Michigan Senate Bill SB0113

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/1/23
• Refer: 3/1/23

Caption

Health: abortion; pharmacists and pharmacy technicians; prohibit from being required to participate in an abortion. Amends 1978 PA 368 (MCL 333.1101 - 333.25211) by adding sec. 17773.

Impact

The bill's passage is expected to have significant implications for the healthcare landscape in Michigan. By permitting pharmacists and pharmacy technicians to opt out of participating in abortions, the bill may encourage more individuals with moral objections to pursue or remain in careers in pharmacy. However, this could also lead to concerns regarding patient accessibility to abortion-related medications and procedures, as the availability of services may vary based on individual pharmacists' beliefs. The legislation potentially complicates the relationship between patients seeking reproductive health services and the pharmacists who are meant to provide them.

Summary

Senate Bill 113 seeks to amend the Public Health Code of Michigan by adding a new section that establishes the rights of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians regarding their participation in abortion procedures. The bill explicitly allows these healthcare professionals to refuse to perform or participate in abortions. This refusal can be based on professional, ethical, moral, or religious grounds, providing them with immunity from any civil or criminal liability associated with their decision. The intention behind this legislation is to protect the conscience rights of individuals in the pharmaceutical field.

Contention

Opponents of SB 113 argue that granting pharmacists the right to refuse participation in abortions may create barriers for patients seeking these services. Critics contend that it undermines the patient-provider relationship, where timely access to medication and healthcare should be prioritized. There are concerns that this bill might lead to discrimination against patients based on their reproductive health choices, by restricting the services available to those who may need them. Proponents assert that the bill merely protects individual conscience rights without compromising patient care, yet the potential for conflict between personal beliefs and patient needs remains a point of contention.