necessary.

Ok

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 9:30am.

what part of "I'd edit it but it won't let me at this point in the game. So for fetus, insert "possibly" fertilized egg" did you not understand?

So you are claiming that Plan B will lower maternal and infant mortality rates? More so than say, abortion or other methods of birth control?

The only positive I see is that it's cheaper than an abortion for those people that can't seem to figure out how birth control works. It isn't necessary though because there are other medicines or procedures that are already being used that do the same thing. I think it's easier, and far less painful than the alternatives, and I have nothing against it being around, but it's not necessary. Get raped by your daddy? Have a D and C at the hospital, I'm sure the hospital ( legal reasons ) wouldn't even let you leave until they were sure you weren't going to be pregnant, why would they really on something that isn't as effective? I mean really, the niche that Plan B is filling is the folks that have a hard time with birth control, not the high need girls that get pregnant.

Okay, I think we'll have to agree to disagree

Submitted by jlw on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 11:52am.

If you think having a D & C at a hospital is just as good a follow-up procedure for a woman who was raped by her father as taking the MAP, we will never see eye-to-eye. Please have a little empathy. No hospital would recommend such a step. First of all, with the MAP, the rape victim will never know if she would have been pregnant. She won't have to worry about it for two or three weeks. That's a very big part of why the MAP is preferable to abortion. But secondly, abortions aren't fun. Surgery, in general, isn't fun. Anesthesia can be dangerous, and often unexpectedly so. Generally, abortions aren't performed before the 7th week of pregnancy, so the rape victim would have to suffer through a couple of weeks of unpleasant anticipation, while experiencing early pregnancy symptoms. Having a D&C following a rape is a far more emotionally and physically trying situation than using emergency birth control. I am sure that if you weren't so caught up in this argument, you would not be making such callous statements.

Not getting my point

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 12:14pm.

Being callous is sometimes called for. I've worked with patients after having a D & C. I can't say that I would ever want someone to go through it, but it still does the job.

"I think it's easier, and far less painful than the alternatives, and I have nothing against it being around, but it's not necessary." Is what I said verbatim. I think that birth control pills and condoms are far less painful than the alternative also, but I still don't think they are medically necessary. Hell I suppose your next project is to boycott any gas station that doesn't carry condoms?

My whole point in this ( because we are straying ) is what makes Plan B so "necessary" that storman should be forced to carry it at his pharmacy even though he objects to it on moral grounds? I'm not saying other procedures are going to be more pleasant, or easier, or cost effective. I'm glad plan b is around, I know too many women that hop into bed with men that really should not have children....ever. What I'm not glad about is the government swooping in to tell a business owner what products they must carry. He's already being hit where it hurts ( pocketbook ) I think we've done enough. He made his choice, and now he's paying for it, what some of you are trying to do now is just revenge, because I'm sure all of you that are doing this are never going to shop there again. Even if he's forced to carry the product, what happens when he orders ONE pill and only has it restocked every 2 weeks? He's still carrying it, but not meeting the demand...if any after all this hoohaa...of his customers, then what? Just seems like ridiculous amount of energy spent on a man who isn't going to change his mind unless he's forced to, and who's going to win?

Legislation is being drafted...

Submitted by jlw on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 3:18pm.

... to make access to contraception a legal right in the state of Washington. The Ralph's Thriftway policy has illustrated the problems women face in obtaining birth control Many people are shocked to learn that this kind of thing is still happening, in a place like Olympia. Many people have been shocked by the anti-female, anti-sex sentiments being angrily expressed in discussions of this issue, i.e., "it wouldn't be a problem if you women would just keep your legs closed!!" If the end result of the boycott is that women in Washington have their access to legal contraception legally protected, I will not consider the energy we've spent on this issue wasted, even if Kevin Stormans closes his pharmacy.

Yep

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 10:15pm.

Those are all pretty stupid things to do, and can be considered risky. They are risky of their own accord though, they have nothing to do with being pregnant. Maybe pregnancy intensifies it, but it still doesn't make being pregnant some kind of dangerous health issue. Sorry James, not convinced.

Not convinced?

Submitted by Jade on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 11:50pm.

Blood pressure is naturally elevated during pregnancy. For most people this is healthy. However, preeclampsia is one of the most common complications of pregnancy, affecting 5-8% of mothers. When severe, high blood pressure during pregnancy is a danger to both the mother and child's lives. There are times when the baby must be born months early, as ending the pregnancy is the only cure for preeclampsia.

Women with various bleeding disorders can bleed to death from a pregnancy, either internally or after birth.

Women who have severe eating disorders can in fact ovulate and become pregnant, and the pregnancy could kill her or her baby.

I'm sorry, Norm, but do I really have to go on?

You are right that pregnancy is not in and of itself dangerous. But people have all manner of health conditions, and pregnancy changes your body radically. For some people, being pregnant could be dangerous.

I really don't think I should have to prove that to you with examples. You should be smart enough to realize that there are many health complications out there. Not everyone is in good enough condition to safely carry to term and birth a baby.

I really don't like talking about this stuff because there is already enough over-the-top paranoia about pregnancy and birth. For most people, pregnancy and birth are totally safe. We were very much built for it. But there are exceptions to that. And occasionally, it can actually be dangerous to become pregnant.

Jade

(A Rose in the Pumpkin Patch)

Tada

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 8:02am.

"And occasionally, it can actually be dangerous to become pregnant." I never said it couldn't be dangerous to become pregnant, but pregnancy alone is not considered a health risk. Again, AGAIN, I'm not against plan B, I could honestly not care any less, but I fail to see how breaking a condom ( just an example ) getting a doctors appointment scheduled and getting plan B within 72 hours is going to save a woman's life who might be one of the 8% who ends up with preeclampsia.

OK

Submitted by Jade on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 12:27pm.

I don't understand how its relevant whether the danger is due to the pregnancy in combination with another condition, or just the pregnancy.

This is getting silly.

Jade

(A Rose in the Pumpkin Patch)

If everyone had the

Submitted by Meta Hogan on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 12:47pm.

If everyone had the financial wherewithal to stock their own castle with everything they could possibly need (ie, subsistence farm, private pharmacy, legal/medical professionals, etc.) then your perspective would make sense to me. As it is, these resources are distributed through a public network of for-profit enterprises. The "castle" metaphor does not work in a society where interdependence is the norm.

The "castle" metaphor should

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 3:57pm.

The "castle" metaphor should work in our society.

Like I said, I'm just going to start being a realist about all of this.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

Hate to bust yer bubble, TFI...

Submitted by Phil Owen on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 9:39am.

but the "castle" metaphor is an athropological impossibility. Human beings are, by nature, social beings. All human activity affects other people. We live in a culture, and everything we do has an effect on culture.

Utilitarians have long argued that the common good is best served by imposing an un-natural individuality - J.S. Mill's "sphere of liberty" where anything done that does not cause harm to another is considered "purely private" and ought to be allowed. Economists (the ultimate utilitarians) generally suggest that the common good is best served when each person looks after their own self interest.

The "prisoner's dilemma" offers a fairly simple refutation of this claim. So does the existence of pollution, of global warming, and of the fact that people still generally choose to drive rather than to invest in public transit. I would go a step further and suggest that any society that takes self-interest (read: greed) as its organizing principle is a base and morally bankrupt society.

I do not believe that the rich have any inherent claim to their wealth. Wealth is created in common with others through hard work and ingenuity. We allow some to profit off the hard work and ingenuity of others. Those who profit, the business owners, have entirely too much power in our society. And they often use that power in ways that are harmful to the common good.

Storman's has a responsibility to operate their pharmacy in a fashion that benefits the common good. There can be no argument (aside from some rather ludicrous "biblical" arguments that sometimes border on being unbiblical) that birth control is not of incredible value in terms of the common good. You can read some of the statistics cited in comments above to see that.

I don't know if I think that the government should force Storman's to sell Plan B. I'm generally opposed to the use of force. But I certainly DO think that the gov should set up a publically owned pharmacy directly across the street and sell ALL medicines at a cheaper price than Ralph's. The government maybe shouldn't force Storman's hand, but rather should use their bigger source of capital to run him out of business.

Hmm

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 10:26am.

So individuality is a bad thing?

No.

Submitted by Phil Owen on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 11:02am.

There is an issue of definitions to be sorted through here. In my previous comment, I meant to use the word "individualism".

Individuality, in the sense of strong character, is a very good thing. Even the kind of individuality that disobeys social norms and violates laws can at times be a very good thing (think MLK Jr). This kind of individuality is often guided by a powerful principle that generally puts the common good at a higher priority than personal good.

Individualism, which is the guiding principle of the "free market", is a horrible thing. Individualism views every person as an atomized individual separate from society. Society, rather than being a set of social institutions and norms, is an "aggregation of individuals". Given that people are NOT viewed as interdependent particpants in society, individualism pushes the value of "greatest good for the greatest number". It's the anti-moral that says that people are best served when each person tries to serve themselves. In my mind, this is practically satanistic.

In fact, I once heard an allegory about heaven and hell that is useful here: Imagine that heaven is a great banquet with everyone's favorite foods laid out on a beautiful long table. Now, imagine that hell is the very same. In both heaven and in hell, everyone has broken arms; each person wears casts that prevent them from feeding themselves. In hell, everyone stares glumly at their very favorite foods... while starving. In heaven, everyone feeds each other and not only enjoys the food, but the good company as well!

Business (in the capitalist system) is not about the common good, nor is it about the good of one's neighbor. It is about private profit. This allows for such horrors as keeping rotting grain stored up while people starve, because selling it cheap or giving it away is not profitable.

I find it unbelievable that, in a nation with such a huge majority of Christians, we live in such an unmercilessly capitalist society. Capitalism and Christianity are as incompatible as Soviet communism and Christianity. "One cannot serve two masters..."

not about plan b

Submitted by chad360 on Tue, 08/01/2006 - 9:47am.

Sorry Charlie aka "T.F.I", but that is exactly what this is about! Better luck next time ;-)

Property rights

Submitted by Crenshaw Sepulveda on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 6:40pm.

I sure do love these fights about "property right" Folks, property has no rights, people have rights. People are also regulated in ways that infringe upon what they think are their rights. This infringement is for the benefit of society. If you want to live in a society where property has rights and and the rights of people are not infringed upon, just buy your own island in the middle of nowhere and set up your own rules and play your own games. If you want to live in a society with its benefits I suggest you grow up and play by the rules. Property rights, sheesh, what a crock.

"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^

Love it or leave it,

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 7:12pm.

Love it or leave it, right?

What I'm saying

Submitted by Crenshaw Sepulveda on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 8:20pm.

Is love this country and work to make it better for all that live here. Love this country and make it a better neighbor to the rest of this world. Love this country and its people with all your heart. Property, when it comes down to it is either dirt or tomorrow's junk. The people are our only and true treasure. People have rights, property doesn't. Having property doesn't give you more rights than the person without. Investing for profit is not a noble goal, investing in people is.

"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^

Maybe I'm just dense, but

Submitted by No One on Wed, 08/02/2006 - 11:39pm.

Maybe I'm just dense, but what I'm not hearing anyone say, at least not directly, is what someone may or may not do to with their own body is not for others to decide. I know the argument will be made by the "abortion is murder" people that an abortion or plan b -- which are NOT the same thing -- involves more than the pregnant person. The fact is, that the ONLY person that has any say over a human body is the owner of that body. To use the alcohol argument, no one has a right to tell an adult they can not drink. Ostensibly, the argument is that they aren't hurting any one and have the right to pursue that activity if they choose. Many don't even to bother to do it safely.

With the exception of one, every woman I've ever talked to about their having had an abortion says it's one of the saddest, most difficult things they had to do, but they are glad the option was there. They each had their own reasons for their choice, but without fail they knew that they were not in a position to be pregnant. Before taking me to task with the argument that they shouldn't have been having sex, in one case there was never any insertion. He had an orgasm outside of her body near her vagina, but was not inside her. She got pregnant.

If a medically (and relatively) safe and effective drug or procedure can be utilized at the discretion of the person undergoing that procedure, then fine. My niece went and got a boob job. Was it necessary? Only for reasons that are her own. Do I think she's crazy? It doesn't matter. It's not my body. I don't really care what Stormann's beliefs are, or if he ever sells plan-b. I just don't agree with him taking a philosophical stance to deny a medically proven and effective drug to the community. So, I don't plan to ever shop there again.

All philosophical diatribes aside, it's not anyone else's body. No one has the right to tell another human being what they may or may not do with it based on philosophical grounds. It is no one else's business. Period. No matter what their ego tells them.

Right

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 6:11am.

And nobody here is advocating that we be told what we can and cannot put into our body.

I just don't agree with him taking a philosophical stance to deny a medically proven and effective drug to the community.

He's not making a decision for the community.

He's making a decision for his business.

Again, it's not that Plan B is not available in Olympia. It's that it's not available at Ralph's or Bayview.

He's making a BAD decision for his business

Submitted by jlw on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 8:35am.

Shoppers have been alienated, business is down (by his own admission in The Olympian), the Pharmacy Board, the Human Rights Commission, and possibly the AG's office are all looking into the legality of his business practice of not stocking a drug that is only used by women. I'd hate to be in Kevin Stormans' shoes right now.

The only one of these which

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 8:38am.

The only one of these which has to do with making a bad decision is that business is down.

The others (Pharmacy Board, Human Rights Commission, and the AG's Office) are simply going to exercise the power the majority has given them in order to use force on Mr. Storman.

correction

Submitted by Crenshaw Sepulveda on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 8:53am.

Storman is not, as you stated "He's making a decision for his business.", he just trying to placate his conservative overlords. This is all just a sordid bit of political posturing (I know the left does it too). The time will come and Storman will be regulated in carrying Plan B. We'll see if he then wishes to continue his posturing when fines and loses of licenses are the consequences. I suspect he'll stock the product rather then lose some serious income.

"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^

All it takes is a few

Submitted by chaney on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 11:49am.

All it takes is a few similar decisions to seriously impact the availability of the drug in the community. That's the point. We're not talking about stocking toy stores here, we're talking about the availability of contraception in an age of unprecedented human population. Some things should not be in the hands of whoever owns the building and stocks the shelves, and that is one of them.

You've misinterpreted me.

Submitted by No One on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 1:06pm.

You've misinterpreted me. My statement you quoted does not say Stormann made a decision for the community or even on behalf of the community.

Ok

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 3:00pm.

I find myself clenching up everytime I click on this link and even moreso when I type out a reply. With that in mind I respectfully bow-out. Hopefully storman will wake up and realize he's helping nobody in this scenario.

Best wishes

Can I get an Amen for Norm

Submitted by Crenshaw Sepulveda on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 8:41pm.

Maybe the most sensible thing I seen in a while, "Hopefully storman will wake up and realize he's helping nobody in this scenario."

"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^

Amen.

Submitted by Rick on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 9:05pm.

Amen.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: