The Pharmacy Board Ruling
Okay, so the Board was trying to strike a balance between the guaranteed right of employees not to face religious discrimination & the guaranteed right of women in Washington state to have access to contraception. (Here’s the language from Washington state lawRCW 9.02.100: “Every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy with respect to personal reproductive decisions… every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse birth control.”)
One thing to add into this equation: There’s something known as a bonafide occupational requirement (BOQ), which means, while employers still have to make reasonable accommodations to respect an employee’s religion, they can force employees to do things that are essential to the joblike filling prescriptions.
Anyway, as I see it, the Pharmacy Board struck a balance by erring on the side of protecting someone’s feelings over protecting someone’s health.
Now, here’s a telling detail. Here’s some language that had initially been in the ruling (back when the ruling prohibited refusals), but was struck today. Check out 7C.
Again, this is language that was struck:
(1) A pharmacist’s primary responsibility is to ensure patients receive safe and appropriate medication therapy. Pharmacists shall dispense a lawfully prescribed drug or device or provide suitable therapeutic substitution in a timely manner consistent with reasonable expectations for filling these prescriptions except when:
(a) clinically contraindicated,
(b) potentially fraudulent, or
(c) another on-site pharmacist will fill the prescription without delay.(7) Pharmacists and ancillary staff shall not:
(a) Destroy or refuse to return unfilled lawful prescriptions when requested to do so by patients or their agent,
(b) Violate a patient’s privacy, or
(c) Discriminate against patients or their agent in a manner prohibited by state or federal antidiscrimination laws.
Nancy Sapiro, of the Northwest Women’s Law Center, explains that the original languge, which had outlawed refusal clauses, made a point of re-stating the Pharmacy Board’s commitment to anti-discrimination…to make it clear that the board believed refusal clauses could be discriminatory. However, the new rule struck that language because, the board said, it was redundant with anti-discrimination law that’s already on the books…and so, it didn’t need to be re-stated here.
Or maybe it’s because the Board recognized that the rule they passed today is antithetical to anti-discrimination laws. Indeed, state law requires all public accommodations, like stores and pharmacies, to serve all people. Northwest Women’s Law Center argues that refusal clauses, like the one passed by the Pharmacy Board today, amounts to discrimination against women in a public place.
PS: The Board of Pharmacy hasn’t called me back yet.
More from Planned Parenthood and NWLC (part of the Alliance for Reproductive Choice in this case) linked below.
The Washington Alliance for Reproductive Choice (WARC) today announced its opposition to the Washington State Board of Pharmacy's proposed rule that would allow pharmacists to refuse to fill safe, valid and legal prescriptions.
The Board began the meeting by debating the first draft, which was supported by patient's rights advocates and women's groups. Some members, like Gary Harris, urged the Board to pass the draft, which of the two versions more strongly protected patients and ensured access medications. Others, like Donna Dockter and Susan Teil Boyer, said the draft rule did too much to regulate pharmacists, and said they would oppose it.
The draft was put to a vote by board members, but failed because it did not have the votes needed to pass.
The board then began amending the first draft, creating a third version which was ultimately passed by a unanimous vote. The version states that pharmacists may not obstruct a patient who is trying to obtain a drug, but also states that if a pharmacist "cannot dispense” a drug then their alternatives "may include--but are not limited to--returning the prescription or referring them to another pharmacy.
The third version also removed language that stated that a pharmacist may not destroy prescriptions, refuse to return prescriptions, or discriminate against patients.
The draft rule will now be filed with the code reviser where the public will have one more opportunity to comment before it becomes state law.
So we can hope that the guv'nr will step in and what?
It is so obvious to even the biggest twit that this is a right-to-discriminate law. Period. It is a conscience law. Period. Yes, it is the same fucking thing, twit. That jimmy-cricket voice that says don't trust fairies, fairies are bad. Keep fairies away. Bullshit to that and bullshit on those pharmacists. That's right, bullshit on you.
I don't like all pharmacists because all you pharmacists favor depriving medicine to those in need. Therefore, don't you buy groceries from my store, because as a matter of conscience, I can not sell you or your family and associates food. See my conscience says evil is around every turn and that to feed an evil is an evil act. I don't like evil acts and I certainly will not choose to sell you food. What does your conscience say about that? motherfuckers.
you see, that is why you should care.