Government VS pharmacies over plan B and religion

[Rainsford]

The state has the right to deny or suspend my legal recognition if it wishes. Obviously, it doesn't...There are also 49 other states that one can practice, each with their own competing laws.
The state also has no right to tell me to stock a particular product.

Equating poison to a pharmacy being able to not stock Plan B, Intron-A, or Mylan branded Fentanyl? That's quite a reach, even for you.

I'm not equating the two...that should be simple to understand, even for you (see, two of us can play that game )

My point is that the government clearly has a record of stepping in and setting certain standards under which a business operates in terms of products they sell. Mandating the sale of a particular product isn't the same as mandating a business NOT sell certain things (like poisoned food), but it's in the same category of setting consumer oriented standards.

Can you prove that free market doesn't work in the case of stocking Plan B which would warrant government intervention?
If you haven't noticed, in the articles linked earlier mentioned the major chains CVS/Walgreens support Plan B/Birth controls and there are many other places.

Similarly, a pharmacy can decide not to stock Plan B, cigarettes, condoms, and Mascara makeup if it wants.
I believe there was a thread here years ago about an independent pharmacy in Virginia that did that and went bankrupt. Free market works. Some chain store probably bought all their prescription files while the owner closed shop and lost the potential business revenue he could have built from selling all those products.
Those are high margin products the owner is avoiding.
Wholesale price of Plan B: $27.95(the generic wholesale price is even less than that, mark it up to $50 and people would still buy it regardless)
Price charged to the customer: $50

That's a 50% profit margin right there. Cigarettes, condoms, and Mascara have much higher profit margins than "general" merchandise.
Any pharmacy that wishes not to stock any product is free to do so and lose(or gain) it's profit margin. There isn't much profit margin for a pharmacy to be made in selling cereals, kit-kats, bread, and eggs.

Can you prove to me that free market doesn't work and therefore warrants government intervention of forcing a pharmacy, deli, or retailer to stock a particular product?

As far as I could tell, you were talking about government intervention vs the free market in the broadest possible sense...not specifically relating to this case. I think in general, the free market is not perfect, and certain consumer protections are reasonable. If that was not your argument, then my comment was misdirected.

In this particular case, I suspect the free market will work to some extent...as long as most pharmacies choose to sell the product in question. However, a powerful enough boycott movement from the pro-life folks could change the free market calculus for other pharmacies, to the point where the free market could be driven by ideology. I'd rather have free access be protected by law rather than by the potentially changing whims of the free market.

 

[Rainsford]

Your comparison of a deli refusing to serve people based on their skin color and a pharmacy refusing to carry Intron-A, Mylan branded Fentanyl, Equate branded OTC products, or any other product are not analogous.

Can a state force a deli owner to stock pork?

I'm not saying the government requirements are the same, I'm simply pointing out that there are a lot of situations where the government requires a business to do something the personal views of the business owner or employee don't agree with. Carrying a particular product and serving a particular customer are different in many ways, and in some ways they are very similar.

A Jewish deli that doesn't serve pork is an interesting comparison to pharmacies not carrying plan B (I'm not sure if that's what you mean, but that's the direction my mind went). Those are both cases of religious or otherwise personal beliefs dictating the products and services a business chooses to offer. And I honestly don't have a problem with a Jewish deli not serving me a ham sandwich, although I do object to pharmacists refusing to sell birth control or morning after pills for religious reasons.

My first thought is that this seems inconsistent, although I feel as strongly about pharmacists selling contraceptives as a I care not at all about a Jewish deli selling me pork. But as you disagreed with my analogy, although I didn't intend it as one, I think this particular comparison oversimplifies things a bit too much.

Nobody defines a ham sandwich as necessary for their own medical well-being, not is denial of pork products in delis backed by a large and extremely vocal movement arguing for the elimination of ham availability completely. And delis generally offer whatever products they like, even similar sandwiches can vary quite a bit from deli to deli. A pharmacy, on the other hand, generally carries similar products, with birth control being the recent notable exception.

In other words, the problem is that they are making a specific ideological stand on one particular class of product as part of a larger political movement. Running a medical organization that way does not seem like a very good idea.

Edit: A significant distinction that I didn't mention is that nobody is worried about a deli not serving pork because they're not fundamentally opposed to ME eating pork, they just don't serve it in their restaurant. If this issue was just a few pharmacists who didn't want to sell morning after pills, I doubt we'd have even heard about it. "I don't sell it" is a lot different from "I don't sell it and I don't think you should be able to get it at all". And while I'm sure not all pharmacists opposed to selling plan B want it banned, the pro-life and anti-contraception movements in this country are very vocal ones, so it's not an unreasonable association.

 

[Rainsford]

From the ruling...

But Leighton ruled that the state allows all sorts of business exemptions to that rule. Pharmacies can decline to stock a drug, such as certain painkillers, if it's likely to increase the risk of theft, or if it requires an inordinate amount of paperwork, or if the drug is temporarily unavailable from suppliers, among other reasons.

Leighton, in his decision Wednesday, said that if Washington state allows exemptions for non-religious reasons, Leighton said, it must also allow them for religious or moral ones.

I don't really follow that logic. Exemptions for practical reasons seem fundamentally different from exemptions based on personal views.

 

[alzan]

I'm not equating the two...that should be simple to understand, even for you (see, two of us can play that game )

My point is that the government clearly has a record of stepping in and setting certain standards under which a business operates in terms of products they sell. Mandating the sale of a particular product isn't the same as mandating a business NOT sell certain things (like poisoned food), but it's in the same category of setting consumer oriented standards.


As far as I could tell, you were talking about government intervention vs the free market in the broadest possible sense...not specifically relating to this case. I think in general, the free market is not perfect, and certain consumer protections are reasonable. If that was not your argument, then my comment was misdirected.

In this particular case, I suspect the free market will work to some extent...as long as most pharmacies choose to sell the product in question. However, a powerful enough boycott movement from the pro-life folks could change the free market calculus for other pharmacies, to the point where the free market could be driven by ideology. I'd rather have free access be protected by law rather than by the potentially changing whims of the free market.

I'm not sure that a boycott is in the best interest of either consumers that need this product or society as a whole. This may not be the best analogy but; a TV show that is controversial (Plan B) is boycotted by a group to the point where it is taken off the air. The boycotting group has not said "we don't like that show so we're going to change the channel", they've said "we don't like the show therefore no one can watch it". A very large difference and not in line with our Constitutional principles.