The reproductive wars rage on in the General Assembly. One of the central fronts in recent years has taken place in the pharmacy. Most prominently, efforts have been made to allow pharmacists to decline to fill a prescription based on the pharmacist’s moral convictions.
With SB 20, Senator Errington seems to be mounting a counter-offensive of sorts. This bill would require a pharmacy to dispense prescribed contraceptive drugs or devices it has in stock in a timely manner and to take expedited measures to fill such a prescription if it does not have the drug or device in stock. Pharmacies are also prohibited from intimidating, threatening, or harassing the pharmacy’s customers in the delivery of services.
Among other things, a victim of a violation of these policies is entitled to bring suit against the pharmacy and obtain attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and, at the victim’s option, statutory damages of $5,000 instead of compensatory damages.
The fear, of course, is that individuals legally entitled to contraception will be stalled or bullied into getting their prescription filled until it’s too late for the prescription to be effective.
I do not doubt that many people on the conservative side of the reproductive debates are honestly concerned about the well-being of unborn children. However, I am skeptical that this is the sole concern of a great many of them given the seemingly widespread indifference or even hostility to measures that would prevent unwanted conception in the first place. Availability of contraception and education on its use being a prime example. It’s as if many of them see sex as evil and pregnancy as righteous punishment.
Bad law. But then, we have been meddling in business all over the place, directing business owners what policy should be, whether they like it or not, from smoking policy to this. There is a consistency there, you’ll have to agree.
That, of course, has been my opposition to such meddling. Win some, lose some, eh?
Mike, cry some more about the poor, poor business owners having to follow laws. Why, we ought to let business do whatever the fuck they want, right? Not like people go places expecting safety or anything.
Fucking idiot losertarians. This is why you petulant children never, NEVER win – no sane person would follow bad policy like yours.
A little civility please. I don’t want to go deleting stuff because of gratuitous flaming.
Blue Field, there are plenty of Republicans, including this Republican, against a law forcing private businesses be required to follow such a nanny-state requirement.
I’m curious if other states have enacted or are considering enacting something similar.
A handful of states have passed “pharmacist conscience clauses” which allow pharamacists to refuse to fill certain prescriptions. Even, apparently, if the business owner wants his pharmacist to fill the prescription.
Well, someone is a petulant child here.
Oh, bosh. You can’t possibly argue that the modern pharmacy, or any other portion of the health care industry, should be operated like a 19th century railroad.
Especially seeing as how that didn’t even turn out to be a very good model for operating a 19th century railroad.
Well, Peter, wouldn’t the business owner have a irght to get rid of the pharmacist if he or she doesn’t fill the prescription?
Not under the pharmacist conscience provision proposed last session.
Since the Duggars have again demonstrated what life without contraceptives looks like, are we to assume that all of these anti-contraceptive pharmacists either have eighteen kids, or just don’t have sex?
Hi Peter:
I’m aware of the pharmacist conscience laws. I’m wondering if laws similar to the one Doug wrote about above have been passed or are under consideration in other states. This will sound a little mean, but I find it hard to believe that Indiana is on the forefront of considering legislation to squelch pharmacist conscience exceptions to filling legal prescriptions. Just a hunch, really.
@ Paul K Ogden: IIRC, the pharmacist conscience laws specifically prohibit a pharmacy from taking disciplinary action against the pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription for medications covered by the laws–usually birth control.
Oh, Doug beat me to the answer!