Keep boycotting Ralph's and Bayview: The national spotlight is shining on Olympia

author : Janet Blanding topic : Plan B | Ralph's / Bayview Thriftway

by Janet Blanding

The boycott of Ralph's and Bayview continues. While both the Washington State Board of Pharmacy and the FDA have taken steps to ensure women's access to emergency contraception, the situation for women in Olympia has not improved. Although Kevin Stormans told Olympian reporter Brad Shannon that he would be re-evaluating his policy regarding stocking Plan B in Ralph's Thriftway Pharmacy, no actual policy change has occurred, and the many community members who value their reproductive rights continue to boycott. Plan B Oly, an ad hoc coalition of feminists and pro-birth control advocates, strongly encourages continued boycotting. According to Keylee Marineau, one of the organizers of the Ralph's/Bayview boycott, "the impact of the boycott is extremely significant and has not gone unnoticed by local business owners in Olympia."

Plan B Oly's official policy is to return to shopping at Ralph's and Bayview if the store policy regarding emergency contraception is changed voluntarily, and to encourage other shoppers to do likewise. "It's not a matter of mean-spiritedness or punishment," says Marineau. "It's a matter of belief, of standing up for our daughters, and all the women of our community."

More than just the economic pressure of the boycott is being brought to bear on the Stormans corporation, however. The Board of Pharmacy is continuing with its investigation of the complaints brought by nine women against Ralph's Thriftway and other local pharmacies that were unable to fill legal prescriptions for Plan B because the medication was not stocked. When the Massachusetts State Board of Pharmacy addressed similar complaints against Walmart in February of 2006, Walmart was forced to stock Plan B, and even changed its national policy regarding stocking emergency contraception, probably to avert future legal challenges. It is likely that the complaints here will have a similar effect, especially given the abrupt change in attitude recently demonstrated by the Washington State Board of Pharmacy.

In June, the Board of Pharmacy drafted a code which would allow for pharmacist refusal. Overwhelmingly negative public response to the draft code caused the Pharmacy Board to revise this code. Pharmacy Board members, along with Christina Hulet, Christine Gregoire's Health Policy Advisor, and attorneys from women's advocacy groups met to draft new code that would require pharmacies to fill all legal prescriptions. At the August 31 meeting, the revised draft was introduced, and accepted by the Pharmacy Board by a vote of 6 to 1, with Donna Dockter, the driving force for a pharmacist "conscience clause," being the only hold-out. However, one vital change was made to the code which may lead to significant consequences up the road.

The new draft code, known as the Pharmacist Responsibility Rule, originally stated that "pharmacies have a duty to dispense lawfully prescribed ... drugs or devices, and to distribute drugs and devices approved by the U.S. food and drug adminstration for restricted distribution by pharmacies." (Since Plan B will soon be available without a prescription, but only distributed in pharmacies, the reference to such drugs and devices is of great importance.) One Pharmacy Board member, Susan Teil Boyer, who commented that in all her years serving on the Board of Pharmacy, this was the toughest issue she has had to deal with, took umbrage that the word "pharmacies" was used rather than "pharmacists." "Pharmacists dispense drugs, not pharmacies," she said. The Pharmacy Board agreed to her suggested wording change before voting to accept the new code. On the surface, it may seem insignificant, but deeper analysis shows that this single word change may have very serious consequences.

Imagine this scenario: It is a few months in the future. Plan B has been repackaged for non-prescription sales and is now available over the counter. A woman over the age of 18 approaches a pharmacy counter with her ID and requests a dose of emergency contraception. The pharmacist is a right wing extremist, and feels it violates her conscience to dispense. The new code says she must. She either refuses, and risks being sanctioned by the Board of Pharmacy for violating the code, or she complies, and might conceivably sue the state for being forced to violate her religious principles, founded upon a misunderstanding of science and an intolerance towards other people's freedoms as they may be.

If that one little word had not been changed, the scenario would instead have played out thus: A woman requests Plan B at a pharmacy. The pharmacist thinks God disapproves, but since Plan B is now over the counter, she can merely ask a pharmacy tech to step in and dispense a dose of non-prescription emergency contraception to the patient. The pharmacy, not the pharmacist, has dispensed, the pharmacist has not been forced to violate her principles, an unwanted pregnancy is possibly averted, and everyone is happy.

The Pharmacist Responsibility Rule still must undergo a process before it becomes official code. There is a good chance that the language will be revised so that dispensing drugs becomes the responsibility of the pharmacy rather than the pharmacist. Still, this slight change makes the new rule more vulnerable to legal challenge on grounds of violating freedom of religion, and, as it stands, is actually more restrictive in that regard than even women's advocates had wanted it to be.

Observers familiar with our local situation where access to emergency contraception is limited by a store owner's refusal to stock were encouraged by the new draft code's reference to "good faith compliance" with existing WAC 246.869.150. This WAC states that a "pharmacy must maintain at all times a representative assortment of drugs in order to meet the pharmaceutical needs of its patients." While it would be nice to have less ambiguous language that clearly states a pharmacy must stock emergency contraception, the inclusion of this reference to "good faith compliance" with the current stocking provision seems to signify commitment on the part of the Board of Pharmacy to enforce the existing code regarding stocking where there is sufficient customer demand. According to Kelly Reese, an attorney with Planned Parenthood, the reference to "good faith" addresses the fact that sometimes a business will legitimately be out of stock of a drug. "Good faith implies that the business is trying, if they know there is a need in the community, to stock emergency contraception. When a pharmacy like Ralph's refuses, then there's no good faith there. That's the definition of bad faith, when they refuse to stock it despite demonstrated need." Clearly, given that nine women attempted and failed to fill prescriptions for Plan B at Ralph's during the months of June and July 2006, there is customer demand that is not being met by Ralph's.

Events of the last few months have demonstrated that the controversy over emergency contraception is not limited to Olympia; it's a national issue that is the focus of a raging battle between anti-birth control extremists, and people who want control over their own reproductive lives. After the FDA decided to allow sales of Plan B to women 18 and over without a prescription, right wing extremists have mounted a rabid backlash. Hundreds of editorials have decried the decision; in one college newspaper, a student even went so far as to declare "A baby is a baby is a baby, and it will eventually become a four-year-old, so the morning-after pill is the same thing as putting a gun to a child's head." This is a rather extreme statement given that the morning after pill generally works by preventing ovulation. Since the majority of unprotected sex acts do not result in pregnancy, it is quite likely that no pregnancy would have occurred even if emergency contraception had not been used.

Other right wing pundits have argued that making Plan B available without a prescription is a boon to child molesters. Wendy Wright of the Concerned Women for America, apparently confusing emergency contraception with roofies, has suggested that sexual predators might slip Plan B into an underage girl's drink and thus molest her with impunity. Professor Anna Glasier, director of family planning services at a clinic in Scotland, made a statement that although use of emergency contraception has increased in Scotland, the abortion rate has not decreased. Her proof? The abortion rate has gone up from 11 per 1000 in 1984 to 17.8 per 1000 in 2004. This statistic seems to have little bearing on the efficacy of the morning after pill, however, when you consider that emergency contraception has only been widely available in the United Kingdom since 2001. Nevertheless, news stories referencing Professor Glasier's dubious statement have appeared in at least 91 publications in the last month, most of them in the United States. Never doubt that the anti-choice movement is well-organized and knows how to manipulate the media.

When the Ralph's/Bayview boycott began, it was generally regarded as a local issue; people were angry that a local store was so unresponsive to the needs of the community it serves. Says Marineau "Initially this issue appeared to be one of local significance for the Olympia community. The attention it's received from the Pharmacy Board and from local and national media shows that this is a significant national issue." Debate over Plan B and its accessibility is an issue being considered by Pharmacy Boards and state legislatures across the country, not to mention the FDG activity. The situation with Ralph's has served as an illustration not only of the difficulties women experience in obtaining Plan B, but the response of a community when women's rights are not taken seriously. The news of the complaints to the Pharmacy Board was picked up by the Associated Press and published widely. In August, the national newsweekly U.S. News & World Report published a story about the Ralph's boycott.

Continuing the boycott while the national spotlight is shining on Olympia is essential, and may have far-reaching consequences upon policy in Washington, as well as other states that are currently deciding how to address the issues of pharmacist refusal and pharmacies that won't stock emergency contraception. Business owners across the country, as well as policy makers, are keeping an eye on what is happening in Olympia as decisions are made regarding stocking emergency contraception. The Olympia community's response to Ralph's policy shows that trampling on women's rights is bad business. "It's not so difficult not to go to Ralph's," says Marineau, "It's really quite simple." The impact, however, is significant.

For more information about the continuing boycott and Pharmacy Board issues, please visit http://www.planboly.org .