What the hell? Why haven't I heard about this? I guess my local tv news and newspapers don't think it's important enough to cover.

From measure SB3:

would allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense prescriptions that they believe will be used to induce an abortion or assist in a suicide... 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. (emphasis mine)

Ummm, hello? EC IS contraception. That's why they call it emergency contraception! And, it's available OTC now. How could a pharmacist refuse it?

As for the other measure...just another tactic to make it more difficult for a woman to access abortion. Fucking lovely, more reasons for me to be embarrassed at being a Hoosier.

The pain issue I could argue--I mean for me personally, wondering if what I was doing would cause the unborn kid excruciating pain would be a factor for me even without manipulative statements from a doctor or anyone else to that effect. It's just something I think about. But the "physical human life" clause always baffles me. OK, so if life begins at conception, then if I abort the moment AFTER conception occurs, would that blastula or whatever that three whole cells is called at that point and which doesn't have a brain or anything yet, go directly to heaven? Is there a special place in heaven for 2-celled organisms? Not to sound crass, but I take "lives" everytime I wash my hands.

EC ≠ Abortion. Period.
Since EC methods act before implantation, they are medically and legally considered forms of contraception. Not Abortion. When will the campaign of misinformation cease?

Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I can see doctors saying ""differing medical evidence concerning when a fetus feels pain, but general consensis is that pain cannot be felt until [certain time], and of course, pain cannot be felt if there are no nerves."

Okay, I have an issue with the whole "when the fetus might feel pain" thing...

My husband and I lost a preemie in 2006. I was at 24 weeks gestation (the supposed point of viability) when she was delivered. She was worked on by the NICU staff, but died about an hour after she was born. It was an emergency c-section, so I was still in the recovery room when it happened, but my husband was with her, and has been able to share details with me about what happened.

One of the things that bothered me as a mommy was thinking that my baby had been in pain. All of the work they did: the needles, the IV's, the chest tubes, combined with hearing from my husband that she kicked and squirmed while they did all this, broke my heart. As part of my own healing process, I went back to the hospital where she was delivered and spoke to one of my nurses, and that was one of the questions I got answered.

I asked her point blank if my child had been in pain. This uber-Christian, pro-life nurse said no. That it is an instinctive reflex to kick and move when babies are touched, but that at that young of a gestation age, they probably don't feel severe pain. Did she know for sure? No. But she assured me from her decades of experience as an L&D nurse, that she strongly believed this to be true.

So if my 24 week old fully developed baby was in little or no pain, a 12 week old fetus would certainly not be. I think it is beyond cruel to require this statement to be made - I think women who are in the position of having to choose an abortion are probably already second guessing themselves and berating themselves enough as it is. Whatever circumstances brought them to that doctor's office to request that procedure is no one's business but their own!!! This is nothing more than a blatant attempt to coerce women into forced pregnancy by guilting them into it. As far as I'm concerned, it's mental and emotional abuse.

You fuckers.

I think the slightly more informed anti-choicers' argument with EC is that in 0.001% of cases where EC was taken and implantation had already occured, the pill may or may not cause a miscarriage. But no one's really sure, or if those pregancies were terminated naturally by the body. How could you even tell? I would think most pharmacists who are refusing to dispense would do so for this reason. You know, because for that 0.001% chance that one woman somewhere in American might suffer a miscarriage (and clearly one who WANTS to!) we all have to suffer. If that's the policy, we should also ban riding in cars while pregnant because that could dislodge the embryo too. Fucking retards.

Isn't the general consensus in the medical community that life begins at implantation? Which would mean the bill is forcing most medical practitioners to lie (well, that and the fetal-pain thing).

Also, I notice that the toned-down language of the bill says human *physical* life, as opposed to emotional and spiritual life. Not that that changes the fact that the bill is intended to guilt and mislead women out of having abortions. But an interesting choice of words.

The pain issue I could argue--

What is there to argue? Just because you personally would wonder about this if you decided to have an abortion is NOT a reason to force others to have to hear a bunch of unproven nonsense in order to obtain an abortion.

This is the same BS that comes up with the "waiting period." The whole "argument" that because some women find the decision a difficult and painful one to make that ALL women MUST find it painful and difficult or we'll legislate them into thinking it is.

Whatever your personal feelings toward abortion, they are irrelevant when it comes to other women's abortions, period. And personal feelings shouldn't be legislated, either.

Isn't the general consensus in the medical community that life begins at implantation?

Not exactly. Implantation defines the beginning of pregnancy, not "life."

Here's a lovely amendment to the bill (it passed):

" However, before a pharmacist refuses to dispense a drug or medical device under subdivision (2), the pharmacist shall contact the prescribing physician to clarify the clinical condition of the patient and the appropriateness of the prescribed drug or medical device."

So we replace the face-to-face conversation the WOMAN had with HER DOCTOR as to the appropriate course of action with a PHONE CALL from some pharmacist? Wow. That might be the new definition of patronizing.

Here's the author's contact info:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/homepages/S21/

Does anyone know if these bills have passed in the House yet? I recently moved to Indiana and changed my voter registration, so it sounds like its time for me to start contacting House members about these bills...

I think the slightly more informed anti-choicers' argument with EC is that in 0.001% of cases where EC was taken and implantation had already occured, the pill may or may not cause a miscarriage.

Could you provide a source for this, or is it something you just know through word of mouth? I'm curious as to how the 0.001% was calculated, and I'm really curious as to how they knew implantation had already occurred at the time the EC was taken.

I didn't think it was possible to commit suicide with EC... I'm not even sure if it's possible to abort with it.

"Physical human life" is such a meaningless phrase. If I cut my finger, the blood cells that come out are human and alive (for a few minutes) separately from my body--that doesn't give them any particular rights. If I have sex, conceive, and menstruate out the fertilized egg, that's life, that's unique human DNA even, but I'm still not having a funeral.

The whole idea is obviously to scare and shame and upset women seeking abortions, and I don't know why the hell they have to use words like "medical evidence" to try to hide it. Why don't they just vote in a bill that says physicians must tell women getting abortions that they're "bad and naughty"? Comes out to the same thing.

To Aspasia: I don't know if the bill has passed, I just know the amendment posted was successfully added. It's pretty easy to find on the Indiana website, go to the representative and it shows a list of the bills he's sponsored and recent activity on them.

Shelby, I didn't say that just because I debate the pain issue for myself, personally, that I want to force other people to not get abortions. For crying out loud, did you read the rest of my post? I am an ardent pro-choicer, and what I meant was that I don't fully understand the pain issue--no one does. That's why I say I might (not definitely would, again, please read more carefully) argue it. As in discuss it, intelligently. I wish people would think for more than 2 seconds before putting up knee-jerk responses.

Mercredi, 0.001% is just a number I made up to communicate the infinitesimally small number of cases where that might apply. I don't remember the exact figure from the article I read months ago.

Ugh. As a Hoosier living in one of the most liberal areas of the state (Bloomington), sometimes I forget what assholes most of our legislature are.

"I didn't think it was possible to commit suicide with EC... I'm not even sure if it's possible to abort with it."

I was confused about that too but after the link it says, "allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense prescriptions that they believe will be used to induce an abortion or assist in a suicide". So it seems the suicide part is referring to other drugs. For that too, I don't know why the pharmacist would be more qualified than the doctor to decide that a prescription could assist in suicide. The abortion one is talking about EC but they don't actually mention EC in the first sentence to make the law seem more innocent? Notice how they aren't even talking explicitly about pharmacists' religious beliefs in that sentence but their belief that a prescribed drug will cause abortion? Since when are pharmacies run based on what it is BELIEVED drugs will do?

Also, if I were a physician, I'd get annoyed that the state keeps trying to tell me what to say/do and to tell women things I'm sure they already know! There is "differing medical evidence concerning when a fetus feels pain." Well, duh. Or else we would have a specific time at which we know fetuses feel pain and there would be one less argument against abortion. "An embryo formed by the fertilization of a human ovum by a human sperm immediately begins to divide and grow as human physical life." Well, of course, who thinks growth stops for a bit after fertization? Just the word human makes the sentence questionable.

But being optimistic, are the doctors who have to say these things the doctors giving the abortions? If they are, they are presumably pro-choice and aren't going to try to use these statements to convince women otherwise, right? The original version is just crazy. Ick. Though I hate the life begins at conception thing. That is an argument against abortion? Of course new life begins at conception.

For crying out loud, did you read the rest of my post? I am an ardent pro-choicer, and what I meant was that I don't fully understand the pain issue--no one does. That's why I say I might (not definitely would, again, please read more carefully) argue it. As in discuss it, intelligently. I wish people would think for more than 2 seconds before putting up knee-jerk responses.

My post was intelligent and thought-out, sorry if you didn't like the content (but, thanks for the personal insults). And, nowhere did I accuse you of being anti-choice. If you didn't intent for your post to come across as "I can argue the pain issue," feel free to amend your original statement to reflect what you really meant; but please don't get nasty with me because I took what you wrote literally instead of magically knowing that you meant something different.

"Pro-lifers" (and some pro-choicers) believe life begins at conception, so anything that interferes with implantation, as opposed to conception, is an abortofacient, not a contraceptive in their minds. Since conception already ocurred, you're ending a life (aborting) if you take something that prevents implantation, so the "pro-life" argument goes. I actually agree with that in a sense, a contraceptive should stop conception, if conception has already taken place, I don't think you can call something a "contraceptive" if it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting. Some people are OK using condoms or diaphragms but not IUDs for this reason, and I think people should have accurate scientific information to make the decision regarding what different methods of pregnancy avoidance entail so they can select methods that comport with their beliefs. I've heard mixed things about whether Plan B and the Pill will stop implantation. My understanding is that they, along with the IUD can prevent implantation. I think most IUD's have nothing to do with stopping conception, some of the new ones that release hormones supress ovulation, but most of them work by changing the uterine lining so the zygote/blastula/whatever the correct term for a fertilized egg is won't implant. The Pill suppresses ovulation, but I don't see how EC can be effective if you've already ovulated and there is an egg there for a sperm to fertilize, other than for it to stop implantation. If anyone has a better grasp on the science, i'd appreciate the info.

I'm pro-choice, but I do believe that life begins at conception. I just think that a woman is not obligated to give her body over to support that life, the same way no one can be made to donate an organ to save someone else's life.

I know these bills were passed already but instead of just sitting here complaining amongst ourselves, there anything we can do to fight back against this and this kind of thing in the future?

Plan B is essentially a large does of birth control. (For those on monocyclics, it would be about the same as taking 7 or 8 pills) So, it works in the same way that birth control does to prevent pregnancy. The first line of defense is preventing ovulation. If you have not ovulated when you take the plan B, it might possibly prevent ovulation. After that, the second line of defense is that it makes the outside of the egg less receptive to sperm. Plan B can also work in that way, by preventing sperm from entering the egg. The third line of defense is changing the lining of the uterus so that it is not receptive to implantation. So, to be clear, all birth control has the slight chance of preventing an already fertilized egg from implanting, but it usually works first to prevent ovulation, so it doesn't have to rely on the changing of the uterine lining. Contraception is usually used to prevent pregnancy. Pregnancy is medically defined as when the egg implants. Plan B and birth control pills work in exactly the same way, and Plan B can cause a fertilized egg to not implant, but it can also prevent a sperm from entering the egg, etc.

Also, there is not a lot of legitimate dissent about when a fetus is capable of feeling pain. Most medical authorities agree that a fetus is incapable of feeling pain, at least until the point of viability, and often not until a little after. Studies of preemies have found lack of pain perception up to 28 weeks gestation. (I'm sorry for your loss TexasMomma, but I'm glad that your baby wasn't feeling pain!)
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947

"Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks."

Also, there is not a lot of legitimate dissent about when a fetus is capable of feeling pain. Most medical authorities agree that a fetus is incapable of feeling pain, at least until the point of viability, and often not until a little after. Studies of preemies have found lack of pain perception up to 28 weeks gestation. (I'm sorry for your loss TexasMomma, but I'm glad that your baby wasn't feeling pain!)
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947

"Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks."

Pretty much my feelings about the whole subject has been covered already. Fuckers! Describes my sentiment perfectly. My other comment is about the suicide part...I'm assuming that this applies to other medications (as another poster already mentioned). It would be hard to commit suicide on BC, but there are a whole lot of other drugs that people could potentially die from, and people do die accidentally all the time from taking prescribed medication (more people die from taking legally prescribed drugs each year than from all illegal drugs combined) So, does this mean that a pharmacist can refuse to dispense any drug because they think a person might, possibly, maybe, might die? For example a pharmacist could refuse to dispense pain meds to someone suffering from severe pain because "some people" have OD'd on pain meds before. Or they could refuse to dispense a someones psychiatric meds because one of the side effects of the meds is that it might cause suicidal ideation (and there's a lot of other meds that officially have suicidal ideation as a side effect including treatments for AIDS, HepC, Cancer, etc.) Basically, they could refuse to dispense (insert any drug name here) because there could, might, maybe, potentially, be a possibility of death!? Don't any of the idiots in the legislature see the potential harm in this bill, not only for women, but for people in general seeking prescriptions that they need, since basically this gives the pharmacist the power to, on a whim, to decide s/he doesn't want to dispense certain medications to certain people. This also essentially says to the doctor, "OK what you think doesn't matter because it's really the pharmacist that has the final say" Doctors are supposed to be the people who weigh the pros and cons of medications against the individual needs of the patient, and decide what is the best coarse of action, this is also true when prescribing BC and deciding about abortion (it's between the doctor and the patient), this bill takes all that away from the Doctor, essentially, and gives the power to the pharmacist. How perfectly insane these lawmakers are. Does anyone know if there are any doctors/patient organizations that are speaking out against these insulting and restricting bills?! What about the progress of the bill, is it expected to pass? This is so maddening!

I dont think pharmacists should be FORCED to prescribe anything by law. Now if they choose not to, they can and should be fired, but I'm hesitant in giving the state compulsory power over anyone in their job.

Its a very short drive from there to requiring that doctors provide abortions. I never ever ever want to do an abortion, I've seen a few and I never ever want to see or do them again. But I'm absolutely in favor of women having access to safe, legal abortions.

It was my understanding that pharmacists don't prescribe anything - but they FILL prescriptions that are written by doctors.

It should be illegal and the pharmacist should loose their job if they refuse to fill a prescription based on personal religions/moral objections.