Not a woman? Not seeing why this Target thing is a big deal? Here are some points to ponder.

[lousy_timing]

Over in leftist_cunt, we're posting our letters to Target (Dayton-Hudson Corp.) and discussing the issue. (It's all very polite, I might add.) As I've been reading today, what I've seen is that not everyone understands that there's more at stake here than just women's rights, and there are actual reasons why having Target get away with something of this nature

Comments

[anais2]

I quick read your entries, but didn't comment- I used my time to write them a letter, too. I hope we have FLOODED the organization! Thanks for calling it to our attention. :o)

[purplkat]

In addition to this, they're essentially giving pharmacists a carte blanche not to hand out OTHER medications aside from birth control. There's still a lot of stigma attached to mental illness in this world. What happens when some pharmacist version of Tom Cruise refuses to hand out ADD meds or antidepressants, and instead suggests vitamins? It opens the door for this sort of thing to become a hell of a lot more common, and the last thing that a person struggling with a new ADD, depression, bipolar, or what have you diagnosis needs is some know-nothing yahoo taking advantage of their liscence to behave as though they were morally superior.

It may just effect women now, but it won't stay that way.

[nsingman]

I'm not a woman, but this is a big deal. The correct approach here is being taken by those writing letters and boycotting the company. I'll join the boycott, unless any attempt is made to coerce Target to change their policy through legislation or lawsuits.

I disagree on your third point strongly, though. As a libertarian, I'm opposed to government licensing of any professions. Private licensing organizations, as with so much of the private sector, are a far more cost effective (and generally effective) solution.

[nsingman]

That sounds better than many state licensing boards on our side of the border, and I'm sure it's a pretty effective compromise. I think it would work even better without the ministry, though, radical libertarian that I am. :-)

[tertiumquid]

Followed a link here from kittymel. I agree with the overall premise but have one nit to pick.

Your second point, regarding the possibility of it degrading into race descrimination seems flawed to me.

There currently is no specific legal precedent that requires a pharmacist to fill these prescriptions against their moral judgement. Maybe there will be, but allowing it simply does not put the company at legal risk at this time.

There are strong and well established legal repercussions for racial descrimination in a business. Allowing an employee to discriminate based on race would put the company in direct violation of federal law. They won't do it and no court would require them to.

Beyond that, bravo! I applaud your willingness to act on your conscience.

[lousy_timing]

No, there aren't any, you're correct. What Target has stated in their various responses, however, is that they are using the Civil Rights Laws to protect the moral objections of the few rare pharmacists who might object to filling these prescriptions. So I actually didn't take it into race first- they did- and that's why I went with the Church of Jesus Christ Christian as my example

[arielstarshadow]

I must have missed something...I have no idea what you're talking about. :(

[lousy_timing]

Oh, just back up a few posts in my journal, and visit wicked_wish's, as well. :)

[arielstarshadow]

Good grief! How insane is this?

It's disgusting, really, how people think they should have the right to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their body. I can say this, even when for my own personal reasons (which are not religious, in case anyone is wondering), I would prefer women use a form of birth control other than the Pill.