Walgreens and abortion pills
Re “Newsom swipes at Walgreens over abortion pill access,” March 7
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s threatened boycott of Walgreens over its decision not to sell the abortion drug mifepristone in 20 states catapults him to the level of vindictiveness of his nemesis, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. He tosses darts at the board of socially repressive
policies of Republicans, hoping one will stick.
Newsom failed to do his homework on whether he even has the power to implement a boycott of any consequential financial impact. His relentless reactive jabs against conservative Republicans feed right into the narrative of his enemies.
His brand of moral superiority is becoming tiresome to many Californians, even if his positions align with our political views.
Steven Lutzer
Los Angeles
I was a Walgreens pharmacy customer. At 76 years old, I am way beyond needing to get the abortion pill, but it’s unconscionable for Walgreens not to offer it to patients in red states.
I’ve had two abortions in my life, one illegal and one legal, and I wish I had access to safe abortion pills at the time.
Even though Walgreens in California still offers the pills, for now, I took my business to a local pharmacy. I wish I had done so earlier: There was better customer service, no long waits on the phone, and finally no reams of receipts. Carolyn Young
Glendale
No one should be shocked by Walgreens’ ill-considered decision to relegate patient health to the bottom of the queue. It has previously demonstrated its “fire, ready, aim” business model in spectacular fashion.
Mesmerized by the sales pitches of the now-convicted former heads of Theranos, Walgreens executives spent tens of millions on an untested blood testing machine that it discovered didn’t work. The ensuing litigation produced a full, damning picture of Walgreens’ corporate credulousness and incompetence.
Given this highly publicized embarrassment, it’s hardly surprising that Walgreens has decided to retreat to a cave rather than risk the bright light of controversy. Ironically, its decision to shrink from its duty to its customers may elicit event greater debate and criticism.
Mark Steinberg Los Angeles