Walgreens said it will not distribute the abortion pill mifepristone in 21 states, including several states where abortion is legal but there are efforts to restrict the abortifacients.
“This is a very complex and in flux area of the law, and we are taking that into account as we seek certification,” Walgreens spokesman Fraser Engerman told The New York Times on Friday.
The pharmaceutical chain’s decision to not distribute mifepristone comes several weeks after Republican attorneys general in the 21 states sent letters warning of legal action if Walgreens dispenses the pill.
Abortion is still legal in four of the states – Alaska, Iowa, Kansas and Montana – but efforts are underway to implement restrictions that would include the pills.
The chain will still distribute misoprostol, the second pill required for the abortion regimen that is used for other medical conditions as well.
Very good news.
Pushback works.
Incredible. MOST impressive. When the time comes, they’ll have my support. Sorry Kroeger.
Amazing what the word “sue” will do. I don’t care for the store – only because of the traffic situation. Difficult going in and difficult coming out. Nevertheless, this is good news.
A heartfelt thank you to:
Steven Marshall of Alabama,
Treg Taylor of Alaska,
Tim Griffin of Arkansas,
Ashley Moody of Florida,
Chris Carr of Georgia,
Todd Rokita of Indiana,
Breanna General of Iowa,
Daniel Cameron of Kentucky,
Lynn Fitch of Mississippi,
Drew Wrigley of North Dakota,
David Yost of Ohio,
Grenter F. Drummond of Oklahoma,
Alan Wilson of South Carolina,
Marty Jackley of South Dakota,
Ken Paxton of Texas, and
Sean Reyes of Utah.
Not too sure about this.
On the one hand, its preventing SOME small part of the Democrat slaughter of the innocents. Preventing murder is a pretty positive good.
On the other hand, this is further pharmacist meddling in what are legal prescriptions. Don’t forget that Walgreens refused to fill legit presriptions from legal doctors for Ivermectin for no reason other than politics. if you let the pharmacies say they won’t fill this and won’t fill that, sooner or later they are going to be goring YOUR ox.
And who’s to say, especially with the current goverment, where that will lead? Suppose they don’t want to fill prescriptions for insulin because it’s for a Christian, or for Metformin for White people? Maybe then they can refuse to fill ANY precriptions until you show the Goverment issued QR code on your hand or forhead that has your vaxxx record along with a series of 6s in it?
The possibilities are endless.
…and where is this line on who and what businesses can and can not do, anyway? So, baking a cake cannot be denied, but filling a precription CAN be?
Seems a bit arbitrary and VERY open to whatever political winds are blowing at any given time.
…all that said, I think the whole “abortion pill” thing is best settled by charging those who make it with murder. You see, there’s a liberal theory that a gun is for killing ONLY, so gun manufacturers MUST be held liable for killing that is done with their product.
So turn that on the pharmaceutical companies.
The SAME companines that CLAIM they will not provide drugs for lethal injection executions because they might hurt and expose them to liability. THOSE compaines.
Because, after all, the ONLY purpose of an abortifacent is to end a life, nicht wahr? Is there ANY other purpose for this product than to kill, to destroy, and probably inflict pain on a living human being as it does? As well as the mental anguish that woman may go through should she repent her decision that was made SO easy for her to kill on the spur of a moment instead of at LEAST having to THINK about it for five mintes before performing an in-utero execution?
…so, nobile idea, right church, wrong pew.
Cut off the supply without empowering the pharmacist to pick and choose what drugs can be issued.
Full disclosure; I am not innocent in this, nor am I unaffected by this, and I too have innocent blood on my hands. When I was a medic one of my unfortunate duties was to squire rape patients to treatment. There’s layers to why this isn’t pleasant for anyone involved, but one of the worst aspects what that it was just *assumed* that the rape victim would want any possible child that could arise from this forced encounter dead. This may very well be true, I cannot pretend to be able to think as a woman nor understand the true horror of rape from a female perspective or the prospect of raising a child created through this evil means, but I DO know that a woman in such circumstances is quite understandably upset and not thinking particularly clearly about much of anything, and may not be thinking at all depending on how bad the beating was. See, there was, and as far as I know still is, this standing instruction that ALL rape patients were to be taken to the general hospital downtown instead of to one of the many Catholic hospitals much closer by unless it was life threatening, because Catholic hospitals would not offer abortifacents or othewise perform abortions and the general hospital WOULD. I was young and not particularly Christian at the time, so whatever, too bad, so sad, is it break time after we clear the hospital?
I typically did not keep seperate records unless it was something I was expecting some trouble or testimony from, and I almost never tracked patient outcomes for reasons of sanity, so I have no way of knowing how many of those brutal encounteres resulted in a life or how many of those lives I blithely took to their deaths. But I’m guessing more than a few, the place I ran wasn’t SUPER rapey but did have its neighborhoods and I did do that for a long time, so statictically, probably a half dozen or so; and even one is a pretty terrible thing to think about, and something that, when I finally came to an altar decades later, I had to confess and repent and beg forgiveness for.
And I was just some mook with no attachment whatsoever to my patients other than spending a half-hour or so keeping them from wiping the semen off so it could be collected with proper chain of custody while we drove them to the infant abattoir. I can’t IMAGINE what it was like for the women – or the CHILDREN, in some cases – or the people who knew them and loved them.
And during a pregnancy scare around this period with the woman who would become my wife, I suggested abortion THEN, too. Nothing came of it because it was just a scare, but had their been pills for the taking I would have got them and probably bullied my girlfriend into taking them, and God knowns where that would have left us today.
After we were married, my own child was born with a cleft that I didn’t know about until he made his debut. I was still a complete, self-centered ass at the time, so had some image shown that, I probably would have tried to kill a developed baby then, too. Probably best that I didn’t know and it wasn’t an option at the time. Imaging is BETTER now, and the drugs MUCH more available. What would have happened were it NOW?
Probably sucidal guilt for both of us follwed by eternity in Hell.
…Yes, I know, TL;DNR, and I’m WAY off in personal weeds on one side, but I can only tell stories from my own experience as I don’t have anyone elses’.
So to me, making ANY medical decision available as a snap judgement is a REALLY bad idea, and DOUBLY so if it deliberately ends a life, and all this pill does is make the snap decision possible.
And to reiterate, I do not believe that pharmacists should be able to decide which drugs they can and cannot issue based on their own personal proclivites or those of their boss.
But anything that has no other purpose than to kill should be controlled at the source, by preventing this sick product from coming to market in the first place, or regulating it at LEAST as well as a pistol currently is.
A pistol kills for good or for bad, after all.
And the argument for things that kill babies generally radiates from cases of rape, child rape, life of the mother, or incest, which is a VERY troubling subject when you are discussing a nine-year-old carrying her “father’s” baby to term. Not sure there IS a good answer there, beyond the obvious of summarily executing the rapist. It’s well beyond the scope of my already too-long comment, but there may be some legit purpose after the most horrible of circumstances, I don’t know. I’m not a fan of ending any life but someone’s like a rapist, who has EARNED it, but were it my daughter, I just don’t know.
But in any case, it doesn’t belong in the OTC or mail order market, in my view. If you need to sit your ass down and think about buying a pistol for five days in some places before you do it, it stands to reason you should have to spend at LEAST that long in ending an infant.
This sin-struck world is terminally ill, and man isn’t going to be able to fix it on his own.
But we can at LEAST make it harder for him to kill his own future, without making it easier for politicans to kill his present by controlling his cures…
The same 21 states where people “shop” without paying. It’s theft prevention.
“This is a very complex and in flux area of the law, and we are taking that into account as we seek certification,” Walgreens spokesman Fraser Engerman”
I won’t get too excited yet. They are still “seeking certification”. I take that to mean they will still try to carry the abortion pills that are taken first. They already have the second pills which they say are used for other conditions.