And so now the fundie pharmacists get to guess why someone might be asking for a legitimate prescription and decide on their own, without specific information, whether it MIGHT conflict with their bible-beating beliefs. When will the madness stop? This is none of their damn business — fill the f’ing prescription.
A pharmacist at a Nampa, Idaho, Walgreens refused to dispense medication that stops uterine bleeding because she suspected the woman may have had an abortion. The pharmacist invoked the state’s new so-called conscience clause that allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives and abortifacient drugs, among other things, if they have a personal problem with it.Last November, a woman took her prescription for Methergine, a drug that stops uterine bleeding regardless of cause, to Walgreens. The pharmacist, suspicious that the woman’s uncontrolled bleeding may have been the result of an abortion, called the nurse practitioner who wrote the prescription to inquire why the patient needed it. When the nurse refused to answer because to do so would violate the patient’s confidentiality, the pharmacist hung up on her and refused to fill the prescription.
Essentially, the pharmacist was saying that, while her conscience was just dandy with letting a woman bleed out, it would have a problem saving her life if it was even a possibility that the blood loss was connected to an abortion.




35 Comments


That’s unethical, misogynist and coldhearted to an extreme degree. The pharmacist in question should be fired and lose her license.
Idaho State Board of Pharmacy
3380 Americana Terrace, Suite 320
Boise, ID 83706
Phone (208) 334-2356
FAX (208) 334-3536
……………….
Walgreens
1-877-250-5823
200 Wilmot Road
Deerfield, IL 60015
Sweet dealCry “conscience clause” and get paid for not doing your job.
If this “lady” finds dispensing legal Meds objectionable, she needs to go into another line of work.
Quite Possibly IllegalI made this point over at Dailykos when the story broke – The federal HIPAA law, the one passed back in the 90s by Kennedy and Kassenbaum, includes requirements for the protection of patient privacy where health information is concerned. The privacy regulations, promulgated in the early 2000s, require that only the “minimum necessary” information be shared when completing healthcare transactions. The only exception is transferring a patient from one treating practitioner to another treating practitioner, because any/all information in the patient’s medical record could be important in that treatment.
A pharmacist is not a treating practitioner, so the NP was completely right, and following federal law, when she refused to discuss the patient’s diagnosis. The NP could provide the diagnosis or condition for which the patient is being treated only if it were relevant to getting the prescription filled – if dosing or formulation would be different, for example. Clearly this was not the case. The pharmacist was demanding the NP violate the law.
(aside, I work for a healthcare quality organization, and spent 2 years of my life – time I’ll never get back – analyzing the HIPAA privacy regulations and their impact on quality reporting.)
Just talking off the top of my head here.But I believe Walgreens has fired or disciplined pharmacists in Illinois who haven’t followed the law regarding women’s access to contraceptives. Of course, it’s always THAT area where the fundie pharmacists have attacks of “conscience.”
What if??Purely hypothetical scenario approaching:
Okay, let’s say I’m a pharmacist in Idaho. Events during my early choirboy days have left me with passionate anti-Christian beliefs. A woman hands me a scrip for allergy medication. While processing her order, I notice a small silver cross hanging from a chain around her neck. Am I allowed to refuse her service?
Don’t you knowthat the laws that govern the rest of us don’t apply to Christians? They have special rights.
Not only thatWhat if someone needed AIDS medication? The “pharmacist” wasn’t using her conscience to decide not to give medication that would cause an abortion or to prevent pregnancy, she was judging the woman and decided that she wasn’t worthy to get what she needed. That’s just a special kind of arrogance but not too uncommon with religious fanatics and extremists. She’s one of the chosen ones after all.
Not “special rights”But, GOD GIVEN SPEICAL RIGHTS!
we’re just the huddled masses that they get to stomp all over with golf spikes.
How many times to these assholes have to be toldBirth control pills are NOT necessarily dispensed to prevent pregnancy! They are a necessity and, in some cases, a godsend to those who suffer from bleeding or a thickened endometrium. What the FUCK is the matter with these people?
Christianity:Screwing Up People’s Lives for More Than 2000 Years.
This is actually an interesting questionI always think about that when I read crap like this. I am wondering whether there is a way to leverage all these ‘get of a jail free for christians’ cards to our advantage?
I think it would be very interesting to create a church that requires strong pro-gay opinions and activities. Could we sue on grounds of religious discrimination if some state doesn’t allow for us to exercise our religion?
Always surprised what’s so hard to understand in ‘separation of church and state’ …
Idaho is one of the “nullification” stateswhich announced its intention to ignore federal laws that it disagrees with; we’ve taken enough dangerous nonsense from these treasonous enclaves.
Is your God still in the mix, Mr President, or can your Jusitce Department take a moment to look at this egregious misconduct on civil rights grounds?
GSAs did itThat’s an interesting idea. The equal access law that pretty much guarantees that schools have to allow Gay-Straight Alliance clubs was originally passed to protect fundie Christian clubs, so it’s not without precedent.
Probably not.But if you professed religious beliefs along the lines of “Allergies are a curse from Zeus upon the unrighteous”, then you could do it.
So could this nitwit get sued for playing doctor?Now besides the general example of yet another hate filled Christian which is obvious…
Did this idiot just admit that they attempted to diagnose this patients condition in an effort to refuse the doctors orders to provide treatment? Is there something against the law about “practicing medicine” without proper license?
I am just saying IF this person actually STATED they were attempting to provide a secondary “diagnosis of the patients condition” should this not lead to pulling any type of license that they might ever “thought” they had.
It’s not like these smug idiots labeling themselves good Christians have any real intelligence to begin with.
I just hope they are slammed for the right legal reasons.
Hate is just the easy thing to point out here in my opinion it’s how they overstep their professional positions that I think needs to be addressed.
Response
Hi Pam. A facebook bud posted this brilliant response which I am resposting :
“the religious in our country often take on the mantle of oppression, claiming to be the victim of a vast and powerful conspiracy of atheists and agnostics who in the view of the religious believe nothing.
The religious in our country view themselves as oppressed, akin to African Americans in the former confederacy in the 1940s, 50s, 60s and 70s. Yet unlike African Americans in the former confederacy during that time people who claim strong and abiding faith hold high elected office and are influential across our nation.
The claim by members of the US religious movement that they are oppressed is false.
What this claim amounts to is that members of the religious movement in the US are oppressed because so far they have not yet been able to use their power and influence to dictate how OTHERS live to the extent the religious like. They have not been able to end legal abortions in the US. They have not been able to dictate what medications we can take and for what reasons. They have been successful at advancing discrimination against homosexuals, assuring we have fewer rights than they do and fewer choices for our own lives than they have. In majority of the US you can still be legally and lawfully discriminated against for being homosexual. Yet even in that area many of the religious are dissatisfied. According to Senator Jim DeMint homosexuals and non-celibate unmarried women should not be able to teach school — a belief more extreme than Ronald Reagan held in the 1970s.
So the religious movement in the US sees themselves and promotes the idea that they are the victims of a secular cabal, I guess led by homosexuals, abortionists, atheists and agnostics, but what they label as victimization of the religious by secularists is the denial of the successful use of their power and influence to dictate how other people live.
Until they can legally block abortion, deny or control the dispensing of birth control pills, demand that every Congressional representative and Senator takes the oath of office on a King James Version Holy Bible, demand each school child take the pledge of allegiance with the words under God in it, demand religious study in taxpayer funded schools, criminalize homosexuality, they will claim that they are oppressed and victimized by the secular cabal that prevents them from using their power and influence to dictate how the rest of us live.
The extremist faith movement in the US is a Christian Taliban movement.”
And Sarah Palin is one of the leaders of this extremist faith movement.
Amenthis
‘Might have had an abortion’..Much more likely to be suffering from menometrorrhagia… eg. too long and heavy menses. These are usually caused by fibroids interrupting the smooth intrauterine wall and not allowing completed menstruation.. Right Pam?This is just like the poor teens being bullied to death because they might be gay??!!
Can be a number of reasons for excessive bleedingFibroids, polyps, uterine cancer. Many women take these meds to alleviate their pain and stop the endometrium from getting too thick. For a pharmacist to leap to this bizarre conclusion is just mind boggling.
Could this be considered negligent homicide? Or even Murder? If the patient died because the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription, couldn’t the pharmacist be arrested for contributing to a death? If someone is bleeding, that’s serious. Also, I don’t think there is anything in that “conscious clause” that states everyone else has to give up there privacy rights.
Turns out it’s legal.That’s right. Googled this. Idaho is
WTF???!!! Where have I been? MA, NJ, IL???
Turns out further that a local Planned Parenthood has filed a compliant but it only applies to the breach of privacy and not the refusal. Read more at link.
http://bluewavenews.com/blog/2…
Man, this country is getting scarier and scarier.
Re:That only goes so far:
1.) They can’t refuse help in an emergency
2.) They need to provide a referral
As far as I know she didn’t point them to an alternate source. She also violated HIPPA rules by even asking what the medication was for (that’s what the privacy thing is about).
But in principle, I agree. WTF? Why have a conscience clause for people who have no conscience?
In this caseIt appears the medication was to stop bleeding, not services related to abortion or contraception. The pharmacist jumped wildly to some conclusion that may have no basis in fact. IMO, the pharmacy and pharmacist should be sued, big time.
No, it is not legalThe legislative intent was to allow pharmacists an out as far as contraception, emergency or otherwise; abortofacients, and whatever that seaweed extract is that they use the night before to dialate the cervix before a D & E. Denying aftercare follwing a D & E was never considered.
I’d like to see a big ol dyke pharmacistrefuse to fill a prescription for Viagra just ONCE!
On a tangential but related and infuriating note, GOProud’s Jimmy LaSalviaannounced the organisations embrace of the GOP stance on women’s rights to control their own bodies
-
Ignore the cross-outSigh
Good things about TriCareNo one blinked when I wanted a horomonal IUD. Everyone knew I was infertile anyway, and that it was merely to stop the agonizing periods–but there was one elderly GYN who’s main job was inserting IUDs (practice = really really good), and it was NOT usually in a case like mine (most 2+ kids, wanting to have more later and not worry about R&R or homecoming).
Besides, as they said, it saved money in the long run, even when you expelled the first one. /blush Even if they had to have an OR prepped for such a ‘simple’ procedure.
And yep, I got clotting medications after the procedure. In the mood I was in, I would have torn the pharmacist a new one, as would a cadre of doctors. It IS serious. An abortion for me would save my life. And they have no fucking right to know. “Interuterine bleeding” I’ll give a pass on. “Post-abortion bleeding” and you can go straight to whatever hell you fear most.
Sorry about the rant. Sore spot. Umm, literally.
“…among other things…”An important legal point: Methergine is not one of the drugs covered by the law which allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives. This seems to be reckless endangerment.
What do you expect?What do you expect from a religious fanatic who has this delusion that their opinions are morally superior to those of regular folk?
The woman’s physician should put out a notice that this pharmacist is not to be trusted and to head elsewhere to have their prescriptions filled.
I highly doubt Walgreens will do the right thing and fire or reassign this person; primarily because of the Idaho law, and the fact the pharmacist will be screaming “I’m being oppresse4d!” to the religious reicht, who’ll immediately set their lawyers on the chain.
Is this even being covered by the MSM?Or is everyone on PHB just going off haphazardly again?
Seriously, if THIS story isn’t deserving of some serious press, then there is something going on.
AmenIt’s nobody’s fucking business what a woman needs her medications for!
Batsh*ttery IndeedWith “allies” like this, who need enemies??
The Problem with ReligionThe Problem with religion isn’t what people believe for themselves, it’s their totalitarian urge to impose their taboos on those of different faiths.
In accordance with the US constitution all forms of religiously-motivated legislation should be expressly forbidden as they by definition create a state religion.
how do these effing zealots get away with this sh*t?
read the linksit happened a year ago, but is only getting press now.