The battle for reproductive rights is a never ending in one in South Dakota just like in the rest of America. The difference is that it happens at a whole different level here. Although the South Dakota voters gave reproductive rights a huge boost in 2008 by defeating that dreaded draconian abortion ban, we have a lot of progress left to be made.
The battle, for now, has moved to the pharmacy. South Dakota law makers attempted to give us greater access to contraception with a law that would have required insurance companies to cover FDA approved contraception methods, thus ending the double standard where insurance companies cover Viagra but not hormonal birth control. Of course, this bill was simply too progressive for our state. Despite a valiant effort by several progressive state senators, Senate Bill 132 died a slow painful death.
So, low-income women will once again get no help affording the tools to help prevent unwanted pregnancies. But wait, affording contraceptives is just one of the barriers the women of South Dakota face. South Dakota also has one of those unfortunate conscious clauses that allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for hormonal birth control or emergency contraception.
South Dakota Codified Law 36-11-70 reads:
Refusal to dispense medication. No pharmacist may be required to dispense medication if there is reason to believe that the medication would be used to:
(1) Cause an abortion; or
(2) Destroy an unborn child as defined in subdivision 22-1-2(50A); or
(3) Cause the death of any person by means of an assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.
(50A) “Unborn child,” an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth;
If these pharmacists understood that their own actions might actual cause those abortions they are trying to prevent, perhaps they would rethink. Nevertheless, this is of course not how they think, because abortion is such a dirty word in South Dakota that contraceptives don’t prevent abortion they are themselves ABORTION.
Well, I think it is time to battle this type of thought with a new strategy. If I were a pharmacist my “conscience” and religion (which I would refer to as feminism just to make a point) would not permit me to fill prescriptions for Viagra while anyone still has the right to refuse to provide contraceptives. I mean it really isn’t that much of an inconvenience to drive to the nearest pharmacy and get it from another pharmacist, right?
Reality Check: Yeah, I realize that the language of the law is too specific to allow my new moral objection to certain libido enhancing prescriptions, that doesn’t mean I can’t hope for a new type of backlash.
Viagra could indirectly cause abortions, though. If a guy can’t get it up, it’s a lot harder for him to impregnate a woman and the woman can’t have an abortion unless she’s pregnant in the first place. Therefore, viagra can lead to abortion.
I completely agree that Viagra could inderectly cause abortions, but if you look closely this law has been carefully crafted to not allow for this type of backlash….it says that the medication would have to “be used to” cause an abortion…so unless a women could take Viagra after fertilization and not end up pregnant our plan wouldn’t work. We would need to lobby the legislature to change the language of the statute first…which if that is all that happened would still make for a fun way to point out the hypocrisy to the state’s legislators.
I’ve worked in a pharmacy for years, and the only time I don’t see an oral contraceptive covered is when its on the local Avera health plan. Infact, just the opposite is true, if drugs like Viagra, Cialis or Levitra are covered it’s third tier (which means they won’t cover much), but almost ALWAYS without exception non-formulary which means patients are paying out of pocket expenses. There are, of course, exeptions to the rule, but I would say about 90% of the time this is the case in my experience.