I can't tell you all how fucking happy it makes me that a Republican is sponsering this legislation...maybe there is hope for bipartisanship even in SoDak.

Does this mean the country is getting its head out of its ass?

Awesome, but I'm having some trouble with this line:

"State law allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense medication if they believe it would cause an abortion or be used in a suicide."

I can understand the suicide (duh). But I am clueless about one thing. Is mifepristone dispensed through regular pharmacies, or is it provided on-site when you go to get an abortion? I don't know the details. I'm sorry if I sound like a dumbass. I assumed it was provided on-site at the clinic or doctor's office, but after reading that I wasn't sure.

Anyhoo, wouldn't "miscarriage" be a better term there than "abortion"? I mean, if a woman has chosen an abortion and is getting the medication, a pharmacist shouldn't be her obstacle (same as with BC). However, if a woman is getting an unrelated prescription and is voluntarily pregnant, I can see how it would be appreciated if the pharmacist withheld certain pills, at least until the woman and her doctor could discuss the possibilities.

Or is that just a loophole so they can still deny EC? You know, for the misguided/misinformed/brainwashed that still believe EC = abortion.

YES! Good to know there are SOME lawmakers out there with common sense...

Oh, and completely off topic, I'm in a student lounge right now at my college and this guy across the room will not stop STARING at me. And because I'm on feministing (or not, I always think this way...), all I can think about is how most women would never invade a man's personal space that way. Irritating...

Lol, sorry for the ramble, needed to tell someone who'd understand! :D

LizM, I often stare back (keeping my face impassive) at them until they look away. It's hard, but it makes them realize that they are invasive and not appreciated.

The bit that irks me is the language about 'believing' the medication would cause an abortion. No mention of whether or not that belief has to be true, or even reasonable.

Another thing-I'd imagine there are a lot of drugs out there that have the potential to cause miscarriages, though they are taken for other reasons entirely. (There's a drug often used to induce miscarriages in countries where abortion is banned, that has another use altogether, though I can't think of it at the moment.) Can a pharmacist refuse to dispense medications that carry a risk of miscarriage?

Liz M, I second that...stare back. If that doesn't work, lick your lips suggestively and then roll your eyes.

What are we talking about here? Firing pharmacists who refuse to dispense, or sending them to jail or fining them?

I've got no problem with a pharmacy who decides to fire a pharmacist who wont dispense, but I DO HAVE a problem when state-sanctioned coercion or punishment comes into play.

"There's a drug often used to induce miscarriages in countries where abortion is banned, that has another use altogether, though I can't think of it at the moment.) Can a pharmacist refuse to dispense medications that carry a risk of miscarriage?

Cytotec (a gastrointestinal protectant) perhaps? The bottle actually has a picture of a pregnant woman on it with a bar through it as a reminder that it's normally contraindicated in pregancy. But it's also used in combination with RU486 to induce an abortion.

And actually a pharmacist can refuse to dispense a medication that he or she feels would cause grave harm or death for any patient.

But usually this is a rare event because the pharmacist will make every effort possible to contact the prescriber and consult the patient, to have the medication changed or to at least make damn sure the risk outweighs the benefit.

Corporations don't protect people's rights med student, the government does that.

Some corps might be willing to encourage or allow pharmacists to use their personal (insane) religious beliefs as an excuse not to perform their duties. That's why gov't rules are necessary.

"I've got no problem with a pharmacy who decides to fire a pharmacist who wont dispense, but I DO HAVE a problem when state-sanctioned coercion or punishment comes into play."

Med student,

Most company's won't wait for an incident, for fear of being sued. They will most likely require the pharmacist to sign a statement or "ask" the pharmacist to quit.

Any patient complaints that do occur would most likely be handled by the state board of pharmacy-- so yes, part of the government. This is because the state board's primary job is to protect the consumer or patient. Punishment usually is in the form of fines or a suspended license.

damn, sorry about the typos today :)

Just as a note of clarification, pharmacists do not prescribe medications, they only dispense them. The difference is essential in this issue, since the decision whether a woman uses a medication of any kind should be between the woman and her doctor, not the pharmacist. My aunt, who is 70ish, is a recently-retired pharmacist (and a radical feminist) and is just disgusted that so many states have allowed pharmacists to essentially reject the responsibilities of their jobs by refusing to give women their prescribed meds. This is a little bit of good news amongst so many discouraging ones.

Damn, it's nice to hear a Republican admit that access to birth control helps prevent abortions - the one goal we probably ALL share, regardless of political party.

Now if only the rest of the GOP would pull their heads out of their asses...

Wow. Bonus points for him, a red state Republican with better sense.