Project Logo

Protection of Conscience Project

www.consciencelaws.org

Service, not Servitude
US flag

Oregon

House Bill No. 2010 (1999)

Introduction
The pharmacy company Fred Meyer had fired a pharmacist who refused to dispense Preven ('morning after pill'), and, as a result, the Oregon State Pharmacists Association supported Bill 2010. It wanted to protect pharmacists who had moral objections to the 'morning after pill', mifepristone (RU486) and dispensing drugs under Oregon's assisted suicide law. Some opponents of the bill wanted to force objectors to assist patients to obtain the controversial drugs from other pharmacists. The bill was defeated in the House on 17 May, 1999. [Administrator]

70th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
1999 Regular Session

NOTE:

Matter within { + braces and plus signs + } in an amended section is new.
Matter within { - braces and minus signs - } is existing law to be omitted.
New sections are within { + braces and plus signs + } .

Sponsored by Representative WILSON; Representatives ATKINSON, BACKLUND, BEYER, BUTLER, CLOSE, KNOPP, KRUMMEL, KRUSE, SIMMONS, SUNSERI, WITT, Senator STARR

A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to refusal to fill prescriptions in practice of pharmacy


Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:

SECTION 1.

{ + Section 2 of this 1999 Act is added to and made a part of ORS chapter 689. + }

SECTION 2

{ + (1) A pharmacist who objects to filling a particular type of prescription on the grounds that to do so would violate the pharmacist's ethical or religious principles and who has stated this conscientious objection in writing to the pharmacist's supervisor, shall not be required to fill such a prescription and may not be disciplined by any administrative authority for refusing to fill the prescription.

(2) If an owner or operator of a pharmacy objects to filling a particular type of prescription on the grounds that to do so would violate the owner's or operator's ethical or religious principles, the owner or operator is not required to fill the prescription and the refusal to do so may not be the basis for disciplinary action by any administrative authority.

(3) If a pharmacist refuses to fill, or states the intention to refuse to fill, a particular type of prescription on the grounds that to do so would violate the pharmacist's ethical or religious principles and has stated this conscientious objection in writing, the employer of the pharmacist may not discharge, discipline, discriminate or retaliate against or deny employment or promotion to the pharmacist.

(4) A pharmacist who refuses to fill a particular type of prescription under subsection (1) of this section and the owner and the operator of the pharmacy at which the pharmacist practices are immune from liability for any harm resulting from the refusal.

(5) A pharmacist, pharmacy owner or pharmacy operator may not be denied public funds for which they would otherwise be eligible on the basis of a pharmacist refusing to fill a particular type of prescription under this section. + }

 

Subscribe to me on YouTube
-->