Arizona Walgreens denied woman miscarriage medicine

The Hill

An Arizona woman said a pharmacist refused to give her a miscarriage prescription, citing his “moral objection.”

Nicole Arteaga, 35, said she received the heartbreaking news that she was miscarrying during her 10-week checkup, The Arizona Republic reportedSaturday.

A doctor prescribed her with medication to terminate the pregnancy, as the baby’s development had stopped and there was no heartbeat.

When Arteaga went to a Peoria, Ariz., Walgreens to pick up the prescription, the pharmacist refused to fill her medication for her, she said.

“I didn't want to need those pills," Arteaga said, according to the news outlet. "This is not how I wanted my pregnancy to go, but this is my situation."

The pharmacist said he wouldn’t give her the pills because of his ethical beliefs, Arteaga said.

He instructed her to come back the next day or go to another pharmacy, despite the fact that there were other employees working behind the counter, the newspaper reported.

Her husband returned to the store on her behalf and was reportedly met with the same resistance.

“His mind was pretty much made up,” Arteaga said of the pharmacist. “I tried to explain to him. I have to take this medication because it is an undeveloping fetus inside of me and he still refused, standing there silent and looking at me.”

Pharmacists are allowed under company policy to walk away from filling a prescription if they have a moral objection, Walgreens said in a statement on Saturday, according to the news outlet.

Employees are required, however, to have another pharmacist or manager handle the prescription so that the patient’s needs are met “in a timely manner.”

A Walgreens representative said they reached out to Arteaga to apologize but she told The Arizona Republic she only heard from the Peoria store manager after she complained.

Arteaga wrote about the experience in a Facebook post on Friday night and received an outpouring of support.

The post had been shared more than 28,500 times as of Sunday afternoon.

“I don't have control over my body and I don’t have control of the situation," Arteaga said.

Welcome to the post-Christian baker era. Though I think THIS is worse. MUCH worse. Due to the fact that this about a woman's health, where the former was about a wedding cake for a gay couple.

So why did he become a pharmacist if he refuses to do his job, and help people? Seems like he's in the wrong line of work.

Ok folks, let's all get a grip. Denying cakes to gays and denying a restaurant table to Huckabee-Sanders is one thing; denying potentially life-saving medication (or any medication) on "moral" grounds is another.

This pharmacist should be fired, if not imprisoned.

Being a pharmacist and refusing to sell/give a prescribed medication because of one's Pro-life "moral beliefs" is silly.

Being one when the fetus is dead is just sheer stupidity.

That is unprofessional. He should lose his license. Maybe he can go into preaching.

Welcome to a policy Walgreens have had way before the baker-case even was a case.

So do not see a problem, they have an employee policy and the policy states they can refuse and refer them to a manager or other employee. So right now all we have is this lady´s word for that there was a manager and other employees there who had the time to fill it.

But I do see the spin here, so nice try.

Also, this is funny coming now when another person was worshipped for refusing service at a restaurant to a person for no other reason than a political disagreement. You can´t eat the cake and have it at the same Democrats.

Pharmacists are allowed under company policy to walk away from filling a prescription if they have a moral objection, Walgreens said in a statement on Saturday, according to the news outlet.

Employees are required, however, to have another pharmacist or manager handle the prescription so that the patient’s needs are met “in a timely manner.”

He instructed her to come back the next day or go to another pharmacy, despite the fact that there were other employees working behind the counter, the newspaper reported.

A Walgreens representative said they reached out to Arteaga to apologize

Durr hurrr.

What with Trump fans being so god damn stupid.

Nice quote sniping there.

I guess when you have no real valid argument, that is a strategy you can use.

As a former Walgreens manager, I can say the pharmacist had this right. But if he knew what the medicine was actually prescribed for(a miscarriage, not abortion), he wouldn't of had a problem selling it. He's also protected by state law. It's a big misunderstanding and unfortunate for this lady. Also, there's almost always 2 pharmacist on duty at every Walgreens I've worked at, unless this occurred at an overnight pharmacy. Not sure why she'd have to drive 20 minutes away. But, this isn't a Trump thing... It was a policy put in place by Walgreens at least 10 years ago to protect their pharmacist, and is also a state law allowing pharmacist to refuse the sale of any medicine on religious grounds. Yeah, it's stupid to be in that field if you feel that strongly against it.

@zaryia: How does this have anything to do with Trump? You're climbing up the stupid ladder pretty quick as of late.

ffs can we just stop it with using religion as a shield for being an asshole already?

It doesn't, it had to do with the poster. Context, you buffoon.

@zaryia: And yet it still doesn't matter and you're still high up on that ladder.

Conservatives hate women and would turn America into the Handmaid's Tale if given the opportunity. News at 11.

Oh and Arizona is a shithole. Who the **** would want to live in like 115 degree heat surround by angry hateful conservatives?

This, and what people do with their medication is none of anyone's goddamned business, and what women do with their bodies is none of anyone's goddamned business. This situation perfectly illustrates what being pro-choice is all about. It's not about giving women license to slaughter babies or whatever BS line the right wants to throw out there. It's about recognizing that pregnancy is a complicated endeavor with few moral black lines and that the best person to make decisions about how that pregnancy progresses is the mother herself. This woman wanted to carry the pregnancy to term, lost the fetus, and was carrying a dead clump of cells inside her body. That's effing traumatic, and to then be told by some jerkoff pharmacist that she can't be served with a prescription that a doctor wrote for her because the pharmacist, who knows jack about why the woman is getting the prescription in the first place, thinks what she's doing is immoral? Every single part of this is completely ****ed.

Well that's the main difference between conservative and liberal snowflakes. The liberal gets upset when people are being assholes and the conservative gets upset when they're not allowed to be an asshole sans consequence.

Was under the impression Pharmacists should have a pretty firm understanding of how biology works. Guess that's not always the case.

Nice spin there. Does Bill O'Reilly speak to you while you sleep? If so, you do realize he's a little grabby, right? lol

Imprisoned based on what charges?

Ummm. Being a....being a dick! Yeah!

I'm not sure what charges exactly, but I'd argue when you deny someone medical attention/medication, you are putting their life in jeopardy and/or causing them harm.

Apparently the law favors him.

Agreed it probably was a misunderstanding, and he has the right not to do business with them, its like people forget (or want to change) that businesses can choose who they can do business with theres other chemist. if Arizona is anything like here theres another chemist 2 minutes away.

@npiet1: They also forget that those other employees behind the counter are not pharmacist. They cannot sell the prescription without the pharmacist approval. They have been doing budget cuts here in the U.S., so maybe only one pharmacist was on duty at the time. Also, most managers like I was, do not have a pharm degree. We were only required to be certified pharmacy techs for store managers, and only basic knowledge of pharmacy for assistant managers. It always irritated me and then made me laugh that people thought Walgreens was some public tax paid store and that they were entitled to shop there.

Its the same here in Australia, I've known a few who think pharmacy is just a 6 week course

@Jacanuk: dude, no one would die if some one refuse service to someone in a restaurant. ..but some one would die if some is refuse service in a pharmacy.

@Solaryellow: placing a person's life in danger

Oh yeah, they’re treated like shit there. I feel sorry for my friends. I went to school there to get my degree but I left asap when I finished.

I think if someone is in such dire straits they'd be in the hospital.

Way to go overboard.

Denying service is denying service, you can´t have it both ways.

Seems like that pharmacist needs to update his information on what he is selling is for.

@Jacanuk: I don't think many want to see Sarah blocked from accessing goods or services. I, for one, would love to see her walk into any establishment, be courteously waited on, and allowed to enjoy what she purchased in peace.

The difference is I want anyone to be able to do so. If we create a playing field where people can deny others that ability due to deeply held beliefs, I don't see how people can object to doing so for the enablers of that policy due to their deeply held beliefs that those people are really *****y people.

Why take a job where you may not agree with the medicine you are being told to give people through a prescription? It makes no sense.

Well, here we have our key difference.

My problem is not that Sanders was asked to leave, in fact I think it´s within the rights of the business owner to do so, the problem is the hypocrisy shown, if you want the right to see Sanders to the door based on arbitrary reasons, then you should also respect and give the same right to people you disagree with, Like the Baker.

Interestingly enough, there is difference between Spaghetti Bolognese and Prescribed medication.

And no one is denying actual medicine. This is about abortion medication and funny enough, that rarely leads to death when the person is standing in line at the drugstore.

Unless the undeveloped dead fetus begins to decompose and rot within the womb, with the bacterial blend then being absorbed into the body and enters one's bloodstream. Causing a larger health risk.
But hey, I guess you and the pharmacist know better then the doctor who prescribed the medicine.

And again all this person have to do is ask for a manager or another clerk. Or travel 10min to another pharmacy.

Religion is a protected class, and until the constitution is changed, well you can´t eat the cake and have it too.

Unless you're the pharmacist.

@Treflis: Having their religion respected is not "eating the cake and having it too"

It´s no different then what you want for the LGBT community. (with the key exception that sexuality is not a protected class under the constitution)

@Jacanuk: I'm rather confident they'd happily trade it. In the meantime, this is the playing field.

Was thinking more about how they can refuse service because of their own belief and still cash in a check for a job well done.
Frankly, If your religion prevents you from doing an aspect of your job then you should find a different job where it doesn't. Otherwise I could cost an Oil rig project millions a day and likely several people their jobs by refusing to ship out required parts cause I feel that it harms "mother earth" and nobody could say anything.

Well, they can do that because the company have a policy that allows them to do so.

So if you want to blame someone, blame Walgreens, not the employees who clearly follow company policy. So do not get the "find another job" well clearly they shouldn´t because the company agrees with them and they have a policy that allows them to work and respect their religion.

Well then the company is to blame, Frankly I find it odd to have a policy in place where clerks can turn away customers based on their own belief. But I guess I'm just more pragmatic when it comes to economics that way.

Ya, turning customers away is not a very sound business idea. But the policy does state that the employee has to refer the customer to a manager or another clerk.

So why that didn´t happen is unknown and all we have to go on is an article that has no credible source as to why that it did not happen.

I'm assuming that Walgreens probably has a procedure in place to cover scenarios like this, so what went wrong and who is to blame on their end?

This is ignoring that religious fuckwads like these shouldn't even be working in their field if these reservations exist. I'd outright fire anyone working under me that dictated when/how they would do the job we're paying them to do.