Target, You Can't Play God

On September 30, 2005, a pharmacist at a Target store in Fenton, MO, denied a 26-year old girl woman person emergency contraception. Yep, you read correctly – DENIED. Excuse me, but who the HELL are you, Target pharmacist? When you were hired on at Target, did it say somewhere in your employee handbook,

"If you don't agree with a customer's purchase, be it a high-waisted, tapered pair of slacks, a high-calorie chocolate bar, or birth control, please feel free to exercise your authority as a Target Employee and deny the purchase. You know what's right."

Go ahead and sell all the guns you want, even though you have no idea what the purchaser is going to do with it, but don't sell contraception to a person trying to be responsible. No, no, no, no. Hand over a prescription for Oxycontin knowing how addictive it's become. Sure, no problem. BLIND EYE. You stand mighty in your red smock with a white emblem and you think you're equipped to make decisions about a woman's right to emergency contraception just because you have a degree in pharmacology? FUCK YOU. You don't get to do that. You have no idea if the woman in question has just been violated, if a condom broke, or what constituted the emergency –becuase it's none of your fucking business.  A woman is trying to take control of her actions here; let's give her a little credit.

We're talking about adults, here, not children looking to buy crack. A woman 18, 19 or 50 years-old has the mental capacity to understand, take charge and make decisions for herself – responsible decisions at that.
This is happening everywhere.  And fellas, don't think this doesn't affect you. You want to be a baby daddy? Just sit back and be quiet then. Want to make sure you can get busy safely? Speak up.

Nothing get's the crazyvirgo fired up like the government and everyday nobodies passing judgement and denying women their given rights. I'm breathing fire. You know who's out fighting the power, though? You guessed it – J-mf-B. My goddess at Planned Parenthood.

Tell Target this is unacceptable. or call them 1-800-440-0680.  They'd love to hear from you!
 

Comments

[sarahb]

That asshole should be banished to Wal-Mart as a greeter. And what the F Target? You refused to donate to a WW II memorial because you only support non-political causes? I suppose birth control isn't really a hot bed issue...

[crazyvirgo]

an addendum -
I'l be the first to admit that i dig target's advertising. it sucked me in. i buy clothes and shoes from them. but you can forget that shit now. when they're ready to apologize, i'll be in again, until then IT'S OVER. and Target, it's not me, IT'S YOU!

[Rbrown]

Who the fuck does Target think they are - The Cracker Barrel??!

Perhaps this is all part of a larger plan that simpletons like us could never begin to understand: deny birth control, overpopulate and when the kids get old enough to support a family, say 3 or 4 at the very latest, let them have the pleasure of stitching up some Massimo corduroy jackets (sadly, I own one of these) for the masses.

Some genius account person at Milla, Peterson Hooks or wherever the hell that is probably thought up the whole scheme and is now calling it "interactive advertising". BRILLIANT!

[MetroDad]

I knew I hated Target for a reason. I can't belive they refused to honor a 26 year-old woman's valid prescription! This is absolutely absurd but unfortunately not entirely unexpected. Want to hit them where it hurts? Boycott Target. And tell them why you are.

[gina]

This exact same thing happened last week in Lubbock, TX. at the United Grocery store pharmacy to my best friend. Her husband is back for two weeks from IRAQ. The condom broke, she got her script and was turned down TWICE. EVERYONE should be concerned here!

[crazyvirgo]

MD - not only am I boycotting, but I called and talked to a senior specialist in the customer relations, let him know it wasn't the employees duty to play god, not gonna shop there until they make a statement concering this matter, and i made sure to tell him that i blogged this!!! burn!

[Liz]

Never again will I travel to Target to pick up laundry detergent and come home with $50 worth of candles, Todd Oldham furniture cubes and bad silk flowers. This is why the RU486 was originally denied FDA approval because jackass religious zealots decided that it was an "abortion" pill even though the pill actually only prevents a fertilized egg from attaching the uterine wall. But, then again, this guy is one of the masses that believes that an egg and a sperm in a petrie dish constitutes a human life that should be adopted instead of used to find cures for countless dehibilitating diseases. I'm moving to Europe.

[Avi Jacobson]

I absolutely agree with everything you have written here -- except for one thing: She was not a 26-year-old GIRL; she was a 26-year-old WOMAN. In fact, the pharmacist was duty-bound to view her as a 26-year-old PERSON, and her gender should have been totally irrelevant.

I hate what is happening to this country.

[JustLinda]

I'm in St. Louis County, just minutes from Fenton. My brother and his family live in Fenton.

Down with Target -- GO CARDS!!!

[Jaime Schwarz]

Ok, I just sent the stop target link on to the maximum number of people, I hope everyone else is doing the same. The only thing stopping this country from greatness is apathy! We shall overcome! My god... I'm a hippie!

[I love target]

To sarahb,

Since 2002, Target has been the victim of a misleading e-mail campaign. This e-mail campaign grossly misrepresents Target's support of veterans and our soldiers. In fact, the author of the original e-mail contacted Target in December 2003 to express his regret for sending the initial e-mail in 2002 and to share his concern about the false information being attributed to him. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the Internet and e-mail communication, the original e-mail has been repeatedly and inaccurately modified and perpetuated by unknown writers.

The National Veterans of Foreign Wars posted a press release on their website on December 6, 2002 to help clarify this issue and show their support of Target at http://www.vfw.org/news/target.htm.

[Todd Oldham]

Hey I Love Target,

What they hell kind of post is that? All I can gather is that your effort is dispell a misleading fact that is irrelavant to what the point of this story is about, you are simplely making a ploy to move this discussion off point or discredit it as misleading. I love target? I wonder what it would be like if you had a thought that wasn't either promulgated to you or the talking points that you are fed. You know what, since 2002 the American people have been a "target" of a government that cant stop its spending, corporate felons that can't stop stealing from their shareholders, and companies that feel that their bottom line trumps the rights of the people that buy from them. You know what, you kind of make me sick, no, you actually do. Enjoy your "big box" life and remember that your leaders have told you that everything is ok.

[heidi]

Ooooh...I am SO tempted to email TO and tell him if he's so pro Target, why doesn't he make a cute striped or polka-dotted little pill size purse to dispense our birth control and morning after pills in. Or he could get a womb....or he could shut the hell up.

[Todd Oldham]

Heidi,

You could have read on, becuase that was not the point of the my post, which was in response to "I love target" above. But feel free to tell someone to shut the hell up and not understand that they were discussing. Whatever, it gets tough to want to discuss a viewpoint someone simply devloves into insult. I support your viewpoints, not oppose them.

[Brian Potts]

What about the pharmacist's freedom to choose? What about his right to follow his conscience? Abortifacient contraceptives destroy human beings. Surely no one should be obligated to cooperate proximately with such an act at the pain of losing a vocation.

Brian Potts

[crazyvirgo]

brian - a physician is free to choose, but that is not what they agreed to when they decided to work at a pharmacy. they do not have the moral competency to decide who gets what prescription. that's not in their job description. what is in their job description is to fill prescriptions. it is between a person and the doctor that prescribes them the prescription and it is no business what the pharmacist thinks.

[Brian Potts]

How do you know what pharmacists agree to when they decide to work at a pharmacy? Their job is not to prescribe drugs, but to fill prescriptions, to be sure. But they are not therefore obligated to fill every possible prescription.

It seems pharmacists should be free to abstain from filling a prescription on ethical grounds. Indeed, the continued employment of such pharmacists seems to indicate that they did not agree to fill absolutely every prescription asked of them, and that they are free to follow their consciences.

I would temporarily grant for the sake of this discussion that whether or not to employ an abortifaciant contraceptive is matter between a woman and her doctor. It does not follow from this, however, that everyone else is obligated to facilitate their desired course of action.

[Liz]

Brian - emergency contraception does not destroy a human being. It is simply a very high dosage of birth control that prevents any implantation on the uterine wall. First, emergency contraception is not effective unless taken within 72 hours of having sex and, since sperm live up to one week in the vaginal canal, there is likely fertilized egg. Second, there is no embryo until implantation on the uterine wall which takes far longer than 72 hours.

Third, allowing rogue pharmacists to decide which prescriptions to fill based on their moral and ethical beliefs is a slippery slope. If your argument was followed to its conclusion, pharmacists would be able to deny patients prescriptions for anti-depressants, anti-psychotic drugs, and, depending on their "moral code", deny diabetics insulin based solely on their belief that insulin is not necessary. More importantly, it is not the pharmacist's place to unilaterally decide important matters in other people's lives.

[Brian Potts]

The life of a human being begins at conception, not at implantation. At conception, a new being exists with 46 (or so) human chromosomes and the complete genetic code to develop as a human being. A doctor could take a Brazilian conceptal human and place her in a Canadian woman, who would give birth to an ethnically Brazilian baby nine months later. It seems the life of a human being begins at conception.

The conceptus does not experience senstations, does not have a present ability to think, and is completely dependent on her mother. But these facts do not undermine the humanity of the conceptus.

Implantation is a matter of location and a greater guarantee of continued living. But surely implantation does not turn a non-human being into a human being.

If the life of a human being does not begin at conception, when does it begin?

If a contraceptive prevents the implantation of a conceptal human being, then it does lead to the destruction of that human being. If a contraceptive infuses a conceptal human being with lethal chemicals, then it does destroy that human being. Even if we grant that such destruction is arguably ethical, under principles of double-effect and self-defense, we must also grant that such destruction is at least arguably unethical. There are even arguments that all contraception is unethical, as contraception violates the nature of the sexual act. If we grant that there is some ambiguity in these matters, and that the life of a human being is at stake, then surely we must grant both that the woman and her physician should be the primary decision makers, and that the pharmacist should be free not to cooperate with their decision if her conscience so directs, without losing her job, no?

As far as I know, filling prescriptions for anti-depressants, insulin, etc., does not involve the possibility that the drug bears a high risk of destroying a human being, so these prescriptions do not pose the same ethical dilemma as certain contraceptives do. In any event, if a pharmacist had a serious ethical objection to anti-depressants, I think she should be free to abstain from filling such prescriptions.

I agree that it is not the place of the pharmacist to decide unilaterally important matters in other people's lives. I merely submit that it is not the place of customers to decide unilaterally important matters in the pharmacist's life, such as whether or not she will cooperate with a course of action that proximately leads to the death of a human being.

[Liz]

I had a feeling that your response would be that the second a sperm fertilized an egg, you have a human being. Unfortunately, I do not how to argue in response because responding to an irrational argument is simply impossible. And I firmly believe that your argument and that of many like you is irrational. The presence of chromosomes does not give a fertilized egg the indicia of a human being. I will be honest and tell you that I do not know when life begins - I am not a doctor or a scientist. I do not that there is a potential for a fetus until after implantation and, even then and after, I firmly believe in the right of a woman to choose and for her choice to be free from dictation by religious, moral or governmental policies. While I acknowledge that you and the Target pharmacist would not agree with that position, you are not the doctor or the woman making that choice. Furthermore, if a pharmacist has ethical and moral issues that prevent him or her from filling certain prescriptions, that that individual should not be employed in a profession that services individuals who need medication that their doctor has prescribed. Again, if your argument were followed to its conclusion, cashiers could refuse to ring up and sell condoms, tylenol, etc. - whatever it is that they have a moral or ethical objection to and that is an absurd result. And showing up with a prescription at a pharmacy - the entire purpose of which is provide the medication which is indiciated on the prescription - is not forcing a unilateral decision in a physician's life. It is asking someone to do their job. If that person has moral or ethical problems with fulfilling their job-related duties then that person should not be employed in the job. Plain. Simple.

[Liz]

I had a feeling that your response would be that the second a sperm fertilized an egg, you have a human being. Unfortunately, I do not how to argue in response because responding to an irrational argument is simply impossible. And I firmly believe that your argument and that of many like you is irrational. The presence of chromosomes does not give a fertilized egg the indicia of a human being. I will be honest and tell you that I do not know when life begins - I am not a doctor or a scientist. I do not that there is a potential for a fetus until after implantation and, even then and after, I firmly believe in the right of a woman to choose and for her choice to be free from dictation by religious, moral or governmental policies. While I acknowledge that you and the Target pharmacist would not agree with that position, you are not the doctor or the woman making that choice. Furthermore, if a pharmacist has ethical and moral issues that prevent him or her from filling certain prescriptions, that that individual should not be employed in a profession that services individuals who need medication that their doctor has prescribed. Again, if your argument were followed to its conclusion, cashiers could refuse to ring up and sell condoms, tylenol, etc. - whatever it is that they have a moral or ethical objection to and that is an absurd result. And showing up with a prescription at a pharmacy - the entire purpose of which is provide the medication which is indiciated on the prescription - is not forcing a unilateral decision in a physician's life. It is asking someone to do their job. If that person has moral or ethical problems with fulfilling their job-related duties then that person should not be employed in the job. Plain. Simple.

[Brian Potts]

You suggest the conceptus resulting from human intercourse lacks "the indicia of a human being." What indicia does the conceptus lack?

Cashiers should refuse to ring up items if doing so would force them to cooperate with evil to an unethical extent. All of us should refuse to cooperate with evil to an unethical extent. Granted, the line between ethical and unethical cooperation with evil is often difficult to determine. But we all have an obligation to form our consciences, scrutinize our actions, and refrain from doing things that are unethical – including cooperating with evil to an unethical extent.

Accepting a job as a pharmacist at Target does not obligate one to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, any more than accepting a job as a judge obligates one to grant judicial bypasses allowing young women to have the fetuses inside them aborted without parent (of parent) consent. The pharmacist and the judge can both recuse themselves from the matter, and abstain from facilitating the desired course of action. I suppose the dispositive question to be asked regarding whether or not filling prescriptions for contraception is an essential part of a pharmacist's job at Target is: What did Target do to the pharmacist when it learned about his abstention?

[Brian Potts]

A bit of internet research indicates Target has a policy specifically allowing pharmacists to recuse themselves from filling ethically objectionable prescriptions. It seems filling these prescriptions is not an essential part of their job, without which they can't be Target pharmacists.

[crazyvirgo]

brian, pal, you're not gonna win this arguement. maybe just step back for a moment and try to understand it. it's a very simple thought. we can't bring women's bodies and science to a legislative level. NEver ever ever. end of discussion

[Brian Potts]

Have postings been pulled? Have we truly come to the end of discussion? Shall I inform the several States that we demand the repeal of laws against prostitution, since we can never ever ever bring women's bodies to a legislative level?

[MIM]

Brian, the job of a pharmacist is to dispense pills, not to make moral judgments about what he/she's dispensing. Now go bother someone else.

[Brian Potts]

You've begged the question, and produced the answer you desire. You've assumed the job of a pharmacist is always to dispense pills without objection.

I submit that a pharmacist has (and ought to have) discretion to abstain from dispensing pills which violate her conscience, without losing her job. And I offer as evidence of the fact that Target pharmacists do have such discretion the fact that Target has policies allowing for such discretion. Apparantly, the job of a pharmacist does include making moral judgments.

[Liz]

1. Your earlier post re: regulating women's bodies by making prostitution & cocaine illegal, seatbelts, etc. These are not laws directed at women's bodies. They are laws directed at men and women, old and young, gay and straight, etc. These laws are not aimed at legislating human bodies or the choices humans make about their bodies. The legislation which you prefer, based on your ideology as expressed in you numerous posts, would specifically target and legislate a woman's reproductive system and her ability to make choices regarding her reproductive organs and life. There are no laws regulating your penis, your testes, scrotum, sperm production or lack thereof. There is a law that is aimed at both men and women, but has historically had more application to men - you can't have sex with children. Again, this is not aimed at your penis or you right to have sex. This law is based on a whole host of issues which everyone in this country agrees on (except the insane, sick and pedophiles) - you cannot have sex with children. There are not other laws that regulate, criminalize or otherwise legislate a human being's natural body parts or ability to make choices regarding those body parts. The legislation you would push is the very definition of paternalistic legislation, historically the most unpopular of lawmaking. It is the decision of a law maker to legislate his or her moral, religious and/or ethical beliefs on the entire nation. The entire reason this country was founded was to escape such persecution and to live in a more free-thinking society. Furthermore, in your earlier posts, you compared my rights to my reproductive organs and choices regarding them as similar to wearing seatbelts and nuclear expermination. Not only is that absurd but also incredibly insulting.

Also, your "evidence" that Target gives pharmacists discretion - think about why that is Brian. You may or may not know that this is the most litigious country in the world. Anyone - with or without a lawyer - can make their way into the judicial system and sue for one thing or another. And, the religious, moral or ethical beliefs that an individual holds are the biggest hot-button issues in employment cases and have been seized upon by money-hungry attorneys as the way to make a buck. It goes a little something like this - the employee is either fired or suffers an adverse employment action. He or she then sues the employer and claims that he or she was fired because of a religious, moral and/or ethical belief he or she holds. The employer denies such an allegation - end of story? Absolutely not. The employee only has to produce evidence that the employer's proferred reason for the termination was pretext for an underlying bad motive to retaliate or punish someone for their beliefs. Big companies - like Target - have extremely deep pockets and juries around the country are more than willing to help out the little guy against the big bad corporation. More and more companies are taking extreme and often ludicrous steps to protect themselves against the even more extreme and ridiculous lawsuits that are landing in courts. So chew on that for a while - Target's "policy" is the perfect litigation-avoidance tactic. It allows the blame to fall on the individual and not the company while making it difficult for a jury to punish Target allegedly "protecting" individual beliefs. That is complete and total blowing-sunshine-up-your-ass-utter-bullshit. That is not the motive, purpose or intent of such a policy - it's solely a self-preservationist policy that is meant to protect what really matters to Target - money.

So before you get back on that high horse of yours and start spouting off informing "the several States," think carefully about your response. You've now, as you must, transferred from your esoteric rantings regarding my body to the legislative and legal side of the argument. This is my realm bud and I know my shit.

[Brian Potts]

Forgive me for being dense. I'd like to understand a claim of yours that seems fundamental.

You write
"There are no laws regulating [my] penis, [my] testes, scrotum, sperm production or lack thereof."
and, other than laws restricting certain forms of sex,
"There are not other laws that regulate, criminalize or otherwise legislate a human being's natural body parts or ability to make choices regarding those body parts."

It seems to me that there obviously are positive laws in America that regulate a human's body parts and his or her ability to make choices regarding those body parts. I offer one example:
N.Y. Public Health Law § 4307, which prohibits the sale of human organs.

If the people of New York have complete, unfettered autonomy over their choices regarding their body parts, including their reproductive body parts, then is New York's law preventing them from selling their ovaries or testes unjust? Or can you distinguish it?

[Liz]

If organs are being sold, the person who the organs belonged to is DEAD and therefore there is no issue of choice or protecting or legislating a LIVING human being's body. Before people die, they can "choose" to donate organs on a driver's license, etc. This legislation is necessary to discourage people from raiding morgues, digging up fresh graves and killing people in order to sell organs - which is an incredibly disgusting yet lucrative business across the pond. To suggest that a law regarding dead people's organs is the same as paternalistic legislation regulating my reproductive organs is ridiculous. In addition, organs that you can live without (e.g., a kidney) you can freely give to another human being. Just because you can't attach a pricetag to it doesn't mean you've taken a choice away. And, last time I checked, I can sell as many of my eggs as I see fit and make as much money as I want. But you wouldn't have a hysterectomy and donate your uterus - that isn't a transplant hospitals are doing these days.

[Brian Potts]

How is my choice to attach a pricetag to one of my kidneys and sell it not taken away by the law against selling organs?

[Liz]

Brian, Brian, Brian.

1. This is it? This is your response?

2. It's Friday. I not only have a job, I have to balance my workload with daydreaming about my first post-work vodka tonic followed by many Bob's 47s and Nutcrakcer Ales. This tiresome conversation is detracting from my favorite Friday activity.

3. I am confident in my own viewpoints and opinions. I am very protective of my reproductive organs. Nothing you can say will change my mind. Ever. I do not understand or agree with your viewpoint and, by now, I'm beginning to see a pattern in your reasoning.

4. Find another blog to bother. We're done here. It's back to CV's wonderfully witty rantings about all things hip, interesting and incredibly funny.

Ciao.

[Brian Potts]

1. I didn't think each posting had to be a complete response. I note you didn't even answer the brief question.

2. Have a good time tonight.

3. I am sorry to hear you think of yourself as so close-minded. I don't think you're giving yourself enough credit. What is the pattern in my reasoning?

4. I will never post to this blog again, provided I learn the answer to one of my fundamental questions: what indicia of a human being does the conceptus formed through human intercourse lack?