House Committee Passes a Bill Allowing Pharmacists to Refuse to Fill Prescriptions for Moral Reasons
The hearing was in Duke Powell's committee. From Minnesota Public Radio.
House Health Policy and Finance Committee approval
March 8, 2006(HF3032)
The House Health Policy and Finance Committee approved HF3032, which would prohibit pharmacists from refusing to provide a prescribed drug or device except in specific instances, and sent it to the full House. Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Delano) is the sponsor. The circumstances under which a pharmacist can refuse a prescription would be: if a pharmacist determines - based on their training and judgment -- a drug would cause medical problems, the drug or device is out of stock (in which the pharmacist would offer alternatives to the patient), if the pharmacist has an objection - ethical, moral or religious - to the prescribed drug or device, and if no payment is received. (Session Daily)
Result: Passed on a voice vote
Bob Collins at Polinaut comments:
Easy enough, right? Wrong. Today, for example, I was working up a datasheet for a bill that probably is going nowhere -- HF 3099 -- which would allow online wagering. I was interested primarily because the bill died on a tie vote (which indicates something resembling a roll call) and then, the committee reconvened, a legislator moved for reconsideration, and then it passed on a voice vote.
OK? Who changed? And why? Who are the people who are for it? Who are the ones against it?
Rep. Duke Powell's committee did the same thing a few days ago on a pretty interesting bill -- the one allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs they find morally wrong. Good luck trying to find out how the members of the House Health Policy and Finance Committee feel about the bill in an instant. They threw it up for a voice vote too.
Now can't democrats on the committee call for a recorded vote? Why didn't they do so?