Search the Project Site

 

Media Releases
-January-June, 2003-

 

Map

Traduire à français         Tradurre all'italiano         Traduzca al español         Traduza a português            Übersetzen Sie zu Deutsch     Oversett til Norsk

Assembly Labor Committee Approves Pharmacists' Conscience Clause
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
14 May, 2003

Related Links
AB168

AB307

SB21

Testimony of
Pharmacist Noesen

Testimony of
Pharmacist Grosskreuz

 

 

Madison - The Assembly Labor Committee gave their approval this morning to Assembly Bill 63, legislation that will provide much needed job security for pharmacists who conscientiously object to dispensing drugs or devices that they reasonably believe would be used to cause death through abortion, euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, or any other method of intentionally killing another human being.  

In response to compelling public testimony from several Wisconsin pharmacists last March, the Assembly Labor Committee on a 6 to 2 vote sent the measure on for expected approval by the full Assembly.  Pro-Life Wisconsin applauds the leadership and support of the bill's author, Representative Carol Owens (R-Oshkosh), as well as the following Labor Committee members who voted in favor of AB 63:  Committee Chairman Steve Nass (R-Palmyra), Committee Vice-Chairman Dan Vrakas (R-Hartland), and Representatives Wayne Wood (D-Janesville), Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend), Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Beaver Dam), and Jean Hundertmark (R-Clintonville).  The dissenting votes came from Representatives Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) and Terry Van Akkeren (D-Sheboygan).

"In the past ten years new abortion techniques focusing on chemical means to end the life of preborn babies have received FDA approval or became more readily available," said Matt Sande, legislative affairs director for Pro-Life Wisconsin.  "While abortion was formerly relegated to a clinical setting, it is now possible to receive life-ending drugs in a pharmacy, thus compelling pharmacists to be party to abortion."

Opposing testimony employed the scare tactic that this bill would ban birth control.  "This is not true," said Sande.  "The bill will not make drugs such as the morning-after pill and the birth control pill unavailable.  It simply recognizes that pharmacists, like doctors and nurses, are valued members of the professional health care team who should not be forced to choose between their consciences and their livelihoods.  Just as a woman's legal right to surgical abortion should not compel a hospital to provide one, a woman's legal right to abortifacient drugs should not compel a pharmacist to dispense them."

AB 63 is modeled after legislation that was enacted into law in March, 1998, in the state of South Dakota.  Missouri and North Carolina are currently considering legislation that would recognize the rights of pharmacists not to engage in procedures that violate their consciences.

"People who call themselves 'pro-choice' should especially appreciate the intent of this bill," said Peggy Hamill, Pro-Life Wisconsin's state director.  "Pharmacists should have the right to choose not to be complicit in the taking of innocent human life."

-30-

PRO-LIFE WISCONSIN
State Office, P. O. Box 221
Brookfield, WI  53008
www.prolifewisconsin.org

Contact: Peggy Hamill, State Director
Matt Sande, Director of Legislative Affairs
(262) 796-1111, (414) 416-0489 or info@prolifewisconsin.org

 

 

 

 

Professor Prevails, Union Capitulates

Related Links
 

 

 
PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE
23 April, 2003

San Luis Obispo, CA - After a year of battling, the Cuesta College Federation of Teachers finally agreed to allow one of its professors to have all of his union dues diverted to a charity of his choice. Despite making repeated requests, Professor Paul Bauer had previously been denied the right to divert his mandatory "fair share" union fees to a charity that did not conflict with his religious convictions. The choice of charities to which the union had restricted this instructor were the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance, and a local scholarship fund that was clearly geared toward furthering labor union interests.

Acting on behalf of the instructor, the Pacific Justice Institute made several written formal demands to the union that it either provide a list of acceptable charities, or allow the instructor to independently select his own desired charities. In order to prevent a lawsuit against them, the union finally capitulated. "I am relieved this is finally over," said Professor Bauer. "I did not want to go to trial, but would have if it had been necessary. I am extremely grateful to Pacific Justice Institute and their Affiliate Attorney Richard Kahdeman for their valuable representation."

"Under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the unions not only have a legal obligation to refrain from discriminating on the basis of religion, they must reasonably accommodate the religious practices and beliefs of the employees they purportedly represent," said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute. "Compliance with Title VII does not end with the union grudgingly agreeing to divert a religious objector's fees to charity. The whole purpose of accommodation would be defeated if an employee could be made to support an organization or fund that profoundly offends his religious convictions."

The Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties.

PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE
P.O. Box 4366  •
  Citrus Heights    CA  •  95611
Phone:(916) 857-6900  •
  Fax:(916) 857-6902
info@pacificjustice.org

 

 

  SurgeonBW.gif (3470 bytes) Protection of
Conscience Project

www.consciencelaws.org
NEWS RELEASE
   

 

ADVISORY BOARD
Janet Ajzenstat, BA, MA,
PhD
Dept. of Political Science,
McMaster University,
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Dr. Shahid Athar, MD
Clinical Associate Professor
of Medicine & Endocrinology,
Indiana School of Medicine,
Indianapolis, Indiana, USA

J. Budziszewski, PhD
Professor, Departments of
Government & Philosophy,
University of Texas,
Austin, Texas, USA

Dr. John Fleming,
BA, ThL (Hons), PhD
Director, Southern Cross
Bioethics Institute,
Adelaide, Australia

Dr. Henk Jochemsen, PhD
Director, Lindeboom Institute,
Center for Medical Ethics,
Amsterdam, Netherlands

David Novak, AB, MHL, PhD
Chair of Jewish Studies,
University of Toronto,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Lynn D. Wardle, JD
Professor of Law,
J. Reuben Clark Law School,
Brigham Young University,
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

____________

PROJECT TEAM
Sean Murphy
Administrator

Michael Markwick
Human Rights Specialist

 

 

5 June, 2003
1155 PM PST
For Immediate Release

Court Puts Health Care Workers on the Spot

A recent decision by the Supreme Court of Victoria makes it lawful to cause the death of patients by starvation and dehydration. The court has classified nutrition and hydration not as care, but as 'treatment' that can by refused by a patient or proxy. Australian health care workers who find this morally repugnant may now find themselves in a difficult position.

"There are strong ethical traditions that identify nutrition and hydration as basic care that is owed to any human being," explained Sean Murphy, Administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project. "Those who work within these traditions would no more deprive patients of food and water

than take their beds and blankets."

The decision in Melbourne involved a 68 year old woman suffering from a fatal form of dementia known as Pick's Disease, and has spent the past three years in a vegetative state.

Author Wesley J. Smith cites the case of Marjorie Nighbert, not terminally ill, who was admitted to a Florida nursing home following a stroke. Her feeding tube was removed on instructions from her brother. As she began to feel the effects of dehydration and hunger she begged, "Please feed me . . . I’m hungry, I’m thirsty." Nursing staff secretly slipped her small amounts of food and water. The case was eventually reviewed by a judge, who ordered the process continued. She died in April, 1995.

"Even if this is considered acceptable public policy," said Murphy, "dissenting health care workers and institutions should not be forced to participate in what they may consider to be judicially authorized euthanasia."

-30-

 

 

  Media July-Dec
2003
Jul-Dec
2002