Ind., S.D., Pa. Take Actions On Physician, Pharmacy Regulation Bills For Contraception, Abortion

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Sexual Health / STDs;  Primary Care / General Practice;  Pharmacy / Pharmacist
Article Date: 01 Feb 2008 - 7:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

The following highlights recent news of state actions on legislation that would institute requirements for health professionals in regard to abortion and contraception.

• Indiana: The Senate on Tuesday voted 30-18 to pass a measure (SB 3) that would allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense prescriptions that they believe will be used to induce an abortion or assist in a suicide, the Indianapolis Star reports (Schneider et al., Indianapolis Star, 1/30). Under the bill, a pharmacist's refusal to dispense could not be the basis of a claim for damages or the basis for disciplinary action. Sen. Jeff Drozda (R), the bill's sponsor, has said that contraception is "not covered" under the bill but added that the legislation intends to cover emergency contraception. After a recent committee hearing, Drozda acknowledged that a pharmacist could interpret that the bill would allow refusal to fill contraceptive prescriptions (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 1/14). The measure requires pharmacies to have a policy on what to do if a pharmacist refuses to fill a contraceptive prescription, but it does not specify the requirements (Indianapolis Star, 1/30). The measure had previously stalled on a 24-24 vote, but Drozda succeeded in convincing six senators to change their vote, with the bill passing without debate 30-18. Although Drozda acknowledged previously that the bill could impact contraception prescriptions, including emergency contraception, he claimed this week that it would not apply to birth control pills and that he was open to clarifying the proposal as it moves through the General Assembly, the AP/South Bend Tribune reports.
  
  
• Indiana: The Senate on Tuesday voted 39-9 to pass a "contentious" bill (SB 146) that would require physicians in the state to inform women seeking abortions that there is "differing medical evidence concerning when a fetus feels pain," the AP/Tribune reports. The measure also would require physicians to state that "an embryo formed by the fertilization of a human ovum by a human sperm immediately begins to divide and grow as human physical life." The original version of the bill would have required physicians to say that life begins at conception and that a fetus can feel pain during an abortion, but senators later decided to change the language. The measure now moves to the House (Martin, AP/South Bend Tribune, 1/29).
  
  
• Pennsylvania: Sen. John Eichelberger (R) on Monday introduced a bill that would allow health care professionals to refuse to dispense contraceptives or perform abortion services for religious reasons or "acts of conscience," the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports. The bill, titled the Conscientious Objection Act, would give health care professionals immunity from lawsuits. Eichelberger said he intends "to make it very clear that people in health care and in medical institutions would be held harmless if they for religious reasons decide not to provide procedures for abortion or contraception." Jeanne Clark, an activist with the National Organization for Women who previously ran the Allegheny Women's Center in East Liberty, said the measure could allow physicians to refuse to treat a woman in need of emergency medical care, such as bleeding from a miscarriage or abortion. It is "pretty awful that a medical professional sworn to do no harm [could] use this excuse to kill a woman," Clark said (Bumsted, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 1/28).
  
  
• South Dakota: The House and Senate voted 38-31 and 21-13, respectively, to pass measures (HB 1193, SB 88) that would require physicians to offer sonograms to women seeking abortions in the state, the AP/Mitchell Daily Republic reports. Neither bill would force a woman to view a sonogram; however, if a woman declines to view it, she would have to sign a statement acknowledging her refusal. Supporters of the measures said they believe that some women will not have abortions if they see their sonograms. Opponents said it is cruel to add another barrier in the abortion process, especially in instances in which women must have the procedure for medical reasons. Each bill now moves to the opposite legislative chamber, the AP/Daily Republic reports (AP/Mitchell Daily Republic, 1/29).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2007 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.