The earlier I search, the less information I find about this incident in Fenton, Mo. And the more I look at news sources rather than advocacy groups, the more ambiguity and contradiction I find. Please, planned parenthood- do not turn out to be manufacturing scandal where none existed before. That's totally what the other side does. FUCK.
From Saveroe.com on 10/27/05
"A 26-year-old Missouri woman was refused EC when she handed her prescription to a pharmacist at a Target store in Fenton, MO, on September 30. The woman was told by the pharmacist, “I won’t fill it. It’s my right not to fill it.” Target does not support a policy to have valid prescriptions for birth control, including emergency contraception, filled in-store without discrimination or delay!"
Buyblue.org merely rephrases the saveroe blurb, and lists them as a source.
One week EARLIER, on Oct. 20, 2005, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, in an article on a recent flurry of activities by Planned Parenthood, I was able to find vague mention of the incident.
"Two days ago, Planned Parenthood organized pickets outside the district office of Target in Bridgeton, to protest what the organization says was a Target pharmacist's refusal on Sept. 30 to fill a woman's order for emergency contraception.
A Target spokeswoman said the chain's own investigation determined that no such incident occurred. The woman claiming to have submitted the prescription said in a telephone interview Wednesday that it did." (Mannies, J. For Planned Parenthood, active month shows that it's in the game. St. Louis Post-Dispatch 10/20/05 pg. d3)
.
There was also this article, in the same paper, the day before.
Blog after blog, organization after organization uses the planned parenthood press release as their source. Goddamn. As far as I can tell, every bit of information floating around the web on this incident, other than the two mentions in the P-D, comes directly from Planned Parenthood. The age of the woman, the dialogue between her and the pharmacist, what happened after.
I am seriously trying SO HARD to find a newspaper article on the incident in Fenton. I'm trying so hard to confirm that what happened, happened. I have so far been able to confirm that there IS a Fenton, Missouri. There IS a Target, with an in-store pharmacy in Fenton.
I feel like Peter Sarsgaard in Shattered Glass, here.
You know what I'm going to do?
I'm going to write to Jo Mannies, of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Maybe she/he can tell me something more. I'm searching and searching and searching...and getting very nervous. If someone could just point me to one more newspaper article prior to the Dan Savage mention on 11/17/05, I'd be fucking delighted.
Plus, how's this for irony- going into my kitchen today, I was injured by a -coat hanger-. The skin on my foot is ripped open and really, really hurts. I am still pro-choice, however. But from now on, kids, lets use knitting needles, yes?
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
What's going on in Missouri
So I've been doing more research.
I did a lexis-nexis search of newspapers from MO, looking for newspaper articles about what actually happened in the Fenton incident. I haven't found one yet that tells me what happened AFTER the phamacist refused the prescription (it was a paper one), and BEFORE the media shitstorm.
But I did find this, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Group forms to fight Blunt's Plan B proposal
St. Louis-More than a dozen Missouri union and women's rights groups, along with some religious organizations, announced Wednesday that they've formed a new coalition to fight what they call Gov. Matt Blunt's "war on women."
"Governor Blunt has named his next target in his war on women -- and that target is birth control," said spokeswoman Stacey Newman after the new coalition's news conference at the Salad Bowl, 3949 Lindell Boulevard.
Called the "Coalition Against War on Women," the group is attacking Blunt's plan to push for a state law during the next legislative session that would allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for Plan B, commonly known as the "morning-after pill."
The pill prevents pregnancy if taken within a few days after unprotected sex. It cannot disrupt an established pregnancy, but critics oppose Plan B because it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.
Planned Parenthood and other members of the coalition say that the pill contains the same ingredients as ordinary birth-control pills.
Replied Blunt spokesman Spence Jackson: "The majority of Missourians will disagree . . . and see it as a drug to abort an unwanted child."
.(St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Metro Digest, 11/10/05).
Emergency contraception is an issue at all MO pharmacies, not just at Target. This is some serious peril, folks. Why is it that the fight over the policy of a single corporation has been allowed to overshadow (maybe even play understudy to) potential legislation of an entire state?
Nobody has to shop at Target. Some people have to live in Missouri. I assume so, at least, because it's still claiming a population. I wonder, though, if Target might not have been so targetted if they didn't have an incident in the right state at the right time.
Maybe, too, it's easier for Planned Parenthood to start a campaign against a corporation beloved by and familiar to us east-coast blue-state abortion-lovin' sensitive folks, than it is to go out and start a campaign in a population that may or may not believe that the morning after pill is an abortifacient.
I did a lexis-nexis search of newspapers from MO, looking for newspaper articles about what actually happened in the Fenton incident. I haven't found one yet that tells me what happened AFTER the phamacist refused the prescription (it was a paper one), and BEFORE the media shitstorm.
But I did find this, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Group forms to fight Blunt's Plan B proposal
St. Louis-More than a dozen Missouri union and women's rights groups, along with some religious organizations, announced Wednesday that they've formed a new coalition to fight what they call Gov. Matt Blunt's "war on women."
"Governor Blunt has named his next target in his war on women -- and that target is birth control," said spokeswoman Stacey Newman after the new coalition's news conference at the Salad Bowl, 3949 Lindell Boulevard.
Called the "Coalition Against War on Women," the group is attacking Blunt's plan to push for a state law during the next legislative session that would allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for Plan B, commonly known as the "morning-after pill."
The pill prevents pregnancy if taken within a few days after unprotected sex. It cannot disrupt an established pregnancy, but critics oppose Plan B because it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.
Planned Parenthood and other members of the coalition say that the pill contains the same ingredients as ordinary birth-control pills.
Replied Blunt spokesman Spence Jackson: "The majority of Missourians will disagree . . . and see it as a drug to abort an unwanted child."
.(St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Metro Digest, 11/10/05).
Emergency contraception is an issue at all MO pharmacies, not just at Target. This is some serious peril, folks. Why is it that the fight over the policy of a single corporation has been allowed to overshadow (maybe even play understudy to) potential legislation of an entire state?
Nobody has to shop at Target. Some people have to live in Missouri. I assume so, at least, because it's still claiming a population. I wonder, though, if Target might not have been so targetted if they didn't have an incident in the right state at the right time.
Maybe, too, it's easier for Planned Parenthood to start a campaign against a corporation beloved by and familiar to us east-coast blue-state abortion-lovin' sensitive folks, than it is to go out and start a campaign in a population that may or may not believe that the morning after pill is an abortifacient.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Pharmacy Procedures (How a scrip becomes a pill)
If I had time tonight, I would write this in the style of schoolhouse rock. Yet, I don't. I'm supposed to be writing a paper for my Psychology of Personality class.
So, doing research, talking to people with views different than mine, and people in the pharmacy industry, I've been able to isolate a reason for this whole dang EC thing. The claim is that filling a prescription is so much more involved than simply selling condoms, so a pro-life pharmacist who refuses to sell EC is more like a ob/gyn who won't perform abortions than a Catholic cashier who won't sell condoms.
Of course, my answer to that is that all of them are equally wrong. In fact, in my eyes, the cashier is most justified. Being a pharmacy clerk is situational employment. It's a low-paying job that a person takes because it's available and they were hired; a pharmacist or an ob/gyn has undergone years of schooling and professional training for their career. They've made a choice, knowing what the job involves might conflict with their personal beliefs, and yet persisted in persuing their career. I have no sympathy. More so because the cashier would get fired, yet the pharmacist and doctor are protected. It seems to me to be a class issue.
But I digress.
Is it really so involved? Is there something really special that goes on behind those ecru-half-walls that enclose the pharmacy from the area where glucose testing strips and "back massagers" are sold?
My pharmacy informant says not. I talked to a licensed pharmacy technician this week. In exchange for a box of generic fruits'n cream flavored oatmeal, she let me in on what goes on in a pharmacy. I call it-
How A Scrip Becomes A Pill
By H. Barista
First, a patient interacts with a doctor. The doctor determines the medication to be prescribed, and, if applicable, the dosage and amount of refills. At that point, the doctor hands the patient a prescription, or calls the prescription in to the pharmacy.
If the doctor calls the pharmacy, a pharmacy technician answers the phone. She takes down all of the information as if it had been written out, and enters it into the computer. If the doctor gave the patient a paper prescription, the patient brings it into the pharmacy and hands it to a pharmacy technician, who then enters the information into a computer.
The pharmacy technician then plays fun games with the insurance company. If they're like mine, they probably won't cover it, because they won't cover anything. If they're a good company, they will cover it.
The technician then goes and physically takes the medication off the shelf. She checks both the label and the pill against computer records. She counts it out and places it into a proper bottle. She then places a label on it. With Plan B, which is pre-packaged, she just places the prescription label on it.
Finally, she brings the prepared prescription to the pharmacist, who scans it once more and places it in a bag.
The pharmacy technician or pharmacy cashier then rings the patient up, and hands them their prescription. They ask them to sign for it and ask if they have any questions for the pharmacist.
The End.
So how involved, how INTIMATE, was that? Obviously, it would be terribly traumatic for a pharmacist who did not believe in contraception to in fact, verify that something already prepared was the proper contraception, and put it in a bag. Oh, I forgot to mention. Sometimes ,the pharmacist staples the bag. Stapling is 9/10ths of the law, right?
So this whole process brings up two things-
1. What is the moral imperative pro-life pharmacists find that prevents them, not from preparing, not from recieving, not from dispensing, but merely verifying- a contraceptive prescription? What it comes down to is that pharmacists are not just refusing to participate, but standing in the way where ever possible. And that's fucking rotten. Would these same pharmacists, if learning that a co-worker planned on going straight from work to have an abortion, lock them in the closet (wow, that's a fucking BAD metaphor)
2. Why can't those pharmacy techs just hand over the Plan B? It's against the law. Other than that, there's no danger. It's packaged. The dosage is explained, both on the prescription, and in the package insert. It's clearly labeled as what it is, and there are no refills to mess around with.
As to the first, if it were widely known how little interaction pharmacists had with pre-packaged prescriptions like E.C., maybe their beloved moral exceptions would be pushed aside and lawyers for large pharmacy chains wouldn't be so afraid of theevil, moralizing bastard pro-life pharmacist lobby. As to the second, if that couldn't be done, perhaps legislation could be proposed that allows pharmacy TECHNICIANS to dispense factory-packaged prescriptions without pharmacist verification, making sure that a single employee couldn't prevent a person from receiving birth control or EC.
So, doing research, talking to people with views different than mine, and people in the pharmacy industry, I've been able to isolate a reason for this whole dang EC thing. The claim is that filling a prescription is so much more involved than simply selling condoms, so a pro-life pharmacist who refuses to sell EC is more like a ob/gyn who won't perform abortions than a Catholic cashier who won't sell condoms.
Of course, my answer to that is that all of them are equally wrong. In fact, in my eyes, the cashier is most justified. Being a pharmacy clerk is situational employment. It's a low-paying job that a person takes because it's available and they were hired; a pharmacist or an ob/gyn has undergone years of schooling and professional training for their career. They've made a choice, knowing what the job involves might conflict with their personal beliefs, and yet persisted in persuing their career. I have no sympathy. More so because the cashier would get fired, yet the pharmacist and doctor are protected. It seems to me to be a class issue.
But I digress.
Is it really so involved? Is there something really special that goes on behind those ecru-half-walls that enclose the pharmacy from the area where glucose testing strips and "back massagers" are sold?
My pharmacy informant says not. I talked to a licensed pharmacy technician this week. In exchange for a box of generic fruits'n cream flavored oatmeal, she let me in on what goes on in a pharmacy. I call it-
How A Scrip Becomes A Pill
By H. Barista
First, a patient interacts with a doctor. The doctor determines the medication to be prescribed, and, if applicable, the dosage and amount of refills. At that point, the doctor hands the patient a prescription, or calls the prescription in to the pharmacy.
If the doctor calls the pharmacy, a pharmacy technician answers the phone. She takes down all of the information as if it had been written out, and enters it into the computer. If the doctor gave the patient a paper prescription, the patient brings it into the pharmacy and hands it to a pharmacy technician, who then enters the information into a computer.
The pharmacy technician then plays fun games with the insurance company. If they're like mine, they probably won't cover it, because they won't cover anything. If they're a good company, they will cover it.
The technician then goes and physically takes the medication off the shelf. She checks both the label and the pill against computer records. She counts it out and places it into a proper bottle. She then places a label on it. With Plan B, which is pre-packaged, she just places the prescription label on it.
Finally, she brings the prepared prescription to the pharmacist, who scans it once more and places it in a bag.
The pharmacy technician or pharmacy cashier then rings the patient up, and hands them their prescription. They ask them to sign for it and ask if they have any questions for the pharmacist.
The End.
So how involved, how INTIMATE, was that? Obviously, it would be terribly traumatic for a pharmacist who did not believe in contraception to in fact, verify that something already prepared was the proper contraception, and put it in a bag. Oh, I forgot to mention. Sometimes ,the pharmacist staples the bag. Stapling is 9/10ths of the law, right?
So this whole process brings up two things-
1. What is the moral imperative pro-life pharmacists find that prevents them, not from preparing, not from recieving, not from dispensing, but merely verifying- a contraceptive prescription? What it comes down to is that pharmacists are not just refusing to participate, but standing in the way where ever possible. And that's fucking rotten. Would these same pharmacists, if learning that a co-worker planned on going straight from work to have an abortion, lock them in the closet (wow, that's a fucking BAD metaphor)
2. Why can't those pharmacy techs just hand over the Plan B? It's against the law. Other than that, there's no danger. It's packaged. The dosage is explained, both on the prescription, and in the package insert. It's clearly labeled as what it is, and there are no refills to mess around with.
As to the first, if it were widely known how little interaction pharmacists had with pre-packaged prescriptions like E.C., maybe their beloved moral exceptions would be pushed aside and lawyers for large pharmacy chains wouldn't be so afraid of the
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
