Sunday, November 20, 2005

Target, continued.

I really don't feel as if that letter told the whole story.

But I really, really need to be able to buy a three-pack of underpants for $3.46 without going to Wal-Mart.

I hate Wal-Mart.Let's have some honesty. I don't hate them for their recent healthcare scandal. Nor for the elitist traditional reasons of suburban sprawl, decimated town centers, the homogenization of America, musical censorship, and everything else that makes college students from recently arrived large square states insist that they patronize the Salvation Army while actually burning through Daddy's credit at Urban Outfitters.

I hate Wal-Mart because there is always some enormous woman in irregular stretch jeans and a stained kitten sweatshirt hefting her massive arms to swat at her equally disproportionate cracker-clotted children, who are frequently industriously working at leaving oily spots on each and every-ahem. There's always some fat bitch hitting her fat kids. And I don't need to see that. So Target it is. I'm poor, I need somewhere to buy things, and Goodwill isn't good for anything that needs to touch the goody bits or get plugged in to the wall.

This emergency contraception thing needs to be resolved.

Thus, I investigate.

Target says "As an Equal Opportunity Employer, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also requires us to accommodate our team members’ sincerely held religious beliefs...Our policy is similar to that of many other retailers and follows the recommendations of the American Pharmacists Association.", while Planned Parenthood interim president Karen Pearl insists "If Kmart, CVS, Costco and other chains can find a way to accommodate employees while still ensuring that patients receive timely, on-site access to their prescription medication, why can't Target?"

First step- resolve paradoxical information. I wrote to several large pharmacy chains, including two of those mentioned by the fine Ms. Pearl. I wrote to CVS, Brooks, Walgreens, and KMart. I suspect that their policies can't be uniform. CVS and Brooks/Eckerd are based in solidly blue-state New England, while Walgreens and KMart are based in Iowa and founded in Michigan, respectively. It seems to me that the further from the coast a state is, the more authority figures want women in that state to be pregnant. Of course, that's an absurd assumption.

But we'll see how it plays out.

Other areas of investigation-
a. pharmacy procedures.
What exactly does a pharmacist do? How is that qualitatively morally different than a catholic cashier selling condoms?
b. the missouri incident-
What exactly was at issue? was there a resolution? was the prescription transferred?
c. accessibility-
Are targets more likely to be located in rural areas? That might be a factor. Not a stated factor, but a possibility.







2 comments:

Roger Williams said...

A CVS in "solidly blue state" Warwick, RI recently ran into the Target dilemma, and handled it the same way, which partially answers your question. She had to drive to another CVS in Warwick (which the pharmacist directed her to) and the prescription was filled. That was about it.

You want a real change? Send more atheists to pharmacy school, and more Catholics to film school. Sure, we'll have to suffer through more "Passion of the Christ" type movies, but this problem will disappear entirely.

Roger Williams said...

On an unrelated note, you should take a look at my newest entry for a cameo by a small minority figure.