Bill to Override Pharmacist Conscience Defeated

The South Dakota Senate rejected a bill that would have legal protection from pharmacists who don't want to sell contraceptives because it violates their conscience.

SB 164 proposed that a pharmacist's refusal to sell a drug that violated his or her conscience constituted a "government intrusion" into people's "private lives" by a "government entity."

This right of the pharmacist to follow their conscience is currently protected by SDCL 36-11-70.

The bill also attempted to override the definition of "unborn child" according to South Dakota law by declaring "Neither contraception nor birth control, as defined in section 1 of this Act, is subject to or governed by the provisions of § 34-23A or 36-11-70." A provision of SDCL 36-11-70 says that the pharmacist doesn't have to sell a drug if they believe it would "Destroy an unborn child as defined in subdivision 22-1-2(50A)." SDCL 22-1-2(50A) defines an unborn child as "an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth." Since some forms of contraception prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus--and thus receiving the sustentance it needs to reach full development--it would constitute an abortion and the destruction of an unborn child according to South Dakota law.

The Argus Leader includes a quote which highlights the key reason this was a bad bill:

"We are Americans. You don't tell people they have to do something that violates their conscience," said Sen. Jay Duenwald, R-Hoven.

The article also cited testimony from legislators that reiterates what I've said before: contraceptives can be obtained from another pharmacists or through the mail. There is no reason to use the power of government to force someone to violate their conscience or lose their job.

The article also cited Senator Tom Dempster of Sioux Falls who said that while he supports access to birth control, no one has presented any evidence that women are having trouble obtaining birth control in South Dakota.

Contrary to what liberals would have us believe, people aren't helpless lemmings without the power of government to protect us from another person's convictions.

When we consider using the power of the state to coerce a person to violate their conscience, we are entering a very dangerous territory.