ISMS opposes pharmacists dispensing emergency contraceptives without prescription
As a perennial Top Five PAC contributor to political campaigns, the Illinois State Medical Society is one of the most influential lobbying groups in the state.
ISMS's 2006 candidate questionnaire includes its position against pharmacists dispensing the morning after pill without a prescription. To read the question in its entirety, go to my blog.
ISMS's position is welcome news to those wanting to maintain common-sense physician oversight of this megadose of hormone(s) that require a prescription for lesser doses.
Meanwhile, an internal confidential email made public through the court case Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles reveals that Barr Laboratories, makers of the Plan B morning after pill, cut a sweetheart deal in 2004 to give "Planned Parenthood special pricing at $4.50 and $4.25, respectively, for the next five years."
Those singing the praises of Planned Parenthood's family planning altruism should know that Planned Parenthood of Chicago charges $21 for the MAP, a 366% to 394% mark-up (charging an additional $40 for a nonrefundable "online assessment" if purchased over the Internet). Planned Parenthood of East Central IL charges $24, a 433% to 464% mark-up (with an additional $28 "nonrefundable charge for [the] on-line service").
With its cash windfall in mind, why would Planned Parenthood push for IL pharmacies to dispense MAPs without prescription? Simply, it wants a monopoly on lucrative MAPs.
Take a look at HB2535. According to it, pharmacists could only dispense MAPs if entering into a "collaborative agreement" with an "authorized prescriber." Guess who plans to be the "authorized prescriber"?
Nevertheless, according to Planned Parenthood's confidential memo, "Our immediate interest is to develop and protect our market base."
11 comments:
This is more religion than politics. Do you ever write about politics or just the abortion issue?
I've had visits from plenty of phram reps. They've never pushed a bible on me. They give me pens and cups and all sorts of junk. I can imagine what they give someone who can really make something pay for them.
It's a tough business.
Following the money is almost always a good idea.
The Economist had a good column by Lexington (Their anon fellow who writes on America) explaining why it would do Democrats well to embrace OVER TURNING Roe v Wade. I'd link but it's pay site.
Check it out at the Library though... Rethinking abortion Dec 8th 2005
Jill's right, it's a losing issue for Democrats, but over turn Roe v Wade and it goes to the Legislatures and a lot of Republicans who've taken easy stands will be put to the vote.
As they should on this, and same sex marriage. The courts provide legislatures a lot of cover not to deal with hard stuff they should be dealing with.
Social Conservatives should be anticipating these legislative battles because they will be coming for certain I think.
I really want to stand with the pharmacists who got suspended for not distributing EC because I think people should have the freedom to make these choices even though I think it is a stupid one. However, the problem with the system is that you need to get licensed by the state to sell perscription drugs. If there were a free market where anyone could sell any drug to any adult (that is liberty isn't it?), then there would be absolutely no problem with allowing a pharmacist to follow their conscience, as any one could sell the woman her EC. That's how a market works.
There should still of course be licensed pharmacists and most people would go to them because they want to be sure that their drugs are safe. However, if an adult freely chooses to take a drug from a non-licensed pharmacist (even a non-FDA approved one), why is it the state's business that they are making a bird-brained decision, as long as the state is clear that anyone who comes to an ER with a non-perscription drug related problem will get absolutely no public help to pay for their medical expenses?
The only problem that I can think of is that these people might have kids. In this case, people who use drugs can still be sent to long jail terms for child neglect or endangerment if they let their drug use affect their parenting.
Following the money in any public issue is probably a good idea.
I thought the pro-life arguement was that there is nothing in the constitution that provides for legalized abortion.
Jill, what do you think about the general right to privacy (which I think is a horrible misnomer, it should be called the right to liberty, as the word liberty actually appears in the constitution)? I personally believe that Griswold v. Connecticut and Lawrence v Texas were two of the most correct Supreme Court decisions, and they are completely in line with the point of much of the constitution, that is putting limits on the government and empowering individuals against the tyranny of the majority when they are committing actions which have no externalities whatsoever.
I believe though that Roe v Wade is different, not because I don't believe in a right to privacy or liberty, but rather that this right does not trump that of the right to life of the fetus (that is there is an externality in this case, namely that the action of the mother does end the life of the fetus). Because there are these competing rights, I believe that legislatures are the place that states should figure out how to balance the mother's right to liberty and the fetus's right to life.
So Roe v Wade gets overturned, and becomes illegal...how do you then fight the illegal abortion clinics that will spring up?
The attorney representing the plaintiff's in this case should file a motion to disqualify the Illinois Attorney General.
A conflict of interest exist in the Attorney General's representation of the state and the Governor. The Attorney General has an interest in enforcing the states' pharmacys rule and it is a conflict of interest for her to defend the state.
Of course she wants it the states' way!
If you take an interest in the disqualification of the Illinois Attorney General, see case # 05L4617 where the judge will rule before the close of the week.
Any pharmacy should have more than one person filling prescription. If one is bothered morally, give the prescription to some one else to fill.
The state should not have such a rule especially as the only state to have such a rule.
I'm all for moral and ethics, but filling a prescription does not have to be done by the person whom is morally and ethically disturbed.
Post a Comment