Pharmacies don't have to dispense "Morning After Pill"

[mbills2223]

Until you need a product in the next few hours that can only come from a very heavily regulated source.

The morning after pill should just be over the counter. That would eliminate this bull**** permanently. If every gas station had it, nobody would care about this.

It is over the counter essentially. No prescription is required for it. It's kept behind a pharmacy counter only to ensure that minimum age requirements are met when a patient wishes to purchase it.

 

[NYFelon]

Until you need a product in the next few hours that can only come from a very heavily regulated source.

The morning after pill should just be over the counter. That would eliminate this bull**** permanently. If every gas station had it, nobody would care about this.

EDITED: You know what, I'm not getting sucked into this. This can only go down a bad road.

 

[Ted]

Why is that?.........

Like we saw quality control standards in drug manufacturing and the Chicago meat packing district back in 1906?

So what? What ever happened to caveat emptor? There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Yeah, I suppose individuals like James Lewis would be all over that one.
-------------------------------------------------------------

People, we're speaking of things that one ingests into their bodies. Things that potentially could immediately rob a person of life......by act or omission. It would be rather difficult for the buyer to seek legal recourse if they were dead.

While COTUS is silent upon the specific issue of drug manufacture, it does however, address via 10A......that such power would very likely belong to the states.

Of course, the very moment such a drug crosses over a state border..... it becomes a matter of interstate commerce....and becomes a federal matter.

 

[Ted]

Until you need a product in the next few hours that can only come from a very heavily regulated source.

The morning after pill should just be over the counter. That would eliminate this bull**** permanently. If every gas station had it, nobody would care about this.

It is, however, available via a vending machine.........upon college campuses.

College vending machine offers 'morning-after' pill - Health - Sexual health | NBC News

 

[NYFelon]

Like we saw quality control standards in drug manufacturing and the Chicago meat packing district back in 1906?

Holy strawman Batman.

 

[88GT]

Like we saw quality control standards in drug manufacturing and the Chicago meat packing district back in 1906?



Yeah, I suppose individuals like James Lewis would be all over that one.

Who is James Lewis?

People, we're speaking of things that one ingests into their bodies. Things that potentially could immediately rob a person of life......by act or omission. It would be rather difficult for the buyer to seek legal recourse if they were dead.

OMGoodness. What did people do before 1901 when Big Brother told them which drugs were safe and which weren't?

I won't even mention the complicity of the FDA with the pharma companies in keeping honest research from the people.

While COTUS is silent upon the specific issue of drug manufacture, it does however, address via 10A......that such power would very likely belong to the states.

Of course, the very moment such a drug crosses over a state border..... it becomes a matter of interstate commerce....and becomes a federal matter.

It it my understanding that the commerce clause wasn't written so that the Federales could claim jurisdiction over something and therefore regulate it just because it crossed state lines. Rather, it was a means to protect the commerce of states and keep the flow of goods between states even between all the states. REGULATION OF THE GOODS THEMSELVES was not the intention. Such was a bastardization of the commerce clause.

Funny thing. You think I'm mean and I think you're a tyrant. Guess we're even.

 

[downzero]

While COTUS is silent upon the specific issue of drug manufacture, it does however, address via 10A......that such power would very likely belong to the states.

Of course, the very moment such a drug crosses over a state border..... it becomes a matter of interstate commerce....and becomes a federal matter.

You must have missed the last ~70 years, because something doesn't need to cross a state line in order for Congress to regulate it under the commerce clause. Wickard v. Fillburn is not new.

It might be a bad decision, but it's been the law for a long time.

 

[Ted]

You must have missed the last ~70 years, because something doesn't need to cross a state line in order for Congress to regulate it under the commerce clause. Wickard v. Fillburn is not new.

It might be a bad decision, but it's been the law for a long time.

My bad. I suppose I should have placed the words, 'original intent' into that statement.

 

[Ted]

Holy strawman Batman.

Why again was the FDA created? Strawman my foot.

 

[NYFelon]

Why again was the FDA created? Strawman my foot.

You took the introductory to my response, which was phrased as a rhetorical question, and quoted it. Afterwards, you completely disregarded the entirety of all but three words of my post, and began to argue against a point I didn't make. Tell me sir, how that is not the dictionary definition of a strawman?

 

[Ted]

Who is James Lewis?

Google is your friend.

OMGoodness. What did people do before 1901 when Big Brother told them which drugs were safe and which weren't?

They died?

I won't even mention the complicity of the FDA with the pharma companies in keeping honest research from the people.

There is complicity in nearly every aspect of life. Does that mean that people shouldn't work toward trying to improve it?

It it my understanding that the commerce clause wasn't written so that the Federales could claim jurisdiction over something and therefore regulate it just because it crossed state lines. Rather, it was a means to protect the commerce of states and keep the flow of goods between states even between all the states. REGULATION OF THE GOODS THEMSELVES was not the intention. Such was a bastardization of the commerce clause.

Congress is authorized by Article I, to "regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." As it was kept fairly open, it was authorizing Congress to make law to this effect in lieu of future considerations not yet considered.

Funny thing. You think I'm mean and I think you're a tyrant. Guess we're even.

I never believed you to be mean or tyrannical. Merely misguided in your notions.

 

[steveh_131]

That's great..... until one purchases a needed drug from their local pharmacy..... that is manufactured in North Korea..... or someone's garage.

Hey, I'm just suggesting that you not whine about wanting a 'free market' unless you actually want one. What you obviously want is government interference. So that's what you're getting.

Are there no corporations operating on a neutral to ethical playing field?

I would have thought that the libertarians were smart enough not to need a bogeyman to demonize such that they had to resort to the "evil BIG ________" paradigm.

Plenty of corporations operate on a neutral to ethical playing field.

However, I would be willing to wager that almost no corporations with this level of government involvement operate on a neutral to ethical playing field.

And even if they did, the regulation prevents effective competition leaving a very non-free market.

 

[Ted]

Hey, I'm just suggesting that you not whine about wanting a 'free market' unless you actually want one. What you obviously want is government interference. So that's what you're getting.

Show me absolutely free from governmental control, and I'll show you anarchy. Though anarchy is always replaced with oligarchy.

Why isn't there ever middle ground between the extremes here on INGO? After all, we are supposed to live in a Republic.

This should help: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDS1OHk7Lf8[/ame]

 

[downzero]

My bad. I suppose I should have placed the words, 'original intent' into that statement.

A document that was the result of collective action cannot have "intent."

Only individuals have "intent." A bunch of people cannot.

 

[Ted]

A document that was the result of collective action cannot have "intent."

Only individuals have "intent." A bunch of people cannot.

Then why are the terms 'congressional intent' and 'legislative intent' utilized when debating a law?

 

[mlzoiss]

OMGoodness. What did people do before 1901 when Big Brother told them which drugs were safe and which weren't?

I'm pretty sure people before 1901 weren't creating drugs to eliminate children for convenience's sake and making a hefty profit on the physical and emotional destruction of women.

Besides,

The New York City Department of Education has announced a new program to offer free contraception and the "morning after" pill to teens with out parental notification.

​

That should be of more concern to every woman and parent, than a pharmacist with a conscience.

 

[steveh_131]

Show me absolutely free from governmental control, and I'll show you anarchy. Though anarchy is always replaced with oligarchy.

Why isn't there ever middle ground between the extremes here on INGO? After all, we are supposed to live in a Republic.

This should help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDS1OHk7Lf8

Oh thank heavens. I haven't been called an anarchist in ages.

TIL abolishing the FDA = anarchy

 

[Ted]

Oh thank heavens. I haven't been called an anarchist in ages.

TIL abolishing the FDA = anarchy

I did not. Read the post again.

 

[rambone]

Let the blood flow in the streets! Abolish the FDA!!

 

[Lex Concord]

Let the blood flow in the streets! Abolish the FDA!!