Advances in medical technology necessitate changes in law that immunize licensed health care workers who refuse to participate in abortion, sterilization or contraception, say supporters of a Senate “Rights of Conscience” bill.

On a 3-2 party line vote Feb. 14, the Senate Family Services Committee sent S1485 to the full Senate. The bill says any health professional, associate or health care institution that is morally or religiously opposed to abortion, sterilization or contraception, including emergency contraception, may state their objections in writing and refuse to render those services.

Those who refuse could not be held liable.

“This piece of legislation is a response to a change in technology and a change in what is happening in the medical field,” said Sen. Dean Martin, R-6, sponsor of the bill. “What was originally done through invasive surgery is now done through medication.”

Mr. Martin said abortion is now done pharmacologically, which is not covered under current rights of conscience law.

“Pharmacists have no place to work without affirmative protection,” he said. “They’re going to lose their job” if they refuse to dispense a contraceptive.

“Morning after pills, RU486 and other things have changed the way this is done, and now those who had never thought they’d be participating in an abortion because they never worked in an abortion clinic are now put in a position of having to make a decision as to whether or not they’re going to dispense a medication that they do not believe in,” Mr. Martin said.

“This is not a ban [on abortion]; this is a choice,” he said.

“Under current Arizona law, I can refuse to provide services related to abortion,” said Tempe physician Deidre Wilson. “I do not have under state law the protection to say no for emergency contraception, for example the morning after pill.”

Pharmacists Can Now Refuse To Dispense Medications

Kathy Boyle, chief operating officer of the Arizona Pharmacy Alliance, testified that pharmacists may refuse to dispense medications or devices they do not believe in without fear of being fired.

“We’re not aware of any pharmacist in the state who was fired for exercising their right of conscience,” she said. Ms. Boyle said the alliance’s policy requires that a pharmacist who refuses to dispense based on religious or moral grounds must refer the patient to a pharmacy that will.

Unlike law in some states, the Arizona bill does not require referral, which Mr. Martin said “is the same as doing it themselves.” Dr. Wilson said referral would constitute “breaking my oath to first do no harm.”

Rory Hays, a lobbyist for the Arizona Nurses Association, said the bill does not balance the rights of patients with those of health care providers.

“This apparently is an effort to — I believe an unsuccessful effort — to balance the choice of the patient with the choice of the provider,” she said. “If you are, in fact, going to exercise your conscience, you’re entitled to do that. But it has to be done in such a way to give ample opportunity for the patients to exercise their rights as well.”

ACLU Spokesman: ‘A Dangerous Area’

A spokesman for the Arizona Civil Liberties Union said the bill is unconstitutional.

“This will not pass constitutional muster,” said Seth Apfel. “Whether you agree with it or not, the courts have repeatedly recognized the fundamental right of a woman to choose.

Given that, repeated bills that have arisen over the years that have enacted certain restrictions to that right have been struck down if they don’t contain two provisions that this bill does not contain.”

Mr. Apfel said the bill does not address situations where the life of the mother is threatened, adding that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that such laws must contain a referral provision.

“We’re getting into a very dangerous area when we talk about medical personnel refusing to participate in a medical procedure that is a right under the law based on their personal philosophy,” he said. “When you’re talking about contraception, what’s to stop a physician who has racist beliefs from refusing to prescribe contraception for inter-racial couples. There’s no end.”

Sen. Rebecca Rios said she was concerned the bill abandons the rights of patients in rural areas, where there is only one pharmacy or hospital. She did not receive an answer as to whether the bill would cover refusal to sell condoms.

Ms. Rios and Sen. Victor Soltero, D-29, voted against the bill, while Senators Thayer Verschoor, R-22, Karen Johnson, R-18, and Linda Gray, R-10, voted for it. —