Jason Posted March 4, 2023 Share Posted March 4, 2023 Not actually illegal. Just that the state AGs made a frowny face at them. Walgreens won’t distribute abortion pills in states where GOP AGs object - POLITICO WWW.POLITICO.COM The decision is the latest to demonstrate how widely abortion access can vary state to state in a post-Roe America. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted March 4, 2023 Share Posted March 4, 2023 I’d say that my AG is too stupid to do this, but kobach is quoted in the article so my premise may be faulty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted March 4, 2023 Share Posted March 4, 2023 14 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: I’d say that my AG is too stupid to do this, but kobach is quoted in the article so my premise may be faulty He's dumb but unfortunately he's not LePage dumb. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chakoo Posted March 7, 2023 Share Posted March 7, 2023 California cuts ties with Walgreens after company limits access to abortion pills | California | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Gavin Newsom said in a statement the state will not do business with any company that ‘puts women’s lives at risk’ Get fucked Walgreens 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted March 7, 2023 Share Posted March 7, 2023 20 minutes ago, chakoo said: California cuts ties with Walgreens after company limits access to abortion pills | California | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Gavin Newsom said in a statement the state will not do business with any company that ‘puts women’s lives at risk’ Get fucked Walgreens Damn got fucked by Theranos and now Gavin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazyPiranha Posted March 7, 2023 Share Posted March 7, 2023 Don’t worry, the second they sell two tubes of toothpaste they’ll be back in the black again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted March 7, 2023 Share Posted March 7, 2023 Tax them based on the length of the receipt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted March 7, 2023 Share Posted March 7, 2023 When asked what does this entail, Newsom was like Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted March 7, 2023 Share Posted March 7, 2023 Don’t these type of medications also eject a miscarried fetus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted March 7, 2023 Share Posted March 7, 2023 1 hour ago, Brian said: When asked what does this entail, Newsom was like From what I've heard (maybe not true), it would bar Walgreens from dealing with any California-run medical plans that are taxpayer-based (medicare stuff?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbsolutSurgen Posted March 7, 2023 Share Posted March 7, 2023 1) FDA allows Mifepristone to be carried in retail pharmacies for the first time in January 2023 (This is not a new drug, it's been around since the 80s, and available in the US for over 20 years.) 2) Walgreens works to make it available in their pharmacies nation wide 3) 20 AGs threaten to sue Walgreens if Milfepristone is carried by them in their states 4) Walgreens backs down from selling it for the first time in those states 5) Rage against Walgreens for not introducing it in the states that have threatened it with legal action, no credit for expanding access to it in the majority of the country. Peak 2023. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 7, 2023 Author Share Posted March 7, 2023 2 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Tax them based on the length of the receipt I thought that's just CVS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted March 7, 2023 Share Posted March 7, 2023 10 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said: no credit for expanding access to it in the majority of the country Why do they deserve "credit" for carrying something that was legal? I'm not going to give Walmart "credit" for expanding access to Nintendo Switch in 2022 if, all of the sudden in 2023, bumfuck states decide to threaten to sue them for carrying it, and so they stop. Selling a product when there is demand and it's legal isn't courageous. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbsolutSurgen Posted March 7, 2023 Share Posted March 7, 2023 Just now, CitizenVectron said: Why do they deserve "credit" for carrying something that was legal? I'm not going to give Walmart "credit" for expanding access to Nintendo Switch in 2022 if, all of the sudden in 2023, bumfuck states decide to threaten to sue them for carrying it, and so they stop. Selling a product when there is demand and it's legal isn't courageous. They are increasing access to abortion drugs that they have never carried before in 30 states. They aren't willing to get involved with a political battle between the Biden administration and Republican States. If Walgreen's lawyers were as confident as you, they probably wouldn't make this decision. But, fuck any company that's not willing to deal with expensive lawsuits to carry a new product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air_Delivery Posted March 7, 2023 Share Posted March 7, 2023 18 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said: They are increasing access to abortion drugs that they have never carried before in 30 states. They aren't willing to get involved with a political battle between the Biden administration and Republican States. If Walgreen's lawyers were as confident as you, they probably wouldn't make this decision. But, fuck any company that's not willing to deal with expensive lawsuits to carry a new product. They are trying to take the path of least resistance. It has nothing to do with confidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 7, 2023 Author Share Posted March 7, 2023 6 minutes ago, Air_Delivery said: They are trying to take the path of least resistance. It has nothing to do with confidence. I'm sure the only real calculus here is litigating it would cost money and they think it's more money than they're currently making by distributing this medicine in the relevant states. Even if they're 100% confident they'd win the litigation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 7, 2023 Share Posted March 7, 2023 Cost of lawsuits > profit from selling one cheap drug in a handful of states Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nokra Posted March 8, 2023 Share Posted March 8, 2023 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.