 "Photo: Ruth Ann Keener")
A bill permitting pharmacists to refuse to dispense medication, such as birth control, because of conflicting moral or religious beliefs could have died the House of Representatives December recess. Planned Parenthood cautioned yesterday that the bill will most likely be re-introduced.
Gary Dougherty, executive director of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Ohio, highlighted problems with the Ohio pharmacists refusal clause - House Bill 68 - when speaking with 20 students yesterday at the Ohio Union.
"It's too broad. The wording keeps the bill open to interpretation," Dougherty said. "Some people think that birth control equals abortion which is incorrect."
The bill, introduced by Ohio Rep. Keith Faber (R-Celina), states "No person is required to perform or participate in medical procedures or distribution of any medication which will or may result in abortion or termination of life, and refusal to perform or participate in the medical procedures or distribution of medication is not grounds for civil liability nor a basis for disciplinary or other recriminatory action."
Dougherty, in his opposition testimony to the House Health Committee, said that because of the vague wording, "distribution of any medication" could be interpreted to include drugs that could cause an abortion such as chemotherapy for a pregnant cancer patient.
"Birth control and emergency contraception are the targets (of this bill)," Dougherty said. "Faber said himself in an interview that the target was emergency contraception."
In a March 29, 2004, Port Clinton News Herald article, Faber said that medicines such as the morning-after pill can cause abortions, and a pharmacist without knowledge of an individual customer's situation should not have to take part in that process if they are uncomfortable.
Faber could not be reached for comment.
Robert A. Buerki, professor of pharmacy practice and administration for the College of Pharmacy, said students take the Oath of a Pharmacist upon graduation and the oath states that a pharmacist must place concern for the well-being of the patient at the center of their professional practice.
"The Code also states that 'a pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in professional relationships,' which includes avoiding discriminatory practices," Buerki said.
Several states have already passed bills containing refusal clauses including South Dakota and Kansas.
Pharmacists for Life International's web site, PFLI.org, states "Recent events in the medical world point to the overwhelming need for a Pharmacist's Conscience Clause (CC) as a must immediately. Increasing pressures from chains, hospitals and anti-life minded executives bears negatively on those pharmacists who have a semblance of scruples to protect the lives of their pre-born clients and the health of the latter's moms."
The American Pharmacists Association House of Delegates in 1998 approved a conscience clause where the association "recognizes the individual pharmacist's right to exercise conscientious refusal and supports the establishment of systems to ensure patients' access to legally prescribed therapy without compromising the pharmacist's right of conscientious refusal."
Lauryn Shipp, president of Voices for Planned Parenthood at Ohio State, said Ohio's bill has the potential to affect every woman in Ohio, however the poor, the young and women in rural areas are likely to feel the greatest impact.
"Imagine you're a teenager who has been a victim of sexual assault. You have no car. You have a little over 72 hours to fill a prescription for emergency contraception - what if the only pharmacist around refuses to give it to you?," Shipp said. "Contraception on demand is a fundamental human right, and this bill could strip millions of women of that right."
Be the first to comment on this article!