The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Mourning a new pill proposal

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Ryan Masse:

Rockin' around the what? (November 29, 2007)
A downside to diversity, an upside to change (November 16, 2007)
High schoolers can handle ads (November 8, 2007)
Health providers must list prices (November 1, 2007)
Employee policies in need of upgrade (October 25, 2007)

by Ryan Masse

Thursday, October 5, 2006

Perhaps it is only fitting that with the month of October upon us, a local politician is launching a new effort to establish that long-sought-after dreamland of the "People's Republic of Madison."

Scariest of all, the new attempt comes courtesy of one of Madison's more moderate and usually sensible politicos: Ald. Zach Brandon. Teaming with NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin, Mr. Brandon introduced an ordinance this week that would require pharmacies in Madison to either sell emergency contraception or else post a sign alerting shoppers to where they may find it.

Speaking with The Badger Herald, NARAL Pro-Choice Executive Director Kelda Helen Roys described the rationale behind the ordinance: "We did a survey and found a quarter of Madison pharmacies don't stock emergency contraception, and women would have to shop around until they found it. Emergency contraception is very time sensitive, so this ordinance is especially important for students who don't have access to transportation."

OK, brace yourself. This is momentous. Kelda Helen Roys has just informed us that, without the help of her and Zach Brandon, people in need of a product might have to — brace yourself again — shop around to find it! Whoa. Ralph Nader just announced another bid for the White House after learning of such an affront to consumers' rights.

I'm kidding, of course. Three times was enough for Mr. Nader. And years and years of burdensome, anti-business measures (smoking ban, inclusionary zoning, etc.) should be enough for Madison, the city that's still determined to regulate the market into submission.

The bottom line — and surely Mr. Brandon, who owns the local laundromat Laundry 101, should know this — is that a business may sell whatever products it wishes. To regulate otherwise only serves to create market inefficiencies. If demand exists for a product, chances are the store will stock it. If demand exists but a business has a moral reason for not selling an item, it is well within its rights to forego the profit it would make.

Most movie rental stores, for example, could make some money by introducing an XXX section, yet there are numerous reasons why many do not do so. Nobody would require a retailer by law to keep the sleaze on their shelves, lest a customer have to "shop around" to find his porno.

There is one instance where governmental regulation of the goods and services a private business must provide is justified. Hospital emergency rooms must accept and provide emergency care to all comers, as refusal of service potentially leaves patients with the ultimate price tag. Few would argue against the necessity and merits of such a policy.

Emergency rooms are not to be confused with emergency contraception, however. The latter stretches the definition of "emergency" — Plan B, for example, works up to 72 hours after potential impregnation. Hence, Ms. Roys' characterization of the situation as "very time sensitive" is disingenuous, as such a time frame surely allows a person to locate one of the three-fourths of all pharmacies that stock the product in Madison. All someone has to do is get on the phone, call pharmacies, drive around — in essence, do what all consumers do when shopping for anything: find a seller who offers a product that meets his or her needs at an acceptable price. Then buy it.

Granted, Mr. Brandon and NARAL would only require the posting of signs and would not require a store to actually stock emergency contraceptives. Small kudos are in order for not following the state of Illinois's lead in adopting the latter regulation, though there is little question Mr. Brandon and NARAL's intent mirrors that of our neighbors to the south. Ms. Roys does not want to see "a bunch of signs" popping up, as she told the Herald. They merely want to shame, inconvenience, what have you, stores into carrying emergency contraception.

Yet a business should be under no obligation to direct customers to places where they can find items the store does not carry. A reasonable business will take such action on its own volition — it's just good customer service. And if a store chooses not to do so, it can deal with the backlash of not being helpful.

Why such basic economics continues to elude Madison's political elites is a sad mystery. The only sign Mr. Brandon needs is one for his eyes only, pointing him away from the People's Republic.

Ryan Masse (rmasse@badgerherald.com) is the editorial board chairman of The Badger Herald.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (October 5, 2006 @ 8:07am):

Are you seriously comparing a medical product to pornography? That's twisted.

Anonymous (October 5, 2006 @ 8:39am):

I'm not sure what you're railing against here, Ryan.

There is a clear difference between anti-smoking ordinances, which are definitely examples of a nanny state gone amok, IZ, which is stupid social engineering and hurts students, and an ordinance requiring a pharmacy to stock EC.

Why? Simple. Pharmacists are licensed professionals who are obligated to dispense drugs upon reciept of a valid prescription. Pharmacists who refuse to stock EC are generally the same ones who will not dispense birth control, because for one reason or another they believe it is "wrong." What if a sworn police officer refused to arrest an abusive husband because he believed that women should be submissive to their husbands? Would you object to a city ordinance directing them to arrest such criminals regardless of their beliefs? I hope so.

Wrong for them, yes. For the customer who is entitled to have her prescription filled by a licensed pharmacist? Not at all. Would you object if a pharmacist asked to see a marriage license before dispensing birth control? Clearly you have a problem with women having access to EC. Your issue is one of social conservatism, not libratarianism.

This is not an obtrusive regulation, it simply sidesteps the attempts of some arrogant people to avoid doing their jobs because they believe that women who have sex are sluts and should end up pregnant. All the city wants to do is make sure that the licensed professionals do their jobs.

Anonymous (October 5, 2006 @ 12:01pm):

I would like to commend the author of this article for finding a way to be published at all. I doubt that many people with such poorly thought out articles and wildly inaccurate comments could find a source beyond their own blog that would communicate their message.

Comparing emergency contraception to the XXX section of a video store? Really? Really?

The next logical step in the free market argument proposed here is to not require emergency rooms to treat people who don't have insurance. After all, for those hospitals that would make such a choice it is within their rights to do so. If the public believed strongly enough in treating the sick and injured, it just would not go to emergency rooms that elected not to treat the unisured. Right? Well, for the sake of a consistent argument, I hope that Mr. Masse would defend this point.

Anonymous (October 5, 2006 @ 12:46pm):

72 hours. Work and school take up some of the time. And then what if you need to take a bus to the pharmacy? What if they don't carry it? Do you know where other pharmacies are in your area - what if you were not a downtown resident? Now add the stress of a birth control failure or worse, a sexual assult.

Anonymous (October 5, 2006 @ 1:14pm):

Ryan Masse, the neo-con super hero, is writing an article to save us and our unborn.

Anyone who holds a PharmD is bright enough to know that Plan B is not an "abortion pill." Plan B almost ensures that implantation cannot take place; no implantation, no pregnancy. Cells that aren't attached to anything aren't "life".

Fertilization is only one part of creating life. Nine months of nourishment from a mother is also kind of important, wouldn't you say?

Masse, you're a big boy now. Time for some big boy thoughts.

Anonymous (October 5, 2006 @ 2:46pm):

I believe that giving old men stiffies is wrong. I'll only get my medicine from pharmacies with strict "no boner" policies.

Anonymous (October 5, 2006 @ 3:29pm):

I think the previous commentors fail to realize that EC is not a god given right, nor are the police a private corporation. Get off your high horse and let others abide by their own morals.

Anonymous (October 5, 2006 @ 3:48pm):

a pharmacist is required to dispense medication for a prescription if they have it in stock. if the pharmacy doesn't stock it, the pharmacist doesn't have to dispense it. it's quite common for pharmacies not to stock products they don't regularly dispense...as a pharmaceutical sales rep, i can assure you this is the case. i've had more than a few practitioners tell me that patients have had to wait up to 72 hours to get their scripts filled at certain pharmacies, and the drug i represent has 7+ million scripts written for it annually (that's a lot). i have no way to compell that pharmacy to carry my drug. i can show them how demand for the product would justify the cost for them stocking the product, but if they choose not to carry my drug, i can't force them to. same holds for pharmacies that choose not to carry EC, whatever their reasons may be. if you're responsible enough to have sex, you should be responsible enough to pick up the yellow pages, make a couple of phone calls, and figure out where you can get EC...OR just go to planned parenthood - you know they've got it. is it too much to ask people to put in a little effort to get what they want/need?

Anonymous (October 5, 2006 @ 5:03pm):

A. Plan B MAY work up to 72 hours after sexual intercourse, but the probability of it working decreases by the hour. The decline in efficacy from a delay in treatment is why a broad range of health professionals believe that barriers to more timely access to Plan B should be removed, including making it available without prescription, as it is not today so it is not just a matter of locating a pharmacy and "shopping around".
B. A missed Plan B treatment may lead to an unwanted pregnancy which may lead to an abortion which is both a costly and invasive procedure.
C. On what grounds do you consider your comparison of buying Plan B to renting porn appropriate? Video rental stores and pharmacies do not fulfil the same purpose in society and are perhaps not appropriate businesses to compare nor should they be treated the same way.

Anonymous (October 5, 2006 @ 6:35pm):

Actually pharmacies and video rental stores do fulfil many of the same things for our society. If you looked at the drugs we take as a society, and figured out why we took them, you WOULD find that a large percentage are not because of diseases we are born with, or illnesses we randomly obtained. A large percentage of the drugs we take are because we choose to participate in acts that cause adverse effects on our body, and another large percentage are for asthetic/non fatal reasons. EC falls into the category of only necessary when you choose to participate in a specific act. Why force the pharmacies to sell something if they can't force you not to screw?