Extract If pharmacists object to particular prescriptions, they should only be allowed to refuse to fill the prescription if meaningful and logistically feasible alternatives are in place. As an alternative, either another pharmacist must be on duty with the refusing pharmacist, or alternative ways of providing service must be in place. A woman should not have to travel to other pharmacies in search of a pharmacist that serves all patients, nor should she have to wait an unreasonable amount of time to have her prescription filled.
Extract Conclusion Offering legal protection to pharmacists comes at too great a cost to women’s health and legal rights. The pill is a viable and effective method of birth control for many women and, as Congress has noted, it can be used to prevent other social, economic, and medical problems. The Supreme Court has clearly established that a state cannot interfere with a woman’s right to access contraceptives, including the pill. While pharmacists should be free to practice their religion, that practice cannot interfere with their professional duty to dispense valid prescriptions free of moral judgment. Furthermore, the vague wording in most conscience clause statutes does not restrict objections to those of a religious nature. A pharmacist can use any personal moral objection as an excuse not to dispense a prescription. The result of a pharmacist’s objection can be quite severe for the patient (an unintended pregnancy or health problems), and the duties imposed under tort law should apply. A pharmacist should not be able to escape the legal consequences of his or her actions. States that allow pharmacists to do so are clearly protecting the rights of a small segment of their citizens at the expense of others. If these statutes are challenged in court, it is likely that the statutes will be found to be unconstitutional. While this is a serious consequence, it is appropriate given the rights at stake.
Extract Patient autonomy is the foundation of the ethical principles that guide a health professional’s actions. It can be defined as “the right of individuals to make decisions about what will happen to their bodies; what choice will be made among competing options; and what they choose to take or not take into their bodies. ” By being a barrier to the patient’s receipt of a legally available prescription product, the pharmacist is not only denying the patient her autonomy but potentially causing her emotional and/or physical harm.
Extract Religious fundamentalism and a lack of resources are the chief barriers to achieving sexual and reproductive rights for all by 2015, concluded the 2004 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) . . . Katherine McDonald, president of Action Canada for Population and Development, said that advocates of the Cairo consensus have been overly distracted by their efforts to isolate and shame US and conservative backlash and must reinvest in a commitment to human rights. “In-depth policy analyses of sexual, reproductive, and abortion rights are lacking,” she said.
Extract A series of attention-grabbing lawsuits and a crop of new legislation have spotlighted a long-gathering movement to vastly expand the scope of policies allowing health care providers, institutions and payers to refuse to participate in sexual and reproductive health services by claiming a moral or religious objection. In some cases, these radical new policies are intentionally designed to undermine, if not actually eliminate, the ability of governments at all levels, and even private businesses, to balance providers’ “conscience” rights with the ability of patients to exercise their own conscience and gain access to health care services that they want and need.
Extract Conclusion Using this framework, I propose a more protective principle for free exercise protection than currently exists, one that requires a heightened scrutiny of all laws that burden religious liberty, even neutral laws of general applicability. This review should examine carefully the need for the government law and the possibility of an exemption or accommodation that will not undermine the purpose of the law. However, I would not go as far as some states in providing almost absolute free exercise protection from government laws serving important government interests. Rather, the principle I advocate requires a balancing of interests tipped to favor laws protecting third parties’ from harm over religious claimants’ objections. The Catholic hospital conflict demonstrates how even under this more protective free exercise principle, the rule of law and the self–limiting principle of the liberty of conscience and religious liberty operate as justifiable limits on the scope of free exercise protection. The hospitals’ free exercise interests must be balanced against the potential harm to patients who cannot access necessary reproductive health care and information, which means that in many cases exemptions for religious hospitals will be denied.
Extract This Note examines Petitioner’s constitutional argument in Catholic Charities v. Superior Court as applied to a California statute drafted with a narrowly drawn “conscience clause” exemption. First, this Note describes the background for Roman Catholic opposition to contraceptives, and contrasts the reasons behind women’s rights activists’ claim for equal access to contraception as a part of reproductive freedom. Second, this Note examines the preeminent cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the California Supreme Court, as well as the relevant federal statutes and administrative decisions used by the California Court of Appeal in deciding Catholic Charities. Third, this Note describes in detail the arguments advanced by the Petitioner in Catholic Charities and the court’s resulting analysis. Concluding that the Court of Appeal of California correctly decided against the Petitioner in Catholic Charities, this Note examines the possible impacts of that decision on society’s view of women and on the Catholic health care system. Finally, this Note concludes that the California Supreme Court will affirm the appellate court’s decision and hold that the mandatory inclusion of prescription contraceptives in insurance plans, even for institutions whose religious beliefs are contrary to the mandate, does not violate the Free Exercise Clause or the Establishment Clause of the U.S. or California Constitutions.
Abstract The legal approach to abortion is evolving from criminal prohibition towards accommodation as a life-preserving and health-preserving option, particularly in light of data on maternal mortality and morbidity. Modern momentum for liberalization comes from international adoption of the concept of reproductive health, and wider recognition that the resort to safe and dignified healthcare is a major human right. Respect for women’s reproductive self-determination legitimizes abortion as a choice when family planning services have failed, been inaccessible, or been denied by rape. Recognition of women’s rights of equal citizenship with men requires that their choices for self-determination be legally respected, not criminalized.
Extract This case concerns the justification of moral constraints that a physician group decides to apply to itself in the provision of patient services. Family physicians confront this issue with regard to reproductive medical services and state laws such as those in Oregon regarding physician-assisted suicide. Whether such constraints are ethically justified depends on the distinction between professional medical ethics and individual conscience.
Extract Conclusion The trend of hospital mergers between religious and non-religious hospitals may continue to threaten access to reproductive health services, especially for patients who already have limited access because they live in rural areas or have low incomes.l” However, as this essay suggests, there are several avenues that concerned citizens and activists can take to try to prevent the loss of these vital services.l ” The creativity and determination of those who commit themselves to ensuring that reproductive health services will continue to be available to all who desire them has resulted in several viable legal and practical methods of intervention. Although I believe it is important to respect the religious rights and beliefs of others. when the expression of these beliefs encroaches on patients’ rights to access basic health services, intervention is appropriate and necessary. I hope that public outcry, in the forms of legal and grassroots action, will persuade state actors, legislatures, hospital administrators, and clergy to properly acknowledge patients’ rights and participate in the creation of acceptable solutions to the financial problems that hospitals increasingly face. We need solutions that do not deny essential health services to any group of people.
