:: puts on a large hat labeled ‘grammer pendant’ ::
For reference, use of a sarcasm tag (“/s” or noting that it’s sarcasm) is common around here, if only because written language doesn’t always properly convey emotion. As an example:
… So, we need CVS to change their color scheme back to blue? /sarcasm
Yes, because it’s numbers. To (mis)quote Carlin:
“Keep it in the black. Never mind your soul, never mind the environment, keep it [the numbers] in the black.”
“Never Mind Your soul”, so… psychopathy?
Why are people blaming Walgreens for not wanting to put their people at risk? It’s the same as the doctors refusing to perform abortions because of the legal threat. Just because it’s an evil law doesn’t mean a company is evil for complying with the law.
RTFH?
even where it is legal
Yes, let’s focus on the real victims here, people refusing to comply with the law and dole out medication to people who need it… 
Legal by federal law, hazardous by state law. I don’t blame Walgreens for not wanting to put their people in the middle of that. The QOP states have made it clear that they want to persecute anyone providing abortion regardless of the legality of the action.
capitalism corrupts and absolute capitalism corrupts absolutely
Sorry, yes. I should have wrote that better.
But your argument before was that we’re criticizing Walgreens for complying with the law. Several people pointed out to you that Walgreens is doing this even where it is legal, and now you’re moving the goal posts. Just stop.
That’s a fair characterization of what’s happening here. I hope people took the time to read the article - Walgreens is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Legally they can proscribe these medications; however, 20 attorneys general collectively said they would sue Walgreens if they exercised that legal right.
No corporation in its right mind is going to do that. Those attorneys general are actively looking for a target, and the first one big enough to sell this in-state will be that target.
The pitchforks should be out against those 20 states who are bullying companies into not doing what they are legally allowed to using what are very likely to be frivolous lawsuits that will also be incredibly expensive to defend against. Journalists already know the chilling effect of such threats on otherwise free speech, and this isn’t even the first issue these states have attacked surrounding women’s health in this way! They’ve also made this threat for treating UTIs without informing parents, which is absolute bullshit of the highest order (UTIs are not an indicator of sexual activity).
Walgreens is a convenient target here, and we can pretend their corporate overlords are cackling with glee over this. But, it’s really the first shot across the bow of states beating companies into submission, legality is damned. It won’t stop with abortion pills or Walgreens. Our collective ire should be directed at stopping this sort of mafia-like behaviour while pushing for federal regulations requiring pharmacists to fill prescriptions for any legally available medication. The latter is obviously a nonstarter given the political makeup in Washington right now.
Fuck walgreens. Women are dying. THAT is what matters.
I’m sorry, but given what is actually happening right now, people with some comfort need to put their comfort on the line and step up, or this is only gonna get worse. We already have politicians floating the death penalty for women getting medical care. That, on top of the eliminationist policies against the trans community, shows that this is not “normal times” and these are not normal positions they are taking. If they care more about a possible fine, or state sanctions for saving lives, then we’ve already lost here. 
That doesn’t make sense. Not selling something only makes sense when you are selling something for less than it’s cost. Rather than not selling it, pricing it at a profit makes more sense, especially since they are still carrying the SKUs for other locations.
No, this wasn’t a cold decision made by beancounters. This was a decision made by executives to relflect their own values(bigotry) in as many places as they think they can get away with it.
Since it probably violates federal law, hopefully they won’t get away with it for long. Walgreens takes federal money; I don’t know which would aply: Title IX or the ACA or both.
That’s fair, and accurate IMHO - the purpose of these threats is to remove choice from Women. But it’s also a very well-used tactic by bullies - threaten a person (or group, or company) to stop them from doing something, and then make sure all anyone sees is that person/group/entity not doing something, and allow the masses to say “Look! They’re the real problem for not standing up!”. I hope you are right, and that it’s just a matter of CVS or another large chain stepping up and doing it anyway. because then it just means Walgreens are being cowards and deserving of ire, rather than that the entire state is unable to get this medication!
Walgreens has no relationship with Walmart or the Waltons.
That puts them between the federal government and those states and they chose their side. These drugs have important roles in treating several conditions independent from abortion. They are violating both the ACA and, because some of those other conditions affect primarily women, they are also, from what I can tell, violating Title IX. The feds can do a lot more damage than 20 states, too, simply by disqualifying Walgreens from receiving Medicare payments.
The spokesperson said Walgreen still intends to become certified under an FDA program to dispense the drug elsewhere but has not done so yet.
Choices. Thank goodness we have options here because they will NEVER see a dime of my money.
Here comes the whining…
