Not exactly.
The pharmacist already does consults for things you buy there, so that you know about side effects, and other hazards associated with a medication you have been prescribed.
You can get Plan B over the counter, but you have to ask for it at the pharmacy desk. This is similar to Sudafed. (PsedudoEphedrine, a nasal decongestant that is used to make meth by unscrupulous meth cooks)
The idea, is that like sudafed, the number you purchase is tracked. After you purchase 2 doses of it, it flags the purchase, and the pharmacist has to ask you an annoying question.
The annoying question is intended to help identify if the person buying the plan B is either forcing somebody to take it, or is using it because they are being forced into unprotected sex. This is because the statistical odds are, that repeated use like this is highly correlated with that being the case.
Pharmacists are ALREADY mandatory reporters, so if the respondent gives a response that would indicate such, they have to report it.
The intention is to identify when such things are happening, so that the person can receive state protection if they need it.
At no point should the pharmacist refuse the sale, nor should they cast aspersions on sexual activity, or choice.
The big whoopity-whoo that has been raised, is that being asked this question is "unsettling", and that this will discourage women from buying the product. (This is something I need to see evidence for, as it needs quantification, not exposition.)
Another one, is that doing this would require that the purchaser have an ID, so that the purchase can be properly flagged at time of purchase, and linked with a purchaser identity. In the US, there is an outstanding problem with minorities being denied state IDs. This is done to discourage voting, and to further shut such demographics out of the political and healthcare aspects of society, usually by GOP aligned governors and senators, specifically to gentrify the electorate, and to avoid having to pay money into social programs.
Statistically, the people who desperately need birth control the most, tend to be low income, and minority demographics. The second argument, is that by tying to an ID, you restrict this access, due to the outstanding issue with IDs not being issued. I countered that the correct thing to complain about, is that the IDs are not being issued-- Correcting that problem, will enable those demographics to have proper political representation, and proper access to healthcare.
The basic reply has basically, as far as I can tell, been "DO NOT LIKE!!!!" and "WILL NEVER HAPPEN!", respectively.
Again, if one asserts that such a necessary thing can never be achieved (IDs being properly issued, and not restricted for purely bullshit reasons), the issue will never be fixed, and it becomes self-fullfilling.
Further, I contested that the desired course of action-- "Always available, no questions asked, no data collected, completely anonymous" -- gives rise to situations where abusive partners purchase the product (since men can buy it just as easily as women, and in any amount they wish-- since it is not tracked), then beat their partners until they take it, while also subjecting them to brutal forced sex. Such things do in fact occur in the US, and are under reported, which is the reason why mandatory reporting is necessary.
Additionally, it enables situations where people like Mr Gaetz, a state senator that is currently embroiled in a salacious sex scandal, where is implicated in providing fake IDs and solicting under-age girls into sexual encounters-- to be able to "Have a cabinet full of Plan-B", and be quite cavalier about it, and its use.
Plan B is not intended to be used in such a fashion. ("Clean Up" after abusing young women, then paying them to hush up about it) Plan B is intended for people who either had a black-out experience at a party, and are NOT SURE if they were raped there or not-- to have some sense of safety-- For women that were recently raped, for women unsure if their normal birth control has been entirely effective, and for women who cannot take normal birth control, and either cannot safely have children, or do not desire to have children, but are still sexually active, and are hedging their bets against possibly shoddy birth control products (like a ruptured condom.)
Plan B is a perfectly OK item to purchase. It *IS* however, an at-home chemical abortion, intended for very early pregnancy. (first 24 to 48 hours). There are other products that can be used later, but are prescription only. They should also have the consult if purchased regularly.
Again, I stated that the answer the woman gives to the annoying question can be whatever she damn well wants. It can be "Fuck you, just give me the damn pills", and that should be acceptable.
The PROBLEM, is the implicit assumption that this is meant to be anything OTHER than that. The GOP and its cronies like to pillage rhetoric and policy like this from the center, and transform it into a weaponized dogwhistle, or worse, into a trojan horse to bully, harass, and deny women access to essential products for things they consider "immoral" or "Sinful."
My answer to that, is "Fuck those assholes. No, that is not what I mean here, and No, that should never be tolerated. The purpose of the question is exactly what I stated, do not treat this like a dog whistle."
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4211680 times)