Dear Wisconsin, don't even think about passing this or I am moving to Canada! (or Kazakhstan, as the case may be)
So. Every now and then I step on my soapbox and get on a rant, whether it be about breast implants or mascots for colleges I've never attended, whether or not I have any articles or sources to back me up or not. Yes, loyal readers, that time has come once again.
Now that I'm at home, I'm much more inclined to watch the news. Not regularly, I admit, but periodically. There was a news story last week that made me sit up and say "what the fuck." Despite my intial reaction of shock and anger, I neglected to do any further research (whoops), but when reading the lovely Journal Sentinel (online, of course), I remembered said story and looked it up.
And now for your enjoyment!
(and by enjoyment, I mean, this sarcastically. It pisses me off.)

Dear religious and/or conservative type people, it may be in your best interest to stop reading here.
Oh, and by the way, if you know details about this particular issue or just want to get my ridiculous liberal opinions, scroll down. :)

Summary of the Wisconsin debate
(paraphrased from articles in links)
The Journal Sentinel starts coverage of this issue back in October 2004, when Neil Noeson, a pharmacist in Menomonie, WI, refused to fill a girl's prescription for birth control pills. His reasoning? That he is a "devout Roman Catholic and had told his placement agency he wouldn't help anyone get contraceptives because he didn't want to commit a sin."
A brief summary of the article says that the girl went to the K-mart pharmacy to fill the prescription, Noeson asked her what the purpose of the pills was and upon her reply that they were in fact for contraceptive use, he didn't give them to her. So, she went to a nearby Wal-Mart , but when the other pharmacy called the K-mart for the prescription, Noeson wouldn't give it to them.
A followup article in February 2005 states that the pharmacist in question was given a reprimand and had his license limited.
Wisconsin is one of 47 states that has a 'conscience clause,' in place since 1970, which allows doctors and hospital workers to deny patients abortions and sterilization procedures based on religious and/or moral obligations. But now the state is proposing that this same clause extend to pharmacists, on the grounds that birth control pills and morning-after pills are like abortions. As of March 2005, the Wisconsin State Legislature was up in arms debating this so-called moral debate. A bill introduced by Republican Jean Hundertmark in 2004 which continued to protect physicians, as well as medical students and other health care workers, from "being asked to participate in certain procedures that are against their convictions" (3/5/2005). This bill was passed in both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature, but was vetoed by Governor Jim Doyle, who declared that even if the bill is reintroduced (as Hundertmark plans), he would be unlikely to sign such a bill.
In a final decision in April 2005, Neil Noeson was reprimanded and his license was limited. Based on this decision, women's reproductive rights supporters are elated, while abortion opponents are even more pressed to get a 'conscience clause' passed for pharmacists.
In May 2005, it was brought to the media's attention that a Walgreen's pharmacist not only refused to fill a Milwaukee woman's prescription for an emergency contraceptive, but went so far as to call her a murderer and a baby-killer (5/10/2005). The manager on duty refused to intervene. The woman left the pharmacy, too traumatized to seek out another pharmacy and later had an abortion. Walgreen's policy allows pharmacists to deny prescriptions on moral grounds, however, they are required to seek out a manager, refrain from discussion their reasoning with the customer, and will have to make arrangements to seek another place to fill the prescription.
This brings us to the original posted article (here again for your convenience), where graduates spoke out to a legislative commitee on a proposed bill in Wisconsin that protects the rights of pharmacists on dispensing medications including birth control pills and other hormonal medicines. This bill would also protect pharmacists who did not want to send the prescription to another pharmacy to be filled. Opponents of the bill say that it is a hinderance to women's reproductive freedoms, and that overall, the principal decision maker is the woman.

And now for my personal opinions...
Okay, so I'm guessing there's like, nobody reading anymore, but I've given as unbiased of the presenting of the facts as I could (and links to articles). Now, for my opinions on the matter (which is precisely why I'm not a reporter or a professional writer - I'm far too biased in my opinions).
The thought that a pharmacist can deny anyone the right to having birth control pills is outrageous. In the Noeson case, for example, I think the fact that the pharmacist asked the girl what her pills are for is equally outrageous. I've been on the pill for three years now, and I've never been asked what the function of my pills were for (even in rural Ripon!)...incidentally, they're for moderation of my periods, as well as prevention of cramps that have knocked me out of school on numerous occasions from about eighth grade until sophomore year of college (even after I had taken the pill, it took some getting used to, which I will get to later). Moral obligations aside, I don't think I should have to explain that to a pharmacist. I should be able to go in, get my prescription filled, pay for it, and leave, no questions asked. The only thing the pharmacist has ever said to me, aside from small talk (and only in Ripon, I might add!), is asking if I had any questions about the particular pill. My reasons for being on the pill are my reasons (and well, now you know, but I volunteered this information, but I really don't think I would if I thought a pharmacist was going to prevent me from getting the pills).
And if a pharmacist has moral obligations that prevent them from dispensing birth control pills, fine. But don't withhold a prescription when a person is trying to fill it elsewhere for God's sake! If I had run into trouble at Walgreen's in Ripon (which I never did!), then at least let me try at Ripon Drug, or somewhere in Oshkosh or Fondy, or something. Even though I'm not on the pill for contraceptive reasons, it took me a while to get used to some of the side effects. Missing doses was not a good idea, and for the love of all that is holy (ironic choice of words, I might add), if you can't bring yourself to dispense the pill, don't, but let them find someone else who will dispense the pill.
The debate on the proposed bill in Wisconsin has the bill supported by opponents of abortion and opposed by many pro-choice groups. So, if you're against abortion, by all means, go ahead and make sure they can't prevent pregnancy. It will definitely lower the abortion rate. Morons. The credibility of the Walgreen's incident is still being investigated, and while that incident was in the extreme, there could be many more cases of women getting abortions because they were denied birth control or morning after pills (not the abortion pill!). Seriously. You'd think pro-life people would be all about birth control to prevent (key word there!) unwanted pregnancies (and, consequently, abortions), but, apparently not.
Even with policies such as Walgreen's, the mere layout of Wisconsin makes this problematic. In rural Wisconsin, there may only be one pharmacy in many of the smaller cities, and driving all over rural Wisconsin to find a non-morally obligated pharmacist is probably not the best option for people seeking out emergency contraception, where time makes all of the difference in whether or not a pill is effective. And think of the stress! The condom breaks, and you have to run all over the fucking state just to get a prescription filled for a pill? Ridiculous.
My biggest problem with the proposed bill is that despite what seems to be overwhelming negative response throughout the state public, it would not be unrealistic to think that this could be passed. With a Republican dominated legislature in the state, this bill has scary potential to become not just a bill but a Wisconsin state law.
While I'm not going to say whether I agree or disagree with the idea of the 1970 law that allows doctors to deny procedures, a pharmacist is completely different. There is no way that a pharmacist should deny me, or any other woman, the right to birth control based on their own morals. Give it up.
If this bill becomes a Wisconsin law, damn it all, I'm moving to Canada.
And no, I'm probably not done with this issue, either.
(the sad thing is, I've written papers that were researched more poorly than this, and this is based on solely my own personal opinions. yikes.)
- posted by L. @ 12:02 PM