It has long been questionable whether American companies, despite their promises to do the right thing, will stand up for environmental, social and democratic principles.
Here comes Walgreens to clear all doubts.
Last week, the giant drugstore chain said it would not distribute or ship a medical abortion drug to at least 21 red states, including at least four where abortion remains legal.
What shook the Walgreens cage was a letter sent Feb. 1 by the attorneys general of those 20 states, vaguely warning of “consequences” for the shipment of mifepristone, a drug used to induce abortions . Kris Kobach, the Republican attorney general for Kansas, added his voice to the chorus in a separate letter.
Both letters refer to the Comstock Act, which came into effect in 1873 primarily as an anti-obscenity law.
Among the 20 attorneys general who signed the joint letter are those from Iowa, Montana and Alaska, where abortion is still legal. In Kansas, despite Kobach’s anti-abortion campaign, voters overwhelmingly rejected a constitutional amendment against abortion last year.
Walgreens rightly argues that the legal atmosphere surrounding abortion is a miasma in almost every way, making it difficult for law-abiding companies to know what to do. The anti-abortion movement has used political attitudes, open misogyny, and health care misinformation and disinformation to achieve this.
But Walgreens’ public position only makes matters worse. It just provides a cover for other pharmacies to raise doubts about dispensing a legitimate drug.
The legal situation surrounding mifepristone is somewhat uncertain: the Food and Drug Administration decided in January that the drug can be dispensed to patients by stationary pharmacies on a doctor’s prescription. Previously, patients had to order it directly from the doctor or by mail order after a telemedical consultation.
Pharmacies must register with and be certified by the FDA to dispense mifepristone under these new regulations. Previously, Walgreens, CVS and Rite-Aid, the nation’s largest drug chains, said they would seek certification.
However, the drug’s 2020 FDA approval is under attack from a Texas federal judge with a long anti-abortion history. Every day he is expected to rule in an ominous lawsuit brought by abortion advocates. It’s unclear whether he will seek to ban the drug nationwide, under certain circumstances, or not at all.
Under the circumstances, what Walgreens should have said about mifepristone is nothing. The fire-breathing letters of the 21 Red Attorneys General currently have no legal force and, at best, are based on questionable interpretations of the law, court rulings and congressional actions. To capitulate to them, as Walgreens has done, is to give the devil free reign.
(For the record, the company only says that “we do not currently distribute mifepristone. We intend to be a board-certified pharmacy and will only distribute mifepristone in those jurisdictions where it is legal.”)
Let’s examine the context. In the broadest sense, this is yet another example of a company reacting depressed to the extreme right. As I’ve reported in the recent past, many of the country’s business leaders have pledged to stand firm against the political right’s attacks on voting rights, women’s access to reproductive health care, and democracy itself.
For example, leading companies have announced that they will no longer make campaign contributions to lawmakers who voted against confirming Joe Biden’s election or played a role in the January 6, 2021 riot in Washington.
Her fortitude did not last long. Many companies that once pledged to end or at least review their contributions to the 147 Republicans who voted against confirming the January 6, 2021 election have continued to make contributions to those legislators in the months that followed.
Toyota offered the most distilled statement of cowardice, saying it “supports candidates based on their views on issues that matter to the auto industry and the company… We don’t think it’s appropriate to allow members of Congress to vote on that basis alone.” to choose.” vote with their vote on the voter card.” No, because what could be less important than a politician’s point of view on democracy?
Deal after deal rolled in for the Tin Pot dictatorship of Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis. The National Hockey League, the College Board, and even the Special Olympics have all been confronted by his statements about “vigilance,” a code word for ethnic and gender discrimination, and his policies defaming vaccines and other anti-COVID policies.
Walgreens’ stance on mifepristone is especially concerning because the company, like CVS and Rite-Aid, has positioned itself to play a much bigger role in the U.S. health care system than just distributing prescription drugs.
They’ve set up retail clinics in their stores, encouraged their pharmacists to be more proactive with prescription customers, and even formed partnerships with major medical groups. In 2018, CVS acquired health insurer Aetna. The major pharmacy chains have been instrumental in administering COVID vaccines and boosters, expanding access to these life-saving drugs across the country.
Healthcare is a field that confronts practitioners on a daily basis with a myriad of unpredictable issues – women’s reproductive health, in particular, is in the crosshairs of the right. Unless we can trust pharmacy chains to be committed to their customers and patients, their expanded healthcare presence will be tragic.
As for the Red States’ claims of the illegality of supplying mifepristone, this is a horrible slap in the face. (Mifepristone is one of two drugs commonly used to induce medical abortions; it is usually combined with misoprostol, which is taken a few days later. Misoprostol is not used in connection with abortions and is not involved in the legal debate. )
The Comstock Act was the brainchild of Anthony Comstock, one of the most prominent blue noses in American history. As a Justice Department legal analysis reminded us in December, “Comstock believed anything even remotely related to sex was obscene.” The law that bears his name primarily banned the sending of allegedly “obscene” content through the mail. This included anything that could be used for abortion.
The 21 red states think we should be living in the world of the 1870s, but Congress and the federal courts disagree. They consistently limited the applicability of the Comstock Act to printing and abortion for the next 150 years — federal courts in rulings of 1915, 1930, 1933, 1936, 1938, 1944, and 1962, and Congress through revisions to the law in 1945 , 1958, 1971 and 1994
Overall, these rulings and revisions have interpreted the law as the transfer and distribution of abortion-related material only when it is intended to be used for “unlawful” purposes. Congress effectively ratified the court rulings in its revisions.
The U.S. Postal Service accepted this limited interpretation in its own administrative procedure and expressly presented its position to Congress, which has never objected.
Last year’s infamous Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning the 1973 abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade, did not turn back the clock on the Comstock Act; it just opened the door to state-level abortion restrictions.
The DOJ points out that most states still allow abortions at least 20 weeks gestational age, that some states with stricter abortion laws allow abortions a few more weeks of pregnancy, that no state prohibits abortions necessary to save the mother’s life and that some states provide exceptions to the ban on abortion in cases of rape or incest.
In addition, some state anti-abortion laws directed against doctors or clinics do not prohibit women from performing their own abortions. Nothing prevents a woman from traveling to another state for an abortion, including taking the drugs there — a right that Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh expressly affirmed in his affirmative opinion in the Dobbs case.
Walgreens, like the other big pharmacies that dream of playing a bigger role in the American health care system, should behave like a medical provider committed to serving customers and patients and not running for the hills when faced with face political headwinds.
Until then, the advertised principles — Walgreens says its goal is to “help people live healthier, happier lives” — will be nothing but hot air.
Source: LA Times