Maryland House Delegate Barbara Frush Shocked by Policy, Will Convene Women's Caucus to Discuss Issue

HYATTSVILLE CVS REFUSED TO FILL "MORNING AFTER" BIRTH CONTROL PILL

By Vincent J. Swanson

CVS pharmacists in Prince George's County could refuse to fill birth control prescriptions under a corporate policy that allows health care workers the right to conscientiously object if they find contraceptive methods offensive based on moral grounds.

The corporate policy, which is supported by the American Pharmacists Association, was first employed by a Texas CVS pharmacy that refused to fill the birth control prescription of first-grade teacher Julee Lacey. Lacey, who has been married for nine years and is the mother of two, had been filling her prescription at the North Richland Hills CVS, a suburb in Forth Worth, for years. But to Lacey's surprise, when dropping off her birth control prescription at the CVS drive-thru March 29, the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription, citing that birth control use was morally repugnant to her beliefs.

"I couldn't believe they refused my prescription and was so in shock that I asked a second time, thinking I heard wrong," Lacey said Friday from her North Richland Hills home. "I'd been using that CVS for years since they built it and they had filled my birth control prescription before, so of course I was completely shocked."

According to Lacey, the female pharmacist, who she did not want to identify by name, said, 'I can't fill this because I personally don't believe in birth control,' and suggested that she go to the nearby Walgreen's to fill the prescription.

According to the American Pharmacists Association (APhA), which has a membership of roughly 55,000 pharmacists nationwide, health care providers have the right to decline to fill a prescription if they conscientiously object to the medical function of the prescription. "Our policy notes a freedom of conscience clause that allows health care providers the right to decline to fill a patient's prescription if the pharmacist objects morally to that medication," Michael Stewart said, the director of public relations for the American Pharmacists Association. "Pharmacists are not automated machines that simply dispense medications without thought or feelings," Stewart explained. "They have ethics and consciences and that should be respected and preserved."

But Lacey explained that her rights were not respected or preserved, and she and her husband quickly phoned the manager in charge of the North Richland Hills CVS, and complained about the store's policy and the pharmacist's actions. "I'm not a confrontational person and did not put up a big fuss when she told me she wouldn't fill it," Lacey said. "But while driving home, I began to get angry and realized that my rights had been violated." The Lacey's have yet to receive a follow-up phone call from CVS and the company refused comment for this story.

Once arriving home, Lacey informed her husband Todd of the incident, which prompted him to drive personally to the CVS, alone, and quiz the pharmacist about her actions. "Not only did she repeat to my husband what she told me, but she in jest it seemed, also said that birth control pills 'caused cancer' so that too seemed to justify her actions. My husband was in total shock by [the pharmacist's] condescending attitude."

Reaction by local legislators too has been one of shock and dismay. "I'm shocked this was allowed to happen," Maryland Delegate Barbara Frush said, a Democrat from Beltsville. "I was totally unaware that pharmacists could do that, and I was unaware that CVS, or any corporate entity dealing with dispensing medications, allowed their pharmacists to decline a prescription."

Frush was equally concerned that the Texas incident could spread to Maryland, noting that she would discuss the issue with the House women's caucus, Women Legislators of Maryland, if needed. "I'll be speaking with my fellow women colleagues on this issue and convene a meeting regarding this issue," Frush explained.

Although the conscience clause supported by APhA states that most pharmacies have a "seamless system in place" to help women fill their prescriptions elsewhere, that system failed, according to Lacey, and critics say rural women could be greatly harmed by the policy. Under the conscience clause, if a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription, store policy allows another pharmacist, who doesn't morally object to the prescribed medication, to fill the prescription. But in Lacey's case that system was not implemented as the refusing pharmacist was the only health care worker on duty March 29. Lacey too feared that if she had been in a rural area, which traditionally has less choice in regards to health care, she would have been denied the prescription in its entirety. Critics of the policy agree.

"This harmful and reckless policy could have a severe impact on women living in rural areas, where there are fewer drug stores and fewer choices," Joel Lawson said, director of media relations for Planned Parenthood.

"We are used to the continual assault on women's reproductive rights regarding the attempted turn back of [Roe v. Wade] and women's right to choose, but this is an entirely new front that the anti-choice movement has opened up," Lawson said. "A better policy would be that the conscience and rights of the patient should come first."

Photo By Vincent J. Swanson