The Michigan state house passed the Conscientous Objector Policy Act which “[protects] health care workers and insurers from being fired or sued for refusing to perform a procedure, fill a prescription or cover treatment for something they object to for moral, ethical or religious reasons.” For example, if a pharmacist doesn’t want to fill a prescription for a morning after pill.
I wonder if it allows someone to refuse filling a prescription for AIDS treatment if they believe God wants gays wiped from the planet? Way to go Michigan.
Categories: In the News
6:57 pm | 11 comments
April 27th, 2004 at 8:39 pm
I’m so pleased to be moving there…
April 27th, 2004 at 9:50 pm
yeah, I originally had a smarmier headline like, “Thank goodness I’m not moving there.”
I decided that would just be mean. At least you have a Home Depot, though. And Bram has carte blanche on what tools he’s allowed to buy.
April 27th, 2004 at 10:01 pm
This is probably aimed at protecting pharmacists who don’t want to fill scripts for Emergency Contraception. Doctors don’t need such protection, since they can’t be forced to do a procedure. This is a set back for women’s rights and frankly, good conservatives should be uo in arms about this.
April 27th, 2004 at 10:02 pm
That was a tactical error on my part. I think I could claim I was not in my right mind after buying the house, no court would hold me to it!
April 28th, 2004 at 12:59 am
yeah, but the problem with laws like this is that they can be too broadly worded. I haven’t read the original text of the law. Also, most sites are printing the AP story, so there haven’t yet been any real discussions about what the ramifications are.
The law has exceptions for things like regular contraceptives and such, so I think you’re right about that. It explicitly mentions doctors and nurses, though.
April 28th, 2004 at 1:00 am
I’d also mention that the excerpts I’ve seen so far don’t preclude the example I gave above… (again, I still need to read the text). The morning after pill is a prescription… just like anything else.
April 28th, 2004 at 1:39 am
Text of the bill is here: http://www.michiganlegislature.org/documents/2003-2004/billengrossed/house/htm/2003-HEBH-5006.htm
It’s pretty clear:
“(b) “Health care provider” means a person licensed or
8 registered under article 15 of the public health code, 1978 PA
House Bill No. 5006 (H-3) as amended April 21, 2004
1 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838, a student of a health facility,
2 or another person who is employed by or under contract to a
3 health facility and directly participates in the provision of a
4 health care service. Health care provider does not include a
5 sanitarian or a veterinarian.
6 (c) “Health care service” means the provision or withdrawal
7 of, or research or experimentation involving, a medical
8 diagnosis, treatment, procedure, diagnostic test, device,
9 medication, drug, or other substance intended to affect the
10 physical or mental condition of an individual. Health care
11 service does not include the provision of a contraceptive
12 medication [ ].”
So, unless you’re a vet :)…
Then, here is the key text: “A health care provider may object as a matter 24 of conscience to providing or participating in a health care 25 service on [ ] ethical, moral, or religious grounds.”
Exceptions include if the employer can’t find a replacement, the employee can be required to perform the treatment. A provider can’t object to patients in a category defined by the state civil rights act (which doesn’t ban discrimination against homosexuals). Also, you can’t get a job at an abortion clinic then claim conscientious objections… you have to give 60 days and quit and state up front during the hiring process that you would have a problem.
There is no recourse under this law for the the facility. In this way, it seems like it’s pretty typical labor law (it protects the worker and offers them recourse for termination or a lawsuit from the patient).
April 28th, 2004 at 9:17 am
The law is a jumble of legalese. It doesn’t appear that a person can just decide, on the spot, to not fill a prescription, without any notice. It also seems, that if a pharmacy specifically mentions emergency contraception in the pharmacist’s job description, then that may allow the pharmacy to fire the pharmacist if s/he decides to refuse to fill it. This one is going to hit the courts, I am quite certain.
The only group that I can see that this might protect, without negatively impacting the public, would be scrub nurses and scrub techs that work at hospitals that perform abortions. This law would make it so that they would not have to participate if they object.
April 28th, 2004 at 10:21 am
It’s a law, Bram.
of course it’s full of legalese.
We have a lawyer and a law student among our regular readers… wonder if they can clarify anything.
I think that notice can be given at any time as soon as the person is notified they have to perform a health care service they object to. The problem with what you’re saying is that an employer now has to list all the potentially objectionable things that an employee might have to do in their job description in order to have an out. This is, of course, assuming they can’t find a replacement (i.e. if there are two pharmacists on duty, the other might not object).
If the law were simply limited to emergency contraception, they should’ve just written it that way. What good is done by writing a law that is destined to hit the courts?
I also would have to believe that euthanasia would be one of the objectionable acts. The law was backed heavily by a Michigan Catholic group, so I gather that the aim was broader than just emergency contraception.
April 28th, 2004 at 10:33 am
The problem is subsection (2): (2) At the time the health care provider adopts [an] 10 [ ] ethical, moral, or religious belief system that 11 conflicts with participation in a health care service.
Assuming that employers who hired people before this law took effect did not explicitly list all of the potentially “objectionable” things that would be required of the employee (which they would have had no cause to do), then the employer is basically screwed if an employee who, after 20 years of performing the same job, suddenly is “reborn” and begins to object.
April 28th, 2004 at 10:43 am
To elaborate a bit: subsection (1) and (3) both require prior notice (either at the time of hiring, or within 24 hours). There is no such provision for prior notice before invoking subsection (2). Therefore, you *could* get a job at an abortion clinic, suddenly change your mind, and then the employer would be stuck with you for 60 more days (assuming the activities make up 10% of the employee’s “defined” job duties - which is another problem in and of itself).