# Pharmacist's conscience and new Indiana abortion law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 14, 2011, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850 "2011-05-14T00:04:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/181 "2011-05-16T19:07:14Z")
It violates the Doctor’s 1st Amendment rights by requiring them to endorse a state religious position. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/182 "2011-05-16T19:07:46Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I don’t think it’s unenforceable. I think they’ll just enforce it regardless of Constitutionality. > > No, _Roe_ is about intruding on the right to privacy, and the part I quoted doesn’t just talk about abortion, nor does it qualify that point as requiring an “undue burden.” It just says a state can’t use its own subjective “theory of life” to intrude on rights of citizens, period. No, Roe is just about abortion, not privacy generally. I can’t use Roe as precedent in a wiretapping case very effectively. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/183 "2011-05-16T19:10:17Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > You could use the same logic to claim that a requirement she be beaten with clubs before an abortion doesn’t count as an “undue burden” since she’s not _actually_ being stopped. I don’t think this is the same thing as beating women with clubs before she gets an abortion. It seems different to me. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/184 "2011-05-16T19:11:39Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > No, Roe is just about abortion, not privacy generally. I can’t use Roe as precedent in a wiretapping case very effectively. The legal theory of the Roe decision is that it violated a woman’s privacy. Many of the legal objections to it, at the time and later, is whether there is in fact a constitutional right to privacy. And the answer is, since the Supreme Court says there is… there is. You may recall that there was a good deal of pundit chuckling about Donald Trumps answers about abortion and privacy, because he had no idea there was any link between the two. And the right to an abortion is rooted in the right to privacy. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/185 "2011-05-16T20:02:17Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > So a scientologist pharmacists can keep his jobs if he refuses to dispense anti-depressants or any medication proscribed for mental health. Really? Most reasonable people would think that guy should be fired and lose his license. I’m pretty sure that you can’t distinguish between Christianity and Scientology as long as you recognize Scientology as a religion. > [@](#): > > Also, studies suggest fetuses most likely can’t feel pain until the third trimester. The law is forcing doctors to disseminate both misleading and outright false information. I believe that there is some controversy among scientists about whether a fetus feels pain in the second trimester. > [@](#): > > IOW, you think that it is fine for the government to allow licensed professionals in one profession to not do their job based on unreasonable supernatural beliefs, yet you think it is also fine for the government to force another professional to do his/her job improperly based on supernatural beliefs. No, I don’t think the government should force doctors to profess when life begins (contrary to their own deeply held personal beliefs) but I believe that they probably can. You get into questions about defining life. But pain seems to be much easier to define and while the evidence is not conclusive either way, it doesn’t seem as offensive to force doctors to say that a fetus “CAN” feel pain in the second trimester. WOuld you prefer if they changed the word to “may” instead of “can”? People didn’t seem to have a problem with the conclusion (at the end of a prior thread) that states can force pharmacists to dispense birth control pills as a condition of their license but now that the shoe is on the other foot, it is suddenly unfair. I warned you guys that turnabout can happen and now that it has, you are getting all grumpy. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/186 "2011-05-16T20:06:58Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Nonsense. It’s a position taken to justify outlawing abortion, not the other way around. It’s a position manufactured for the purpose, and contradicts both the way we treat human life in the rest of society as well as the historical view of the matter. > > More nonsense. “Human life doesn’t begin at conception” is consistent with the way we treat human life everywhere else but abortion. > **[Murder of Laci Peterson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Laci_Peterson)** > > Laci Denise Peterson (née Rocha; May 4, 1975 — c. December 24, 2002) was an American woman murdered by her husband, Scott Lee Peterson (born October 24, 1972), while eight months pregnant with their first child. The case has remained a subject of public interest and discussion, raising questions about the legal process and media coverage. > In 2002, Scott reported Laci missing from their home in Modesto, California. The next year, the remains of Laci and her unborn son, whom the couple had plann... [http://www.dailymail.com/policebrfs/201104041127](http://www.dailymail.com/policebrfs/201104041127) there seem to be at least some cases where we treat a fetus as something more than an appendage of the mother. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/187 "2011-05-16T20:15:37Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I’m pretty sure that you can’t distinguish between Christianity and Scientology as long as you recognize Scientology as a religion. > > I believe that there is some controversy among scientists about whether a fetus feels pain in the second trimester. > > No, I don’t think the government should force doctors to profess when life begins (contrary to their own deeply held personal beliefs) but I believe that they probably can. You get into questions about defining life. But pain seems to be much easier to define and while the evidence is not conclusive either way, it doesn’t seem as offensive to force doctors to say that a fetus “CAN” feel pain in the second trimester. WOuld you prefer if they changed the word to “may” instead of “can”? > > People didn’t seem to have a problem with the conclusion (at the end of a prior thread) that states can force pharmacists to dispense birth control pills as a condition of their license but now that the shoe is on the other foot, it is suddenly unfair. I warned you guys that turnabout can happen and now that it has, you are getting all grumpy. You don’t see a difference between mandating that professionals fulfill their professional obligations, and forcing them to dispense information written by the legislature with very dubious scientific validity (at best) and certainly no medical necessity? I have a pretty high degree of confidence that this mandatory little speech will be determined to be a violation of privacy, if not as an establishment of religion. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/188 "2011-05-16T20:20:38Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > I’m correcting Damuri Ajashi’s post with the recent literature. He/she mentioned pain first. But yes, since the ability to feel pain and suffering is a good yardstick for some form of sentience, it’s reasonable. I’m assuming that’s what Damuri Ajashi was getting at. Same could apply for those in a persistent vegetative state (not a coma). I don’t think the ability to feel pain carries a whole lot of significance. I was trying to address the OP. A yummy veal calf can feel pain but its not sentient. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/189 "2011-05-16T20:25:35Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > Actually, statistically, evangelicals and Catholics who claim pro-life beliefs get abortions at rates completely in line with those who hold other religious beliefs, or none at all. So if their daughters got pregnant on prom night (or they become untimely pregnant themselves) they’d sneak an abortion with strict orders not to tell, and believe that it’s okay because they’ll pray and/or go to confession and because they’re moral people with that direct path of redemption, they’re automagically forgiven if they ask nicely even after premeditated commission of what they believe strongly to be a grievous (mortal) sin. Well, that makes them hypocrites. I am personally pro-choice during the first trimester and pro-life during the last trimester (with the standard exceptions for rape, medical necessity and severe deformity), the second trimester I leave to the states. > [@](#): > > The fetal pain issue arises because the legislature requires doctors to tell women that the fetuses they’re carrying can feel pain, even though the vast majority of those women are early in their first trimesters and there is absolutely no reputable scientific data to back up such an assertion. I agree, there is no reputable science that pain can be felt during the first trimester and at that point the state is clearly treading on the doctor’s rights. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/190 "2011-05-16T20:31:53Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Certainly–but many canons of legal ethics DO require lawyers, for example, to affirmatively take actions like perform pro-bono work that are against the ethics of some lawyers. > > So it’s clear in some cases we can regulate consciences. I can’t think of a mandatory pro bono requirement anywhere, it has always been aspirational (as in a lawyer “should” do pro bono not a lawyer MUST do pro bono). There are places that pressure you to perform pro bono or donate to the legal aid society but I can’t think of a place where pro bono is required. Beside, aside from Rand Rover, I can’t think of many people who have moral objection to pro bono legal work as opposed to a “I got better things to do with my time” opposition to it. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/191 "2011-05-16T20:41:54Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I didn’t say they that equity and entitlements aren’t considered in their crafting. Those are laws based on subjective definitions of morality. Contrary to the belief of some, most of the laws we have on the books now are based on fairness and rights, not some particular theology. This law is worse than the traditional morality based law because it allows each person to use their own definition of morality. I sympathize with those who don’t want to pay their taxes because the money is used for things they consider immoral, as long as they pay their taxes. I sympathize with those who want to commit murder because someone really deserves to die, as long as they don’t actually do it. I’m not sure what you’re talking about any more. How are drug laws subjective? Or divorce laws for that matter? The base scenario is one in which there is no law regarding the refusal to dispense birth control drugs. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/192 "2011-05-16T20:43:16Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Wiener pills can result in sinful fornication just like birth control pills. A case could be made that a pharmacist can refuse to fill boner pill prescriptions for unmarried men on religious grounds just as legitimate as refusing birth control to women. > > Of course, ther damage would be much less in refusing the dong pills. It’s not going to result in any physical harm the way an unwanted pregnancy will. If you’re asking whether I think a pharmacist can refuse to dispense viagra, I suppose I think they can. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/193 "2011-05-16T20:46:40Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Cite for anyone at all wanting to force priests to perform gay marriages? You provide the cites I asked for first. My point is that once you say that someone who provides a service must provide all services to all comers then how do you except priests performing gay marriages if religious conviction is not a basis for doing so? > [@](#): > > If you want to take such a libertarian approach to the pharamaceutical industry, then why should we schedule any drugs at all? Why require prescriptions for anything? Why should pharamacists even have to be licensed? Why should doctors have to be licensed? Why should there be any government oversight over any part of the health care industry? I’m not libertarian at all but I do believe that you shouldn’t force people to act contrary to their beliefs just because it would make life more convenient for you. > [@](#): > > Personally, I’m all for socializing the whole kit and caboodle from the top down. Health care should not be a private industry. Like I said that is one option. One that I support. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/194 "2011-05-16T20:47:43Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > I’ve only read the specific law of the state that the other thread was about but, it was extremely clear that the consciences of pharmacists that don’t want to sell “boner pills” or, say, drugs made from animals didn’t count for shit. > > Calling that law a “Conscience Clause” is a bald faced lie. > > CMC fnord! > I’d link to the law in question, but I really don’t feel like searching that thread yet again and I’m learning the hard way that deleting bookmarks is really dumb thing to do. If the ONLY conscience that is being protected is pro-life sensibilities then it seems like the laws are stepping over the line. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/195 "2011-05-16T20:48:46Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It violates the Doctor’s 1st Amendment rights by requiring them to endorse a state religious position. I didn’t know that Roe was a first amendment case. And no its not forcing a doctor to endorse a religion no matter how much easier it makes your argument. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/196 "2011-05-16T20:52:47Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > The legal theory of the Roe decision is that it violated a woman’s privacy. Many of the legal objections to it, at the time and later, is whether there is in fact a constitutional right to privacy. Yeah but the “penumbra right” that was being protected wasn’t general privacy rights, it was procreative rights. It was taliking about abortion and ONLY about abortion. In the 40 years since Roe, has anyone successfully taken this “privacy right” and expanded it beyond abortion? The opinion reads like its talking only about abortion and while it uses privacy as the hook to substantiate a right to abortion, its not a case about privacy rights. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/197 "2011-05-16T20:55:06Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > You don’t see a difference between mandating that professionals fulfill their professional obligations, and forcing them to dispense information written by the legislature with very dubious scientific validity (at best) and certainly no medical necessity? I see the differences, do you see the similarities? > [@](#): > > I have a pretty high degree of confidence that this mandatory little speech will be determined to be a violation of privacy, if not as an establishment of religion. I don’t see how you could possibly have any confidence in that at all. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/198 "2011-05-16T21:05:50Z")
FYI, according to [this summary](http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14380) by the “National Conference of State Legislatures” as of Feb 2011, 12 states with some form of medical professional “conscience laws”. 6 apparently limit conscience protection to cases of abortion and contraception. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/199 "2011-05-16T21:17:38Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I’m not sure what you’re talking about any more. How are drug laws subjective? Or divorce laws for that matter? > > The base scenario is one in which there is no law regarding the refusal to dispense birth control drugs. Because drug prohibitions like the prohibition of marijuana are based on someone’s subjective belief that marijuana is harmful enough to society that it should be banned, despite the fact there are other legal drugs that are demonstrably more harmful. That is a lack of fairness. Divorce laws are unfair for a variety of reasons, but primarily because they are tied to marriage laws which are based on religious grounds. Marriage and divorce can be fairly based on contract law, but instead they are based on the idea of some magical property of a relationship between only certain kinds of people, without any necessity to even establish that magical quality between the participants. I didn’t get off the subject, I’ve been trying to respond to the questions you asked. I see you are responding to a lot of people in this thread, and I understand it can be difficult to maintain individual conversations under those circumstances. I’ll go back to my original point, this law is based on morality. It allows pharmacists to ignore a persons request to fill a prescription based on the pharmacists own concience. The government is the arbiter of the laws they create, and there is no way to resolve whether a pharmacist is acting based on their concience, or for some other reason. It implies (quite conclusively) that there are moral objections to providing medications that are prescribed as necessary by a doctor. I haven’t yet seen the text of this law, but let me ask you, does it even provide for consistency on the part of the pharmacist? Could a pharmacist object to providing medication to one individual based on concience, but not another? What if person needs medication to stay alive, but his concience wouldn’t allow him to provide because he felt deeply that the person should die? This whole concept of the law recognizing concience is a mess. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/200 "2011-05-16T21:33:41Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Yeah but the “penumbra right” that was being protected wasn’t general privacy rights, it was procreative rights. It was taliking about abortion and ONLY about abortion. In the 40 years since Roe, has anyone successfully taken this “privacy right” and expanded it beyond abortion? The opinion reads like its talking only about abortion and while it uses privacy as the hook to substantiate a right to abortion, its not a case about privacy rights. You said Roe v Wade was not decided on privacy. However you want to twist it, it was in fact decided almost exclusively on privacy. Other cases on privacy: [Griswold v Connecticut](http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_GriswoldConn.htm) – right to acquire contraceptives. [Eisenstadt v. Baird](http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_EisenstadtBaird.htm) – right to provide information about contraceptives [Loving v. Virginia](http://atheism.about.com/od/courtdecisions/a/LovingVirginia.htm) – right to interracial marriage [Lawrence v. Texas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas) – right to have gay sex [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850.md?page=11)