Subscribe
Jobs
Cars
Real Estate
Apts
Classifieds
Shop
INDIANAPOLIS – Despite confusion over the intent and practical effect of a pharmacists’ conscience bill, a Senate panel approved the legislation Wednesday that critics said could impede access to contraceptive pills and devices.
“I don’t believe anyone on this committee believes we need to turn Indiana back to 1965,” said Sen. Vi Simpson, D-Bloomington, who voted against Senate Bill 3 along with her three Democratic colleagues and one Republican.
Six other Republicans voted “yes,” sending the legislation to the full Senate for amendments.
The bill, authored by Sen. Jeff Drozda, R-Carmel, said no pharmacist can be required to dispense a drug or medical device if the pharmacist believes it will be used for any of three reasons:
•To cause an abortion.
•To destroy an unborn child (which is undefined).
•To cause the death of a person by assisted suicide, euthanasia or a mercy killing.
A pharmacist who uses one of these sections to refuse service can’t be disciplined under the bill. If the employer does so anyway, the employer can be charged with a criminal offense.
Drozda could not give an example of a drug that would fall under the bill and could not explain the difference between the abortion section and the section involving an unborn child.
The Indiana Pharmacists’ Alliance said it has heard of no instances in which a pharmacist was disciplined for abiding by his religious or ethical beliefs. But Drozda said he has a constituent who was suspended for refusing to give out Plan B.
Plan B is an emergency contraceptive given within a few days of unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy. If the woman is older than 18, no prescription is needed, although the pills are often kept behind the counter.
Some pharmacists, including one who testified Wednesday, believe that Plan B and other hormonal birth control pills kill early human embryos.
The matter is complicated because the bill has no definition for unborn child and the Senate is considering a separate bill to define life as beginning when the egg is fertilized by a sperm.
Drozda said repeatedly there was nothing in his bill to affect contraception. But at the same time he said he patterned the bill after a South Dakota law that allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense emergency contraception.
It is one of only four states with such a law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The legislation would not affect the drug commonly called RU486, which is given by a doctor in a clinical setting to medically abort a fetus.
The next step for supporters and opponents is to try to find a definition that makes clear whether the bill covers dispensing contraceptives.
“We won’t agree on one,” Drozda said. “That’s been the battle before because it comes down to when you believe life begins.”
nkelly@jg.net
