By Tina Morrison, Kansas City Star Midwest Voices columnist

This past spring, the Missouri House voted 115-43 to pass House Bill 226, which specified that “no pharmacy can be required to perform, assist, recommend, refer to, or participate in any act or service resulting in an abortion and it will be immune from liability for refusing to do so.”

Fortunately, the bill did not pass the Missouri Senate.

The Bayou State was not so lucky. On July 12, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal signed a “conscience protection” law that gives health-care providers and institutions the right to refuse services on religious or moral grounds.

Same goes for Arizona. On July 13, Gov. Jan Brewer signed a measure that allows pharmacists to deny a woman any birth control method that they claim to be abortifacients, even those that are medically and legally designated as contraceptives.

Also known as the morning-after pill, Plan B was approved by the FDA as a contraceptive in 1999. Note that Plan B is not the same thing as RU486, also known as the abortion pill. Plan B prevents pregnancy from occurring; it does not terminate it.

The Arizona law may extend to a wide range of family-planning methods, including intrauterine devices and regular birth control pills. (The Louisiana law makes exceptions for these). Allowing pharmacists to refuse services based on personal beliefs is a slippery slope.

When I was pregnant with my daughter, it was discovered that I had an underactive ovary and that I needed extra progesterone, which can be used in high doses to abort fetuses. Could my pharmacist have refused my prescription if he questioned my motives?

What’s next, a vegan pharmacist who refuses to dispense capsules that contain gelatin?

I am lucky to live in a city that offers a wide range of health care providers. I’m sure that if pharmacy X refused to sell me Plan B, I could get it elsewhere, even though the pharmacist is under no obligation to offer me a referral. But what about the women who live in rural areas? A woman could run all over the state frantically seeking a medical treatment, assuming that she has a car. This law victimizes women of lesser means and socio-economic backgrounds.

Advocates of such laws argue that the pharmacists should have the right to choose based on their own moral beliefs. Here’s a choice they could make: Don’t become a pharmacist! If you find aspects of the job so unpleasant that you cannot fulfill them, seek a different vocation! I do not need someone judging me when I am trying to obtain a legal substance.

This is akin to a pacifist joining the Army. I can just see it: An able-bodied young man signs up to serve his country and then says, “Oh, by the way, I’m morally opposed to killing people, so you’ll have to excuse me from active duty. Sorry.” Gee, I wonder whether our government would be OK with that? I’m thinking not.

The Jindal administration stated that the Louisiana measure was necessary “to uphold the individual rights of the health care workers whose personal beliefs might conflict with their profession.” Will this extend to those who find it morally objectionable for an unmarried woman to be pregnant?

What kind of precedent does this set for other discrimination? How about a homophobic Realtor who refuses to sell a home to a lesbian couple based on religious beliefs? Or a Kmart cashier who declines to ring up bullets to go with your 9mm? Where does it end?

And what about the individual right of a rape victim who desperately wants to ensure that the attack doesn’t result in pregnancy?

I get that abortion is a touchy subject, but contraceptives are not abortion. These are two separate issues. Restricting access to legal birth control could actually increase the number of abortions in this country.

And who will accept the blame and costs for that? The pharmacists?

Tina Morrison, of Lee’s Summit, is a performer and owner of two comedy troupes. She can be reached by e-mail at or by mail c/o The Editorial Page, The Kansas City Star, 1729 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, MO 64108