Bill fuels abortion debates

If a piece of legislation in the state House passes, filling a birth control prescription in North Carolina might get a little bit more difficult.

Some N.C. legislators want to add pharmacists to the list of health care workers who can refuse to provide services that result in an abortion.

But a bill filed for this purpose, though it does not mention contraceptives, might be opening up the way for what some see as a slippery slope.

Under the bill’s guidelines, it might be possible for pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for drugs like emergency contraception, commonly known as the morning-after pill, and even for birth control pills.

Rep. Jeff Barnhart, R-Cabarrus, filed the bill, which would allow N.C. pharmacists to refuse to fill a patient’s legal and valid prescription based on moral, ethical or religious grounds.

Already, physicians and nurses in the state can refuse on these grounds to perform or assist with medical procedures to procure an abortion for a patient.

Rep. Mitch Gillespie, R-Burke, who co-sponsored the bill, said it just clarifies pharmacists’ rights and protects them from legal action.

But some anti-abortion groups such as Pharmacists for Life include emergency contraception in their definition of abortion.

Karen Brauer, the group’s president, applauded the move to allow pharmacists the power to refuse to prescribe contraceptives, including birth control pills. She said the bill will cause women to make more informed decisions, as they will hear both sides of the abortion debate.

John Rustin, director of government relations for the N.C. Family Policy Council, said the bill gives pharmacists choices — just like women have choices.

“Opponents of this present themselves as pro-choice but don’t want to provide choice for pharmacists,” he said. “That seems to be kind of a inconsistency.”

But this bill might infringe on women’s access to medical care, argued Paige Johnson, director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina.

“I have to say this is really pure discrimination against women,” said Johnson, adding that the proposed legislation seems to be based on personal opinions on abortion and contraception rather than on medical evidence.

Proponents of the bill respond by saying that women can always find another pharmacist. The N.C. Board of Pharmacy prohibits pharmacists from hindering a patient’s efforts to obtain legal medication.

“If she can go down the road, there is no infringement on the woman’s rights,” Brauer said.

Michael Murray, chairman of pharmaceutical policy and evaluative sciences at the UNC Pharmacy School, said that beyond the political issue lies an ethical one.

He said this bill, if it becomes legislation, would allow pharmacists to interfere with the patient-doctor relationship, permitting personal views to interfere with professional obligations.

“Role of a pharmacy is to provide service to the patient with a valid prescription without a lecture,” Murray said.

Legislators in South Dakota, Arkansas and Georgia also are trying to enact similar legislation, often known as pharmacist conscience clauses, into existing pharmacy regulation laws.

Currently, pharmacies nationwide fill prescriptions for emergency contraception, which reduces the risk of pregnancy when taken within 120 hours of unprotected intercourse. Some daily birth control pills, typically used to prevent pregnancy, can be taken in combination retroactively to reduce the risk of pregnancy.

That has sparked concerns of anti-abortion groups, as both methods not only can prevent ovulation or fertilization of an egg but also can stop a fertilized egg from implanting itself in a woman’s uterus.

Though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration distinguishes between contraceptives and abortion, groups such as Pharmacists for Life lump the two together, claiming that both accomplish the same goal: stopping a pregnancy.

Gillespie said there is enough opposition in the House to cause Barnhart’s bill to fail. “Anybody who is for abortion, I call them abortionists — and the abortionists in the House oppose it.”

Contact the State & National Editor at stntdesk@unc.edu.