What do people think of this? Pharmacist conscience bill passes Idaho House Committee?

[bean]

Pharmacist conscience bill passes House Committee
http://www.idahostatesman.com/1306/story/702702.html
BOISE, Idaho — A House committee on Wednesday approved a bill to give pharmacists the ability to refuse to dispense birth control and other medications.

The so-called conscience protections are for pharmacists who have moral, ethical or religious objections to dispensing certain medications. Idaho law already gives hospitals and doctors authority not to fill prescriptions.

The bill passed on a voice vote and moves to the full House, where it stands a good chance of passage.

Idaho Pharmacy Board Executive Director Mark Johnston told the House State Affairs Committee on Wednesday that pharmacists already can deny drugs because there is no state law requiring them to fill prescriptions.

Johnston said the Pharmacy Board will remain neutral on the issue because it views the bill as a fight between anti-abortion and abortion-rights groups.

Rep. Erik Simpson, R-Idaho Falls, said the bill would protect pharmacists from being fired if they refuse to dispense a medication.

Representatives for several groups spoke in favor of the bill, citing the need for workplace religious freedom.

"Most of the people that would be affected by this, from a pro-life perspective, have a deep conviction," said Jason Herring, a lobbyist for Right to Life of Idaho.

The bill's opponents argue that it puts pharmacists' rights above patient's rights.

Idaho Women's Network lobbyist Taryn Magrini said the bill could cause problems for patients in rural towns with only one pharmacy. She said some drugs, such as emergency contraceptives, must be taken within a certain time and it could be difficult to have to drive to multiple towns to find someone willing to dispense the drug.

Rep. Phylis King, D-Boise, said pharmacists shouldn't be able to override a treatment decision made by a doctor. King has worked as an emergency medical technician.

"As a health care professional it's not my job to judge a patient," King said. "If you don't believe in it, you get out of the business."

The conscience clause movement grew across the country following the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. Some states, including Idaho, enacted laws to allow physicians and hospitals to refuse to perform abortions.

According to the National Conference of State Legislators, four states - Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota - have conscience laws that explicitly allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense the morning-after pill for moral reasons. Four other states have broad refusal laws that do not specifically mention pharmacists but could possibly be applied.

[marlan43]

Pharmacist conscience bill passes House Committee
http://www.idahostatesman.com/1306/story/702702.html
BOISE, Idaho — A House committee on Wednesday approved a bill to give pharmacists the ability to refuse to dispense birth control and other medications.

The so-called conscience protections are for pharmacists who have moral, ethical or religious objections to dispensing certain medications. Idaho law already gives hospitals and doctors authority not to fill prescriptions.

The bill passed on a voice vote and moves to the full House, where it stands a good chance of passage.

Idaho Pharmacy Board Executive Director Mark Johnston told the House State Affairs Committee on Wednesday that pharmacists already can deny drugs because there is no state law requiring them to fill prescriptions.

Johnston said the Pharmacy Board will remain neutral on the issue because it views the bill as a fight between anti-abortion and abortion-rights groups.

Rep. Erik Simpson, R-Idaho Falls, said the bill would protect pharmacists from being fired if they refuse to dispense a medication.

Representatives for several groups spoke in favor of the bill, citing the need for workplace religious freedom.

"Most of the people that would be affected by this, from a pro-life perspective, have a deep conviction," said Jason Herring, a lobbyist for Right to Life of Idaho.

The bill's opponents argue that it puts pharmacists' rights above patient's rights.

Idaho Women's Network lobbyist Taryn Magrini said the bill could cause problems for patients in rural towns with only one pharmacy. She said some drugs, such as emergency contraceptives, must be taken within a certain time and it could be difficult to have to drive to multiple towns to find someone willing to dispense the drug.

Rep. Phylis King, D-Boise, said pharmacists shouldn't be able to override a treatment decision made by a doctor. King has worked as an emergency medical technician.

"As a health care professional it's not my job to judge a patient," King said. "If you don't believe in it, you get out of the business."

The conscience clause movement grew across the country following the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. Some states, including Idaho, enacted laws to allow physicians and hospitals to refuse to perform abortions.

According to the National Conference of State Legislators, four states - Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota - have conscience laws that explicitly allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense the morning-after pill for moral reasons. Four other states have broad refusal laws that do not specifically mention pharmacists but could possibly be applied.

Great. It's a free country after all. Should ANY retailer (Pharmacists included) for forced to carry a product that they don't wish to sell? There will be others willing to take any business sent their way.


For SuziQ. Yes they can also refuse to sell condoms, they can also refuse to candy bars. When did how a Pharmacist decided to run his/her store become any of your business? Don't like the business model he/she is using then go to the next drug store and stop judging them.

[aldric13]

I'm actually doing my senior thesis on this bill. It's a terrible bill in so many ways - it's poorly written, unnecessary, unconstitutional, and allows one's pharmacist (who does not have any information about the client or why they are taking a med) to usurp their doctor's orders.

[vaiveatoish]

I'm actually doing my senior thesis on this bill. It's a terrible bill in so many ways - it's poorly written, unnecessary, unconstitutional, and allows one's pharmacist (who does not have any information about the client or why they are taking a med) to usurp their doctor's orders.

So the guy in the drugstore is qualified to judge others?
Can they also refuse to sell condoms??
So wrong in so many ways.

[collyer]

I'm actually doing my senior thesis on this bill. It's a terrible bill in so many ways - it's poorly written, unnecessary, unconstitutional, and allows one's pharmacist (who does not have any information about the client or why they are taking a med) to usurp their doctor's orders.

So the guy in the drugstore is qualified to judge others?
Can they also refuse to sell condoms??
So wrong in so many ways.

I think it violates the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Just as no hotel has the right to deny service to people of a specific race, no pharmacist, regulated by the government, has the right to deny service or medications to anyone of age to obtain them.