# 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:** 11
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/201 "2011-05-16T22:04:02Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You don’t sign away your conscience when you adopt a profession. > > . However nothing in the constitution tells me that you can jam your religious beliefs up my cunny. If i want to have abortion be my form of birth control, that is my damned choice, not yours. It is between me and my doctor. For what it is worth, I may believe in religion, but I damned well am not _your_ particular brand of Christian, and your so called morals are not mine. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/202 "2011-05-16T22:09:46Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I have a pretty high degree of confidence that this mandatory little speech will be determined to be a violation of privacy, Why? As I noted several times already, they’ve given the OK to “informed consent” in _Casey_. You would have to pass the “undue burden” test, which this seems unlikely to pass. > [@](#): > > if not as an establishment of religion. You probably have a better shot at that defense, but you’d have to prove that “human physical life begins at conception” cannot be held as a secular belief (for lack of a better word). I don’t think that would be so easy. ---
**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, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/203 "2011-05-16T22:10:18Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I see the differences, do you see the similarities? > > I don’t see how you could possibly have any confidence in that at all. [Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists](http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_495) – Supreme strikes down Pennslyvania state law mandating certain materials be given written or verbal “information” be provided about possible consequences of abortion. [Here are the findings of the court](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=476&invol=747): Here is a finding of the lower court, whose decision was ultimately upheld: > [@](#): > > …The printed materials required by 3205 and 3208 are nothing less than an attempt to wedge the State’s message discouraging abortion into the privacy of the informed-consent dialogue between the woman and her physician. Similarly, 3205’s requirement that the woman be advised that medical assistance may be available and that the father is responsible for financial assistance in support of the child are poorly disguised elements of discouragement for the abortion decision. And 3205’s requirements that the physician inform the woman of “detrimental physical and psychological effects” and of all “particular medical risks” are the antithesis of informed consent… In its decision upholding the lower court’s finding portions of the law unconstitutional, they quoted a bunch of relevant cases > [@](#): > > The States are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies. The provisions of the Pennsylvania Act that the Court of Appeals invalidated wholly subordinate constitutional privacy interests and concerns with maternal health to the effort to deter a woman from making a decision that, with her physician, is hers to make… > > This does not mean, however, that a State has unreviewable authority to decide what information a woman must be given before she chooses to have an [476 U.S. 747, 762] abortion. It remains primarily the responsibility of the physician to ensure that appropriate information is conveyed to his patient, depending on her particular circumstances. Danforth’s recognition of the State’s interest in ensuring that this information be given will not justify abortion regulations designed to influence the woman’s informed choice between abortion or childbirth… > > The first was that “much of the information required is designed not to inform the woman’s consent but rather to persuade her to withhold it altogether.” Id., at 444. The second was that a rigid requirement that a specific body of information be given in all cases, irrespective of the particular needs of the patient, intrudes upon the discretion of the pregnant woman’s physician and thereby imposes the “undesired and uncomfortable straitjacket” with which the Court in Danforth, 428 U.S., at 67 , n. 8, was concerned… > > This is not medical information that is always relevant to the woman’s decision, and it may serve only to confuse and punish her and to heighten her anxiety, contrary to accepted medical practice… ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/204 "2011-05-16T22:12:48Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Like others in the thread, I would like to know what damage is being talked about. Where exactly in this country can a woman live that there is not a pharmacy within a reasonable driving distance that will fill her birth control? Canterbury CT. There is 1 pharmacy, 1 grocery store that does not have a pharmacy in it. The next town 1 direction is 9 miles, the next town the other direction is 18 miles. If this magical 17 year old girl doesn’t have a car, then she is shit out of luck for finding a pharmacy in easy walking distance. We do not have a bus system in town that will take her elsewhere. I have a couple meds that I now get mailed to me by the Navy because the pharmacy in town does not carry it. It is a cardiac med. With my feet having issues with CPPD, there are stretches of time that not only can I not walk, i can not drive a car. laugh, monkey boy. not all of us can get around so easily in this lovely modern world. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/205 "2011-05-16T22:13:04Z")
\*Casey \*trumps _Thornburgh_ ---
**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 17, 2011, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/206 "2011-05-17T00:08:32Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > \*Casey \*trumps _Thornburgh_ Okay, I see that in large part it does. [But it does say this](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=505&invol=833): > [@](#): > > …find a constitutional violation when the government requires, as it does here, the giving of truthful, nonmisleading information about the nature of the abortion procedure, the attendant health risks and those of childbirth, and the “probable gestational age” of the fetus, those cases are inconsistent with Roe’s acknowledgment of an important interest in potential life, and are overruled. … So the remaining question is whether the material a doctor is required to provide is both truthful and not misleading. [Here is the language of Indian House Bill 1210.](http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2011/HB/HB1210.2.html) You can find the most relevant text if you search the page for this: SOURCE: IC 16-34-2-1.1; (11)HB1210.2.11. –\> SECTION 11. IC 16-34-2-1.1 There are a few items I would consider misleading or outright false: > [@](#): > > the possibility of increased risk of breast cancer following an induced abortion and the natural protective > > effect of a completed pregnancy in avoiding breast cancer. > > That human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm. > > That medical evidence shows that a fetus can feel pain at or before twenty (20) weeks of postfertilization age. I would also argue that any accurate informed consent should include the risk of continuing the pregnancy through childbirth, but I don’t think the state should be in the business of adding more counseling requirements into the doctor-patient relationship, so I certainly wouldn’t add that to the list. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/207 "2011-05-17T13:32:07Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > So the remaining question is whether the material a doctor is required to provide is both truthful and not misleading. > . > . > . > There are a few items I would consider misleading or outright false: Let me clear up front that I do not support this bill. I think this requirement violates the doctors’ rights to practice medicine informed by their professional and personal judgement. But in the interests of accuracy: \*the possibility of increased risk of breast cancer following an induced abortion and the natural protective \* So far as I know, that is, in fact, complete bullshit. - effect of a completed pregnancy in avoiding breast cancer. \* This one, not so much. IIRC, the older a woman is when she first completes a pregnancy, the less likely breast cancer is. Of course, this wouldn’t be an argument against abortion as applied to a woman who had already had a completed pregnancy. \*That human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm. \* Of course, I agree with this statement – but it’s not a matter of scientific truth, any more than it’s scintifically disprovable. It’s a definition. If you’re allowed to define words as you please, you can obviously work wonders. \*That medical evidence shows that a fetus can feel pain at or before twenty (20) weeks of postfertilization age. \* This is a controversial claim, but there is at least some research supporting it. I wouldn’t regard the matter as settled, but neither is this claim outright nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/208 "2011-05-17T16:23:22Z")
> [@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). Ok, the position is clear. I disagree, but clear. > [@tumbleddown](#): > > 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. If it’s very early in the pregnancy, you’re right: There may well be no pain. It doesn’t change the moral issue (for me). ---
**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 17, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/209 "2011-05-17T16:36:26Z")
Then you don’t have to get an abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/210 "2011-05-17T18:02:11Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Then you don’t have to get an abortion. I intend to go out and molest little girls. But if you think that action is immoral, then you don’t have to go molest little girls. ---
**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 17, 2011, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/211 "2011-05-17T18:05:05Z")
That involves another person besides yourself. Abortion does not. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/212 "2011-05-17T18:18:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That involves another person besides yourself. Abortion does not. Fallacy of _petitio principii_, assuming the initial point to be true. If I am arguing that abortion DOES involve another person besides yourself, you cannot prove my position wrong by advancing an argument that relies on the acceptance of your claim that abortion does not. ---
**Author:** ![Amasia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba9def/32.png) [@Amasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amasia)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/213 "2011-05-17T18:21:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Let me clear up front that I do not support this bill. I think this requirement violates the doctors’ rights to practice medicine informed by their professional and personal judgement. > > But in the interests of accuracy: > > \*the possibility of increased risk of breast cancer following an induced abortion and the natural protective \* > > So far as I know, that is, in fact, complete bullshit. > > - > > effect of a completed pregnancy in avoiding breast cancer. > \* > > This one, not so much. IIRC, the older a woman is when she first completes a pregnancy, the less likely breast cancer is. Of course, this wouldn’t be an argument against abortion as applied to a woman who had already had a completed pregnancy. > > \*That human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm. > \* > > Of course, I agree with this statement – but it’s not a matter of scientific truth, any more than it’s scintifically disprovable. It’s a definition. If you’re allowed to define words as you please, you can obviously work wonders. > > \*That medical evidence shows that a fetus can feel pain at or before twenty (20) weeks of postfertilization age. \* > > This is a controversial claim, but there is at least some research supporting it. I wouldn’t regard the matter as settled, but neither is this claim outright nonsense. The problem with this legislation is twofold. One, already identified, it interferes with the physician’s ability to do his/her job. By that I mean, use professional judgment to best inform a patient of relevant information. Second, it treats women seeking abortion like complete idiots. Even from a strategic standpoint, if the intent of the bill is to reduce the number of abortions (which it clearly is), presenting long-term, prospective health outcomes as a counterbalance to an immediate medical procedure is a horrible way to achieve one’s goal of bringing about behavior change. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/214 "2011-05-17T18:23:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > \*That medical evidence shows that a fetus can feel pain at or before twenty (20) weeks of postfertilization age. \* > > This is a controversial claim, but there is at least some research supporting it. I wouldn’t regard the matter as settled, but neither is this claim outright nonsense. If the current medical literature is pointing to at least 24 weeks (or never) then Drs. should express the current literature. Some Drs. suggest anesthesia at 20 week abortions just in case. There are also opinions out there that the fetus can’t feel pain until at least 30 weeks if ever. Plus, I just looked at pubmed and there’s also the issue of endogenous sedation. If a doctor is being forced to discuss this, they should at least be allowed to present the current literature properly. Otherwise, the patient is not properly informed. ---
**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 17, 2011, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/215 "2011-05-17T18:37:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fallacy of _petitio principii_, assuming the initial point to be true. It is legally, factually true. > [@](#): > > If I am arguing that abortion DOES involve another person besides yourself, you cannot prove my position wrong by advancing an argument that relies on the acceptance of your claim that abortion does not. If you are arguing that abortion involves another person, then you are factually just as wrong as when PETA people try to argue that dogs are people. Facts are facts. You can’t change them by mere assertion. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/216 "2011-05-17T18:46:13Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It is legally, factually true. > > If you are arguing that abortion involves another person, then you are factually just as wrong as when PETA people try to argue that dogs are people. Facts are facts. You can’t change them by mere assertion. I’m not aware of any law that makes the definitive, explicit statment that abortion does not involve another person. You perhaps mean that the law recognizes abortion as legal, and therefore _implicitly_ states that abortion does not involve a second person. If you do mean that… then I suppose you’ll concede that third-trimester abortion is legally and factually different from first trimester abortion, since third trimester abortion is in fact (and law) essentially prohibited as compared to first-trimester abortion? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2011, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/217 "2011-05-17T18:51:53Z")
And it seems odd for you to assert that the correct standard is “legally” since this thread began with a complaint about the current Indiana law. LEGALLY, Indiana is in the right. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2011, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/218 "2011-05-18T00:32:04Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Then you don’t have to get an abortion. I don’t??? Who’da known… As to the “molesting girls” example Bricker put: why is it morally different that other people are affected? For you, I mean. Is that an objective reality? A scientific fact? Or simply your personal preference which is as valid as your preference for petrol stations? ---
**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 18, 2011, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/219 "2011-05-18T01:12:15Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I don’t??? Who’da known… > > As to the “molesting girls” example Bricker put: why is it morally different that other people are affected? Because morality doesn’t even exist unless other people are inolved. Morality, by definition, pertains to how you treat other people. Behavior which does not affect other people has no moral significance one way or the other. ---
**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 18, 2011, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850/220 "2011-05-18T01:17:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And it seems odd for you to assert that the correct standard is “legally” since this thread began with a complaint about the current Indiana law. LEGALLY, Indiana is in the right. I didn’t assert that Legal" was “the correct standard.” I pointed out that it was legally true, but I also said it was _factually_ true, which its is. It is objectively, scientifically true that abortion (at least the legal abortion that we are talking about) does not involve another person. Insentient tissue is not a person except by a fabulist leap of religious imagination. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-conscience-and-new-indiana-abortion-law/581850.md?page=12)