Prohibits pharmacists from refusing to dispense medication solely for philosophical, moral, or religious reasons

5 Co-sponsors

• Tony Avella
• Ruth Hassell-Thompson
• Brad Hoylman-Sigal
• Velmanette Montgomery
• Bill Perkins

BILL NUMBER:S2492

Title of bill

An act to amend the education law, in relation to prohibiting pharmacists from refusing to dispense medication solely for philosophical, moral, or religious reasons

Purpose

To prohibit a pharmacist from refusing to dispense or refill a Prescription or non-prescription drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration solely on the grounds that the dispensing or refill of the prescription or non-prescription would contravene the pharmacist's philosophical, moral or religious beliefs.

Summary of provisions

Section 1 amends § 6810 of the Education Law to provide that no pharmacist may refuse to dispense or refill a prescription or non-prescription drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug administration solely based on the pharmacist's philosophical, moral or religious beliefs.

§ 2 is the effective date.

Existing law

New York State law does not currently have any statutory prohibition on so-called "pharmacist refusals."

Justification

As part of a broadening anti-choice strategy, an increasing number of physicians are refusing to write prescriptions for contraception and more pharmacists are refusing to dispense birth control, including emergency contraception (formerly known as the "morning-after pill"). Some states (Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota) have enacted statutes that explicitly permit pharmacists to refuse to furnish contraceptives, or any prescription based on his or her moral beliefs. No state has enacted a statutory ban on "pharmacist refusals," although Massachusetts, Illinois and Wisconsin have taken administrative actions to prohibit the practice.

Prescription refusal is a disturbing trend that can jeopardize woman's reproductive health. Denying women their rights to timely access to health care is an act of discrimination that could lead to an increased number of unintended pregnancies.

Some pharmacists even go so far as to lecture women, humiliate them in public, or refuse to hand back the prescription after they refuse to fill it.

Illinois was the first state to issue a statewide regulation to address this growing problem. In April 2005, the Governor issued an emergency rule that requires pharmacies that stock emergency contraception to accept and fill prescriptions for contraceptives

without delay. The Governor acted in response to complaints from two women who said that a Chicago pharmacist had refused to fill their prescriptions for emergency contraception.

Although the total number of pharmacist refusal incidents is unknown, reports of pharmacist refusal date back to 1990. An April, 2005 New York Times editorial cites some 180 reports of refusals in a six-month period last year. Planned Parenthood has documented incidents in Georgia, Texas, Wisconsin, Illinois (Chicago), and New Hampshire. To date, there have not been any reported incidents in New York.

The moral or religious beliefs of a person's health care provider should not limit their access to basic health care. The refusal to fill a lawfully issued prescription is an indefensible abuse of power by pharmacists and an act of discrimination against women. Health care providers such as pharmacists have no business forcing their own moral or ethical views onto customers who may not share them, and those who cannot dispense medicines lawfully prescribed should seek other employment.

Fiscal implications

None.

Effective date

Takes effect on the first of November next succeeding the date it shall have become law.