“Conscience Clause” Bills

May 2, 2007

Should a health care provider be allowed to refuse legal treatment options for their patients based on the provider’s own moral beliefs? If yes, should that provider be required to provide the patient with a referral? Bills introduced this session would allow certain providers to refuse treatment and referrals to providers who would provide the treatment.

Last session, AB 285 and its Senate companion, SB 155, provided that a pharmacist may not be required to dispense a prescribed drug or device if the pharmacist believes that the drug or device would be used for causing an abortion. Employers would be prohibited from discrimination by refusing to hire a pharmacist, terminating a pharmacist’s employment, and discriminating against a pharmacist with respect to promotions, compensation, or terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

The bills have caused a great deal of concern among people concerned with access to drugs such as the “morning after” pill, especially in rural areas. The Senate version passed the committee process and was scheduled for a vote before the full body. The Senate proposal was amended to specifically exclude the refusal to dispense contraception from its employment protections. But the future of this kind of legislation is uncertain, and these bills could result in the lawful refusal to provide contraception if the pharmacist believes birth control causes abortion.

As of the end of 2005, AB 285/SB 155 did not become law. SB 155 was approved by the Senate Health Committee early in the session and has been available for a floor vote since late May. The Assembly had not taken any action on AB 285 and it sat in the Labor Committee since its introduction in April.

Also relevant to the “conscience clause” bills, AB 207 would have prohibited employment discrimination based on creed and provides an exemption from liability and discipline for health care professionals and health care facility employees who refuse to participate in sterilization, abortion, assisted suicide, and other procedures on moral or religious grounds. However, this bill did not apply to pharmacists. AB 207 passed both the Assembly and Senate but was vetoed by the Governor.

The WJC Board voted to oppose the so-called “conscience clause” bills. You can read testimony that the WJC submitted during the public hearing on AB 207.