Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

More poll numbers

Posted in:

Illinois

Copley releases more poll numbers. This time, it’s on the “morning-after pill.”

A sizable majority of Illinois voters say pharmacists should be required to dispense the “morning-after pill,” even if a pharmacist believes it’s morally wrong, according to a new Copley News Service poll.

Fifty-nine percent of registered voters surveyed said pharmacists should be compelled to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives. Twenty-seven percent believe they should not, and 14 percent were undecided. […]

Weekley said he would not respond to the poll, but wondered if the results might have been different if the question had been worded another way.

In the poll, conducted Tuesday through Thursday last week, respondents were asked: “If they believe it is morally wrong, do you feel that pharmacists should or should not be required to fill prescriptions for the ‘morning-after pill.”‘

No crosstabs because Copley is still in the Dark Ages with the Tribune. “Only the bits and pieces we think you need to know.”

Anyway, my own opinion is that the handful of pharmacists who want to opt out of dispensing this pill have forgotten that the American consumer intrinsically believes the old saying “the customer is always right.” Even if they didn’t like the pill, they’d probably be against the pharmacists.

And despite the controversy, this medication is classified as contraception, and contraception is still immensely popular with the public, despite the efforts of some pro-lifers. The Tribune had a story on this topic yesterday.

Emboldened by the anti-abortion movement’s success in restricting access to abortion, an increasingly vocal group of Christian conservatives is arguing that it’s time to mount a concerted attack on contraception.

Their voices were raised in Rosemont on Friday and Saturday at an unusual anti-abortion meeting that drew 250 people from around the nation to condemn artificial birth control. Experts at the gathering assailed contraception on the grounds that it devalues children, harms relationships between men and women, promotes sexual promiscuity and leads to falling birth rates, among social ills.

“Contraception is more the root cause of abortion than anything else,” Joseph Scheidler, an anti-abortion veteran whose Pro-Life Action League sponsored the conference, said in an interview.

No one knows how many supporters Scheidler and his colleagues have, but conservative leaders are watching to see if the anti-contraception rhetoric gains traction.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 8:25 am

Comments

What is wrong with people? unless it is a state run pharm, why is the state ordering them to issue any medicine. Not like it is discriminatory based on race or something, but this is ridiculous.

Comment by Wumpus Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 8:29 am
If EVERY other health care worker is covered by the Health Care Conscience Act why are Pharmacists not covered?

Are Pharmacicsts not Health Care Workers?

What about dubious Vicodin, Xanax, Diet Pill Rx’s? Do we have to serve every junkie that walks in the door?

Do I not have a right as an owner of a pharmacy to choose my clientele?

Comment by BIG R.PH Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 8:52 am
Big,
In order,
No
Yes
No

Comment by Bill Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:11 am
If you are a pharmacist and don’t want to sell this, then I think you should stop selling all other birth control pills too. They do the same thing.

Comment by winco Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:25 am
â€œContraception is more the root cause of abortion than anything else,â€ Whaaat? These people are beyond scarey and should go back to the dark ages they came from.
I wonder if these same pharmacists are also morally against filling out a prescription for Viagra?

Comment by Walking Wounded Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:26 am
Bill, I usually gloss over your pro-Blago, pro-democrat rants with easy knowledge of where you stand and what you’re going to say. But just when I thought your viewpoint couldn’t be any more whacked (I thought your comment that Blago is an honest man who always does the right thing was the epitome), you’ve raised the bar with a one-word comment that pharmacists aren’t health-care workers. To state that pharmacists aren’t health-care workers is about the most asinine, ignorant statement I’ve heard anyone make. Apparently a profession that requires a doctorate, requires extensive knowledge of organic chemistry and many other sciences, and calls on the pharmacists to know and recognize drug interactions and their effects on the body and on health in this age of rapidly changing pharmaceuticals, is just a glorified retail position in your book.

So what is your criteria for a health care worker, Bill? Is it someone who potentially will get bloody? Is it someone who pokes you with a needle? What is it, if pharmacists aren’t in the category of health care worker?

If a doctor for some reason doesn’t remain up on new drugs and their interactions, and prescribes a lethal combination, are pharmacists “bound by law” to just fill the prescription since it’s from an almighty doctor?

To be so glib and apparently all-knowing with regard to an issue (the morning after pill) that has many far-reaching moral, ethical, and physical effects shows me how truly ignorant you are.

Comment by schroedk Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:27 am
I demand that the Toyota Dealer also sell new Fords, that McDonald’s sell the Whopper and Jewel sell the Dominick brand of generics! Blago, sign that bill this Sunday!

Comment by Wumpus Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:36 am
To those who use the arguments about “would the pharmacist dispense Viagra” or “then they should stop selling other contraceptives”. I have not heard any of the pharmacists who oppose dispensing the morning-after pill claim that it should not exist. Even though they may believe that, the issue plain and simple is that some pharmacists have decided that they are morally opposed to the medication and choose not to dispense it. The customer is free to find a pharmacy and/or pharmacist that does dispense it.

Whether you realize it or not, a doctor is allowed to refuse to prescribe the morning-after pill (and contraceptives, too) if it goes against their moral beliefs. It is a very legitimate question of why it’s okay for other health-care providers and apparently not okay for pharmacists to make this moral decision. To re-define a pharmacist as anything other than a health-care worker is the laziest argument one can make.

Comment by schroedk Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:37 am
Dana, I saw some crosstabs on another story, but what I really meant was it would be nice if y’all would put your entire results online so we could all see it. There was a problem yesterday as well that I wrote about.

I’m not ready to jam yet. Been a bad, bad summer for that stuff.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 10:38 am
All you need to know about how bizarre these peoples’ beliefs are: “Contraception is more the root cause of abortion than anything else,” Joseph Scheidler, an anti-abortion veteran

ie, Don’t have sex

Comment by NW burbs Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 10:45 am
There is no reason why this pill should take precident over other medications, or any other store item. This is not a life saving item. It is not an emergency item. What makes this pill so special?

You cannot buy any butcher item from a kosher deli for religious reasons. There are many items you can’t buy because of a vendor’s beliefs. This isn’t new. It is their right, right?

Not anymore. Have we come to a point where the fear of pregnancy outweighs other’s religious rights? According to this poll, we have. And thats sick.

The second part of this posting is blatantly unfair and colors the blogging. The idea that not allowing the wholesale distribution of this damn pill is a slippery slope towards the banning of all contraceptives is a fraudulent argument. I am insulted that you are grouping me with these people just because I favor vendor’s rights. You tainted this posting by grouping these extremists with me. I do not agree with them.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:11 am
But this is an emergency to these women. The sooner it’s taken, the more effective it is. Even an hour can make a difference.

If a pharmacist doesn’t want to dispense it, then (s)he needs to get a job with a pharmacy that will provide another pharmacist on hand to fill those scripts. So I don’t think pharmacists should be forced to fill them, but I think pharmacIES should be required to.

Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:47 am
Never thought I’d see the day I disagreed with Vanilla Man and agreed with cermak_rd. Emergency contraception could very well be life saving. A close friend of mine has a heart condition and would not survive a pregnancy. If she were raped or any other variable scenario and did not have emergency contraception then the only option would be abortion. Cermak_rd is right…the pharmacies should have pharmacists on hand who are willing to fill the prescription-no questions asked.

Comment by Walking Wounded Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 12:38 pm
Schroedk,
So anyone who doesn’t agree with your out of the mainstream views is “whacked” and “asinine”? I just agree with the state of Illinois that pharmacists are not health care workers covered by the code. The pharmacist really does not do much anymore. The stuff is all pre-measured, pre-packaged, and counted by techs so I am not sure why a pharmicist is even required in drug stores anymore. If it weren’t for that regulation which you probably agree with, there wouldn’t be any pharmacists to try to impose their right wing views on anyone.
As far as the Governor is concerned, wait until the next election before you presume to impose your warped viewpoint on others.
Now, go dust those shelves!

Comment by Bill Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 12:57 pm
Bill. You say that you “agree with the state of Illinois” that pharmacists aren’t covered by the code. If Blago constitutes “the state of Illinois” in your mind, then you would be technically right. However, many of us believe that “the state of Illinois” is made up of constitutionally enacted laws brought through the general assembly, signed by the governor, and found to be constitutional by the state Supreme Court if challenged. None of that happened in this case. This was a situation where the governor issued an “emergency” injunction requiring pharmacies to provide the morning-after pill, or to order it if it’s not available. This emergency injunction was supposed to expire after 150 days, during which a bill was to move through the general assembly to make it law. This never happened, and the emergency injunction is rightfully being challenged in court as unconstitutional.

Do some homework on what health care professionals are defined as in Illinois protection of conscience law. Section 3 of Illinois law 745 ILCS 70/1 defines “health care” as, among other things, “any phase of patient care including but not limited to…medication…rendered by…paraprofessionals”. It also defines “health care personnel” as “…any professional, paraprofessional…who furnishes or assists in the furnishing of health care services”.

I challenge anyone, not just you, Bill, to read how pharmacists’ aren’t included in this definition. No matter how you try to minimize their job or training, pharmacists are professional health care providers who are required to be licensed by the state of Illinois to practice, and who can be held liable for medical mistakes.

Don’t presume that I’m a pharmacist because I’m defending this. Some people can actually see right and wrong in areas that don’t directly affect them. I guess it stands to logical reason that you see my viewpoints as warped, since that’s how I see yours. Have a fantastic day!

Comment by schroedk Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 1:40 pm
schroedk,

But whether pharmacists are health care workers or not is irrelevant under the Emergency order as the Emergency order does not refer to pharmacISTS but to pharmacIES. That is pharmacies that sell contraception (and no one says they have to sell it) must provide it to all script holders without lecture, delay or harassment. It is up to the pharmacy to decide how to comply (either by having 2 pharmacists on hand, making sure their pharmacists don’t object, etc).

Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 2:10 pm
cermak_rd, you’re right, the emergency order was for pharmacIES, not pharmacISTS. But again, read the Illinois conscience in health care act 745 ILCS 70/3. I picked out specific definitions in my response to Bill. Here are some more definitions in this act: “healthcare” is defined in section 3, part A, as “treatment rendered by a physician…paraprofessionals, OR HEALTH CARE FACILITY”. Section 3, part D defines “health care facility” as “public or private hospital, clinic, center…dispensaries” (which is the debatable definition including pharmacies) “…or other institution wherein health care services are provided”.

My primary point is that this is yet another example of the governor over-stepping his constitutional responsibilities and actually violating US or Illinois law. This is not as cut-and-dried as so many people like to make it. It’s a very complex issue that requires legal and moral considerations, not simply emotion or anecdotes.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 2:33 pm
Sorry, the anonymous post at 2:33 was me.

Comment by schroedk Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 2:37 pm
Cermak is right with regard to the order…Pharmacists provide prescriptions not health care but why try to argue. Rendering medication would be giving a shot, IV, etc., not seling a bottle of pills. My problem is when pharmicists or anyone else try to impose their theory of right and wrong on everyone else whether it affects them or not.

Comment by Bill Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 2:40 pm
Since when is providing evidence that supports objections to the governor’s emergency order and expressing opinions based on this evidence on a blog “imposing a theory of right and wrong”? In this entire “discussion” with you, I seem to be the only one that is providing actual legal definitions from state of Illinois law to this issue. You’ve provided nothing but your biased opinion of what a health-care provider is or is not. I’m sorry that you have a problem with facts, but that’s not my concern.

Comment by schroedk Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 2:48 pm
Re: “I wonder if these same pharmacists are also morally against filling out a prescription for Viagra?”

No, they want all the guys to pop lots of Viagra and then all the women are supposed to birth ten kids. That’s the whole point with some of these religious groups, to reproduce new members of the group. Didn’t you ever study evolutionary psych and learn all that stuff? lol

Just half kidding. I have some respect for pro-lifers (hey, they just dig kids, right?), even though I’m pro-choice. At least let them opt out of anything they find morally wrong. But that said, why become a pharmacist if you’re going to be picky. Do I have to call ahead first to ask what you may/may not dispense over at the local RX Inc.?

But yeah, if they’d gladly push Viagra over the counter with no qualms about it, that would look a tad hypocritical.

Comment by Angie Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 2:52 pm
schroedk 1:40 pm
“…Some people can actually see right and wrong in areas that donâ€™t directly affect them…”

Comment by Bill Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 3:37 pm
shroedk,

I have a hard time accepting my local Walgreens as a health care facility. I can see hospitals, clinics, mobile clinics… And if the Leg was really upset at this flouting of their Act, wouldn’t they have done something at this point in time? The only rumbles I’ve heard of is a half-hearted sleepy little Bill that I don’t even think has come out of committee and doesn’t have the votes when it does.

I will say though, that the attempts to equate Viagra and Birth Control is flawed in that the reason the zealots reject Birth Control is because they believe that in some cases it causes a hardening of the woman’s uterus such that a fertilized ovum cannot implant (why they think a woman’s uterus’ condition is any of their business I’ve no idea). So they claim they don’t reject birth control because of sex but because of this case.

I think they hurt the pro-life movement by attempting to adjoin it to the anti-contraception movement.

Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 3:37 pm
I’m pretty sure that RU-486 and the morning-after pill are 2 different things. The morning-after pill PREVENTS CONCEPTION, conception being what the christofascists try to prevent happening through their whining and threats since life starts there for them.

With that said, I had an interesting conversation about this with a very Catholic (terminal, I’m afraid) friend of mine. He told me the whole point is that people aren’t to interfere with the “miracle of conception” in any way since that is interfering with God’s will. Victims of rape, understand this–the embryo you may be carrying is God’s will. That the morning-after pill would avoid this horror is irrelevant.

Also lost on my friend is the fact that the rhythm/Billings method causes embryonic death too. This could be avoided if condoms or diaphragms were used. But again, you’re messing with God’s ultra-detailed plan for the universe if you use them, so those embryonic deaths are God’s will.

Somehow the churchies know all of this. The bar closed before I could ask him how they all know God’s will in such detail.

Comment by Lefty Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 4:07 pm
Okay, Bill. Let’s back up a notch here. You feel that I’m imposing my theory of right and wrong because I have a problem with the governor essentially mandating that pharmacies/pharmacists dispense a medication that some may believe is morally wrong. Yet, you imply it’s wrong when pharmacists who have a moral objection to something “force their right-wing beliefs” on customers and assert their legal right of conscience to refuse to fill a prescription. So who’s idea of wrong is more right?

My argument of why it’s wrong in this entire discussion is because standing Illinois law stipulates that health care providers have a right of conscience to refuse to perform what they believe to be morally wrong. I’ve provided evidence of this standing law, and specific definitions contained in the law. I’ve not once mentioned my pro-choice/pro-life position or my moral beliefs regarding contraception or abortion. I’ve purposely left these positions out because they have no bearing on the argument I’ve been making. If pharmacists and pharmacies can overnight be excluded from a right of conscience clause by an “emergency order”, what’s to keep any other provider from suddenly being exempted at the whim of a governor? Would it be right if a pro-life governor violated federal law and banned all abortion services in this state by “emergency order”? If not, then what makes it right for the current governor to violate state law and force pharmacists to act against their conscientious objections?

I agree cermak_rd that the legislature should be making more of an issue about it, but of course the majority party is the same as the governor, and there are future political careers to be considered. But the fact that the lawsuits by these pharmacists (and now pharmaciess have been allowed to join the suit) have been allowed to proceed this far show that the arguments have legal merit. We all know that the wheels of justice move slowly.

Comment by schroedk Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 4:08 pm
Lefty,

Emergency contraception works in three ways. Most commonly, it prevents ovulation. Secondly, it thickens mucus such that sperm are inhibited from traveling. Thirdly, it hardens the walls of the uterus to implantation.

Those three modes of operation are also present in non-emergency contraception.

RU-486 is different. It causes an already conceived foetus to die and be expelled from the uterus.

The latest research I’ve seen indicates that when Emergency Contraception works, it most commonly works by inhibiting ovulation and sperm travel.

What many Catholics believe is that every sexual act must be open to new life.

Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 4:22 pm
Cermak,
Too much information!

Comment by Bill Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 4:43 pm
Bill,

Sorry, I was trying to use ick-free terminology.

Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 4:48 pm
Bill, in case you are interested the Illinois General Assembly has officially classified pharmacists as health care professionals. They do give influenza immunizations and as mandated by the Pharmacy Practice Act of 1987 counsel patients on proper usage of prescription medications. They know more about the interactions and contraindications of drugs than any physician. The save the butts of doctors and other authorized prescribers every day by catching wrong dosage, interactions, etc and calling it to the attention of the prescriber.

Comment by politicaljunkie Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 7:43 pm
Schroedk, et al,
Unfortunately you are debating people who have no respect for the law. Clearly, Bill and cermak are part of the Blagojevich Administration. They believe their view should be implemented despite what the law or the people represented in the legislature or the Congress have decided. (See drug importation from Canada, stem cell funding in Illinois, and circumvention of veterans preference hiring in Illinois)

They are so arrogant they believe they know best, they are smarter than all of us, and we are too stupid to ever understand their enlightened ways.

This is an attitude that, say, a guy from New York or a guy from Los Angeles could bring to the backwards state of Illinois.

The attitude is frustrating, but it won’t last long. It’s this arrogance and disregard for the law that will give us all plenty of interesting reading in the newspapers over the next two years.

Comment by Truth Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 8:27 pm