Posted on 05/18/2005 9:23:21 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
Pharmacists should not have to choose between their religion and their profession, Republican lawmakers argued Tuesday as they supported a bill to protect pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions.
But a stream of critics, from doctors to abortion rights advocates, told a Senate subcommittee the bill would deny women access to several forms of contraception recommended by their doctors.
State law does not address whether pharmacists who have religious or moral objections must fill prescriptions for birth control or emergency contraception. The state Pharmacy Examining Board says pharmacists may decline to fill such orders, but last month disciplined a pharmacist who refused to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy.
"Pharmacists should not have to worry about being fired for practicing their religious beliefs," Matthew Thill, who graduated Friday from the University of Wisconsin-Madison pharmacy program, told lawmakers.
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and state regulators say more women are reporting being denied their birth control prescriptions. State regulators opened an investigation last week into a Milwaukee mother's claim she had an abortion after a Walgreen pharmacist who called her a murderer refused to fill her prescription for emergency contraception.
Sen. Tom Reynolds, a bill sponsor and chairman of the Senate subcommittee on Labor and Election Process Reform, said the bill is needed to protect the rights of pharmacists to conscientiously object because more abortions are performed chemically, rather than surgically.
Four states permit pharmacists to decline orders for contraception, and Wisconsin and at least 12 other states are debating whether to follow suit, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit abortion-rights group that studies reproductive issues.
The Wisconsin bill would prohibit the pharmacy board from punishing pharmacists who refuse to dispense any medicine they believe would terminate a woman's pregnancy. Companies also could not fire pharmacists who make such refusals under the bill.
The debate flared up last month when the state pharmacy board reprimanded a devout Roman Catholic pharmacist who refused to fill or transfer a college student's birth control prescription at a Kmart in Menomonie in 2002. Regulators said he had the right to object but could not stand in the way of the woman's care.
A unanimous board ordered the man, Neil Noesen, of St. Paul, Minn., to attend ethics classes and pay the costs of the proceedings against him.
Sen. Mary Lazich, R-New Berlin, said the bill extends to pharmacists a protection given to doctors and other medical officials who object to performing procedures that violate their religious or moral beliefs.
But critics said doctors who step away from certain procedures must make sure other doctors provide the care, while the bill would not require pharmacists to make any accommodations so the patient would get medicine.
As a result, they argued the bill could restrict access to contraception, especially in rural areas with few pharmacies, and lead to more abortions.
"It leaves a pharmacist an open-ended right to obstruct access to medication," said Jason Clark, who graduated last weekend from the University of Wisconsin-Madison medical school.
"Convenience should not trump conscience in this country," responded Matt Sande, director of legislative affairs for Pro-Life Wisconsin.
The bill needs approval from both chambers of the Legislature, where it has considerable support among the Republican majority, before Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, could consider it.
Doyle last year vetoed a measure that would have protected health care professionals from punishment if they refused to participate in procedures such as euthanasia and in-vitro fertilization.
Doyle aide Melanie Fonder said Tuesday the governor believes "medical treatment should not depend on personal or political opinions" but stopped short of promising another veto.
And then veto it. Same old, same old.
I'm still undecided on this issue, though. I don't necessarily think women should be denied BIRTH control, as in BC pills or a diaphragm, but I'm against the "morning after" pills. I certainly don't think pharmacists should be being fired over this. Not every doctor feels comfortable in performing abortions and they're not fired over it.
Still cogitating...
The bill is not denying anyone anything.
What it is doing is preventing pharmacists from being denied employment because of their religious beliefs.
Liberals don't really believe in choice.
If the pharmacist is opposed to BC pills or morning after pills they should not stock their pharmacy with them, but should provide those who want them with list of pharmacies that would fill those scripts.
Nonsense. I can't go to my local church and rent a call-girl, but there are plenty of willing whores downtown.
$2 billion taxpayer funded viagra, but no birth control???
Good grief.
Seems clear cut to me, anyone should be able to refuse to participate in murder.
Because we all know that women are too stupid to actually call around and ask the pharmacy if they stock the drug.
Many women take birth control pills for other medical issues than birth control. First, it is up to the woman's doctor to decide medication.
This will become a moot point when women tell their men " So sorry..no more sex. Can't get my BC pills refilled."
I can see the headlines now in some small town...
"Hysterical, sex-deprived Husband with shotgun demands pahrmacist fill wife's birth control pills !!!"
That should be a matter between the pharmacist and his employer. Government should neither force a pharmacist to dispense products against his will, nor require a pharmacy owner to employ individuals who refuse to sell his products.
Not every doctor feels comfortable in performing abortions and they're not fired over it.
These sorts of things should be resolved as part of the employment contract.
This bill sounds like an embarrassment to me, at least what I've read about it. Does this bill allow pharmacists, regardless of their employers policy, to refuse to sell birth control? If a pharmacy makes it a policy not to stock and sell the birth control, fine. To tell Walgreens and CVS their employees have a right to refuse to sell some of their products is absurd.
"That should be a matter between the pharmacist and his employer. Government should neither force a pharmacist to dispense products against his will, nor require a pharmacy owner to employ individuals who refuse to sell his products."
Good point. Should a pharmacist be allowed to sue for employment discrimination if he's not hired because he won't fill BC prescriptions if it's the policy of the pharmacy to carry the drugs? Should pharmacists also 'shop around' to find pharmacies, or start their own, that don't stock the drugs when looking for employment? Should the pharmacies have to have 2 pharmacists on duty at all times one who will fulfill them and one who won't if it's the policy of the pharmacy to carry the drugs?
Birth control pills can cause early abortion in as much as 25 per cent of cases, by causing the uterine lining to be hostile to an already conceieved zygote (in other words, tiny human). RU-486 is a prostaglandin pill which causes violent contractions of the uterus and the expelling of a baby already growing. Thanks to Upjohn and the death cult propagandists in American you can kill your baby easily through your local pharmacy. BTW IUD's kill embryos also by scarring the lining of the uterus.
I also would not give these pills out if I were a pharmacist. Bravo that he had the guts to stand up for his beliefs, re-education camp or not.
I doubt that. Men, being the consumate orgasm looking for a place to happen, will simply find another woman who will provide what he desires.(or take matters into his own hand(s))
I'm against all taxpayer-funded medicine ... but at least Viagra treats a bodily malfunction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.