2008 House Bill 6049 (Prohibit pharmacists following personal moral beliefs )

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. Alma Smith on May 6, 2008, to prohibit a pharmacist from refusing to dispense a prescription based solely on his or her ethical, moral, or religious beliefs.
- Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on May 6, 2008.
  - Reported in the House on May 15, 2008, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. Alma Smith on May 6, 2008. New Comment

1) Who pays for the consequences? [by CynthiaD on June 4, 2008]
An error made in the beginning causes many more problems in the end. Such is the case with contraception. It is a key to Pandora's Box of unintended consequences.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service National Toxicology Program added steroidal estrogens to the list of “know human carcinogens”. They indicate that the most frequently reported effects include DNA damage, adduct formation; cytogenetic alterations (eg. Chromatid exchange). This type of damage would most appropriately be labeled as a genotoxin, a poisonous substance, which does damage at the DNA level. A genotoxin can cause mutations in DNA and be labeled a mutagen, it can trigger cancer and be a carcinogen, or it can cause a birth defect and be a teratogen.

In July of 2005, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that a team of scientists have determined that combined oral contraceptives (estrogen plus progestogen) and combined menopausal therapy are “carcinogenic to humans.” Menopausal therapy was formedly classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” It has been upgraded to a Group 1 classification, “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.” Oral Contraceptives received the same classification.

The point is, women who use hormonal contraception are gambling with their health, their future fertility, and the health of their future children. This is all being done at a time when there are numerous medical models of birth regulation which are every effective and have no negative health consequences, for example: the Sympto-therom Method, Billings Ovulation Method, the Marquette Model, and the Creighton Model of Natural Family Planning.

Contraception will never meet the definition of an insurable risk and it should be opposed as it is a threat to health and economic welfare issue.

Reply New Comment

Line

2) are we going to ban [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2008]
birth control pills in bars too?

what about 'SECOND HAND HORMONES' causing cancer and killing people.

i'll bet more people have died of raging hormones than second hand smoke.

Reply New Comment

Line

3) Excellent Post [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2008]
"i'll bet more people have died of raging hormones than second hand smoke."

You are so right. Maybe they can put midol in the beer for all these whiny middle aged control freak lib/dem wymen.

Reply New Comment

Line

4) Hogwash! [by Anonymous Citizen on June 4, 2008]

:-)
Reply New Comment

Line

5) Update from Mirs [by Anonymous Citizen on May 20, 2008]
Mirs, 5/19/08:

The key change is shifting the focus onto the pharmacy not the pharmacist, as was the case with the original version of the bill. Under the proposed revision, an individual pharmacist would have a right to refuse to issue the prescription, due to his or her own beliefs, but the pharmacy would still make sure the customer was ultimately issued the drug. Negotiations are still ongoing regarding this bill.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) re: update [by Anonymous Citizen on May 21, 2008]
So the bill would make sure the PHARMACY would issue the drug? What if the pharmacy is a small local one, with only one employee, the owner? This bill is aimed at forcing an educated person to violate their conscience and dispense a murderous drug, no matter how you slice it. We're sick to death of governmental control over ever aspect of our lives. You are representatives, not dictators. If you don't listen, you're fired.
Reply New Comment

Line

7) Slippery Slope [by Anonymous Citizen on May 19, 2008]
What is next? Laws telling doctors what they have to prescribe? Legislation telling attorneys the specific defense they must take with a client? Or that they must take every client who walks through the doors?

What happens if the pharmacist has reservations that aren't just religious/moral - like concerns about the long term health effects of a particular drug? I think this is a very dangerous law that allows the government WAY too much say over how people act. There are hundreds of pharmacies around the state. If one particular pharmacist has moral objection, vote with your feet and get you prescription somewhere else.
Reply New Comment

Line

8) To Rep. Alma Smith [by jmd364 on May 19, 2008]
If you as a member of the government want to pass out prescriptions that are morally objectionable, set up a department within the State Dept. of Health to do this and leave the pharmascists alone.

Keep in mind that the people of the State of Michigan value life even to the point where we have no death penalty. So if you want to dispense the Abortion Pill, take the responsibility upon yourself, but know that your actions are against the will of the people!

Reply New Comment

Line

9) This Three Bill Package [by Anonymous Citizen on May 15, 2008]

HBs 6048, 6049 and 6050 address a real issue in our society and propose certain corrective measures to guide the professional performance institutions and individuals licensed to serve the public's welfare.

It is a shame that unwanted pregnancies occur in this advanced age of medical knowledge. But they do. It is a good thing that safe and effective contraception -- including "emergency" contraception -- is available to prevent such pregnancies and the various kinds of human misery they too often produce or aggravate. Society at large is too often left to pick up the pieces in cases of unwanted pregnancies that result in either abortions or babies. That is where society's interest comes into the equation.

It is unfortunate that some members of the health care profession would impose their own narrow minded beliefs about morality on others by denying them legal, safe and needed services and goods when it comes to dealing with this issue. In so doing, they not only turn their backs on the welfare of the patient, they narcissistically fail to perform in the interest of society at large in the matter.

I don't like government interference and involvement in personal matters, including medical treatment matters. But the reality is, government has become involved. I don't especially like these bills, but abhor the need for them more than I do the interference they represent. And so, I recognize and accept their unfortunate necessity and utility, and can tolerate them.
Reply New Comment

Line

10) remember, when the [by Anonymous Citizen on May 15, 2008]
government get's to choose what is RIGHT and NECESSARY, then what YOU think is RIGHT and NECESSARY doesn't matter.

remember that when you are dying in some waiting room waiting for treatment that the government says YOU CAN'T HAVE.

such things are called SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. you seem intent on getting it, so don't bitch when it's not what you were led to believe.

ask the brits if they think that not having the right to dental coverage is a good thing. every brit i know needs dental work BADLY.

ask the canadians if they think that socialized medicine is delivering what the left promised.

ask the french.

none of them are happy with their system.

why do you want to institute a system that NO ONE IS SATISFIED WITH???

the brits do NO CANCER RESEARCH, because it costs too much.

the french do NO AIDS RESEARCH, because it costs too much.

the canadians do NO ALZSHEIMERS RESEARCH, because it costs too much.

looking for cures for 'incurable diseases' just doesn't fit into the socialist budget, besides, they're just going to die anyway.
Reply New Comment

Line

11) if the state can make [by Anonymous Citizen on May 15, 2008]
pharmacists stop following their personal moral beliefs, how long do you think it will take before they make EVERYBODY stop following their personal moral beliefs?

obviously, morals have no place in government, and government rules all.

Reply New Comment

Line

12) what business does [by Anonymous Citizen on May 15, 2008]
the state have dispensing opinions on moral beliefs?

isn't that the job of the CHURCH?????

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE VAUNTED SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE????

it's amazing how much liberals want to separate church from state concerning abortion, but want to 'be the church' for other issues.

stupid liberals.
Reply New Comment

Line

13) how about we [by Anonymous Citizen on May 15, 2008]
mandate spanking in every home in michigan?

let's make corporal punishment the law of the land. let's spank the hell right out of those whiney little kids that the liberals seem so good at producing.

let's MANDATE that every disciplinary problem in school is SPANKED before they are MEDICATED.

let's bring public caning to michigan. it's about time that we quit 'SPARING THE ROD' and spoiling the children.

now, the leftists here will shout "that's a BIBLICAL idea". but they would be wrong.

people have been being corporally punished for thousands of years BEFORE the bible was even thought about being written. it was an accepted practice in every country in the world. and STILL IS in most.

Reply New Comment

Line

14) Say What? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 15, 2008]
"It is unfortunate that some members of the health care profession would impose their own narrow minded beliefs about morality"

You call it a "narrow minded belief".
I call it murder. Why do you want to impose your narrow minded, degenerate belief on other folks?

Please speak the truth. You call it " including "emergency" contraception"

I call it ending a life.

"to prevent such pregnancies" The pregnancy is already there in these cases. You want to force good decent folks to help with your abortion agenda. This is wrong.

"the various kinds of human misery they too often produce or aggravate"

What about the misery af being killed before you even get a chance?

And your last idiotic point "In so doing, they not only turn their backs on the welfare of the patient, they narcissistically fail to perform in the interest of society at large in the matter.

I don't know of anything that is more narcissitic than haviong the state force someone to help extinguish a life that was created because someone doesn't know how to keep their legs together.
Reply New Comment

Line

15) Dear Control Freak: [by Anonymous Citizen on May 15, 2008]

You can call it what you want, but there is no way anyone can make even the flimsiest case for emergency contraception being murder.

The medical profession recognizes that approved emergency contraception prevents ovulation. No egg to unite with the sperm means no life or even potential new life has been created.

The only offense committed under these circumstances would be the sinning of spilling and wasting the seed of humanity, which is a purely religious moral concept embraced rigidly by only the most narrow minded believers.
Reply New Comment

Line

16) please tell me what [by Anonymous Citizen on May 15, 2008]
emergency would require contraception?

what makes birth control an EMERGENCY?

please explain the circumstances that must exist for contraception to become an emergency proceedure.
Reply New Comment

Line

17) discrimination [by K&Rs Mom on May 14, 2008]
What makes the preferences of the purchaser outweigh the preferences of the pharmacist? In this law, the state is elevating one group at the expense of another - a slippery slope that has never ended well.
Reply New Comment

Line

18) What's Next [by Anonymous Citizen on May 15, 2008]
They won't allow smoking in my bar and will tell me what kind of beer to sell????????????????
Reply New Comment

Line

19) A Bad Law [by Anonymous Citizen on May 14, 2008]
If the drug is legal, then its dispensing should not be further "guaranteed" by a pernicious law that simply tries to make someone do what I want whether they want to or not. Such an odious law flies in the face of free choice of all parties concerned. If compromise and balance is what is sought, then making the drugs legal and permitting people to choose not to be a part of their dispensing is only fair and balanced.
Reply New Comment

Line

20) State forces individual to violate conscience [by Anonymous Citizen on May 14, 2008]
Where are we? Is this really legislation proposed in the United States, the gold standard of liberty in this world?

This isn't about life-saving medication; it's about easy access to abortion meds. So you want to make an independent businessman live with what he considers the sin of murder on his conscience so that someone doesn't have to walk to the pharmacy down the block for their abortion pill?What about that pharmacist's right to follow his conscience? What if it violates his religious beliefs? What if the end result is that neither the pharmacist nor the mother can sleep at night because they picture that tiny clenched fist, and hear that strangled cry in the night?
Reply New Comment

Line

21) Excellent Post [by Anonymous Citizen on May 14, 2008]
For the dems and libs it's all about being able to kill babies at will, doesn't matter if they trample on you to get there.
Reply New Comment

Line

22) how many jewish [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]
pharmacists have to dispense PORCINE INSULIN DAILY?

that is DEFINATELY AGAINST THEIR MORAL AND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, but they DO IT DAILY. even in JEWISH HOSPITALS.

Reply New Comment

Line

23) Liberty [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]
Unlike the previous posts I believe this is great legislation. If I need something from my local pharmacy I do not want the pharmacists religious beliefs interfering with my completely legal actions. If I have the money to pay for any legal product I have the right to buy it. What about those who have insurance concerns regarding certain pharmacies or those who do not have the transportation to run around town trying to find a pharmacist who will do their job? Thanks for introducing this worthwhile legislation.
Reply New Comment

Line

24) Right to Buy vs Mandate to Sell [by Anonymous Citizen on May 19, 2008]
You may have a right to buy any legal product, but you don't have the right to force me to sell it to you. I don't think the government should be able to tell me that I have to sell you whatever you want. If I won't sell it to you, then you are free to take your business somewhere else.
Reply New Comment

Line

25) Even if it's your "right" [by K&Rs Mom on May 14, 2008]
Even if you feel you have the "right" to buy a drug, there is no right implied in that to force a particular person to give it to you. The law says that any legal drug is not prohibited, not that anyone has a right to force it out of anyone else against their will.
Reply New Comment

Line

26) I Want The Dollar Store [by Anonymous Citizen on May 15, 2008]
to sell cigarettes. How do we go about getting this law enacted?
Reply New Comment

Line

27) Then Why [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]
do you want the state to "interfering with my completely legal actions" in regard to smoking in a bar????????????????
Reply New Comment

Line

28) Smoking [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]
Your second hand smoke is a health concern to others- specifically employees of those bars. What I buy from a pharmacist is my own concern.
Reply New Comment

Line

29) how many people die [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]
in michigan each year from SECOND HAND SMOKE?

can you show me even ONE VERIFIED CASE OF A PERSON DYING STRICTLY FROM SECOND HAND SMOKE?

can you show me even ONE VERIFIED CASE OF A PERSON CONTRACTING CANCER STRICTLY FROM SECOND HAND SMOKE?

can you show me even ONE VERIFIED CASE OF A PERSON GETTING ASTHMA OR C.O.P.D. STRICTLY FROM SECOND HAND SMOKE?

before you can say that something is DEADLY, you should at least be ablt to point to a headstone and say "THAT OTHERWISE HEALTHY PERSON DIED FROM SECOND HAND SMOKE AND NOTHING ELSE."

it would help make your case if you could.

Reply New Comment

Line

30) once again, you are [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]
failing to exercise YOUR RIGHT to not breathe second hand smoke by NOT BEING WHERE SECOND HAND SMOKE IS.

perhaps you should exercise your freedom to be free from second hand smoke by OPENING A SMOKE FREE BAR.

why must you take away OTHER'S RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS?

this is the DEFINITION OF TYRANNY.

nothing says that YOU have to go to that bar, other than YOUR PERSONAL CHOICE. EXERCISE THAT PERSONAL CHOICE ONCE AGAIN AND PERSONALLY CHOOSE ANOTHER BAR THAT PROHIBITS SMOKING.

so, you say "there are no bars that prohibit smoking."

that must mean that there is a significant market demand for smoking in bars.

if NON-SMOKING BARS were a viable market alternative, there would already be money making NON-SMOKING BARS. but, as you say, there are none.

but YOU plan on making EVERY bar non-smoking. do you also plan on guaranteeing their success with government subsidies?

let's say that the SMOKING BAR made a thousand dollars a night, then suddenly, it's making two hundred. is the state gonna ante up the difference?

i didn't think so.

when the state mandates stupidity, it should be prepared to re-imburse those it mandates to be stupid.

Reply New Comment

Line

31) Smoking [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]
Personally, I am a smoker and could care less about banning smoking in public places. Face it our habit is deadly. Why don't you just sit home and get sh*t faced if it such an inconvenience to step outside to smoke. This thread is for the above legislation.
Reply New Comment

Line

32) re: to smoker. [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]
your habit is deadly, yet you CHOOSE to smoke.

now you CHOOSE to be addicted to tobacco.

you work hard to support your habit.

and even if your habit kills you, which it probably will, i support your right to have it.

THAT is FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

i know your habit is deadly, but i'm not the one with the bad habit.

i know your habit will kill you, but i'm not the one dying.

i know it's a nasty habit, that's why I choose not to smoke.

i wouldn't want anyone forcing ME to smoke, so i don't want anyone FORCING YOU NOT TO SMOKE.

now, you are FREE to CHOOSE NOT TO SMOKE, but if this bill passes, you will NOT BE FREE TO DECIDE TO SMOKE.

your personal choice will be discounted for the 'good feelings' of the liberal democrats.

it will do NO REAL GOOD for all of the people, just a few.

it won't help me.

it won't help my family.

it won't help my community.

it won't help my state.

it won't help my country.

it will only help the liberals FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES. and heaven knows that is FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN FREEDOM ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.
Reply New Comment

Line

33) Against Individual freedom [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]
If a customer doesn't like what a pharmacist will or won't do..just go somewhere else. Why would you try to take away his/her freedom to be who he/she is?
Reply New Comment

Line

34) Because They Are [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]
Control Freaks. It's all part of the libs "just do it my way" agenda. Heck, there's a drug store every 50 feet anymore.
Reply New Comment

Line

35) Where Is The nanny State Going To Stop? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]
Will the state wake us in the morning? Tell us what to wear, what to drive, where to live?
This seems to be what these sheeple want. if a doctor doesn't want to do some procedure, firne. Find another doctor. Get the state OUT of our lives and we will all be better off.
Reply New Comment

Line

36) State [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]
Actually, I kind of like the state protecting: my water supply, the quality of the things I put in and on my body, my right to engage in the family planning I see fit, I could go on for days.

Sorry I do not believe the antiquated notion that the so called "free market" is going to solve my ills. The current status of our state is a direct result of the past 30 years of deregulation. But hey you all are self made people who never got a thing from the government right. Yeah right, you and no one in your family ever drew an unemployment check, received a subsidized loan, used the court system, used WIC, used a pulic school or state university, or drove on a public road. Oh yeah, the big bad government is out to get you. Wake up.
Reply New Comment

Line

37) if the state 'protects' it, [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]
it isn't YOUR water supply, it's the STATE'S.

it isn't YOUR medicine, it's the STATE'S.

it isn't YOUR body, it's the STATE'S.

Reply New Comment

Line

38) the state says that [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]
pharmacists cannot 'impede' your desire for products involving family planning, condoms, and birth control pills. many religions disagree with this, and i'm sure that those religions are well represented in the pharmicist community.

but the state says the pharmacists CAN 'impede' your desire for controlled substances, such as cocaine, which USED TO BE LEGALLY AVAILABLE in drugstores.

the state says the pharmacists cannot 'impede' your desire for weight loss products, but rapidly changes it's mind when the products turn deadly.

the state says the pharmacists cannot 'impede' your desire for cold relief, but rapidly changes it's mind when it finds out that 'designer drugs' are being manufactured by kids in kitchens using cold medicines.

the state is in such a rush to 'feel better' about protecting it's citizens, that it fails to allow it's citizens to think and decide for themselves what is good or bad for them.

pharmacists know, going in, that they MIGHT HAVE TO DISPENSE ITEMS WITH WHICH THEY MORALLY AND ETHICALLY DISAGREE. it's part of the job.

this is not anything new.

they have the right to choose to be something else.

Reply New Comment

Line

39) Mrs. [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]
If a doctor feels it is unethical/immoral to dispense prescriptions based on his/her belief - we should honor that. A law telling him he HAS to infringes on his own freedoms.
Reply New Comment

Line

Home
Create an account
Legislation watch
Search Legislation
Search Voting Record
Reports
- Recent Laws
- Missed Votes Report
Links
About
Tell a friend about this site