Taking women's rights away in Missouri

[proud2BlibKansan]

SB 609 - This act protects the conscience rights of pharmaceutical professionals. Such pharmaceutical professionals shall not be required to perform, assist, recommend, refer for, or participate in any service involving a particular drug or device that they have a good faith belief is used for abortions. In these instances, the pharmaceutical professional shall be immune from civil or criminal liability and will not have their license suspended or revoked.

Employers cannot refuse to hire, discriminate against, segregate, or terminate a pharmaceutical professional because of their opposition to any service involving a particular drug or device that they have a good faith belief is used for abortions. Colleges and teaching hospitals are also prohibited from discriminating against any person who refuses to participate in any service or training which involves a particular drug that they have a good faith belief is used for abortions. In addition, they are prohibited from requiring a student or teacher to pay fees to fund these activities.

A party injured by any of the acts described in Sections 338.603 to 338.606 can institute a civil action to recover treble damages, court costs, and reasonable attorney's fees.

http://www.senate.mo.gov/06info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=52

Sponsored by Senator Jason Crowell
http://www.senate.mo.gov/06info/members/mem27.htm

[evlbstrd]

1. Trumping the Hippocratic oath.

First, do no harm.
Fuck that, I don't believe in it.

Bastards.

[AllegroRondo]

2. Thats it, I'm going to become a pharmacist

then convert to a Christian Scientist, and refuse to fill any prescriptions on the grounds that it is against my religion.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. And get paid for not working!

Sounds like a plan.

[kiteinthewind]

4. There's a bill in the House for the same thing-they call it the

HEALTH CARE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE ACT
************************************************

HCS HB 1539 -- HEALTH CARE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE ACT

SPONSOR: Phillips (Stevenson)

COMMITTEE ACTION: Voted "do pass" by the Committee on Children
and Families by a vote of 6 to 4.

This substitute establishes the Health Care Rights of Conscience
Act to protect the religious, moral, or ethical principles held
by a health care provider, health care institution, or health
care payer. The substitute:

(1) Specifies a health care provider is not required to
participate in a health care service that violates his or her
conscience. Any individual declining to participate in a service
will not be civilly, criminally, or administratively liable and
will not be discriminated against in any manner for refusing to
participate;

(2) Specifies that a health care institution is not required to
participate in a health care service that violates its
conscience. Any health care institution that declines to provide
or participate in a service will not be held civilly, criminally,
or administratively liable if the patient signs a consent form
before admission that he or she has been notified of the
institution's right;

(3) Specifies that any person, employer, health care
institution, association, corporation, or other entity attempting
to establish a new health care institution or operating an
existing institution will not be discriminated against for
declining to participate in a service which violates the
institution's policy or policies;

(4) Specifies that no public official, agency, institution, or
entity will deny aid or assistance because the institution has
declined to participate in a health care service contrary to its
policy or policies;

(5) Specifies that a health care payer will not be required to
pay for or arrange for the payment of any health care service or
product that violates the payer's policy or policies;

(6) Specifies that no person, association, corporation, health
care payer, or other entity that owns, operates, supervises, or
manages a health care payer will be held civilly, criminally, or
administratively liable for declining to pay for or arrange for
the payment of any health care service that violates the payer's
policy or policies;

(7) Specifies that no person, public or private institution, or
public official will discriminate against any health care payer
or any person, association, corporation, or other entity
attempting to establish a new health care payer or operating an
existing health care payer in any manner for declining to pay for
or arrange for the payment of any health care service that
violates the payer's policy or policies;

(8) Specifies that no public official, agency, institution, or
entity will deny aid or assistance because the health care payer
declines to pay for or arrange for the payment of any service
that violates the payer's policy or policies; and

(9) Allows any individual, association, corporation, entity, or
health care institution to sue for damages and injunctive relief.

FISCAL NOTE: No impact on General Revenue Fund in FY 2007, FY
2008, and FY 2009. Estimated Cost on Other State Funds of
Unknown less than $100,000 in FY 2007, FY 2008, and FY 2009.

PROPONENTS: Supporters say the bill protects the conscience
rights of those affiliated with health care. In many
circumstances, an individual's faith and ethics may get
overridden by an employer who is trying to avoid a lawsuit.
Although the bill limits the authority of an employer to fire an
employee, it does not prevent an employer from hiring an employee
of his or her choice.

Testifying for the bill were Representative Stevenson; Americans
United for Life; Missouri Eagle Forum; Campaign Life Missouri;
Missouri Right to Life; Missouri Family Network; Missouri Baptist
Convention, Christian Life Commission; Missouri Catholic
Conference; Heather Williams; and Marie Mattox.

OPPONENTS: Those who oppose the bill say that access to health
care and services should be available to all Missourians,
regardless of the religious or moral policies of institutions,
insurance companies, employers, and/or their employees. The bill
seems to violate the Missouri Constitution and Missouri's
employment at-will law by allowing an employer to transfer an
employee to a different position within the company. It also
limits the ability of an employer to fire an employee.

Testifying against the bill were Missouri Religious Coalition for
Reproductive Choice; NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri; and Planned
Parenthood of the St. Louis Region.

Dominic Lackey, Legislative Analyst

:mad: