Recently in Milwaukee, a Walgreen's pharmacist was accused of 'berating' and 'humiliating' a patient who had presented a scrip for the "morning after" pill. See: www.jsonline/news/state/May05/325131.asp
The story as reported bears all the marks of a setup and should be viewed with extreme caution by any fair-minded observer.
At this time, several interest groups are attempting to prevent pharmacists from enjoying a "conscience clause" which would allow them to opt-out of filling certain prescriptions. The 'morning after' pill is one of those prescriptions, particularly for observant Roman Catholics, despite the facile and blatantly deceptive representation of Planned Parenthood about the pill in question.
In order for the interest groups (Planned Parenthood among them) to achieve their goals, however, they need a few "victims," the existence of which will serve to make the emotional case FOR their goal override the intellectual case AGAINST it.
Thus, the story in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (above) and a previous television version of same from Channel 12 in Milwaukee.
On first reading, this story has an odor to it. Note that there is no--that is, zip, zero, nada--reference to the final disposition of the woman's prescription. She apparently did not ask the pharmacist to return it, which is odd, since there are several other pharmacies within a very short drive where the "victim" could get it filled.
While we're on this part of the story, it is curious that the woman stood around for the "berating" she was alleged to have been given before she brought her problem to the attention of a manager. (It is also interesting that the manager--or any other employee of the store-- did not HEAR this 'berating' and bring it to a stop.)
The next curious part of the story is that this mother of 6 decided that her only course of action was to obtain an abortion. That MIGHT be the case if the woman did not get her prescription back, which does not make any sense in the first place. But we must remember that this is a setup and there's an agenda at work. The "sympathy" ploy is that this woman was at wits' end--overburdened with children, and now "distraught, humiliated, and traumatized." She couldn't possibly
have another child on top of all this! So, deciding that adoption was not an alternative and that Wisconsin's still-strong assistance programs for parents in need were inadequate, she opted for an abortion.
If this sounds familiar, it ought to. Planned Parenthood has maintained that "less pills will lead to more abortions." This story is certainly convenient for them, if not engineered to be such.
Moving on, we find that the woman's attorney uses a highly-charged paraphrase in describing the reaction of the pharmacy manager to the situation: "Listen. Our policy is that we let the pharmacists make the call on these things. I can't force her to fill it."
Besides the slanted language, the attorney now hopes that we all believe that both the pharmacist AND the manager were unaware of Walgreen's policy, later given by Walgreen's spokesman: the policy "prohibits" [pharmacists] "from discussing their reasons" [for refusing to fill a scrip] "with the customer, and it requires them to notify a manager who WILL make arrangements to fill the prescription--by a competitor if necessary."
Total ignorance of the policy--by two high-level store employees? Really.
Finally, the JSOnline story tells us that the pharmacist 'did not recall the incident,' which is similar to the Channel 12 version, where the pharmacist 'did not recall the incident in the same way' as did the customer.
Fortunately, Walgreen's most likely has the entire incident on videotape.
We await the replay. But don't hold your breath waiting for publication in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel or on Channel 12.