Judge says Wash. can't make pharmacies sell Plan B

[maddezmom]

TACOMA, Wash. (AP) — Washington state cannot force pharmacies to sell Plan B or other emergency contraceptives, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, saying the state's true goal was to suppress religious objections by druggists — not to promote timely access to the medicines for people who need them.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton heard closing arguments earlier this month in a lawsuit that claimed state rules violate the constitutional rights of pharmacists by requiring them to dispense such medicine. The state requires pharmacies to dispense any medication for which there is a community need and to stock a representative assortment of drugs needed by their patients.

Ralph's Thriftway in Olympia, Wash., and two licensed Washington pharmacists sued in 2007, saying that dispensing Plan B would infringe on their religious beliefs because it can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, an act they equate with taking human life.

The state argued that the requirements are legal because they apply neutrally to all medicines and pharmacies, and that they promote a government interest — the timely delivery of medicine, including Plan B, which becomes less effective as time passes.



Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Judge-says-Wash-can-t-make-pharmacies-sell-Plan-B-3349010.php#ixzz1n9ivsH5H

[Justice wanted]

1. Another blow to woman's rights and health safety.

[niyad]

2. by a bush appointee, big surprise

Last edited Wed Feb 22, 2012, 10:36 PM - Edit history (1)

[24601]

13. Like the Bush appointee that ruled agaionst DOMA? n/t

[niyad]

26. so, one decent decision out of how many despicable ones? sorry, I am not impressed with their

overall performance, nor need I be.

[tanyev]

3. Can they require pharmacies to prominently post whether or not they sell Plan B?

It would help customers decide where to direct their business.

[xxqqqzme]

4. That ws my first thought.

The RWingers should, in the interest of 'community', post on their entrance or pharmacy window that they do not support health care options for women.

[yardwork]

7. The problem, of course, is that many women don't have a lot of flexibility in purchasing decisions.

Women living in rural areas or in isolated urban centers, women without transportation, women whose husbands/partners decide where they will shop, lots of women don't really have the option of seeking another pharmacy. The burden falls, as always, on the most vulnerable.

This is especially acute because it involves emergency contraception. Women who have been raped, very young women, women being abused by their partners - those are the same women who need emergency contraception. They're the ones who will be denied access to it because of this cruel and stupid barrier created by hypocrites.

Affluent, educated, independent women with cars can drive to the next town or the next corner and find a pharmacy. They're probably less likely to need emergency contraception anyway.

[MsPithy]

10. You are correct.

That is why the rest of us should boycott these pharmacies.

[pnwmom]

18. It sounds like fertile women should have a supply always on hand, just in case. n/t

[RainDog]

28. just in case of rape? really?

wow.

[pnwmom]

35. Wow. You never heard of a condom breaking?

Or people deciding, in the heat of the moment, not to bother with contraception -- and then regretting it in the cold light of day? Plan B is used more often in those situations than it is for rape.

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/where_to_get_the_morning_after_pill

If your method of birth control fails—ripped condom, slipping when removing a condomed-up penis, no condom, forgot to take the pill, drunken assault and so on—a fantastic new drug exists that can stop you from becoming pregnant, if you use it soon enough. The morning after pill—otherwise known as Plan B or emergency contraception—reduces the chance of getting pregnant by at least 75%, provided it is taken within 48 hours after sex. The sooner after sex you take the pill, the better it works.

It doesn’t work through abortion; rather it can prevent ovulation (the ovary releasing an egg to be fertilized) or implantation in the uterus of a fertilized egg. If you are already pregnant, it won’t hurt the embryo or fetus.

The side effects are relatively mild for almost all women, at worst similar to a really bad period.

And in a growing number of states, including Washington, you don’t even need to talk to a doctor first.

[Marrah_G]

60. Just in case of any reason she might think it is warranted

Failed birth control, forgotten birth control. It's not something only used in rape cases.

[pnwmom]

79. I think Plan B is used for something other than rape in the majority of cases. n/t

[yardwork]

75. I don't know if that is possible, but if so, would be a very good idea.

Again, the most vulnerable women are those least likely to think ahead and obtain this in advance. Every time a law restricts access to something, it's the poor and vulnerable who are affected the most. The educated and independent can navigate these barriers, as annoying as they are. From a public health point of view, it is always a concern when barriers are created to accessing health, because there are millions of people who are barely hanging on at the best of times. A

[pnwmom]

80. You're right -- the most vulnerable are the least likely to plan this in advance.

So we should support everything we can that will help them.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

34. I think they have more options here than you are giving them credit for

To the best of my knowledge, none of the chains are doing this, only stand alone mom & pop shops. Those stores are already rare and are not competitive on prices. Add a public boycott for not carrying Plan B etc, and they are history.

[jayschool]

55. If I'm the Catholic Church

I'm calling in all the money I can find to purchase all the major U.S. pharmacy chains. What better way to impose our dogma on the rest of the country, eh? It's a matter of our religious freedom!

[yardwork]

5. What an asshole. /nt

[BadgerKid]

6. Pharmacists aren't licensed medical doctors.

How can they prove there was an egg released AND it got fertilized?

[NC_Nurse]

8. When did "religious freedom" become the right to impose your beliefs on others?

Nobody's making THEM take these drugs. Why are they allowed to decide when someone else should or shouldn't follow THEIR religion.

This trend is such bullshit.

[Skittles]

38. NC NURSE NAILS IT

it's just the war on women, PART B

[potone]

40. Exactly. This is the argument that needs to be made! N/T

[Scootaloo]

46. That's what it's been about for at least 150 years

There WAS a time when "religious liberty" did in fact revolve around escape from persecution of your faith, whatever it may be; these days though? Religious liberty is having the "liberty" to force your religious values on others.

[Deep13]

9. I predict the 9th will overrule him.

Funny how the patient has to bear the cost of the druggist's religious objections.

[BOHICA12]

11. Is there any single product or item that statute can require a business to sell?

I can't think of one. Maybe some insurance instruments, but not any physical product.

[left is right]

12. So you are ok with a pharmacist that happens to be a JW

refusing to sell certain medicines for hemophiliacs because they contain human blood products. or a doctor (also a JW) refusing to administer a transfusion because iether act is against their religious belief

[BOHICA12]

16. Yes for pharmacist - she/he is a merchant

and therefore can decide what products will be sold. Now for a CVS pharmacist - no, she/he is not a merchant, but an employee of a larger entity.

Now for the Jehovah Witness physician - tough call, as an individual they might (as in their own office), but in a hospital setting they revert to employee status and then it it up to hospital policy.

[cstanleytech]

17. Do you even know of any JW who are pharmacists because I dont.

But anyway I believe in this specific instance the court made the correct legal ruling......I am not saying that I agree with pharmacies refusing to carry it though but rather I just dont see how the government can dictate what drugs that pharmacies must provide under our current constitution.

[TheMadMonk]

20. And a scientologist refusing to sell anything psychoactive? /nt

[niyad]

25. a pharmacist is not the same thing as a tire dealer.

the products are prescription drugs, and people's lives depend on them. there is nothing in their training that says they get to impose their religious beliefs on other people's lives.

I truly hope you are not a pharmacist, or in any other profession that impacts women's lives and health.

[BOHICA12]

27. People's lives don't depend on tires?

But if you own a pharmacy - you are the merchant - you determine the products you will sell and the products you won't sell. Dang, what is it about freedom and personal choice is so hard to understand? Your business will either prosper or suffer based on your decisions - as it should.

If we could figure out decent security, most pharmaceutical transactions could be carried out by a vending machine. Let's not elevate them too high.

[niyad]

30. really nice try, but tires and drugs are not the same thing. but you go right ahead and frame this

in terms of "of, poor merchant, being told what to do', not "woman-hating religious fundamentalists determining what drugs women may and may not get in their shops"

like I said, I hope you are not in any medical field, or any field where a woman's life is in your hands.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. The correct term is pharmacy (the business), not pharmacist (the person)

As a business, a pharmacy may or may not carry certain products for any number of reasons. Those are the choices made by the business owners, who may not be pharmacists.

If a store does not carry what I need, I don't shop there. If it was a pharmacy that refused to carry Plan B, not only would I not shop there, I would push for a public boycott. People power is clearly the way to go in situations like this.

[RainDog]

45. No. Pharmacies are not allowed to decide which state regulations to follow

if they want to operate in that state.

The state requires pharmacies to dispense any medication for which there is a community need and to stock a representative assortment of drugs needed by their patients.

They may not discriminate against women by not stocking medication for which there is a community need - so, if they don't want to abide by the regulations for their business, they should get into another line of work.

Most all businesses have regulations upon their operation - fire codes to this state's requirement to stock and dispense medicines for which there is a community need.

It's discriminatory policy to refuse to stock medicines that are only needed by women. If someone's religious beliefs mean they refuse to stock medicine the state has said it is their responsibility to do - then they need to get out of that line of work.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

56. And they should. They also can challenge regulations that are inappropriate

What other businesses are told what merchandise they have to carry, one only available from a single source? That is a tremendously different kind of regulation than fire codes. If the state somehow controlled the number and location of pharmacies, the argument for compelling state interest and state authority would be clear. Not so much here.

If the pharmacy decided not to carry some medication as business decision since they had not sold any in last 12 months, would that be "allowable" in your opinion to no longer carry it?

This is the kind of case where public shaming and boycotts are the better approach, not questionably legislation or regulation. Such moves reinforce the concept of people power and give large movements like Occupy more credibility.

[RainDog]

59. the provision states "when there is a community need"

the regulation existed prior to this moment - so why would someone start a business when they did not expect to abide by the regulations for that business? - unless they wanted to challenge the regulations.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

61. So the plaintiff was a brand new pharmacy?

[RainDog]

78. the issue is supplying medicines based upon the community

not someone's religious beliefs.

the regulations are not new, afaik.

[RainDog]

29. so, pharmacies should not be regulated?

The state requires pharmacies to dispense any medication for which there is a community need

This is a regulation that requires anyone who wants to operate a pharmacy to stock a variety of medicines from a variety of makers. Personally, I do not want to live in a nation that requires no regulation for pharmacies because the product they dispense is not one they actually prescribe - they are merely the agent of companies that make medicines that doctors prescribe for patients - they are not allowed to make those patient decisions themselves.

If they don't want to follow their state regulations, they should get out of that business.

[alp227]

31. As i'm learning more about society i see pharmacies as part of the commons

as pharmacies serve the basic health needs of the public first and thus should NOT be run on a for-profit basis or under one's religious prejudice.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. Until they become government entities, I agree with the court's decision

that the state can not reasonably mandate products a private business must carry.

However, we consumers have that power and should wield it mightily and often. When a business does not carry what we think they should public shaming and boycotts are the right answer. People power works, especially in the market place.

[alp227]

36. this is why we need single payer health care...

basically primary care and essential meds like those for coughs/colds or Plan B should be part of the commons and thus pharmacies have an ethical duty to carry them. However, luxury supplements like Viagara should be optional.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

43. Single payer would not address this issue, single provider would

With private pharmacies, doctors, and hospitals all existing under single payer plans, all single payer does is provide a means of payment, not guarantee that all drugs and treatments will be available at all facilities.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

42. Auto makers are required by statute to manufacture and sell replacement parts...

... for extended periods of time.

Some bars are required to sell food as part of the licensing agreement.

You can hardly get a permit to build condos in Chicago if you can't offer a certain percentage of parking space for sale with the units.

Taxi cab companies are required to service parts of the cities in which they are licensed as part of their licensing agreement.

There's no (valid) reason requirements can't be placed on a pharmacy's license in order to operate in any given state. Legislatures have the authority to regulate commerce.

[Thor_MN]

51. Try to buy a car without seat belts, air bags, high mounted third brake light

[ProgressiveProfessor]

82. That is a product requirement, not one leveled on the dealer or reseller

[eyeofnewt]

15. sickened

Honestly sickened. I work in an office of women who have celebrated this ruling all afternoon with hugs and tears of joy. Yes tears! Women , in WA, in 2012. If I didn't desperately need this job.........

[Dawson Leery]

19. At least there should be a sign on the door stating this. This way

women do not have to waste their time at that store and WE can boycott.

[csziggy]

37. I was thinking there should be some way for customers to tell the difference

Between a real full service pharmacy and a place that wants to impose their religious point of view on their customers. Maybe a two tiered licensing? Pharmacies would provide all medications reasonably expected to be available. Alchemists may sell whatever their religious bias and personal morals allow.

That way people can know before they go into the business what to expect. After all, there have been situations where women have submitted prescriptions for drugs that offend the so-called pharmacists and the religiously biased person has not only refused to sell the needed medication but had refused to return the script so the woman can go to another place to have it filled.

[SemperEadem]

50. I like it

Pharmacies would provide all medications reasonably expected to be available. Alchemists may sell whatever their religious bias and personal morals allow.

I, too, feel that they should have to put a huge sign in their window or in the entrance to the store stating that because of their religious feelings, they do not dispense whatever medicine a woman's doctor deems appropriate for her health care.

I have a hard time with pharmacists without medical degrees/or licenses to practice medicine within the state doing just that on women of whose case histories they are ignorant.

[saras]

21. The judge was half right

"the state's true goal was to suppress religious objections by druggists"

Yes, this is the state's completely legal, legitimate, mandated-by-the-Constitution goal. It's an admirable goal, and most of the population wants the state to succeed at it.

It's no more appropriate than a fire truck refusing to put out your house fire because you support a different football team than they do.

[Rhiannon12866]

22. That makes sense. After all, corporations are people...

And apparently women are not...

[Skittles]

24. WTF

if these pious sanctimonious HYPOCRITICAL pieces of SHIT are unable to perform their duties as a pharmacist THEY NEED TO FIND ANOTHER LINE OF WORK

[Monk06]

39. This decision is blatently political and will be overturned. This notion that Pharmacists have the

constitutional right to refuse to dispense legally available medications
based on their religious beliefs is a red herring. It would be like an
EMT refusing to treat accident patients on Friday because he was Jewish
and coming into contact with blood would prevent him from going to
temple the next day.

Sorry you decided to serve the public when you became a pharmacist.
Serve or get a job where you don't serve the public. Pumping gas would
work. I don't see how pumping gas would be unbiblical.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. This decision is not about refusing to dispense, it is about private businesses choosing whether or

not to carry certain products and if the state can force them to. Pharmacies are privately owned businesses and are not licensed to serve the public good like radio and television stations. Pharmacists are not public servants, they are either in business or work for a business.

That said, the correct way to address this kind of travesty is public pressure, opinion and boycotts. Not of the chains participate in this behavior, It is limited to mom and pop stores, a dying group already. Let other know what such a shop is doing and it will go away that much faster. People power works wonders in this kind of situation.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

44. libertarian clap-trap. Legislatures can and do regulate business and what they sell..

Want a liquor license in chicago? You better "carry and dispense" food to get a license.

Want to build condos in chicago? You better carry and dispense a certain number of parking spaces if you want a building permit.

Same goes for "private" utilities. We regulate and licence the shit out of them. Heck, we even require they BUY electricity they don't really want or need.

There's no reason a state or local municipality can't require a base line of products be offerd to call the establishment a "pharmacy."

I don't know why you would even mention telvision and radio as those examples NEGATE your argument. Television stations aren't "licensed to serve the public good" - they are for-profit "private" entities that take on certain elements of "public good" as a requirement of their license.

[Scootaloo]

47. The trouble is, plan B is a specific product

Yes, you have to serve food to get a liquor license; but the legislature can't tell you exactly WHAT food products, manufactured by which companies you can stock.

The judge's ruling IS incorrect; but only because this is a commerce issue, not a 1st amendment issue.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

57. How is it incorrect as a commerce issue

[Hassin Bin Sober]

72. The licenses are based on percentage of reciepts based on food sold versus liquor sold....

.... so it stands to reason one would have to provide a generally requested food items (I mean, you can't put bricks on the table and call it food) - kinda like the state's requirement pharmacies stock generally requested medicines.

Yes, it's a commerce issue. Legislatures regulate commerce. I can't open a tobacco shop and call it a bank. If someone wants to open a business where all their religious beliefs are met, they should open a church NOT a highly regulated business based on science fact and chemistry.
If someone wants to open a businees that only stocks what THEY want to stock, feel free to do so - let them call it a convenience store.

[sinkingfeeling]

64. Pharmacists, however must be state licensed. So, the state should be able to

regulate their actions. You can't run a pharmacy without licensed pharmacists. You can have a store and sell over the counter drugs and health items, but you can't dispense drugs!

[Incitatus]

48. Medical professionals should now be allowed to deny any service based on their religious beliefs.

What if a doctor thought AIDS or any STD for that matter was the result of a sinful lifestyle, should they be allowed to refuse treatment?

[cstanleytech]

49. They already can refuse to do certain procedures and its legal for them to do so.

Besides like pharmacies there are plenty of other doctors to choose from sp if by some fluke you should ever meet such a doctor as you described just boycott them.

[NaturalHigh]

52. I completely agree with this ruling.

As the judge pointed out, pharmacies are already allowed to refuse to stock certain products. For example, some refuse to stock oxycontin for fear of being robbed. It should be up to the business owners to decide which products to stock. If you don't like it, don't shop there.

People are only pissed at this decision because they either hate anyone even having religious beliefs or because they hate anyone objecting to abortion in any way. The people railing against the judge's decision are the ones who are trying to push their beliefs onto other people, not the pharmacist.

[ieoeja]

66. Then they would be violating the exact same regulation.

Washington did not require pharmacies to carry plan B. They required licensed pharmacies to carry all medications that may be required in the community.

So if your pharmacy is not carrying Oxycontin, or a valid substitute, then they would be wrong. And for all the exact same reasons. A licensed pharmacy has a duty to the community, even those who medically require Oxycontin. If they refuse to provide it, then they should have lose their license. They are a fraud and a danger to their community.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

70. Pharmacies are already allowed to refuse to stock certain products bsed on facts.

Or as the judge stated, "secular reasons" - as if secular reasons are a bad thing when it comes to a business that deals with verifiable science, chemistry and facts

So called "Christians" run around saying people "hate" their religious beliefs - sure we do when you want to impose them on everyone else in a highly regulated and licensed business. You want to engage in commerce based on your religious beliefs? Feel free to do so - it's called a CHURCH.

[NaturalHigh]

76. Refusing to stock a product is not imposing religious beliefs.

If the pharmacist said "I won't sell this to you because you're not a Christian", that would be different.

Refusing to stock plan B pills is no different that refusing to stock your favorite beer at the grocery store. Just go to another store.

[uppityperson]

83. "I won't sell this to you because I am a Christian" IS imposing religious beliefs. And about beer

comparison, what? I mean, what? Refusing to stock a medicine because you believe it is "wrong" is comparable to not stocking every kind of beer?

What? Seriously?

[dkofos]

53. I guess that gives women pharmacists the right to not dispense boehner pills.

[NaturalHigh]

54. Works for me.

It's not like people can't just go to another pharmacy to get prescriptions filled. My pharmacist won't stock plan B pills, but there are two pharmacies in town that do. No big deal.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

58. Actually it give pharmacies the right not to stock them

[suffragette]

62. Here with go again with the same damn judge

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Plan-B-140032383.html

The judge, an appointee of President George W. Bush, first blocked the state's dispensing rule in 2007. But a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel overruled him, saying the rules did not target religious conduct. It sent the case back to Leighton, who held an 11-day trial before reaffirming his original decision.

Further appeals were expected, both from the state and from groups that intervened on the state's behalf. Before taking more than an hour to read his 48-page opinion in court, Leighton acknowledged that he crafted it for the benefit of a "skeptical" appeals court.

~~~

"The question really is whether the patient's rights come first or the pharmacist's rights come first," said Andrew Greene, a lawyer for the interveners.

Assistant Attorney General Rene Tomisser said Leighton's ruling was "more detailed" but made the same mistake he made in 2007.

[caseymoz]

63. State's true goal was to suppress religious objection?

That seems a tremendously paranoid. If you wanted to repress religion, why wouldn't you just put a five dollar tax on each person who goes in to worship?

[slackmaster]

65. Question for those who disagree with the ruling: Should pharmacies be required to sell homeopathics?

The state argued that the requirements are legal because they apply neutrally to all medicines and pharmacies...

More generally, should they be required to sell items that the pharmacist sincerely believes to be ineffective, or that are being advertised deceptively?

[ieoeja]

68. I assume the state has a medical board of some sort that makes those determinations.

Or perhaps relies on the FDA?

If the appropriate agency says homeopathics may be medically required, and the FDA approves, then a pharmacy should carry them. It should not be up to each individual pharmacy to decide what works and what does not.

Even if you believe individual pharmacies should be making that decision for themselves, no pharmacy in this instance is claiming the medicine does not work.


You know, the more I think about this, the scarier I find your idea. I assume you are at least limiting it to deciding what NOT to carry and that you are not suggesting that pharmacies be allowed to determine what medicines they CAN carry ignoring FDA approval?

[slackmaster]

74. Homeopathics in general are considered by the FDA to be diet supplements

But there are many people who regard them as medications.

...Even if you believe individual pharmacies should be making that decision for themselves, no pharmacy in this instance is claiming the medicine does not work....

No, but the management of the pharmacies in question regard Plan B as harmful. I'm sure I disagree with them as strongly as you do about that. As others have pointed out, nobody is being forced to shop at those particular pharmacies.

[SpankMe]

67. Pharmacy's rights?

So, what if I was a progressive owner of a pharmacy chain and it was my policy to offer a complete line of all medications without qualification (including, possibly, medical marijuana). Would I be permitted to decline to hire, or even fire/lay-off, pharmacists who refuse to dispense certain medications based on religious or conscience reasoning? After all, it would be an "undue burden" to my business to have to hire a duplicate set of non-finicky pharmacists to be on standby to dispense medicines when the religious objectors won't.

I thought I recall reading about cases where it was considered religious discrimination to compel a pharmacist to dispense meds he/she objected to, AND also it was discrimination to fire and/or not hire pharmacists for not dispensing meds he/she objected to.

Seems like the conservatives stubbornly want it both ways. This is a huge problem in the country.

[Hugabear]

69. If you're going to sell medicine, you should not be allowed to discriminate based on religion

You shouldn't be allowed to pick-and-choose which medical remedies you are going to offer based upon your religious beliefs.

What if some pharmacy decided they didn't want to offer HIV medication, because they felt that AIDS was God's punishment for homosexuality and drug use?

[IndyJones]

73. And what if there is just the one pharmacy nearby?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

81. The problem is that not every pharmacy can carry everything and

the private business owner historically has chosen what merchandise they carry. No reason needs to be given. If the state mandates certain merchandise, the state then has a burden to cover at least some of the associated costs.

Consider this...if the pharmacy chooses not carry a product due to lack of demand, is that a good enough reason to drop it?

[Hugabear]

85. Read my post again

I was talking about refusing to sell medicine because of religious reasons - not because of lack of demand or difficulty in obtaining it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

87. So if Plan B or other drug used exclusively by women is not carried for something other than

religious reasons you are good with that...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

88. That is, in fact, how the law is written.

[IndyJones]

71. Seriously, someone help me to understand this "religious" thing.

I truly do not get this religious objection thing to drugs that prevent implantation or ovulation. No pregnancy is being terminated. No implantation, no abortion there. Is sperm from masturbation equally sacred or is it only sacred once it's inside a woman? So are those same pharmacies going to not dispense viagra or cialis?

I am really struggling with why men feel it is a religious issue for a woman to not ovulate or to prevent implantation. How is this an issue in 2012? And for Issa to only invite men to the table for discussion is just so bizarre.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. Plan B has not been found to be a Contragestive.

http://pharmacotherapyjournal.org/doi/abs/10.1592/phco.30.2.158?cookieSet=1
http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/PIIS0010782410003215/fulltext


Interferes with ovulation, preventing the release of an egg. No evidence so far that it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting.

So, these pharmacists are full of shit anyway.

[truthisfreedom]

84. Abortion has been proven to be safer for the mother than pregnancy and giving birth.

An argument could be made that this ruling allows pharmacists to endanger women's lives on a personal whim.

But there are alternatives to Plan B.

http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/dose.html

[diane in sf]

86. There is a business opportunity in Fed-Exing Plan B to women living in the more 3rd world states.

[HockeyMom]

89. Sue them for child support

Money TALKS. If the woman is a rape victim, sue them also for pain and suffering of being forced to carry a rapist baby.

There has to be an attorney somewhere willing to make a test case out of this.