Target and Plan-B: Looney Tunes and Choice
Target has a policy that states that its pharmacists do not have to fill any prescription for Plan-B (EC from hereafter) if they have strongly held religious beliefs that prevent it.
Planned ParentHood is really upset over this, but let us look at from two different angles, one from a purely business perspective and one from a classical liberal perspective.
The Business Perspective
For Target, this is a tough spot to be in to be sure. They are stuck between two activism camps that have been fiercely competing in a "whose the wackiest mofo" competition for years now. I am talking about the pro-abortion groups and the anti-abortion groups. On one hand, you have a policy that requires a pharmacist, even if they are the only one on duty, to fill a prescription that they may have religious issues with. In doing so, Target is inviting national media attention and big ugly lawsuits. On the other hand, you have a policy that is sure to anger pro-abortion groups because Target does not force its employees to fill every prescription. Target made the logical business choice, to avoid lawsuits. As they see it, they are clearly violating law by implementing the first option and not violating any law by implementing the second. There is no law, regardless of what any media outlet has printed, that requires any retailer to sell anything they choose not to sell.
For reference, here is an interesting letter to the editor of the PennState Collegian arguing against their editorial. This type of writing is indicative of many publications positions that purport law where none exists.
Philosophically Speaking
Any person or entity in business has the right to provide, or not to provide, any good or service. That is the essence of the free-market system that we try to have in the United States. The only time this should be interfered with is when there is a complete or partial monopoly in providing a specific good or service, because in monopoly conditions the views of the business can be imposed on the consumer, thus removing choice. I think we can all agree without any debate that in the pharmacy business there is no monopoly held by any one retailer, by any definition of the word. With this established, we can see that this policy follows the basic guidelines of classical liberalism.
1. The company at large does not force its employees to do anything that is against their personal beliefs. This preserves the idea that the value system of the individual is paramount.
2. The company does not infringe on the right of the consumer to purchase the good by creating a policy that explicitly bans the sale, keeping with the idea in number 1.
3. Since the pharmacy market is populated by many different firms, this policy does not infringe upon the choice of a consumer to consume said good. Their choice and values are respected while not trampling on others values and choices.
I could not say it any better than Mr. Andrew Criado said it in his letter to the Collegian
Additional References:
http://www.saveroe.com/target
Duluth Superior
Target to Planned ParentHood
"In the rare event that a pharmacist’s beliefs conflict with filling a guest’s prescription for the emergency contraceptive Plan B, our policy requires our pharmacists to take responsibility for ensuring that the guest’s prescription is filled in a timely and respectful manner, either by another Target pharmacist or a different pharmacy."
Planned ParentHood is really upset over this, but let us look at from two different angles, one from a purely business perspective and one from a classical liberal perspective.
The Business Perspective
For Target, this is a tough spot to be in to be sure. They are stuck between two activism camps that have been fiercely competing in a "whose the wackiest mofo" competition for years now. I am talking about the pro-abortion groups and the anti-abortion groups. On one hand, you have a policy that requires a pharmacist, even if they are the only one on duty, to fill a prescription that they may have religious issues with. In doing so, Target is inviting national media attention and big ugly lawsuits. On the other hand, you have a policy that is sure to anger pro-abortion groups because Target does not force its employees to fill every prescription. Target made the logical business choice, to avoid lawsuits. As they see it, they are clearly violating law by implementing the first option and not violating any law by implementing the second. There is no law, regardless of what any media outlet has printed, that requires any retailer to sell anything they choose not to sell.
For reference, here is an interesting letter to the editor of the PennState Collegian arguing against their editorial. This type of writing is indicative of many publications positions that purport law where none exists.
Philosophically Speaking
Any person or entity in business has the right to provide, or not to provide, any good or service. That is the essence of the free-market system that we try to have in the United States. The only time this should be interfered with is when there is a complete or partial monopoly in providing a specific good or service, because in monopoly conditions the views of the business can be imposed on the consumer, thus removing choice. I think we can all agree without any debate that in the pharmacy business there is no monopoly held by any one retailer, by any definition of the word. With this established, we can see that this policy follows the basic guidelines of classical liberalism.
1. The company at large does not force its employees to do anything that is against their personal beliefs. This preserves the idea that the value system of the individual is paramount.
2. The company does not infringe on the right of the consumer to purchase the good by creating a policy that explicitly bans the sale, keeping with the idea in number 1.
3. Since the pharmacy market is populated by many different firms, this policy does not infringe upon the choice of a consumer to consume said good. Their choice and values are respected while not trampling on others values and choices.
I could not say it any better than Mr. Andrew Criado said it in his letter to the Collegian
"That's the beauty of the free market: choice."
Additional References:
http://www.saveroe.com/target
Duluth Superior
posted by SpacemanSpiff at 12/02/2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home