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.