Houston Democrats

Now that's activism.

Not a cut-and-pasted e-mail, not a blog rant (not that's there anything wrong with those for heaven's sake), but a good old-fashioned tongue lashing.

Outstanding job, Lisa.

As both a lifelong advocate of planned parenthood AND a Walgreens shareholder, the subject of this post concerned me greatly. While I am pleased that Lisa called to verify info with Walgreens corporate (so few in the online world do!), I would want to see the same due diligence for other pharmacies in the Houston market (CVS, Wal*Mart/Sam's Club, Target, Kroger, Randall's, HEB, etc.) I just talked at length with Walgreen's manager of external communications, Michael Polzin. I also have a message into the Director of Media Relations for CVS, Todd Andrews, and I can let you know what I learn.

Retail pharmacy companies cannot legally screen pharmacists during the hiring process because it violates EEOC protections. So any pharmacy retailer may end up with pharmacists who feel they may refuse to fill scrips on moral grounds.

The question is what to do about this at a policy level. Corporate policy is one piece, and state law is the other.

A Washington Post article cited at http://mediamatters.org/items/200503300002 says,

"The American Pharmacists Association [APA] recently reaffirmed its policy that pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions as long as they make sure customers can get their medications some other way." APA vice president for policy and communications Susan Winckler explained:

'What we suggest is that they identify those situations ahead of time and have an alternative system set up so the patient has access to their therapy. ... The key is that it should be seamless and avoids a conflict between the pharmacist's right to step away and the patient's right to obtain their medication.'"

Policies of companies like Wal*Mart, don't comply with this. Patients have been denied contraceptives at CVS as well. Walgreen's corporate policy complies, but could be stronger. Rather than boycotting, I would write to corporate and tell them you want a stronger policy and why:

Phil Burgess
Natl Dir of Pharmacy Affairs
Walgreen Co.
200 WILMOT RD
DEERFIELD, IL 60015-4620

Meanwhile, the more pressing issue is state law, which will always override corporate policy. Here in metro Houston, women have many options because most pharmacies employ several pharmacists and competitors are only blocks away. But what about access for women in rural Texas?

On the one hand, Texas HB16 "relating to the right to object to participation in an abortion procedure or to the dispensing of an emergency contraceptive" and HB2061 were both left pending in committee during the 2005 regular session, and no related bills appear to have been introduced in either special session. On the other hand, the Lege did nothing proactive to protect Texas patients' rights to prescribed contraceptives, either. (From: ">http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/legislation/bill_status.htm)

So I would also write your state rep and senator, and work to ensure we elect folks in 2006 who will protect patient access to prescribed medications.

Lyn,

You make us proud!!! ATTA GIRL!!!

Thanks, but the Atta Girl goes to Lisa! All I did was post her story.

Robin,

Yes, I did write my rep and senator on the issue as well. What I didn't like about the answer Walgreen's gave me was that where state law does not ensure a patient gets their prescription, Walgreen's policy does not ensure it either. I think Walgreen's should take a stand for their customers and guarantee us that our legally obtained prescriptions are filled. And having to drive down the block isn't good enough. They should want my business enough to not inconvenience me, or I'll spend my money elsewhere.

If I have to drive down the block, why look for another Walgreen's at all?

While they can't legally screen their applicants, they can have a corporate policy that requires pharmacists to fill all legal prescriptions. If it is a question of a safety issue or possible error, that can be sorted out with a simple call to the doctor.

As far as mentioning CVS, I only used that as an example because they seem to be the major competitor right now, and the Planned Parenthood website on this issue listed CVS as having a favorable rating when questioned about their policy. Before I actually drop off my next order, I'll be sure to investigate more thoroughly.

Letter from CVS to PP: http://www.saveroe.com/media/104_cvsmay2005fax.pdf

If you haven't already read the August issue of Self magazine, pick it up today. There is an excellent article by Janelle Brown entitled "Birth Control Lockdown" which discusses state laws empowering pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions, Emergency Contraception, the definition of conception, TV advertising campaigns that claim that condoms fail, irresponsible abstinence-only curriculums, and the federal officials (mostly men) who control birth control.

They started the War on Choice by attempting to overturn Roe v. Wade; now they are making it virtually impossible to prevent an unwanted pregnancy; what's next?

These trends have nothing to do with religion or ethics, this is about controlling women's lives.

During the 79th Texas Legislature's regular session, HB16 was introduced which would enable pharmacists, physicians, nurses or other staff to refuse to participate in or dispense emergency contraception. Fortunately, this bill was left pending in committee.

To read the full text of HB16, its sponsor and co-sponsors, go to http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/billsrch/docviewer.html?SESSKEY=RPANLJUREJRF&CURRDOC=1&NUMDOCS=19

My friend works at Walgreens' Corporate HQ. I asked her to find out the official policy for me. She did and here it is:

Because Walgreens is committed to employing people of all beliefs and religions, we do not ask potential pharmacy candidates to disclose personal beliefs, nor does this factor into our hiring decisions. However, there are occasions when the religious beliefs of a pharmacist may clash with the medical needs of a patient. We know this issue has had lots of media play recently, making it appear this is a frequent occurrence. In fact, it is quite rare.
When the situation does arise, this is how we handle it: While pharmacists aren't required to personally fill the prescription, they are required to take proactive steps with store management to facilitate having it filled by another pharmacist, either at that Walgreens or another nearby store. Our policy is intended to ensure the patient will receive her prescribed medication in a timely -- and non-judgmental -- fashion. By meeting our patients' needs in this way while respecting the religious beliefs of our pharmacists, we can satisfy everyone involved.

Essentially this boils down to the fact that any individual pharmacist who refuses to fill a script and who also refuses to take proactive measures to have a patient's script filled through an alternative system, is breaking Walgreens' policy. It then becomes an issue of policy enforcement.

While that is a very diplomatic answer, I'm just not sure that is good enough for me. I've been thinking about why I feel that way. I think it is because, historically speaking, it has always been women and NOT men who have had to fight for our rights, and to be taken seriously, and to have our issues addressed, and to have our medical needs met, etc. The fact that a pharmacist can decide whether or not to fill a legal prescription is not an issue a man has to worry about. Viagra? NO PROBLEM! If men had ovaries, the legality of contraception (or mandate to fill an order) would never be an issue.

So, the bottom line... as diplomatic and well written as that response was, no, it just isn't good enough for me as a woman and a feminist.

http://jasonscholte.blogspot.com/2004/12/what-walgreens-is-doing-to-me.html
Please read what Walgreens is doing to one of their own employees