This past Friday, Walgreens announced that it would not distribute mifepristone — commonly referred to as the abortion pill — in twenty states that had warned the company of legal consequences if it did so. Within hours, calls to boycott Walgreens began circulating online.
I sighed.
Not because I oppose the right to abortion. Quite the opposite. If you have been following the Exhaling Life blog or my Instagram stories, you already know that I stand firmly in the position that abortion is a fundamental human right for women. I wrote about it before Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court, and I have supported efforts to restore those rights through financial contributions to organizations engaged in the legal fight.
I sighed.
Not because I oppose the right to abortion. Quite the opposite. If you have been following the Exhaling Life blog or my Instagram stories, you already know that I stand firmly in the position that abortion is a fundamental human right for women. I wrote about it before Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court, and I have supported efforts to restore those rights through financial contributions to organizations engaged in the legal fight.
 |
| Photo by Clem Onojeghuo on Unsplash |
I sighed because boycotting Walgreens is not fighting the battle that actually determines the outcome.
Calling for a boycott of Walgreens illustrates one of the reasons women continue to lose ground in the fight for reproductive autonomy. Too often, we direct our outrage at the outcome rather than the cause. We react to headlines rather than examining the system that produced them.
Are we expecting Walgreens to risk indictment under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act — the RICO statute — and potentially lose its license to distribute medications nationwide? Walgreens did not decide to refuse distribution in those twenty states because the company suddenly lost interest in women’s rights. It did so because attorneys general in those states sent a letter in February warning that distribution could trigger legal consequences, including potential RICO prosecution.
Before joining the “boycott Walgreens” movement, it is worth pausing to examine the facts.
I have already seen misinformation circulating online suggesting that Walgreens has halted distribution of abortion pills. In reality, Walgreens does not currently distribute mifepristone anywhere in the United States. Distribution requires certification from the Food and Drug Administration, and Walgreens is still in the process of obtaining that certification. The company has stated that it intends to distribute the medication in states where it can legally do so once certification is secured.
We do not blame clinics that closed after abortion became illegal in their states. So why are we blaming Walgreens for stating that it will not unlawfully distribute abortion medication?
Does anyone seriously believe CVS would choose a different path and openly violate state law? CVS, like Walgreens, is waiting for legal clarity. The difference is that Walgreens has publicly stated it will distribute the medication wherever it can do so lawfully. CVS, at the moment, is watching quietly.
But Walgreens’ distribution plans may become irrelevant altogether depending on the outcome of a lawsuit filed in November 2022 by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The lawsuit argues that the FDA overstepped its authority when it approved mifepristone more than two decades ago. The case is now before Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump and whose views are widely regarded as socially conservative.
If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, mifepristone could be removed from the market nationwide.
That decision could come any day.
And regardless of how it is decided, the legal war surrounding abortion medication will almost certainly stretch on for years.
This is why boycotting Walgreens feels misplaced.
Walgreens will sell abortion medication wherever it is legally allowed to do so. It is a corporation. Corporations respond to law and profit, not moral persuasion campaigns on social media.
The real battle is not with Walgreens. The real battle is with the laws themselves.
As I wrote in July 2022, the fight over reproductive rights has shifted into the courts and legislative chambers. The terrain is now legal and political. And battles fought in those arenas require sustained financial support for organizations engaged in litigation, policy advocacy, and electoral change.
Boycotting Walgreens may feel emotionally satisfying, but it does little to change the laws that restrict access in the first place.
If we want to talk seriously about consumer pressure, then the logic would have to extend far beyond a pharmacy chain. It would mean boycotting any corporation doing business with those twenty states — from the companies that manufacture toilet paper and light bulbs to those that produce cleaning supplies, vehicles, computers, and countless other goods purchased by state governments.
That would be an actual economic pressure campaign.
But that conversation is far more complicated than a hashtag.
The uncomfortable truth is that the fight for reproductive rights is not fought in viral moments. It is fought slowly — in courtrooms, in legislative hearings, and in the quiet financial support of organizations willing to wage those battles year after year.
If we want to win this war, we have to direct our energy toward the people writing the laws, not the businesses forced to navigate them.
Because reproductive rights will not be decided at the pharmacy counter.
They will be decided in courtrooms and legislatures.
Calling for a boycott of Walgreens illustrates one of the reasons women continue to lose ground in the fight for reproductive autonomy. Too often, we direct our outrage at the outcome rather than the cause. We react to headlines rather than examining the system that produced them.
Are we expecting Walgreens to risk indictment under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act — the RICO statute — and potentially lose its license to distribute medications nationwide? Walgreens did not decide to refuse distribution in those twenty states because the company suddenly lost interest in women’s rights. It did so because attorneys general in those states sent a letter in February warning that distribution could trigger legal consequences, including potential RICO prosecution.
Before joining the “boycott Walgreens” movement, it is worth pausing to examine the facts.
I have already seen misinformation circulating online suggesting that Walgreens has halted distribution of abortion pills. In reality, Walgreens does not currently distribute mifepristone anywhere in the United States. Distribution requires certification from the Food and Drug Administration, and Walgreens is still in the process of obtaining that certification. The company has stated that it intends to distribute the medication in states where it can legally do so once certification is secured.
We do not blame clinics that closed after abortion became illegal in their states. So why are we blaming Walgreens for stating that it will not unlawfully distribute abortion medication?
Does anyone seriously believe CVS would choose a different path and openly violate state law? CVS, like Walgreens, is waiting for legal clarity. The difference is that Walgreens has publicly stated it will distribute the medication wherever it can do so lawfully. CVS, at the moment, is watching quietly.
But Walgreens’ distribution plans may become irrelevant altogether depending on the outcome of a lawsuit filed in November 2022 by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The lawsuit argues that the FDA overstepped its authority when it approved mifepristone more than two decades ago. The case is now before Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump and whose views are widely regarded as socially conservative.
If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, mifepristone could be removed from the market nationwide.
That decision could come any day.
And regardless of how it is decided, the legal war surrounding abortion medication will almost certainly stretch on for years.
This is why boycotting Walgreens feels misplaced.
Walgreens will sell abortion medication wherever it is legally allowed to do so. It is a corporation. Corporations respond to law and profit, not moral persuasion campaigns on social media.
The real battle is not with Walgreens. The real battle is with the laws themselves.
As I wrote in July 2022, the fight over reproductive rights has shifted into the courts and legislative chambers. The terrain is now legal and political. And battles fought in those arenas require sustained financial support for organizations engaged in litigation, policy advocacy, and electoral change.
Boycotting Walgreens may feel emotionally satisfying, but it does little to change the laws that restrict access in the first place.
If we want to talk seriously about consumer pressure, then the logic would have to extend far beyond a pharmacy chain. It would mean boycotting any corporation doing business with those twenty states — from the companies that manufacture toilet paper and light bulbs to those that produce cleaning supplies, vehicles, computers, and countless other goods purchased by state governments.
That would be an actual economic pressure campaign.
But that conversation is far more complicated than a hashtag.
The uncomfortable truth is that the fight for reproductive rights is not fought in viral moments. It is fought slowly — in courtrooms, in legislative hearings, and in the quiet financial support of organizations willing to wage those battles year after year.
If we want to win this war, we have to direct our energy toward the people writing the laws, not the businesses forced to navigate them.
Because reproductive rights will not be decided at the pharmacy counter.
They will be decided in courtrooms and legislatures.
_____
More essays:
Comments
Post a Comment