The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Sex, drugs, free market

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

Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:

A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
$$FC (December 6, 2007)
In a bind (December 5, 2007)
Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)

by Badger Herald Editorial Board

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Last week, Madison Ald. Zach Brandon joined with NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin Executive Director Kelda Helen Roys to announce a proposed ordinance requiring local pharmacies that don't sell the emergency contraceptive pill to post notice of alternate pharmacies where customers can purchase the medication. The proposal came about after NARAL found that 24 percent of Madison pharmacies do not carry emergency contraception such as Plan B.

Though the plan has good intentions — it is geared at reducing unintended pregnancies and abortions — we disagree with its provisions. Under no uncertain terms should any level of government dictate what items businesses legally stock, nor should Common Council mandate that any business post information on its competition. Pharmacies in Madison should decide for themselves whether they carry any form of contraception; and it is up to residents whether they want to patronize those businesses.

Since Plan B has now gained FDA approval for over-the-counter sales, the hoops women need to jump through in order to obtain emergency contraception have been significantly reduced. But women should also take it upon themselves to find a willing vendor of Plan B.

Brandon's proposal could lead to a slippery slope where this type of mandate could be extended to other products. For example, would it be appropriate for stores to be required to post such information about the distribution of condoms?

A separate resolution Brandon proposed involves asking hospitals to give victims of sexual assault an informational brochure about emergency contraception. We support this ordinance as it doesn't require hospitals to disperse any information or medication, but simply calls for emergency medical facilities to provide such information.

However, we urge City Council to vote down the emergency contraception proposal and let the market determine the distribution of Plan B.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (October 11, 2006 @ 7:34am):

Who is on this editorial board, seriously?

If the pharmacies accept medicare or medicaid money, my tax money, then some form of government has already introduced themselves into their business.

If they don't carry Plan B, then they should not have the privilege of accepting my tax money.

Anonymous (October 11, 2006 @ 10:04am):

Let's see if you feel the same way after this proposed scenerio:

You've just woken up after a little unprotected premarital sex, and you find that your groin on fire every time you pee.

After going to the doctors office and getting a prescription to take care of your pubic fire, you find yourself at a pharmacy that doesn't fill your prescription because the pharmacist feels heathens like yourself should accept the punishment God has dealt you for having premarital sex.

Lawyers have to defend people even if they know that their client is guilty, the same standard should apply to doctors & pharmacists.

Do your job and practice your religion on your own time.

Anonymous (October 11, 2006 @ 11:37am):

Anonymous #2: If pharmacists don't want to stock antibiotics, they won't be in business long.

EC is over-the-counter, making it more comparable -- as the Board mentions -- to condoms.

Anonymous (October 11, 2006 @ 2:14pm):

Regardless, in this situation the distribution of EC is not determined by the free market. At this current point pharmacies can refuse to stock it on ideological grounds alone.

Anonymous (October 11, 2006 @ 4:09pm):

EC is non-prescription if you are 18 or up, but it is not "over the counter." It will still behind the pharmacy counter and a pharmacist or pharmacy tech will still need to dispense it as well as verify age.

Beyond that, I don't understand the reasoning of the Ed Board here - NEITHER part of the ordinance requires any business to stock anything. The same reason the board supports the brochure is just as applicable to the pharmacy notice provision. This seems the least obtrusive way to get a needed, time-sensitive, and misunderstood medication to the hands of people who need it. Pharmacists are already obligated to provide a meaningful referral when they don't stock or won't fill a prescription (almost always birth control for women). Yet very few were able to do so according to news reports of the NARAL survey.

So this actually makes it easier on pharmacy, pharmacist, and patient by ensuring that the info is clear and available. It doesn't mandate any stocking or dispensing at all. It simply ensures that consumers have the information they need to make informed choices, while providing the least burdensome way on pharmacies to provide that information. There are hundreds of regulations, including signage or posting laws, required by local, state, and federal governments - this is nothing new - just consumer protection.