I disagree with this argument. Given the time sensitive nature of the drug, you would have women traveling way out of their local neighborhoods to obtain a pill their legally entitled to thus defeating the effectiveness of the medication. Imagine how much more difficulty it would be if that person could not drive or had to rely on public transportation to get to a certain far away town to obtain this drug. It really would undermine the whole point of taking the pill in the first place. Given that the pill is LEGAL in NJ, I support the Gov.’s decision in signing this law.

Very good point. However, a woman has a 72 hour time frame which is fairly large. Even if NJ is number 1 in the nation of traffic snarl, there is adequate time to find this pill. I find it hard to believe that the government can make anything easier than the free-markets could.Secondly, looking at the broader picture, this is a dangerous venture of government interference in businesses. New Jerseyens are giving the government unprecedented power over what businesses must supply without any questions.
Since it is not a life saving medicine, what if the pill is not profitable? Should a business be forced to operate closer in the red because of government mandates? NJ already has hospitals closing left and right because of insurmountable debt. Should we extend that to our pharmacies? This whole mandate sounds too pre- Sarkozy France to me.

As a former pharmacy technician, I feel I must weigh in on this law. The right of a person, man or woman, to receive medical treatment, when readily available, is essential for the functioning of a healthy society. I’m not advocating a large socialist healthcare system, but the state of NJ has allowed the morning after pill to be purchased over the counter. Medication does sometimes switch from the prescription uses to over the counter uses (Clarinex and Insulin, just to name two). The state has the right to legislate the ability of adults, who have the ability to make a decision whether or not to have sex, should have the ability to decide what they put in their bodies. If we entrust someone who is 18 to have sex, why not allow them the ability to take a pill that may help their current situation in life. What if the condom breaks? What if the condom was defective? This pill does not terminate a life; rather it delivers a large dose birth control pill that does not allow the fertilized egg to attach to the uterine wall. The cells have yet to divide, and the normal “beginning of life” argument fails to survive under pure scientific fact. The vast majority of the people in the state of NJ are in support of this piece of legislation, it’s a states’ rights issue and an individual rights issue when dealing with the ability to purchase the morning after pill.

First off, thank you for your input. Now, I never meant to be interpreted as wanting to deny people medical treatment. However I believe you missed my point. The pill is not a life saving medicine and should not be given government protection on the free market. This is a dangerous venture of government “do as I say” superpower in businesses. For all we know it could just be the result of some well placed lobbyist.
Furthermore, if a pharmacy is strong armed into purchasing a product that -say in a very conservative town -may cause the pharmacy to run closer to the red, I have to inquire, “how is this ethical of our government”? Furthermore, even if the “Morning after Pill’s” operative is to prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall, rather than terminating the pregnancy, this process still ruffles many feathers of religious pro-lifers. Additionally, it should be noted this pills is still mired in controversy. Any “scientific fact that is hurled at a devout catholic will fail to hold. Many Catholics view this pill as an artificial interference of the birth process that will deny the bringing to birth of a child. A person raised by the Bible will find it morally wrong to fail to prevent that from happening and their religion would bar them from distributing it. They became a pharmacist to help, not to- what they would consider -to do harm.
Now that does not condemn condoms, once the sperm makes it into the woman it is considered to be in the hands of Faith or God, in their opinion Lastly under no circumstance should the “Morning after Pill” be outlawed because of some group’s religious beliefs. It is quite the contrary. The government should not outlaw a pharmacist refusal to sell it because of their religious beliefs. Recently, it has been reported, that Muslims at several Targets have refused to ring up pork products because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Are Targets devoid of pork? I am not engaging in the argument of pro-choice or pro-life(yet). I am merely debating where government belongs or does not belong. It is very easily to give up benign rights for the “public good”. However, governments tend to be akin to a small child with a bag of chocolate. Sure one bar may not hurt but since everyone likes chocolate (with the government that would be power) they will try to get more every time you turn your back.

I only skimmed the summaries, because i am about to be late to class but as of know there is no government mandate for the selling of BC on the free market, correct? The stores can carry it is they wish and not if they dont. If my belief is wrong please comment back and update me, thank you.

Kevin Van Loan, Rider University