A woman's right to a filled prescription.

[Ysobelle]

Go to this page:


http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/062305pharmacists.html


and click the "Take Action" button.


NOW Supports Legislation Protecting Women's Right to Legal, Safe Birth Control

By NOW Staff

June 23, 2005

Urge your senators and representatives to support the Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act

NOW joined Senator Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Representatives Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, D-Fla., and Christopher Shays, R-Conn., at a recent press conference where they introduced the Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act, or ALPhA (S.809/ H.R. 1652).

This legislative proposal, supported by NOW and women's health groups across the nation, does not require individual pharmacists to dispense any medications for which they have a religious or moral objection. However, it would require there be another pharmacist on the premises who will immediately fill the prescription and that the pharmacy must order the prescribed drug if it is not already in stock. In addition, the pharmacist cannot harass, humiliate, or intentionally breach the confidentiality of the individual attempting to fill the prescription.

"Access to birth control is a women's health issue and a private matter, not to be tampered with by a pharmacist with an agenda," said Maloney. The legislation is a sweeping response to recent reports from women in over a dozen states who have publicly stated that pharmacists refused to fill their birth control or emergency contraception prescriptions due to a "moral conflict of interest." Across the nation, pharmacists are turning away patients with a legal medical prescription for some form of birth control, citing their own personal beliefs to determine what is in the best "interest" of their customers. When a pharmacist denies medical treatment based solely on their personal religious beliefs, it is both cruel and unacceptable.

The American Pharmacists Association established a "conscience clause" in 1998, allowing pharmacists to dispense medication based on personal beliefs — although it specifically states pharmacies have an obligation to ensure the patient's access to their prescribed medication. "Today they might not fill prescriptions for birth control pills, tomorrow it could be painkillers for a cancer patient," Lautenberg announced. "Next year it could be medicine that prolongs the life of a person with AIDS or some other terminal disease . . . If a pharmacist is allowed to pick and choose what prescriptions to fill, everyone's health is put at risk."

Regrettably, some pharmacists are taking it upon themselves to stretch the boundaries of this clause. Not only are they refusing to fill prescriptions for legal and safe hormones or refer the customer to another pharmacist or pharmacy, some pharmacists are refusing to even return a written prescription so the woman can have it filled elsewhere. Consequently, women who live in small towns or rural areas often have no alternative pharmacy available, and rape victims may suffer twofold if they have to continue searching for another pharmacy.

NOW is urging all women's rights supporters to tell their Congress members to support this important legislation protecting a woman's constitutional right to obtain safe and legal birth control. Pharmacists may have a license to dispense drugs but they are not authorized to discriminate against women nor dictate anyone's access to healthcare. As Wasserman-Schultz said, ". . . if men were denied condoms by pharmacies, this issue would have been taken care of already."

[Dragonfly]

Done.

And feeling good that I got to put in my 0.02. :?

[Cruisewench]

This legislative proposal, supported by NOW and women's health groups across the nation, does not require individual pharmacists to dispense any medications for which they have a religious or moral objection. However, it would require there be another pharmacist on the premises who will immediately fill the prescription and that the pharmacy must order the prescribed drug if it is not already in stock. I

But if the other pharmacist has the same moral objections wouldn't he do the same thing?

]n addition, the pharmacist cannot harass, humiliate, or intentionally breach the confidentiality of the individual attempting to fill the prescription.
And of course they're gonna ignore what the believe in, simply because the govt. tells them too [/sarcasm]


Thank You Ysobelle, for posting this.

[daBaroness]

Yeah, but just wait until "W" fills the Day O'Connor and Renquist (the dead justice walking) vacancies on the Supreme Court. Then all bets are off on what constitutes our legal "rights." They're already talking about how Roe v. Wade is going to be history ...

[Eric McTavish]

This legislative proposal, supported by NOW and women's health groups across the nation, does not require individual pharmacists to dispense any medications for which they have a religious or moral objection. However, it would require there be another pharmacist on the premises who will immediately fill the prescription and that the pharmacy must order the prescribed drug if it is not already in stock. I

But if the other pharmacist has the same moral objections wouldn't he do the same thing?


The way I read it is if the Pharmacy has one pharmacist who has moral objections then the HAVE to hire one who dosent to forfill this obligation... smaller pharmacy's wont be able to afford this so Im betting they hie only ones who wont have objections to watch their bottom line.

]n addition, the pharmacist cannot harass, humiliate, or intentionally breach the confidentiality of the individual attempting to fill the prescription.
And of course they're gonna ignore what the believe in, simply because the govt. tells them too [/sarcasm]

Yah that will work... 'cours the first time one of these sotres gets hit with a mulit-million lawsuit... well :wink:

[Ysobelle]

My fear at this point is that in the current atmosphere of moral superiority-- and with the judges aimed at the Supreme Court-- a store will be able to defend itself by saying they reserve the right to refuse service to someone, and that forcing a pharmacist to fill a prescription to which he or she is morally opposed is violating his/her civil rights. I think it was Sen. Rick Santorum (R-- PA) who said, last week, that a woman doesn't have a right to birth control, she only thinks she does.

We need laws supporting women in place, and we need them soon. This issue is only going to get uglier.[/i]

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

I think it was Sen. Rick Santorum (R-- PA) who said, last week, that a woman doesn't have a right to birth control, she only thinks she does.
Lest we all forget, that's the same Rick Santorum who equates gay rights with having sex with dogs.


(just fulfilling my obligation as a human being to make sure the name Santorum is forever equated with hot man-dog action....)

[Ysobelle]

First off, let me say that I'm sure he's a nice guy and his mother loves him. Personally, I have no problem with him. But politically?

I despise Rick Santorum with every fibre of my being. I am appalled, ashamed, and disgusted that he's my Senator. He's the Right-Wing's lap-dog, and he represents, for me, everything that's wrong with the Republican Party. There are some fine people who happen to be Republicans, but they're lost under the slime with which this man coats the party. He doesn't believe gays have any right to privacy, and what they do in their bedrooms is illegal as well as immoral and disgusting. He equates them with pedophiles, rapists, and yes, those who have sex with animals. He doesn't believe women should have the right to decide their reproductive choices, or that they should even work outside the home. Gimme ten minutes, and I'll run you a list of all the narrow-minded, bigoted, Dark-Ages views he thinks are just dandy.

I want him out. I want him out of my Congress, I want him out of my State, I want him out of my government. But rather than censuring his hate-filled rhetoric, the Republican Party considers him one if its rising stars. They love him. And just yesterday, on the drive in, I heard he's now "not ruling out" a run for the White House in 2008. So that screaming you heard from the East at about 8.40am? Yeah. That was me.


Oh, and Bob, you DO know Dan Savage beat you to it, right?


www.SpreadingSantorum.com

[MaidenFaeSnow]

I just have to wonder why, if someone has moral issues with certain prescription drugs, they would choose to be a Pharmacist - a job in which, they clearly know from the start, they will have to fill scripts for people for many many reasons...

Perhaps these moral issues should have been addressed at an earlier stage...like college...NOT when someone is standing at the counter..paper in hand :roll:

[Magdalene]

I emailed, and here is the response from Senator Allard from Colorado:

"Dear Shannon:

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for an individual's
right to choose. I appreciate your taking the time to write.

I oppose taxpayer funded abortions. Hard-working taxpayers should not be
forced to fund a procedure they find morally wrong. President Bush's
executive order pertaining to internationally-funded abortion and family
planning programs is also an issue of concern. President Bush's 2001
executive order revoked President Clinton's executive order, which allowed
U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund international family planning organizations
that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.
I support President Bush's decision to prohibit funding for programs that
threaten unborn fetuses' lives. I also support family planning programs
that do not include counseling or referral for abortion. Ideally, family
planning services should provide a range of services including
contraceptive services, pregnancy testing, counseling on adoption, and
maternity counseling. They also should encourage young adults to delay
sexual activity and help alleviate problems surrounding adolescent
parenthood.

Again, thank you for writing. I look forward to hearing from you again.



Sincerely,
A
Wayne Allard
United States Senator
WA:nz"


I just emailed him back and told him to re-read my email--I appreciate his response, but my email was about pharamacists taking it upon themselves to deny filling prescriptions that they personally don't agree with.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

I'm shocked, shocked that a politician would repond with a form letter that doesn't even address the issue brought up.

Now here's the question: do you think some low-level flunky staffer read your email and picked the wrong form letter to send back, or do they just have a computer program that scans your email for keywords and picks a mildly appropriate form letter to return, without your email ever being seen by a human (or whatever human-like equivalent one finds working for a politician)?

[Mistress Morigianna]

my sister is a pharamcy tech.
She had to sign a paper at her hospital that she would not have any moral /religious objections to filling any perscriptions. (which she doesn't).

They are all just livid about all this where she works.. They feel like the gov is saying anyone doesn't have to do thier job if they have a religious objection to it. (so get another job!)

yea i can see it now.- Oh no dear, i won't sell you that bodice because you look like a cow because that one's too small and not flattering to you it is againt my seamstress religious code... Let me show you "THIS" one that is your size and will hold your girls up properly...

oh wait- i did do that once.....LOL

[Jeannie Fitzgerald]

I'm shocked, shocked that a politician would repond with a form letter that doesn't even address the issue brought up.

Thank heavens you're not being sarcastic! :wink:

Now here's the question: do you think some low-level flunky staffer read your email and picked the wrong form letter to send back, or do they just have a computer program that scans your email for keywords and picks a mildly appropriate form letter to return, without your email ever being seen by a human (or whatever human-like equivalent one finds working for a politician)?

Based on email I've received from John McCain, yes on both counts.

[Mum Tarts]

Trust me Jeannie and Bob you are both right, there is a program that responders to e-mail can got to, to get the proper response to an e-mail and copy and paste it...I have done it when working for a certain company.

My question is what will be next...the tom cruise attitude (no anti-depressants) just
because they don't subscribe to such methods..Stop The Madness!!!

[Alianne]

Trust me Jeannie and Bob you are both right, there is a program that responders to e-mail can got to, to get the proper response to an e-mail and copy and paste it...I have done it when working for a certain company.

My question is what will be next...the tom cruise attitude (no anti-depressants) just
because they don't subscribe to such methods..Stop The Madness!!!

Don't laugh. The $cientologists have been waging war against the psychiatric community and the use of medication for *years*. Cruise is just spouting the 'party line', as it were.

[DameGoode]

Allane, you are SO right about Scientologists and Psychology and medicine..... Amazing more insurance companies haven't suscribed... cut more costs.....

[Lady Laurel]

Allane, you are SO right about Scientologists and Psychology and medicine..... Amazing more insurance companies haven't suscribed... cut more costs.....

OMG now that is just plain scary. What I want to know is there any credable doctor that is part of the Scientologists that says the same thing. I just cannot believe people that have not gone to medical school and such can sit there on thier soap box and tell the Medical Community that they need to stop treating well known diagnosed conditions that are treatable. What a load of crap.

That is plain scary. God help the families and children that are brought up in this cult ( its certainly sounds like one to me) and are not getting the medical treatment they need.

[Magdalene]

An update....

I received a letter (a snail mail letter) from Bob Beauprez (Representative for Colorado's 7th district). I don't have the letter with me (so no direct quote), but he at least did read it, because he responded to the issue at hand (unlike Allard).

The response seemed mixed. On one hand, he agreed that it should be illegal to refuse. OTOH, he didn't seem to see an issue with going to another pharmacist if one refused to fill the prescription. He also mentioned that these were isolated enough incidents that he didn't see the need for federal mandates.

I'll type in his word-for-word response later, if people want.