« Ind. Gov't. - State error hikes 170,000 new tax bills; the Star finds the error | Main | Ind. Law - Judge hears arguments to prevent Floyd subdivision suit »

Saturday, April 02, 2005

Law - [Updated] Contraceptive Rxs ordered filled: Druggist refusal spurs Illinois governor to enter fray

The Chicago Tribune reports today:

Gov. Rod Blagojevich filed an emergency rule Friday informing all pharmacies in the state that if they sell contraceptives, they must dispense them without delay.

The action was in response to the refusal by a pharmacist to fill prescriptions for two women who wanted emergency morning-after pills.

Also Friday, the governor's Department of Financial and Professional Regulation filed an administrative complaint against the Osco store in the Loop where an unidentified pharmacist twice in February declined to fill the women's prescriptions on moral grounds.

The governor and activist groups say there has been an increase across the country of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for morning-after contraception. Some pharmacists who oppose filling the prescriptions have said they feel the pills stop the life of an early human embryo.

But Blagojevich said his new regulation makes it clear that if a woman goes to a pharmacy with a prescription, the pharmacy can not selectively choose which it dispenses or to whom they are sold.

"The pharmacy will be expected to accept that prescription and fill it," he said. "No delays. No hassles. No lectures."

[More] The Washington Post has this story today.

[Updated 4/3/05] It turns out the Washington Post ran a lengthy article last Monday, March 28, titled "Pharmacists' Rights at Front Of New Debate: Because of Beliefs, Some Refuse To Fill Birth Control Prescriptions." Some quotes:

Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.

The trend has opened a new front in the nation's battle over reproductive rights, sparking an intense debate over the competing rights of pharmacists to refuse to participate in something they consider repugnant and a woman's right to get medications her doctor has prescribed. It has also triggered pitched political battles in statehouses across the nation as politicians seek to pass laws either to protect pharmacists from being penalized -- or force them to carry out their duties. * * *

Pharmacists are regulated by state laws and can face disciplinary action from licensing boards. But the only case that has gotten that far involves Neil T. Noesen, who in 2002 refused to fill a University of Wisconsin student's birth control pill prescription at a Kmart in Menomonie, Wis., or transfer the prescription elsewhere. An administrative judge last month recommended Noesen be required to take ethics classes, alert future employers to his beliefs and pay what could be as much as $20,000 to cover the costs of the legal proceedings. The state pharmacy board will decide whether to impose that penalty next month. * * *

Wisconsin is one of at least 11 states considering "conscience clause" laws that would protect pharmacists such as Noesen. Four states already have laws that specifically allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their beliefs. At the same time, at least four states are considering laws that would explicitly require pharmacists to fill all prescriptions.

This link leads to a Washington Post table of refill laws by state. Although it lists Indiana as considering a new law, the only pharmacy bill I can locate still alive is SB 590, relating to electronic transmission of prescriptions.

The NY Times has an editorial today (4/3/05) on this topic, titled "Moralists at the Pharmacy." It begins:

Scattered reports suggest that a growing number of pharmacists around the country are refusing to fill prescriptions for contraceptives or morning-after birth control pills because of moral or religious objections. Although the refusals are cast as important matters of conscience for self-described "pro-life" pharmacists, they have the pernicious effect of delaying, and sometimes even denying, a woman's access to medications that may be urgently needed. This is an intolerable abuse of power by pharmacists who have no business forcing their own moral or ethical views onto customers who may not share them. Any pharmacist who cannot dispense medicines lawfully prescribed by a doctor should find another line of work.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 2, 2005 09:40 AM
Posted to General Law Related