Pharmacy Board rules

Navigation

User login

Online users

Samuel Jessup
agathafrye
JstPlnOnry
Logarithm

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

Pharmacy Board rules

Submitted by Rick on Thu, 04/12/2007 - 9:00pm.

The Olympian:

Druggists who think "morning-after" birth control pills are tantamount to abortion can't stand in the way of a patient's right to get a prescription, state regulators said Thursday.
In a unanimous vote, the state Board of Pharmacy ruled that drug stores have a duty to fill lawful prescriptions, regardless of an individual pharmacist's personal objections to any particular medication.
The rule is a compromise worked out last year by Gov. Chris Gregoire, women's advocates and the Washington State Pharmacy Association.

Can you break it down for us Janet?

Rick's blog
Login or register to post comments

Sure, Rick

Submitted by jlw on Thu, 04/12/2007 - 9:18pm.

This is actually a great rule, because it does give a pharmacist or other pharmacy employee with qualms about certain medications some wiggle room; as long as a pharmacy has provided for the contingency that one pharmacy employee might prefer not to dispense certain medications by ensuring that someone else working at that time is able to, the pharmacist or pharmacy tech with qualms can step aside. However, the pharmacy is responsible for ensuring that medication therapy is delivered in a timely manner, i.e., someone has to be available at all times who is willing to dispense, so patient care is not compromised by an individual's "moral" beliefs.

Although requirements for stocking are covered by existing code, this new rule does reference the existing stocking WAC, stating an expectation of "good faith compliance" with it. Additionally, in recent Board of Pharmacy meetings (I've attended two in the last two weeks), the Board has discussed its expectations for stocking. It is clear that the expectation is that pharmacies will stock drugs for which there is a demonstrated demand by the community it serves. However, at the meeting today, there was some discussion of this matter, and it was clear that while the Board of Pharmacy expects pharmacies to make arrangements to meet the needs of their patients, it will not be unreasonable and punitive. For instance, they don't expect every pharmacy to stock every expensive medication in every dosage at all times. However, when there is a demonstrated need, they expect the pharmacy to accommodate that need.

Altogether, very satisfactory new rules, which will go in effect in mid-June!

yay

Submitted by enpen on Thu, 04/12/2007 - 11:20pm.

My family is happier for this.

"Anybody who doesn't know that politics is crime has got a few screws loose."

Unless explicitlly told to

Submitted by Ehver Green on Fri, 04/13/2007 - 11:02am.

Unless explicitlly told to do so, I don't expect you'll find this at Ralph's anytime soon.

I'm also curious to know if this is truly OTC. Is it OTC for 18 and up proven by valid ID? Do women under 18 need an RX? I could see where he keeps short supply on hand for the RX, but not for the OTC crowd.

Either way, I agree with the ruling that someone should be available to fill an RX. I would disagree with any forced requirement that a store must carry it. If the comments on The Olympian are correct, this would only be the second drug required to be in a pharmacy.

Don't believe what you read in the comments

Submitted by jlw on Sun, 04/15/2007 - 9:17am.

According to existing state regulations governing pharmacies, a pharmacy is required to maintain adequate stock to meet the pharmaceutical needs of the patients it serves. No drug is mentioned explicitly in the WAC I am referring to, WAC 246.869.150. It is vague, and subject to interpretation. The new Pharmacist Professional Responsibility WAC unanimously adopted Thursday refers to WAC 246.869.150, and discusses "good faith compliance" with it. At recent Pharmacy Board meetings, the issue of whether or not Plan B must be stocked at a pharmacy has been discussed. Pharmacy Board staffers have maintained that stocking requirements are covered by existing code, and depend upon whether or not there is demonstrated need within the community the pharmacy serves. Nine complaints against Ralph's for not stocking Plan B suggests that there is an unmet demonstrated need for emergency contraception among the community Ralph's Thriftway Pharmacy serves. The Board of Pharmacy has concluded its investigation into the complaints against Ralph's, and a board member is now reviewing the case prior to making a recommendation for disciplinary action, which must be approved by the entire Board.

Even the stories in the Olympian are sometimes written by people who don't always actually attend the Board of Pharmacy meetings; Brad Shannon was not at Thursday's meeting, although the AP writer, Curt Woodward, was. The comments section is an even less reliable source of information. No Pharmacy Board code specifically mentions emergency contraception or Plan B. The code uses vague language which will be subject to interpretation by the Board; however, despite the contention of some olybloggers that a patient doesn't really NEED contraception, the Board has seen fit to investigate complaints against Ralph's (as well as three other pharmacies, all of whom now stock Plan B and who have not been "disciplined"), and will soon be making a decision about how to punish Ralph's for its violations of existing state regulations.

As for whether this is truly OTC, it's available without a prescription for women 18 and over. However, unlike aspirin or antacid, you can't get it at the 7/11. It's only available in pharmacies, which makes it far less accessible than other OTC drugs. They keep it behind the counter and require ID. Women 17 and younger need a prescription to get emergency contraception. It's a strange and unique way to be "over the counter." However, it's a good thing for pharmacies that it's now distributed this way, since if an individual pharmacist feels that his or her personal moral beliefs are somehow compromised by handing a woman some birth control, he or she can now delegate this job to a pharmacy tech. Pharmacy techs don't make nearly as much as pharmacists, so a pharmacy doesn't have to have two highly paid pharmacists present to ensure that there's one working who's not too uptight to fill prescriptions for birth control.

You're kidding, right? We

Submitted by Ehver Green on Sun, 04/15/2007 - 2:26pm.

You're kidding, right? We are talking about drugs. Good faith compliance is an agreement I'd have with a neighbor, not suited for governing real policy. Nine complaints? How many RX's have been filled at other stores in the area? Were they refused RX's or OTC customers? I'm thinking I can count 9 on two hands. That is hardly a demand.

I believe the board must investigate all credible complaints regardless of their content and no matter how petty they might be. I also think they'll ensure they have wiggle room - freedom of religion lawsuits are pretty easy to prove and win.

Honestly, I don't understand any of it (protest, boycotts, etc.). Not for lack of trying. I can't get my head around how someone who has access to a store at the convenience of the stores owner, believes they are important enough to cause unjust financial harm. You are more important than the owner (his beliefs) and his business and the employees. That's what you are telling me? Or, are you afraid of religion in general? No, I'm not a religious person...but I have compassion for other people and their beliefs. No reason to go the blackmail route.

Believe me, there are things in this world that I find unjust. But, I make personal decisions about how to deal with them. I have enough conviction in my personal beliefs that I don't need anybody to validate what I'm thinking. Life is just too short, much better ways to spend my energy. In your case, maybe life is just too long and you've got to fill the void.

Slam me, I could care less. What I find most distrubing is that those who are on a crusade here will stop when they get their way (my 3 year old does that, too). But, will they then take their business back to Ralph's? I don't think so! So, what is Stormans incentive to make a step towards "good faith?"

Most people I know Love Ralphs and Bayview

Submitted by Crenshaw Sepulveda on Sun, 04/15/2007 - 2:45pm.

That is the part that I find really interesting, most of the boycotters really want to shop at Ralphs and Bayview but will not shop there until they stop stepping on the rights of women. Most put up with the displays of "inspirational" literature and the like. Believe me this boycott is probably hurting the boycotters the most as they have to shop in far more inconvenient stores for what they normally would purchase at Ralphs or Bayview. Many is the time I wanted to go into the Bayview for something I knew they carried but I refuse until Stormans gives up his crusade against women. It is Stormans that is trying to score the political points, the protesters are keeping him honest and calling him out for what he is.

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

Whoa!

Submitted by jlw on Sun, 04/15/2007 - 3:22pm.

Calm down, fella! You asked some questions, I answered them, and then you attacked! Well, the fact is, I don't have time to respond to a post like that one! You are WAY out of line.

I guess we'll disagree. I

Submitted by Ehver Green on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 9:01am.

I guess we'll disagree. I find you way out of line. I find this whole line of thinking to be self-important. What will be next? Can't wait to see where the next battle for superiority might be...

so much fodder

Submitted by enpen on Sun, 04/15/2007 - 11:48pm.

I can't get my head around how someone who has access to a store at the convenience of the stores owner, believes they are important enough to cause unjust financial harm. You are more important than the owner (his beliefs) and his business and the employees. That's what you are telling me? Or, are you afraid of religion in general? No, I'm not a religious person...but I have compassion for other people and their beliefs. No reason to go the blackmail route.

Wow. Where to start...where to start. Very few businesses are capable of remaining solvent without a customer base. You have your equation backwards: most store owners are open at the convenience of the clientèle. And where did this notion of "unjust" suddenly materialize from? If you disagree with the principles and/or actions of a business it is absolutely just for you to publicly air your grief. If people are inclined to agree with you, they'll join the effort, if not, solo boycotts are typically ineffective. Defamation would be another matter entirely. As far as having compassion for people and their beliefs, does that mean you would support a Christian Scientist licensed Pharmacy that refuses to dispense prescriptions? At what point would such a fungible definition of "pharmacy" cause this license to lose its value? If we throw out the matter of a licensing system then I agree with you, Stormans should be able to sell whatever the hell they want at their "pharmacy". However, because we bother with such a system of quality control wherein pharmacies definitively exist to dispense doctor prescribed medications, it seems a little ridiculous to then place the pharmacist (or in this case the pharmacy's owner) in a position of greater medical authority than the doctor.

I have enough conviction in my personal beliefs that I don't need anybody to validate what I'm thinking.

That's 100% bogus. Or else you're a solipsist.

So, what is Stormans incentive to make a step towards "good faith?"

I can't imagine Stormans put a pharmacy in his store to increase revenue; however, if he is business savvy like that then his incentive would be to maintain that source of revenue and the secondary sales its presence develops.

A business is supposed to be a service to its community, not the other way around.

"Anybody who doesn't know that politics is crime has got a few screws loose."

Enpen, he opened the

Submitted by Ehver Green on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 9:08am.

Enpen, he opened the doors. He runs the ops, the hr, the supply. I agree (obviously) without customers, he's out of business. I won't beat a dead horse. Refer to my 'out of line' comment if you will. My mind hasn't and won't change.

Hey dude,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 10:55am.

what are you passionate about? what gets you riled up (besides yelling at boycotting hippies)? seriously. perhaps if you think of something, whether it be guns, guitars, yogurt, whatever it is that you love and feel like you have the right to have, and then imagine if somebody said "you can't have that because I don't believe it's ok". how would you react? you say you don't believe in boycotts but if it was something you cared about deeply don't you think you'd change your mind?

based on your comments on this subject, i gather you think janet's fight is pretty trivial. but janet doesn't. janet believes that plan b is something that women have a right to have. she believes so strongly that she organized a huge and successful boycott. i can't imagine there's nothing you wouldn't get equally excited about.

i'm not going to judge you or devalue your opinions because that gets us nowhere. i'm just really curious as to why you respond to certain things the way you do. it's frustrating for me, as try to remain a balanced person, when i try to express myself or my ideas or my dreams and you sometimes tend to belittle them, yet don't really give much of an explanation why. this thread is another example. what would you have done in janet's shoes? let's try to build community, not isolate one another.

Rob, thank you for helping

Submitted by Ehver Green on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 4:08pm.

Rob, thank you for helping me make my point! I do like guitars. Own several of them. Wanted to buy an Alpine White Epiphone LP Custom. Went to Music 6000. They don't carry Gibson/Epiphone. I had to go to another store to buy it.

In Janet's shoes I would have simply gone elsewhere to get what I wanted and stopped shopping at Ralph's. Honestly, that is what I would have done. I could lobby for and even picket to have Music 6000 carry that equipment, but what's the point? They don't want to carry it for whatever reason (by the way, it is a financial decision in the case of Gibson/Epi). Who am I to try and change the business owners decision? Whether it be based on morals, or religion, it doens't matter. I haven't stopped shopping at Music 6000, but I prefer to buy from Capital City Guitar. But, sometimes they don't carry certain stock. So, I go back to Music 6000.

Obviously the gravity here is greater. We are talking about a drug vs. guitars. It doesn't change the fact that I couldn't find what I wanted (don't you dare say need in the case of Plan B).

You talk about building community yet this is the greatest form of isolation. It's overtly ironic...

In the end, if Janet and the rest of the Plan B supporters win (if you can call it that), Ralph's will have a decision to make regarding the products they carry in their store. It's a decision that he should make based on market conditions. Nine complaints is far from a supply and demand market.

You know what I'd like to boycott? I'd like to organize boycotts around all the businesses of the people who support forcing their beliefs and opinions on Kevin Storman's. Hang out in front of your place of business driving away potential customers because I disagree with your position.

Remember, Janet can have her Plan B, all women can. Just can't get it at Ralph's. There are several stores in 5 mile radius that dispense Plan B.

Whoa..

Submitted by bubba z (not verified) on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 4:29pm.

Are you seriously comparing a pharmacy to a music store?

That is just flagrantly ignorant..

Also,

Anybody & Everybody is free to boycott whatever they want, whenever they want.

If you dont like it, well then thats just nice and all..

Boycotting is not regulated by the government.

Pharmacies are..

RE: "Remember, Janet can have her Plan B, all women can. Just can't get it at Ralph's. There are several stores in 5 mile radius that dispense Plan B..."

Do you really speak to women this way??

It's interesting...

Submitted by jlw on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 5:02pm.

I've noticed that Olycop and Ehvergreen and other anti-feminist posters have tried to make this all about me, personally, and my birth control. Really, are they that short-sighted? Naturally, it is, as usual, the most vulnerable people who are most at risk because of Ralph's policy: very young women, women without access to transportation, rape victims, women who are in abusive relationships, the mentally ill, the physically ill, the poor. I don't even want to think about what women east of the mountains have to go through if their local pharmacy owner thinks God disapproves of birth control. I am so happy that all women, and now, thanks to the new code, all people, will be able to take it for granted that they can take their prescription into a pharmacy and get it filled, without someone imposing their "moral" standards on them.

a business proposition

Submitted by enpen on Wed, 04/18/2007 - 12:32pm.

Hey Ehver, I like your logic so much that I've a business proposition for you to invest it. Here's the gist of it: we open up something called a "Hospital". Then, when people start showing up with their "medical conditions" we take their money, check them into private rooms (private = huge selling point) and then we have trained "doctors" check in on them every hour by conducting 5 minute prayer sessions at the foot of their beds. If anybody complains about the lack of "real medical treatment" we can simply inform them that we pay the bills so we make the rules.

As you're clearly one of the few people who could see the genius in this plan I just had to give you this once in a lifetime opportunity to get involved on the ground floor of this revolutionary lexical enterprise.

"Anybody who doesn't know that politics is crime has got a few screws loose."

Now you're just being dumb.

Submitted by Ehver Green on Wed, 04/18/2007 - 1:33pm.

Now you're just being dumb.

"...blackmail..." ? ..."life too long" ?!

Submitted by chad360 on Wed, 04/18/2007 - 11:54am.

"Evher Green", not to be too drive-by here, but you are just a piece of fucking sh*t! How's that for truthful First Amendment dialog? That quip about "life being to long" for Janet should get you banned for life on this blog...but I imagine you would just get another handle... If you can't keep your thinly veiled hate off of this 'blog, then just pls follow your own advice to Janet B. Have a nice day :-)

Love it. Feed me more.

Submitted by Ehver Green on Wed, 04/18/2007 - 12:03pm.

Love it. Feed me more. Did last nights decision get you all riled up? Did TJ's 2nd grade, "I'm taking my ball and going home" breakdown fuel your fire? You made my day, dude.

ok guys, take a nice DEEP

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 04/18/2007 - 12:18pm.

ok guys, take a nice DEEP breath and step away from the keyboard(s). EG, you are getting too much of a thrill from this, Chad, Janet is a big girl and is more than capable of taking care of herself (she's proven this on several occasions)

Lots of emotions are running high lately, lots of crap has been hitting the fan. I think we would ALL benefit by trying to stay as positive as possible for the next few days just to let fear/anxiety/tension run it's course outside of the blog.

omg

Submitted by enpen on Wed, 04/18/2007 - 12:34pm.

Commie.

"Anybody who doesn't know that politics is crime has got a few screws loose."

Heh

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 04/18/2007 - 1:11pm.

Just don't call me "Red Norm"

Norm for docent..

Submitted by bubba z (not verified) on Wed, 04/18/2007 - 1:15pm.

This should happen..

Norm has enough

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 04/18/2007 - 1:18pm.

Norm has enough problems....most of them are in his head though

bullshit..

Submitted by bubba z (not verified) on Wed, 04/18/2007 - 1:52pm.

This blog is your head..

(do you hear any voices?)

Thanks, Norm

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 04/18/2007 - 12:36pm.

For playing umpire.

I have to add -- while both Chad and EG are out of line here -- I see Chad's as more of a crime of passion. EG's response, with that cold, in-your-face attitude, should earn a quick trip to the "banned" department. Just my POV.

When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. -C.P. Snow

Rick, it's on you. I'm not

Submitted by Ehver Green on Wed, 04/18/2007 - 1:04pm.

Rick, it's on you. I'm not going to ask for you to remove my account. If I'm not able to login at any point, I'll know why.

rude dog

Submitted by chad360 on Mon, 04/23/2007 - 12:25pm.

I have determined I'm unfit for blogging! I think I'm gonna take the summer off and just post pix here, as well as the odd flyer... Posse, I don't follow the Council, could care less about what TJ says or does, and am still mad! >GRRR<

Walking away every once in a

Submitted by Mike on Mon, 04/23/2007 - 5:52pm.

Walking away every once in a while is helpful. Storming off is cathartic, but entails slinking back, but if the passions rise and storming off is required, so be it. I have stopped posting many places (and some wish I would expand that list a wee bit) because of the level of the discussion and vitriol level. Olyblog is relatively civil.

I'd like to stay focused on the issue

Submitted by jlw on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 12:18pm.

It seems more productive to me to stay focused on the issue here, not personal attacks. So I'm looking through Ehvergreen's post to see if there's anything other than insults and psychological projections to respond to.....

Well, the concepts of good faith and bad faith are very important in law, so it's rather naive to pooh-pooh legal language referencing "good faith compliance." Check out the wikipipedia articles on "good faith" and "bad faith" for an overview of these concepts.

I think everyone realizes that nine complaints about a health care provider is a very significant number -- the number of complaints undoubtedly represents a much greater number of actual violations.

As for Stormans' incentive to stock Plan B, I can see two. There are actually many people who have said they will resume shopping at Ralph's and Bayview once they stock Plan B, or at least that's what they've said to me. But we've already seen that Ralph's and Bayview are willing to lose those customers. The Board of Pharmacy, as the regulatory body of the pharmacy industry, has the power to deprive Ralph's Thriftway Pharmacy of its pharmacy license, as well as take other disciplinary actions, so I would consider the threat of punitive action an incentive.

I don't really see anything else Ehvergreen's written that addresses the issue. But I would like to thank him for comparing me and the other complainants to tantrumming three-year-olds. The image of an angry three-year-old downloading the Board of Pharmacy complaint form from the Department of Health website, and completing it, along with all the other paperwork forms we've been required to deal with over the months, is very amusing!

Janet, you are no angel

Submitted by Ehver Green on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 3:42pm.

Janet, you are no angel here. In your first post on the subject (this topic) what's with the quotes around moral? It is framed as a sarcastic or demeaning or? You took a stab at Storman's religious position.

The good faith language doesn't always hold up in court. In my line of work we provided "best effort" support. We also used the term "good faith" in reference to how we would distribute hotfixes (patches). Guess what? We lost in court because of those terms. We no longer use them in legal documents instead opting for phrases like "commercially viable."

Lastly, you are welcome. It's my sensory - and that's what it is telling me.

The quotes certainly belong there

Submitted by jlw on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 4:54pm.

I see nothing "moral" about withholding birth control from women who need it. In fact, such an act could be seen as immoral according to some ethical systems.

Again, I have to say I wish you could refrain from the personal attacks. They add absolutely nothing to the discussion, and it seems to me that they are driving people away from Olyblog.

If you have an issue with using the phrase "good faith compliance" in state administrative code, I suggest you communicate your concern with the Board of Pharmacy. It's too late to keep it out of the rules that were just adopted Thursday, however.

As a Ralphs Shopper..

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 3:52pm.

I support this boycott..

Boycotting is legal free speech..

And I agree with you 100%.

Submitted by Ehver Green on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 4:09pm.

And I agree with you 100%. That is where it should end, but it's not always enough for some.

Dont misrepresent..

Submitted by bubba z (not verified) on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 4:35pm.

RE: "That is where it should end, but it's not always enough for some..."

Makes no sense..

As far as I can tell, this is just another boycott, just like any other..

They end when folks decide to stop boycotting..

Congratulations on your hard

Submitted by Norm on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 4:18pm.

Congratulations on your hard work paying off Janet. Some of us may not be as passionate about the subject as you, but many of us are willing to acknowledge your energy and time spent.

Thanks, Norm!

Submitted by jlw on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 5:07pm.

I'm very happy about this. The real credit should go to women's rights advocacy groups and the governor, but I do believe that the real life pharmacy refusals here in Olympia helped to put a face on the problem. I'm very happy about the way the rule is crafted, as well, to allow some room for an individual pharmacist to refuse if someone else present is willing to fill a prescription; it makes the rule less subject to legal challenge, while still putting patient care first.

Completely off topic:

Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 4:53pm.

Ehver Green, Did you used to be in a band with a guy named Paul Lynch who went to Capitol? I used to work at Costco with him and we were good friends, I swore he said the name of his high school band was the same as your screen name. Maybe just a coincidence.

Nope. I went to Timberline

Submitted by Ehver Green on Tue, 04/17/2007 - 4:16pm.

Nope. I went to Timberline (must be what's wrong with me). Not that I couldn't have played with a guy from Capital, I guess. Ehver Green is the name of my band. http://www.myspace.com/ehvergreen

I saw the Board of Pharmacy decision in the papers

Submitted by Mike on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 4:58pm.

and I thought, wonderful! It's a pharmacy. It's licensed and controlled in ways that other businesses are not because of the health implications for pharmaceuticals. I also thought that the board came down with a sensible decision that validated Janet's work on the issue. The unique OTC situation is a little strange, but nonetheless: Take a bow, Janet B!

Thanks, Mike!

Submitted by jlw on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 5:08pm.

Isn't it great? Good for AIDS patients, as well. I know Equal Rights Washington is really happy about it.

Damn!

Submitted by OlyCop on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 6:12pm.

I can sit on the sidelines and watch the parade go by and I still get sucked into the vortex.

This is a belief system for me, I disagree with you Janet, and you disagree with me. Your evidence sucks for me and mine for you. The only thing this topic did for me was educate me on the standard pill. I never was against it until posts were made here that the pill will sometime kill a fertilized egg. After some research I have now learned that is the case, so I'm now anti-pill. It's a black and white issue for me. You don't kill an embryo, period. Not one, not ever.

As far as women's rights, I'm a strong supporter for womens rights. The right of the embryo trumps mama's rights though. This is only an embryo right, read child right.

Some here are ok with dispensing death to children at different stages. Enpen, (yup sucking you into the vortex buddy) is ok with dispensing death up to the complete child being exposed to the atomosphere. You Janet, I seem to remember it occurs some time in the womb, maybe in the third trimester I don't remember exactly when. For me it's at the moment of conception. Does that make me wrong? Some here may say yes, but I take my lead from a higher power, and no that's not a professor or a scientist.

One thing that women shouldn't be able to do and one they can't do.

1. They shouldn't be able to kill a child in the womb

2. They can't be assigned on Submarines. The last place that I know of that women are completely excluded from.

LOL

Like I said awhile back, Kevin Storman will show who his God is in this issue. He will either start dispensing Plan B, (read money is his God) or he will disband his pharmacy. It's his choice, and I hope he choses God, not money. The bad thing is all the disabled and elderly that rely on his pharmacy for their meds likely will have more difficulty in filling them if he disbands his pharmacies. But that doesn't matter does it Janet? It will be Kevin that has the guilt on his hands. No ownership for you in this hardship huh, Janet?

Pfffffttttttt.

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." Mao Tse Tung

Interesting projections, Olycop

Submitted by jlw on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 9:21pm.

Olycop, can you link me up to your evidence that shows that Plan B interferes with the implantation of a "child"? I've never seen any, and I'm pretty up-to-date on the research in this area. I don't remember you showing me any, nor do I remember determining that your evidence "sucks." Unless, of course, you didn't have any.

BTW, a fertilized egg before implantation is not called an embryo, it is referred to as a zygote. I know, I know, you're not a great believer in science, but being as the Bible doesn't actually say anything about implantation, it's hard to know what word God would use.

I don't really care to discuss abortion issues, because this thread is about contraception. However, just to clarify, I've never said when I believe "life begins." So please don't put words in my mouth.

Lastly, I agree that it will be sad if Kevin Stormans closes the pharmacy. However, I believe very strongly that pharmacies should be a regulated industry, and that a pharmacy that falls short of regulations should be either brought into compliance with code, or closed. As distressing as it would be to see a local pharmacy close, seeing an out-of-compliance pharmacy continue would be worse.

I have a question for you, Olycop. You say you're for women's rights. I find that statement a little surprising, because I haven't seen much evidence of respect for women coming from you. But I like to keep an open mind. So tell me, what rights do you believe women should have?

Pffffffftttttt.

Olycop, can you link me up

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 04/17/2007 - 5:40am.

Olycop, can you link me up to your evidence that shows that Plan B interferes with the implantation of a "child"?

I could have sworn that I posted something about this the last time we all had a go-round. I'll look around but I think the quote was something like: "....could possibly interfere with the implantation of a zygote.". Depending on when you consider conception/life to actually begin. Well you get the point.

Janet

Submitted by OlyCop on Tue, 04/17/2007 - 8:33am.

I did't realize I had to go through the mammalian life cycle to make my point. My point is whether it is at the point of fertillization, zygote stage, blastocyst stage, embryo, fetus, etc. you as a woman have no right over that separate life.

As far as my respect for women, the only issue we have ever discussed here is with respect to when life begins and the womans right to deal with another life. IMO women have absolutely no rights over that life, but neither do men.

Let me some it up for ya!! Equal rights for men and women, not special rights, and women nor men have any rights over the biological process that occurs inside the woman (usually) that subsequently becomes a child.

As for the evidence, I posted two links, Norm posted to a link, and there may have been others. The evidence is that it "may" not "definitely will" prevent the implantation of a fertillized egg. But as you, or someone here effectively schooled me, so will the pill possibly. So like I said black and white for me, no killing of that life.

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." Mao Tse Tung

"The right of the embryo trumps mama's rights though"

Submitted by chad360 on Wed, 04/18/2007 - 12:03pm.

OlyCop-- "Why does the "rights" of the embryo "trump"? Oh, and I agree about Kevin making a choice... --if he doesn't want to obey the law, then don't offer the "half-assed" service...seems simple to me, but then again I'm simple myself

Thank you Janet

Submitted by pseudonym on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 8:27pm.

for your efforts and dedication to women's rights. I truly feel benefited by your hard work. You are an asset to our community.

Thank YOU

Submitted by jlw on Mon, 04/16/2007 - 9:24pm.

Thanks for the kind words, and thanks for putting in time on the picket line!

Thank you Janet

Submitted by Sarah on Tue, 04/17/2007 - 9:48am.

I second pseudonym's motion. Thanks Janet for all your diligent work.

...did it all start hereon OlyBlog?

Submitted by chad360 on Wed, 04/18/2007 - 12:12pm.

E did a website, I posted on OlyBlog (with typos and all)...

Re: Plan B "Report Stormans to Better Busines Bureau"

On OlyBlog, Submitted by chad360 on Fri, 07/14/2006 - 9:35am.

Whoa

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 04/20/2007 - 12:51pm.

With all of this jabbing I can't tell if the boy-cott is still on. I assume it is. I got home late last night and had a craving for something sweet. I was fresh out of ice cream and cookies, and at midnight the coop was long past closed. I wish I could have gone to Ralph's, but until they start to treat women as human beings who are capable of making decisions for themselves, I won't.

In the Course of Events

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: