this is not a journal title

Here's what I don't understand: if they don't require a prescription, why are they behind the pharmacist's counter anyway? Why not just put it with the Tylenol? Wouldn't that solve the whole problem? If there are age restrictions on who can get it, just require the cashiers to take IDs.

I really want to see a case in which a Wal-Mart employee refuses to sell a customer a gun.

From:

It would be too easy for someone under 18 to steal the product. And wal-mart suffers so much theft.

From:

This pisses me off so much.

And it can't even affect me.

From:

At many stores condoms are located below the pharmacist's counter, so when the pharmacy closes at 7pm but the rest of the store is open, you cannot buy the condoms. There are no age or ID requirements on condoms that I know of.

OTC allergy medication with pseudoephedrine does require an ID check, and some stores do this by keeping the medication behind the counter at the pharmacy, and some do it by keeping it behind the counter at the cashier (like cigarettes). Maybe most cashiers are not qualified to check IDs or something?

There's even a number of antibacterial washes (i.e., Hibiclens) with the same lack of requirements as condoms that are found behind the pharmacist's counter.

But as

gemini6ice pointed out, Plan B doesn't require a prescription over age 18. Minors do need a prescription.

From:

Thanks, glad to see I'm not the only one who gets pissed at bias at other people.

Hm, we could make a case that Wal-Mart is promoting gay sex, since that won't ever result in needing EC.

From:

Oh, and it could indirectly affect you via any female friends and/or family members you may have.

From:

Put it with the cigarettes, behind the counter?

From:

I suppose that the need for a prescription for some people might make it make sense to keep it behind the counter. But also the fact that most people don't need a prescription means that pharmacist's assistants probably also can give you Plan B. I just don't understand the process here.

Putting Plan B behind the cashier's counter and keeping some in the pharmacy for minors seems to make much more sense.

From:

well, im sure they'd behave the same way if morning-after HIV eradication drugs were developed.

From:

Almost every sexually active female friend of mine is on the pill AND uses condoms. Better safe than sorry.

Did you hear the news story about the woman who got an abortion at PP but wound up still being pregnant, which she discovered in the third trimester? She's suing for what turned out to have been an aborted abortion, I guess.

From:

That's essentially what they're doing. You're just suggesting moving which counter it is kept behind?

However, the counter attendant could pull the same shit the pharmacists are pulling.

From:

From a stock control perspective, separating merchandise can cause unnecessary inventory complications. I'm sure you or I could handle, you know, adding together two numbers to get a grand total, but I'd wager many people (many of whom just may work at walmart) may not be able to handle it.

From:

I didn't get the impression that that's actually what they're doing, since it was clear in the article that it was the pharmacist that refused to give out the EC, and that the pharmacist had at least one assistant just sitting around who didn't seem to have had an objection.

Cashiers could also pull shit, it's true, but there are always several cashiers at Wal-Mart, whereas there is often only one pharmacist on duty. It's much easier for Wal-Mart to manipulate schedules so that there's at least one cashier willing to give out EC than it is for it to make sure there's at least one pharmacist willing to give out EC. I guess it still screws over minors who show up wanting EC, though. But perhaps what you could do is have pharmacists simply tell the cashier that the prescription is good and fillable.

From:

Walmart already separates stock into a few different places. Almost all stores do. They will, for instance, strategically place small convenience items both in the regular aisles and by the counters.

From:

With cigarettes, I believe they are all behind one special counter, not behind each and every register. And that special customer service / lottery / cigarettes register is manned by one to three people.

The problem with the laws in these areas is that the pharmacists can claim wal-mart is discriminating hours/employment based on willigness to give out plan B. :/

I'm saying (in the prior comment) that there is really not much of a difference between having a pharmacist check the ID and hand over the plan B and having a customer service attendant check the ID and hand over the plan B.

From:

point.

From:

Wal-Mart also discriminates hours/employment based on willingness to work on Saturdays. I don't see a difference either way. I truly believe in people's right not to do things that are prohibited by their religion or morals, but Wal-Mart is a public business with a duty to find employees that will serve its customers' needs. That's the stupid thing - the law here is, I think, ridiculously clear.

If the cigarettes are behind a counter with no more employees then I guess it doesn't make much of a difference. But if either counter is constantly staffed by more than one employee at once it is EASY to accommodate both people who need EC and people who don't want to give out Plan B, and it's ridiculous that this is a problem at all.

From:

Well, I don't see why the stores don't just fire people who are unwilling to give out plan B. There are plenty of pharmacy techs in the job market. What I find frustrating is that the manager in the article shrugged and said the pharmacist had the law on his side. So I think there may be a precedent case supporting pharmacists' rights not to do their job based on morals.

IMHO, if you morally object to an aspect of a job and are thus unwilling to perform it, you are not fit for that job. Unlike being wheelchair-bound or having a speech impediment (handicaps that effectively preclude an individual from some jobs anyway), it is a choice to fail to meet the expectations of a job. You don't see dealers in Vegas refusing to hand out the cards because they morally object to certain people gambling, do you?

From:

Neither you nor Wal-Mart understands the actual law.

Employers are required to make reasonable accommodation for employees whose religious beliefs prevent them from doing certain tasks. However, an accommodation isn't "reasonable" if it ends up in essential job tasks not being done by anyone. A "reasonable accommodation" in this case would be making sure that there is always someone else around to do the job that needs to be done.

For example, if I am a deaf secretary, it is a reasonable accommodation to assign phone tasks to another employee. It is not a reasonable accommodation to simply not have anyone answering the phones.

Likewise, if I am an orthodox Jewish employee who works at Wal-Mart, it is a reasonable accommodation not to require me to work between Friday evening and Saturday evening. It is NOT a reasonable accommodation to schedule me to work on Saturday and then let me just not show up. A small employer who can't reliably find extra employees to work on Saturday, and needs to be open on Saturday, does not have to hire or keep that employee, but one like Wal-Mart, which could do that easily, probably would have to.

That's federal law, though, and there are laws in some states that do seem to specifically give more rights to pharmacists. From what I understand though most state laws specifically addressing rights of pharmacists to refuse require the pharmacist to refer the customer to someone else competent to fill the prescription. I think some of the laws don't require there to actually be anyone else competent to fill the prescription, which might have been the case here, but we can all agree those laws are clearly fucked-up.

From:

Huh, really? Among my female friends I'm the only one that anal.

I didn't hear that story. Got a link? What caused them to stop the abortion? Or was there an error?

From:

A small employer who can't reliably find extra employees to work on Saturday, and needs to be open on Saturday, does not have to hire or keep that employee, but one like Wal-Mart, which could do that easily, probably would have to.

Is this why the ADA and FEMA and such only apply to companies with 15 or more employees?

From:

Sort of. The ADA already excludes accommodations that would cause "undue hardship," but I think they decided to also restrict it to companies with more than 15 employees so that people wouldn't complain as much that it would hurt small businesses. IIRC, it's also the case with the Civil Rights Act, which is sort of ridiculous as it means that you can sexually harass your secretary if you're an attorney in private practice, but not if you're at a firm...

Do you mean FMLA?

From:

Note that while I have generally little sympathy for Wal-Mart, if/when there ARE laws specifically protecting pharmacists who don't want to give out EC (which give them an advantage over ALL OTHER PEOPLE whose religious beliefs interfere with some of their job requirements), there's little that Wal-Mart can do about it and our anger would be better directed at the laws themselves.

From: