48 responses so far ↓

• 1 Shane C. Mason // Jun 1, 2007 at 5:09 pm

  Dave, I respectfully disagree that this is purely an issue of a business owners right to sell what they want. You see, pharmacies are licensed by the state to distribute medication that is prescribed by a doctor that is licensed to to do so.

  At what point does it become ‘okay’ for a pharmacy to decide if a medication is morally ‘okay’ according to their own religion and ‘okay’ for a woman’s health? Shouldn’t the patient decide their own morality and the doctor and patient decide about the risks involved together? Isn’t a pharmacy part of a healthcare chain instead of being part of the morality police?

  I understand and appreciate what you are saying here. If what you say is true, perhaps it is a valid argument to move pharmacy distribution out of the private sector so that they will serve the interest of public healthcare as opposed to their own moral agenda.

• 2 ajtooley // Jun 1, 2007 at 5:15 pm

  Whatever happened to celebrating diversity? The pro-centraception folks are upset that Great Falls is only 88% compliant with their world view!

  Diversity is apparently all well and good …until you disagree.

• 3 ayn rand // Jun 1, 2007 at 8:18 pm

  Mason Jar, lets see..licensed by the state so they have to SELL customers what the customer wants. How about Missoula wanting peace officers to NOT enforce the laws pertaining to, apparently, your drug of choice, Mary Jane? But I’m sure you can not see the connection through your haze. You and your ilk will have a reason to diverge.

• 4 Patia // Jun 1, 2007 at 9:56 pm

  No, Dave, the REAL right at stake here is that of a woman to own and run her body.

  Let’s remember that it hasn’t been all that long since WOMEN were property. Throughout much of history we’ve had about the same legal status as cattle.

  These anti-abortion, anti-birth control tactics are part and parcel of ongoing attempts to control women’s reproductive choices and thus, their lives.

  Please try to put yourself in our shoes — if YOU were denied an important prescription that helped you control your destiny, would you not be offended? Particularly if it was part of a larger, 2,000+ year effort to deny you and your gender self-determination?

• 5 GiftShoppeGuy // Jun 1, 2007 at 10:03 pm

  Well good for Snyder Drug…

  Moral agenda or not….. the bottom line is “Rights”… right?…. so let them have the right to choose as they please.

  I mean, afterall, we allow a woman to “terminate” a pregnancy don’t we??…. it’s her “Right”…. and because it is her “Right”…. who are we to argue the point…..

  Arguing the point about Snyder Drug’s choice to either sell birth control pills or not is about the same as arguing the point on a womans right to terminate a pregnancy…. doncha think??

• 6 wolfpack // Jun 1, 2007 at 10:55 pm

  Wow. How upset can you get over a drug whose main purpose is to allow indiscriminate sex. I’m all for free love but you won’t find me beating my chest over my right to force others to help me in my efforts to have consequence free sex. Mainly because I don’t think it would get me anywhere. Try a box of condoms from Snyder Drug, Patia or go to a different store and quit making mountains out of mole hills.

• 7 Rachel // Jun 1, 2007 at 11:50 pm

  I’m just sort of astounded that there are still people out there who think that disallowing birth control is a good thing. Would the folks at Snyder Drug rather a young woman prevent a pregnancy, or end up with an unwanted pregnancy and an abortion?

  For the record: I am anti-abortion. Notice how I don’t say “pro-life” or “pro-choice”, because honestly I don’t consider myself neither. I hate the idea of abortion, and I do not think that it is necessary in 99% of circumstances. But I don’t want the government taking away anybody’s right to it either.

  I hope that Snyder Drug reconsiders, or I could see them losing business over this. I never got my prescriptions there, but I have stopped in on occasion. I won’t be supporting them anymore.

• 8 Shane C. Mason // Jun 2, 2007 at 12:33 am

  Wolfpack, what you have said here demonstrates the very reason that people are so up and arms here. Who are you to say what the main point of birth control is and if that is or isn’t OK?

  Wouldn’t you venture to guess that you maybe a married couple would use birth control so that they don’t have a child when they are not ready? Wouldn’t you imagine that a woman might use it to balance hormones? Wouldn’t you imagine that a woman might use it because it can greatly reduce the risk of ovarian cancer in high risk situations? Wouldn’t you imagine that a woman might use it who is in a committed long term relationship but just doesn’t want to get pregnant?

  The simple fact is that how a woman and her doctor decides it should be used is up to them and no concern of yours or a pharmacist or drug store owner? You make a lot of assumptions, but they don’t translate in the real world.

• 9 Mark Tokarski // Jun 2, 2007 at 6:27 am

  Once again this idea of individual rights gets messed up with privilege. Snyder is free to sell candy and Nyquil as they please, but prescription drugs are a different story. Selling them is a license granted by the state and carries with it moral obligations, one of which would be not to interfere with the doctor patient relationship, or to set Snyder up as some sort of superior moral force. What they are doing is presumptuous, meddling, and annoying. I don’t give two shits what Synder thinks about birth control. I don’t go to them for moral advice. Just sell the damned drugs and stay the hell out of peoples lives.

  Christians … sheesh!

• 10 Patia // Jun 2, 2007 at 8:42 am

  Wolfpack: How patronizing.

• 11 Vaughn // Jun 2, 2007 at 10:15 am

  It will be wonderful to see legal action taken against this piece of filth for deniying such basic needs as BC.

• 12 dckatiebug // Jun 2, 2007 at 10:49 am

  There were a few typos that I’ve fixed below. The moderator should feel free to delete my earlier comment.

  **

  wolfpack, women use OCP for a range of reasons. According to the Salon.com article about the Snyder Druge incident (which you can read here: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/05/31/birth_control/index.html) one woman denied OCP was “49 years old and unable to conceive, but [who] uses the birth control pills for a medical condition.”

  The condition could be endometriosis or amenorrhea. Less serious conditions for which OCP is used include to regulate periods, to reduce painful cramping, and yes, to prevent pregnancy (often within the confines of a committed, even a married, relationship). OCP is used not solely to justify indiscriminate sexual behavior. However, even if it were, people who have a lot of sex with a lot of different partners are still human beings who deserve medical care and services.

  And by the way, more than 80% of American women use OCP at some point in their lives and more than 98% use some form of artificial birth control. Users of OCP aren’t fringe sluts; they are your mother, your sister, your co-worker, maybe even your partner.

  It isn’t clear to me that the owners of Snyder Drug as pharmacists, but even if they are, who are they to get in between the doctor-patient relationship? We are talking about a legal drug, legally prescribed.
  I don’t live in Great Falls anymore, but I did for a long time. When I read stories like that, and worse when I read responses like these, I honestly can’t imagine moving back.

  Montana is supposed to be libertarian, the last bastion of an old western live and let live mentality. This is appalling, and confirms every stereotype that the coastal elitists have of Montanans.

• 13 ajtooley // Jun 2, 2007 at 10:55 am

  My earlier tongue-in-cheek trollbait garnered no response –probably reasonably so– but I do still have a point. There are 17 pharmacies in Great Falls. 15 of them follow your world view. You’re outraged that 2 do not, and frame it in terms of denying women freedom of choice. How are women being denied anything if it’s freely available in more than a dozen other places in a small city?

  Would I be offended if I were denied an important prescription that helped me control my destiny? Yes, yes I would –so much so that I’d go get it somewhere else. That’s …choice!

  I’d be right there with you if this were a government move, but it’s not. Choice remains. Freedom of choice does not carry with it an implication that no one else’s choices can be allowed to disagree with yours –only that their choices cannot deny yours. This clearly does not.

  This way, everyone has a choice, and some of you seem quite upset about that.

  And then there’s Mark Tokarski’s invocation of “moral obligation” to the state and a swipe at Christians as a class. Mark, I know quite a few pro-abortion-rights Christians, at least one of whom is a Democratic legislator –but feel free to dismiss ‘em all! As for “moral obligations,” who gets to pick what an individual’s moral obligations should be? You seem to be exercised that these religious folks are imposing their moral will on others, but there you are trying to do the same thing to them!

  As for the notion that perhaps they shouldn’t be pharmacists if they’re not willing to do the whole job, what if they became pharmacists before contraception was a widely accepted right? Are you now suggesting they should be drummed out of business because their moral position doesn’t change direction with the wind, as society’s does?

• 14 Craig's Spousal Unit // Jun 2, 2007 at 1:31 pm

  #

  Please try to put yourself in our shoes — if YOU were denied an important prescription that helped you control your destiny, would you not be offended? Particularly if it was part of a larger, 2,000+ year effort to deny you and your gender self-determination?

  Um…I guess I can speak on this. I’ve had to have bc to regulate my periods after the birth of my son. I can honestly say that if one pharmacy doesn’t provide it, I know that there are 10 or more others out there that probably would.

  Just sayin’ is all..
  -Cammy

• 15 dckatiebug // Jun 2, 2007 at 4:02 pm

  ajtooley: okay, so let’s accept Snyder Drug’s decision for a moment. What are the possible consequences of this precedent? For one, the community would have trouble denying other businesses that wanted to set prohibitions based on morality.

  So if the owners of Snyder Drug next decide that X racial group are the children of Cain, and hence shouldn’t be served, on what basis would you predicate your disagreement? It is after all a * business * decision.

  And of course this is complicated if we are talking about a pharmacy in a town that doesn’t have other options. Let’s say that the owners of Snyder Drug want to buy a pharmacy somewhere in the High Line in a one pharmacy town. And that they won’t sell birth control or AIDS drugs (because those folks deserve to die for their sin) or whatever other drug they have a moral problem with (Viagra to single men, etc.). What on earth are you going to do about it now? You’ve said that it is acceptable. So what are the folks in Two Dot going to do?

  The issue of insurance further complicates matters. Sure there are 15 other pharmacies in town, but what if Snyder is only one of a handful that accepts your insurance, and the others aren’t convenient? Or you don’t have a car?

  The decision of the owners of Snyder Drug bothers me both because of the reproductive rights issue (again, this is a legal drug, legally proscribed: who are these people to insert themselves into this decision?) and because I worry about the precedent.

  For myself, I wouldn’t want to frequent a pharmacy where the owners have such a delinquent relationship to scientific fact (their decision was based apparently in part on concerns about the side effects of OCP), but that’s just me.

• 16 Patia // Jun 2, 2007 at 5:05 pm

  OK, Cammy.

  What about when you move to a small town with only one drugstore? Or when the anti-abortion crowd buys up all the drugstores in the state? The country? Or when your favorite drugstore decides it’s no longer going to fill your kid’s ADD medication? Or your mom’s antidepressants? Or, heck, ANY prescriptions, because maybe they’ve become faith healers?

  I’m speaking hypothetically here, of course, but at what point, exactly, do you start to get upset?

• 17 wolfpack // Jun 2, 2007 at 5:17 pm

  Mason- I guess I’m just stupid but I thought the main use for BC pills was to prevent births which resulted from recreational sex. So much for truth in labeling or is it that you need to argue the margins in order to justify your opinion? Would you be defending Viagra prescriptions the same way or can’t you muster the same sympathy for a flaccid man. If the pills in question were for health only reasons and were not available, I doubt we would be having this debate. My wife and I over time have used BC pills for all reasons stated including recreational sex which doesn’t imply anything about her virtue. If she couldn’t fill her prescription at Snyder she would simply go somewhere else because she is an empowered intelligent woman like Cammy. Any woman who can’t easily figure a way out this problem without the help of the above saviors is too stupid to be having children anyway and definitely needs any medicine that will keep her out of the gene pool. There are real women’s health issues out there; I just don’t think this is one. This is simply a case of religious bigotry by people hiding behind the skirts of the feminist cause. Patia- If you are forced into making your arguments with a pile of hypotheticals in lieu of reality maybe you are only outraged over a manufactured problem.

• 18 Craig's Spousal Unit // Jun 2, 2007 at 7:52 pm

  Honestly Patia, have all the drugstores in one particular state been bought by some anti-abortion group? Do you honestly believe that this could happen? I believe your chances of getting struck by lightning are much higher than that. There are always options out there. If I lived in a small town that refused to sell birth control or any other medication, I’m pretty sure my doctor would contact another pharmacy somewhere in the state where they could ship that stuff to me. It’s not the first time that I’ve personally had to do that, so I don’t see it as a problem.

• 19 Patia // Jun 2, 2007 at 9:38 pm

  I’m guessing that if we were talking about guns, y’all would be more likely to understand the concept of precedent.

  As far as women “too stupid” to go elsewhere — what about the 14-year-old girl who doesn’t have a credit card, can’t get mystery packages in the mail at her house, and is limited to whatever pharmacy she can get to without a car?

• 20 GiftShoppeGuy // Jun 2, 2007 at 11:41 pm

  14 year old girls ought to be behaving themselves in the first place.

  And, if these BC Pills are supposedly needed for a *known (diagnosed) medical condition, then I’m quite sure that her folks will get her what she needs..

• 21 ajtooley // Jun 3, 2007 at 6:25 am

  The slopes are getting awfully slippery in here!

  dckatiebug:So if the owners of Snyder Drug next decide that X racial group are the children of Cain, and hence shouldn’t be served, on what basis would you predicate your disagreement? It is after all a * business * decision.

  I’d predicate my disagreement on legal, not emotional, precedent. And legally, pharmacists don’t have to sell every elective product available. Nice smear, by the way; a proper analogy would have them denying one elective product to said children of Cain, but now you’ve gone and made it look like you think Snyder’s bars all women from the premises.

  And of course this is complicated if we are talking about a pharmacy in a town that doesn’t have other options. Let’s say that the owners of Snyder Drug want to buy a pharmacy somewhere in the High Line in a one pharmacy town. And that they won’t sell birth control or AIDS drugs (because those folks deserve to die for their sin) or whatever other drug they have a moral problem with (Viagra to single men, etc.). What on earth are you going to do about it now? You’ve said that it is acceptable. So what are the folks in Two Dot going to do?

  Read my other post. I clearly say that the reason this is a non-issue is because there are so many other choices, and that this decision does not infringe upon the rights of others because of that. The same decision in a one-pharmacy town would infringe, and would (potentially) deny access. A reasonable conclusion would be that my opinion would be different.

  Sure there are 15 other pharmacies in town, but what if Snyder is only one of a handful that accepts your insurance,

  That leaves the rest of the handful…

  and the others aren’t convenient?

  Now you’re talking about convenience?

  Or you don’t have a car?

  And no one else does? And there’s no public transportation? Or sidewalks? Or the US Postal Service? Then we’ve got bigger problems than the beliefs of the owners of the pharmacy!

  The decision of the owners of Snyder Drug bothers me both because of the reproductive rights issue (again, this is a legal drug, legally proscribed: [that's a funny typo, BTW] who are these people to insert themselves into this decision?) and because I worry about the precedent.

  They’re business owners who by right of offering the service of pharmaceutical preparation insert themselves into doctor-patient decisions all the time, without a peep from you. When your doctor prescribes one medicine and your pharmacist suggests a less expensive generic, do you deride him/her for inserting themselves into the decision-making process?

  In your one-store-town hypothetical, they’re involved in those decisions by just waking up and going to work every day; if they decided that the hassle of dealing with taxes and regulations and shrill internet commentators wasn’t worth it and closed up shop altogether, would you be angrily asking what right they have to make it hard for their customers to get medicine? They have the right to run the store. And you accept that every day, until they make a decision with which you disagree.

  Patia:I’m guessing that if we were talking about guns, y’all would be more likely to understand the concept of precedent.

  That’s a good point. I can buy guns and milk at Wal-Mart, but I can buy only milk at Albertsons. I’m outraged at Albertsons’ infringement of my second amendment rights! Will you set up an internet petition for me?

  As far as women “too stupid” to go elsewhere — what about the 14-year-old girl who doesn’t have a credit card, can’t get mystery packages in the mail at her house, and is limited to whatever pharmacy she can get to without a car?

  And she has no friends! And no legs! And the doctor’s no help at all!

• 22 Neva // Jun 3, 2007 at 12:29 pm

  This drug store should have it’s license to sell prescription medication pulled. It’s unethical not to sell birth control.

  The decision to pull birth control from their stock isn’t a moral or religious one, it’s a sexist one. They still prescribe Viagra, to keep the dicks hard, but pull the birth control so these same hard-ons can knock up us women and keep us barefoot in the kitchen, making it more difficult for women to exceed in the workplace and in education. Nice.

• 23 Patia // Jun 3, 2007 at 12:31 pm

  14 year old girls ought to be behaving themselves in the first place.

  Ah, just as I suspected, we’ve come back to the issue of morality. You think it’s perfectly okay for a pharmacist to override a decision made by a woman and her doctor — based on his definition of morality. Well, I don’t. End of story.

  AJ, your arguments are so weak, I hardly know where to start. BIG difference between a pharmacy not selling birth control and Albertsons not selling guns. Also a big difference between a pharmacist refusing to fill a birth control prescription and a pharmacist suggesting a generic.

• 24 ajtooley // Jun 3, 2007 at 2:49 pm

  Patia, the “that’s so weak I don’t even know where to start” argument isn’t an argument at all. Same for the “there’s a BIG difference” bit. And so this response is similarly pointless. So make some real arguments and I’ll make a real response.

  And, for what seems like the umpteenth time, these particular pharmacists aren’t overriding any decision by anyone. They’re simply saying that the person who wants the prescription has to travel a few more blocks. Quell horreur! Quell scandale!

  But in the spirit of hewing to the facts, I’ll point out that something I said in an above post was incorrect. I said there are 17 pharmacies in Great Falls, 15 of which fill contraceptive prescriptions; however, I missed one, and failed to take into account that two more will be opening up within a few weeks. So hold out hope, oppressed women! Relief is in sight!

• 25 Gee Guy // Jun 3, 2007 at 3:24 pm

  Patia, why is it that you are offended by the pharmacist’s ‘imposing’ his (or her) morality on the patient, but you apparently have no problem with the patient expecting the pharmicist to abide by the patient’s decision as to what is and is not moral?

• 26 firefly // Jun 3, 2007 at 4:14 pm

  I feel SO oppressed! My lord, people.
  Patia-nobody is taking away a womans rights here. You still have the right to run out and buy as much birth control as you want. You just can’t buy it at Snyder Drug. Now really, how much is that going to affect your life?

  As a woman, with the right to “own and run her body”, I say B.S. In Great Falls MT, right now, any woman that wants birth control can get it. And every business owner should have the right to run his business according to his own personal, moral, ethical and religious beliefs. This shouldn’t even be an issue.

• 27 Cammy // Jun 3, 2007 at 4:18 pm

  They still prescribe Viagra, to keep the dicks hard, but pull the birth control so these same hard-ons can knock up us women and keep us barefoot in the kitchen, making it more difficult for women to exceed in the workplace and in education.

  So, in other words, men are oppressing women because women willingly open up their legs to have sex with them?

  Did I get that right?

  Now that’s a sexist statement if I ever saw one.

  Also, as one of those knocked up woman, I take offense to your put down to those who decide to put their careers on hold so that they can stay home and raise their kids. BTW, I chose to do that. My husband didn’t make me.

• 28 Lance // Jun 3, 2007 at 9:02 pm

  What a joke this is.

  This is about free enterprise and nothing else. They don’t take my insurance card, oh the horror. They won’t sell me my pills, the world is ending.

  Snyder’s as a private business are under no obligation to stay in business for your needs. They offer a service by CHOICE, theirs and only theirs. You can’t force them to sell a product. Suppose they were the only pharmacy in town? So what. Would you make them stay in business if they wanted to retire or turn the business into a used car lot?

  Get over it and take some responsibility for your own needs. If you need pills them you can find them.

  Your rights end at the tip of your pointy little nose.

• 29 wolfpack // Jun 3, 2007 at 10:20 pm

  Patia- Do you really see anything wrong with a little shame for a sexually active 14 year old? If not at what age do you recommend your daughters begin engaging in sex? 10, 12 or is 14 years old just right? Are you really going to tell me this is a personal decision between your child and her physician? What education prepared a physician for this decision? Do you leave your daughters alone with the doctor for all medical decisions or just for the ones that involve sex. That’s the problem with building your arguments on hypotheticals, it makes you look like a nut. Stick with reality and at least we can agree to disagree. But by pinning your arguments on a highly sexually active 14 year old with bad parents as the model for creating social policy you seem like a freak to us regular parents. And, if you don’t see anything in what I am saying please keep you and your children far away from my daughters. I wish more for them than pregnancy free sex at 14. Yes, I am judging, if I’ve done my job right my children will live the rest of their lives questioning if dad would approve of what they are doing. If you are wrong about a 14 year olds maybe you are wrong about pharmacists.

• 30 Rachel // Jun 4, 2007 at 2:38 am

  GiftshoppeGuy but mostly Wolfpack -

  Get a clue! For crying out loud. Yes, ideally, in the perfect world that we parents have IMAGINED for our children: they would never have sex. The REALITY is that about half of the teenaged population is having sex.

  Would you truly know if your daughters were engaging in intercourse? Judging by your attitude displayed here, of course not! Any child who doesn’t have an honest and open relationship with their parents isn’t going to inform them of whether or not their virginity is in tact.

  Remembering back on my teenaged years, and thinking of all of those I went to school with I know that teenagers, for the most part, are going to do whatever they want to do and if they are careful they won’t be caught.

  You’ve attacked Patia and accused her of being an irresponsible parent? If you’d like to point fingers then I would rather say that YOU sir are the lousy parent, as it is clear to me that you haven’t bothered to understand the average teenage psyche and reach out to your own children to see if they NEED to be on birth control. If your daughters are going to have sex, whether you like it or not, the only other thing you can do is ensure that they are being smart about it. By using condoms and hormonal birth control.

  No, I am by no means endorsing teenaged sex. But, I am able to realize that many, if not most, teenagers ARE going to engage in sexual contact with others. Whether we as parents wish for it or not. It sounds to me like you are in some serious denial.

  —

  I don’t even care so much about the Snyder Drug ordeal. I’ve already said my piece above, that I just won’t bring my business there any longer. Not a big deal. I’m not even on birth control right now.

  Abstinence education DOESN’T WORK. It just doesn’t. We would all love our kids to wait to have sex till they’re older, and have been in a long term committed relationship (and some people would like them married first). It doesn’t work like that these days. Teaching safe sex will always beat leaving your child in the dark and ignorant when they’ve decided to do it. I can’t believe that such deluded people still exist.

• 31 GiftShoppeGuy // Jun 4, 2007 at 5:23 am

  Uh… Exqueeze me??…

  I don’t recall “ever” saying that teens “don’t” have sex.

  “…14 year old girls ought to be behaving themselves in the first place…”

  We, as parents are going to do the best job we can when it comes to our kids.

  Kids, often times don’t view the world as, lets say, we adults might.
  Giving 8th graders condoms and birth control pills is a signal that “It’s Okay” to do this, when all we adults ever meant was “they are going to end up doing it anyway”.

  So in the end, we (as adults) are encouraging this kind of behavior.
  Kids are confused enough at those young ages about such things as sex. Sure, the plumber made sure all of the pipes were in good working order, but now the kid has to figure out what to do with it all… and here we come, neverminding that these youngsters still have quite a ways to go on the emotional level, and tell them that it’s okay to just jump on in there….. We don’t mean it that way, but that’s the way they take it.
  Trust me on this one….. If a kid thinks it’s okay, then by golly, that’s exactly what they’re going to do….

  I absolutely agree that teens won’t talk to their parents about sex…. that’s a given, simply because they “aren’t” mentally equipped or emotionally developed enough to deal with it. You’ve got to give them room enough to grow a bit before you go off stuffing your own certain adult ideology down their throats.

• 32 mbdean // Jun 4, 2007 at 9:22 am

  It is important to realize that we all have choices. I am one of the customers that received noticed that I would no longer be able to get my prescription filled after May. It is my choice to have all my prescription filled by the same pharmacy. I respect the knowledge of pharmacist and want to be informed of any possible drug interaction if I am prescribed a new drug. I have changed my pharmacy as a result. I have gone with the mail-in option through my insurance. It saves me money and it is still a Montana business.

  I stayed with Synder’s in the past to support a local business. I have been a lifetime Snyder’s and Northside Drug store customer. Even after the recent sell of the business, I wanted to contine to support a local business. I will still shop at Synder’s but they will lose my prescription purchases and my purchases that would have been made while waiting for my prescriptions to be filled. They are still an awesome local business.

• 33 Dea Butler // Jun 4, 2007 at 11:46 am

  Hmmm, any RX can be bad for you if you have an overabundance of them and/or allergies. Someone close to me had to be on the pill in order to reduce a growth in her fallopian tubes. Religion? Well not too much into their beliefs if they will be selling the pills until they’re all out. Money, Money, Money. Perhaps the owners need to take in all of the children in Great Falls and around the world and become foster parents/adopt. Don’t forget the children in the 3rd world countries who are starving to death or dying of aids. But then again, it’s a free country. I don’t believe in abortion because IT IS LEGALIZED MURDER! Not allowing birth control actually says that you agree with abortion in it’s own way. Maybe they should continue selling and the DONATE the money to causes that support the mother’s of unplanned pregnancies, rather than those who feel that they have no alternative but to go to Planned Parenthood.

• 34 wolfpack // Jun 5, 2007 at 7:30 pm

  Rachel- Wow. If not being complacent with children having sex at 14 makes me an unfit parent then you are right I am unfit. I’m not saying that no child is having sex by 14, I just don’t think it’s any where near the norm. The point being made by others and myself is that a girl who is sexually active at 14 has more problems than where to buy BC pills and is a poor example for this discussion. If you don’t think there is an age too young for BC pills good for you, I don’t agree. Are you agreeing with Patia’s argument that BC pills are a matter to be decided by a 14 year old woman and her doctor, she does not leave any room for the girls parents. I think the idea of a 14 year old woman is crazy and borders on child abuse which translates into a 14 year old girl is not a woman and needs her mom and dad not friends with signature authority.

• 35 Hobbit // Jun 7, 2007 at 8:30 pm

  We all need to ask ourselves if this conversation would have lasted as long had they stopped carrying any other form of contraception. If the morality of contraception is the topic at hand, why don’t we ream any business that chooses not to sell EVERY available form? Lastly, what if the owners of Snyder’s just decided to close their doors altogether, would we be complaining about the inconvenience of obtaining BC pills or the loss of a long standing local business?

• 36 big mike // Jun 7, 2007 at 9:46 pm

  From a 2005 Washington Post article:

  The American Pharmacists Association 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.

  That seems reasonable to me. If the pharmacist is not willing to do at least this, I think they should either give up their license or clearly advertise “not a full-service pharmacy.”

• 37 Sauerkraut // Jun 8, 2007 at 3:15 pm

  I can’t believe all the $hit people are throwing into this! It doesn’t matter what all the hypotheticals are, what small town it is in or how some 14yr old will be in dire need…this is a private business in Great Falls, MT that has every right to make a decision or statement on what they will sell or not sell in their pharmacy. It is everyone else’s right to go to another store if they don’t like that!

• 38 Walter Greenspan // Jun 9, 2007 at 11:05 pm

  big mike & Sauerkraut: if Stuart and Kyla Anderson and Kurt and Kori Depner, the new owners of Snyder Drug, decided to stop selling prescription birth control pills for religious based ethical/moral reasons — which, although I’m not Roman Catholic, I agree with — then why didn’t they immediately stop selling the prescription birth control pills, rather than continue to sell from existing inventory? This failure to immediately stop upon taking ownership of Snyder Drug weakens their position.

• 39 Meg // Jun 20, 2007 at 12:50 am

  I work at a Snyder’s in Minnesota and I see your point in banning oral contraception. However, you are alienating your customers and isn’t the point of having a business to make money? However, I applaud your company is standing up for what you believe in.

• 40 Joe // Jul 2, 2007 at 1:45 pm

  I think it’s inspiring that some Catholics are actually practicing their faith! The freedom to practice one’s faith is protected by the constitution, so I don’t know why everybody is freaking out. That sound very anti-choice to me.

• 41 PAT SAYS // Oct 20, 2007 at 7:02 am

  I Don’t think that it is up to any man what is right for a women to do with their bodies, where are half the men when i woman comes to them with the news of a new baby in the bodies and they take of running, so i feel that any birth control is up to the woman,, and i feel that any religion should keep their feelings out of it competely, exp. the catholic’s being their have alot of things in their closets at this time. WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTOL AND DO WHATEVER IS NECESSERY TO KEEP THEIR BODIES (THEIR BODIES) AND NOT THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER IS RIGHT OF ANY (MAN)

• 42 Janna lee // Oct 21, 2007 at 3:14 am

  Hmmm Wolfpack, I think you are in excess of wrong. You say that children having sex by 14 is not the norm? In fact (don’t worry I have stats to back my mouth up.) more then half of teenagers have had sex by the time they are 15..That’s By the time not during, not after but by the TIME they reach 15. 1/4th of our teens are having sex by the age of 12, coincidently that’s about the same time they start taking drugs these days. By their 20th birthday over 3/4ths
  of American teens have had sex and most of the time with different partners. And because of the abstinance campaign A lot of teens have decided that having other types of encounters is ok..Oral and others.
  I’m not the mother of any girls, I don’t have to worry about my daughter getting pregnant,But I worry that my son may end up with a child. I also do not believe in taking Man made meds so that cuts out pharmacies for me. HOWEVER! My son turned 11 this year, I refuse to leave my child in the dark especially when I know he has attempted to look at porn on my computer, since he talks about girls alot of the time, and is even talking about dating! (which isn’t happening until he 16) The fact remains, Children ARE having sex, it IS the norm in their world. As parents we have to sit down and have a talk and/or promote safety along with a stern warning that IT is NOT ok, for them to be doing so. It is up to us to teach our children responsibility..Before responsibility teaches them the hard way. Open up the lines of communication and your child will at least be safe if they choose to break the guidlines you as an adult have set.

  As for Snyders, I wouldn’t shop where My kind are unwanted..I’m not talking about being a female..I don’t shop anywhere where someone elses faith needs to be crammed down my throat. If I wanted to learn about a different religion, I’d head to the nearest cathedral or church.

  Heres your links Wolfpack and anyone else who disbelieves that children are having sex…BTW go ahead and spout off that only kids of bad parents have sex…Statistically it’s just not true.

  http://sexuality.about.com/od/sexinformation/a/teen_sex_stats.htm

  From the mouths of children
  http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Should_kids_be_having_sex_at_ages_11-17

  If you need more, Let me know..or GOOGLe it .

• 43 Scott // Jul 3, 2008 at 12:58 pm

  I just ran across this. I do not believe any pharmacist has the right to deny dispensing any drug that is legally prescribed by a doctor or an NP. It is not the job of a pharmacist to dispense their moral view along with the pills, and I am outraged at this. And it is their moral obligation to properly dispense medications that are legally prescribed.

  And by the way, birth control pills are used for more than contraception. My stepmother, a devout Catholic, had some wierd female problem that caused her great pain. Her doctor prescribed the pills to help it. She certainly would never take them for contraception. So these people are denying needed medical care in the midst of jamming their beliefs down people’s throats.

  No wonder Walgreens opened two stores here. Buh bye Snyders.

• 44 Scott // Jul 3, 2008 at 1:01 pm

  Oh by the way, a pharmacist needs to interfere if he or she suspects a drug interaction, or something fishy to do with controlled substances. But not birth control pills.

• 45 Scott // Jul 3, 2008 at 1:07 pm

  I just checked with Public Drug, the other old pharmacy in town that might even predate Snyders and they dispense birth control pills.

  I am almost thinking this is some kind of sick publicity stunt.

• 46 david // Jul 3, 2008 at 1:09 pm

  I don’t think ANY business should be required to sell - or not sell - any particular product, for any reason. If Snyder’s is willing to lose a few customers over this - or perhaps even gain some? - then there should be no problem, and no moral outrage.

• 47 lihardcastle // Aug 15, 2008 at 3:57 pm

  do they really have a real operating old
  soda fountain?

• 48 Todd // Aug 16, 2008 at 12:22 pm

  ummm. uh. Scott, like talking to yourself much?

Leave a Comment