U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–612 PDF 2005

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FOR SMALL

PHARMACIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 25, 2005

Serial No. 109–26

Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois, Chairman 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland, Vice 

Chairman 

SUE KELLY, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

TODD AKIN, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

THADDEUS MCCOTTER, Michigan 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

TED POE, Texas 

MICHAEL SODREL, Indiana 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa 

DONNA CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

ED CASE, Hawaii 

MADELEINE BORDALLO, Guam 

RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Arizona 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

J. MATTHEW SZYMANSKI, Chief of Staff 

PHIL ESKELAND, Deputy Chief of Staff/Policy Director 

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Director

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

WITNESSES

Page 

Vander Bleek, Mr. Luke, R.Ph., Pharmacist, Fitzgerald & Eggleston Pharmacies .................................................................................................................... 4

Nix, Ms. Sheila, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Governor Blagojevich ............. 6

Patton, Mr. J. Michael, M.S., CAE, Executive Director, Illinois Pharmacists 

Association ............................................................................................................ 8

MacLean, Ms. Linda Garrelts, R.Ph., CDE, Clinical Assistant Professor of 

Pharmacotherapy, Washington State University .............................................. 11

Kelly, Ms. Megan ..................................................................................................... 13

APPENDIX

Opening statements: 

Manzullo, Hon. Donald A. ................................................................................ 39

Velazquez, Hon. Nydia ..................................................................................... 42

Prepared statements: 

Vander Bleek, Mr. Luke, R.Ph., Pharmacist, Fitzgerald & Eggleston 

Pharmacies .................................................................................................... 43

Nix, Ms. Sheila, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Governor Blagojevich ...... 45

Patton, Mr. J. Michael, M.S., CAE, Executive Director, Illinois Pharmacists Association ....................................................................................... 56

MacLean, Ms. Linda Garrelts, R.Ph., CDE, Clinical Assistant Professor 

of Pharmacotherapy, Washington State University ................................... 59

Kelly, Ms. Megan .............................................................................................. 71

Attachments: 

NARAL Pro-Choice America ............................................................................ 75

Gandy, Ms. Kim, President, National Organization for Women .................. 82

(III) 

(1)

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FOR SMALL 

PHARMACIES 

MONDAY, JULY 25, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald A. Manzullo 

[chair of the Committee] Presiding. 

Present: Representatives Manzullo, Musgrave, King, 

Fortenberry, Velazquez, Grijalva, and Sanchez. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Before we begin receiving testimony from 

the witnesses, I want to remind everyone that we would like each 

witness to keep all testimony to about 8 minutes. There is a box 

there. With green, you are okay. Yellow you have about a minute 

to go. Red, you are supposed to stop. We don’t have the tyranny 

of the voting bell, so we will have plenty of time for questions and 

plenty of time for your testimony. 

The committee will hear first from Luke Vander Bleek, constituent, a pharmacist who owns five different pharmacies in and 

around the congressional district that I represent. Luke has filed 

a lawsuit challenging Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s emergency ruling that requires all pharmacies to fill all contraception 

prescriptions without delay. 

Next we will hear testimony on behalf of Illinois Governor 

Blagojevich. Sheila Nix plays a central advisory role in determining 

regulatory communications and regulatory policies of the administration. We invited the Governor to come, and it was just impossible to coordinate his schedule with ours. 

We appreciate the fact that our offices went back and forth looking for days that would work, and it just simply would not work 

out. We wanted to have this hearing prior to the effective date of 

the rule, which is the middle of August. So, Ms. Nix, we appreciate 

your coming here on behalf of the Governor. 

The committee then will hear from Mike Patton, Executive Director of the Illinois Pharmacists Association. 

Our next witness is Linda Garrelts MacLean. She is a Clinical 

Assistant Professor of Pharmacotherapy, Washington State University’s College of Pharmacy. She has been a pharmacy owner for 20 

years plus. Additionally, Ms. MacLean was instrumental in helping 

enact a program that has been replicated in half a dozen or more 

other states that addresses the desires of patients while respecting 

their religious and moral and conscience beliefs of the pharmacists. 

2

Finally, our last witness is Megan Kelly, wife, mother and art 

teacher from Geneva, Illinois, which is in the Speaker’s district. 

The subject before this committee today deals with the negative 

impact on small pharmacies that operate under the strict law that 

requires pharmacists to fill all prescriptions, even if doing so violates their moral and professional beliefs. I also want to discuss alternatives that will ensure that women who want a certain prescription have access to it while preserving the integrity of the 

pharmacist. Many individuals become physicians, nurses, pharmacists, or other healthcare workers based on a deeply held conviction of service to others. 

Each of these individuals has a developed sense of conscience 

based on personal experience, individual ideology, religious beliefs, 

or cultural influences. The primary debate surrounding this issue 

relates to a pharmacist’s moral opposition to filling prescriptions 

for emergency contraception, also referred to as the morning-after 

pill. 

On April 1, 2005, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich issued an 

emergency rule that requires pharmacies in the State that sell contraceptives to fill all prescriptions for FDA-approved contraceptives 

without delay. That rule is currently before the Joint Committee on 

Administrative Rules to determine whether it should become permanent. Several pharmacists have filed lawsuits, challenging the 

rule, and one of those individuals is here today. The right to refuse 

to participate in acts that conflict with an ethical or religious conviction is accepted as an essential element of a free society. 

What happens, however, when government forces a business to 

violate those beliefs? Many pharmacies in small communities may 

not have another pharmacist who can simply fill a prescription for 

the pharmacist with a moral objection, nor can they easily transfer 

the prescription to another pharmacy nearby. Under the Illinois 

rule and proposed Federal legislation, such pharmacy would be 

forced to order the product under their standard procedures for ordering other out-of-stock drugs, even if it violates their personal beliefs and professional standards. 

This will not only violate the pharmacist’s conscience, but may 

also be extremely costly for the business. Pharmacies do not stock 

every drug that is currently on the market for economic reasons. 

This rule could become very expensive for pharmacies that are 

forced to order the morning-after pill when they otherwise would 

not stock it. 

So what happens if a pharmacy owner refuses to fill a prescription despite the new mandates. Many of the duty-to-fill requirements have imposed stiff penalties on pharmacies who have continued to allow pharmacists to exercise their conscience. 

Pharmacies could be subject to fines or even suspension of their 

licenses. If a pharmacy shuts down, especially in small communities such as Morrison, Illinois, and in many of the other rural 

areas I represent, other businesses will also be affected. If people 

have to go to the next town to pick up their prescriptions, they may 

fill up their gas tanks or buy groceries as well. The entire community is affected if a pharmacy is forced to close down not only socially but also economically. 

3

No one, least of all a health care provider, should be required to 

violate his or her conscience by participating in procedures that he 

or she deems harmful. The government should never force anyone 

to choose between his business or his beliefs. 

The purpose of the hearing is to explore the impacts that extreme duty-to-fill legislation will have on small pharmacies, obviously small businesses. I am also hoping to discuss alternatives 

that will ensure that women have access to medicine while preserving the beliefs of the pharmacist. I look forward to the testimony of all the witnesses this morning, especially those who have 

traveled great distances. 

[Chairman Manzullo’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

I turn to my colleague, the ranking member, Ms. Velazquez, for 

her opening statement. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Good morning, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We 

have come together on a Monday morning to discuss an issue that 

has absolutely nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the House 

Small Business Committee, nor is it even a small business issue. 

I must say that as the ranking member of this Committee, I am 

appalled that we would even hold a hearing on a women’s right to 

receive contraception. As a female member of Congress, I am even 

more outraged. This is insensitive to not only the women that sit 

on this Committee, but also to the women across the country. 

Whether or not a small pharmacy in any State chooses to fill prescriptions for birth control is not an issue for this Committee to decide upon. 

It is a women’s rights issue, her right to access health care, and 

her right to live her life as she pleases. The Supreme Court has 

been strong in upholding that women have the right to access birth 

control. This is a basic right. The American Medical Association, 

one of the most respected and nonpartisan organizations, has also 

stated that this right of access should not be impeded and that this 

is critical to women’s health. Clearly, pharmacies should not be 

using their discretion, when there is a valid prescription for any 

drug, and they should not be able to pick and choose between 

which types of contraception they will distribute. 

I find it very ironic that while Republicans are so fixed on ensuring that the Federal Government does not infringe on an individual’s rights, that when it comes to the rights of women, they are 

anything but hesitant to impose their guidelines. Whether it be on 

an individual’s right to choose or a women’s right to access health 

care, the bottom line is that these rights must always be protected. 

What is happening today is quite clear. This Committee is being 

used as a tool to push the conservative, ideological agenda of one 

person forward. Nowhere do these protections and rights fall under 

the jurisdiction of the Small Business Committee. Let me tell you, 

to even think that an issue of this scope that impacts women across 

the United States and their access to contraception and health care 

should be handled during a Small Business Committee hearing is 

simply a disgrace. 

What will be next for this Committee? Well, while we talk about 

women and contraception, why not start talking about men and 

their ability to access Viagra? It simply makes no sense that when 

there are so many pressing issues for the small business commuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:27 Jul 29, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\22612.TXT MIKE
4

nity today, all of which desperately need the attention of Congress, 

this Committee chooses to spend its time focusing on a women’s 

right issues. 

Between skyrocketing health care costs, small businesses having 

to pay high fees to use lending programs and a venture capital program that has been shut down now for 9 months, there are clearly 

areas that this Committee need to address. This is also coming 

from a Committee that has not passed a legitimate bipartisan SBA 

reauthorization bill since 2001. While these initiatives are clearly 

not moving forward, we sit here and talk about a women’s right 

issue. 

With all that is going on in the small business community today, 

before we start addressing issues outside of our jurisdiction, we 

need to address the pressing issues we do have jurisdiction over. 

I am not saying that the issues we will be addressing today, a 

woman’s right access to health care, is not of the utmost importance, it is just that I do not believe that the House Small Business 

Committee is the most appropriate venue for a women’s rights 

issue to be heard. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Ranking Member Velazquez’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. The jurisdiction of the Small Business 

Committee, as stated in the rules, ′′The Committee on Small Business shall study and investigate on a continuous basis the problems of all types of small businesses.′′

That is how broad the oversight jurisdiction is. It is interesting 

that when the Democrats controlled this place in the 102nd Congress, the chairman at that time, Chairman LaFalce, held a hearing called Consumer Protection and Patient Safety Issues Involving 

Crisis Pregnancy Centers. I think that is sort of interesting. Perhaps that same argument could have been made. 

The purpose of this hearing is directly within the jurisdiction of 

the Small Business Committee because there is Federal legislation 

that is pending. We have an absolute right to review the impact 

of any regulation or regulations on small businesses in the country. 

The first witness is Luke Vander Bleek. 

Mr. Vander Bleek, we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF LUKE VANDER BLEEK, FITZGERALD & 

EGGLESTON PHARMACIES 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. Thank you, Chairman Manzullo, and thank 

you also for the honorable members that have made their presence 

here this morning. Chairman Manzullo already discussed why we 

are here and the order by the Governor. I was interested in Congresswoman Velazquez’s comments here at the opening. I reasonably tried to make my statements here relevant to the Small Business Committee. 

I own, to correct what the chairman said earlier, I own five pharmacies—I actually own four pharmacies in the State of Illinois, two 

of which are in the Congressman’s district. I have been presented 

with a mandate from the Governor of the State of Illinois that basically says that I have to put policies in place in my pharmacy to 

5

procure and dispense all forms of contraceptives, regardless of our 

current policies, forcing me to have to change my current policies. 

Currently in our pharmacies we carry all forms of contraceptives. 

The new class of medications that has become at issue is called the 

emergency contraceptives. These are products or blasts of hormones that are given after a woman has had sexual intercourse 

and has potentially conceived a child. My concern about this class 

of medications is scientific in nature at the beginning. One is that 

I have not been able to find any significant science that is able to 

convince me, as a pharmacist, that these products don’t endanger 

a human embryo. 

Life begins at conception with the meeting of two 23-chromosome 

gametes that forms a 46-chromosome new human being. Now, I 

have a concern for that new human being. As a religious person 

and as a morally convicted person, I cannot practice pharmacy or 

own pharmacies in any State whereby there is a mandate that I 

involve myself with products that are abortifacient in nature. Because there is no scientific evidence that convinces me in a compelling way that these products will not have the opportunity to extinguish the life of a human embryo, I will not stock and will not dispense these products. It has been a policy in my store since the 

product was first FDA approved. 

But to make this relevant, is that there are, and I don’t really 

have to tell this Committee this, that there is a finite number of 

investors that are willing to invest in small under-served markets 

all across the country. Two of the pharmacies that we own right 

now in communities are where there were no pharmacies there for 

a period of time. One didn’t have a pharmacy for 8 years, the others did not have a pharmacy for 6 months and these two small 

towns that we placed pharmacies in did not have pharmacies, not 

for us wanting to put pharmacies in these markets. We were unopposed in every way in putting pharmacies in these markets. 

I think it is very well understood the value of a community pharmacy is to the community and also to a small business marketplace. In every residential market, whether it is large or small, the 

pharmaceutical is an important ingredient, both from what you 

have said about the access of health care and also from an economic and financial model. Other complementary businesses in 

small markets are helped in large part by the presence of an anchor pharmacy. 

When a pharmacy leaves a small community, very often so goes 

the hardware store, the grocery store, the shoe store and all the 

other things that are consumer oriented. People travel outside their 

hometown to find a pharmacist and to get a prescription filled. 

Generally, they will fill other consumer needs while they are there. 

What I submit to you today is that by limiting the opportunity for 

pharmacists to own pharmacies in the State of Illinois to only those 

that want to conduct their pharmacy in an amoral format limits 

the number of investors into these small markets all over the country. 

So, you know, what is at risk for us personally as small business 

owners is that Joan and I are the parents of four small school-aged 

daughters. We have already decided that we will not continue to 

pursue ownership opportunities in pharmacies in Illinois and in an 

6

environment where licensure requires us to stock and dispense 

abortifacient drugs, whether it is this one or others that come to 

the market later on. 

Though it has required significant sacrifice, time and effort, Joan 

and I have enjoyed having the opportunity to own a small business 

in the State of Illinois. But even so, we are resolved that we will 

not invest and I will not practice in an environment in which we 

are legally obligated to be involved in the destruction of human life. 

Now that being said, with regard to our respect for our patients 

and for our people that might want us to dispense Plan B or products that may come to the market in the future that are used for 

the destruction of human life, I am a compassionate person, and 

we have a compassionate staff. We do not treat people in a denigrating way regardless of their request. 

Our policy is, in our pharmacy, when presented with a prescription that he have a moral objection to, is simply inform the patient 

in a quiet, confidential manner that we don’t stock or procure the 

product because of company policy. If a patient inquires as to why 

the company policy is enforced, we will make it known that we are 

uncomfortable with the science of the drug and that we are concerned with what it might do to human life. If a patient wants to 

know more about the mechanism of action of the drug or wants our 

counsel, we will clearly give that in a way that we do other requests for pharmacist counsel. 

That is the end of my statements. I have submitted also full testimony in writing. 

[Mr. Vander Bleek’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. The complete statements of all the witnesses will be made as part of the record. I would remind the Members of Congress that these mics are live at all times. 

Our next witness is Sheila Nix. Sheila represents the Governor 

of the State of Illinois. Ms. Nix, we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SHEILA NIX, OFFICE OF GOVERNOR 

BLAGOJEVICH 

Ms. NIX. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Manzullo and all the 

other members of the— 

Chairman MANZULLO. Could you pull up the mic a little closer 

or maybe just push it down a little bit. 

Ms. NIX. Okay. Thank you, Chairman Manzullo and all the other 

members of the Committee on Small Business, for giving us the opportunity to testify today. 

My name is Sheila Nix, and I am a senior adviser to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. I am happy to be here today to talk about 

the Governor’s decision in support of women’s health care. 

Just as a beginning, the Governor didn’t come to this issue in isolation. He, since he has took office, has been working on expanding 

health care access for women, children and families in Illinois and 

has expanded access to health care through the KidCare and 

FamilyCare program, and now Illinois is able to cover 313,000 

more men, women and children and working families. 

He also created I-SaveRx, which is a plan to provide Illinois residents access to affordable prescription drugs in Canada and Europe. He also created the Illinois Healthy Women Initiative that 

7

helps 120,000 women leaving Medicaid with basic health care and 

reproductive health care coverage. He has, also on the issue of contraceptives, required legislation that requires private insurers to 

cover all FDA-approved contraceptives, so that all women in Illinois now have contraceptive coverage through their private insurance plan as well. 

I will talk a little bit about what led to his decision on this rule. 

In February, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional 

Regulation received complaints from a doctor’s office. The complaint was that their patients were unable to fill two prescriptions 

for emergency contraception at a downtown Chicago pharmacy. The 

complaint stated that the pharmacist said, ′′I don’t fill those′′ and 

advised the caller to call back several hours later when a different 

pharmacist would be on duty. 

When Governor Blagojevich heard about these cases and other 

cases in Illinois and around the country about women not being 

able to get their birth control pills filled, he directed the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation to make sure—

to issue a rule to make sure that women would not be denied this 

basic health care need. The rule is meant to ensure that all Illinois 

pharmacies dispense birth control prescriptions without hassle, 

without lecture and without delay. 

There is a couple aspects of the rule that in some discussions 

have been misunderstood. I want to take this opportunity to clarify 

that. First, the rule does not apply to any individual pharmacists. 

The rule is directed at pharmacies, a class of pharmacies in the retail business that are holding themselves out in the business of filling prescriptions, things like CVS, Walgreens, Osco, those types of 

entities. The rule applies to medications identified as preventing 

pregnancies by the Food and Drug Administration. 

So we are relying on the definitions provided by the Food and 

Drug Administration in clarifying the rule, and it includes both 

monthly birth control pills and emergency contraception. 

Let me make one more thing clear, because this has been another source of confusion. The rule does not apply to RU-486. As 

a matter of fact RU-486 cannot be dispensed by a pharmacy or 

pharmacist. It has to be administered by a doctor. So to be clear, 

the rules does not apply to RU-486, just contraceptives as defined 

by the Food and Drug Administration. 

The rule directs pharmacies in the business of dispensing contraceptives to fill valid, lawful prescriptions for contraception without 

delay. If the pharmacy is not in the business of dispensing contraceptives, the pharmacy is not subject to the rule. So to be clear on 

that, if there is an individual pharmacy that is owned by someone 

like Mr. Vander Bleek who has an objection to providing contraceptives, they can choose not to provide contraceptives at all and the 

rule does not pertain to them. 

If the prescribed medication is not in stock, the pharmacy must 

obtain medication through the regular process for ordering contraception. The other thing that has been clarified now that our permanent rule is going forward in lieu of the emergency rule, is that 

there was some concern that the term ’without delay’ meant that 

people were allowed to cut in line, come in, walk to the front of the 

line and get their prescription. Clearly, that wasn’t what we inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:27 Jul 29, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\22612.TXT MIKE
8

tended. So in the permanent rule, ′′without delay′′ is defined to 

mean in the normal course of filling a prescription. 

The Pharmacists Association also asked us to clarify to make 

sure that the pharmacist could still do their job checking drug 

interactions, making sure there is no allergies to that type of procedure. Again in the permanent rule, that will be clarified. 

The emergency rule is currently in effect, and the permanent 

rule hearing is scheduled for August 16th. So it is our understanding at that time that the temporary rule will go out and the 

permanent rule will go into place. 

The rule is important to make sure women have access to health 

care, and in particular, to make sure that women’s decisions made 

with her doctor about her health care are respected. The interesting thing is that as we have gone through this and talked to 

many of the physicians—and I think it was mentioned that the 

AMA is in support of this legislation and rule—that contraceptives 

can be used for many things and other health conditions. 

They are often prescribed for things like migraines, acne, regulation of the cycle, pain and in some cases emergency contraception 

has been used to stop hemorrhaging unrelated to the reproduction 

side of it. So we think that it is important if a woman and her doctor make a decision on what is the appropriate drug for her health, 

that she should be able to go to a pharmacy in the business of providing prescription drugs and get that prescription filled without 

delay. 

Governor Blagojevich has ruled to make sure that a woman’s 

right to get her prescription for birth control filled without delay, 

without hassle and without a lecture is an important part of providing necessary health care for Illinois families and Illinois communities. 

Thank you very much. 

[Ms. Nix’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you. 

Our third witness is Michael Patton. Mr. Patton, we look forward 

to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF J. MICHAEL PATTON, ILLINOIS PHARMACISTS 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. PATTON. Thank you very much. Good morning and thank you 

to Congressman Manzullo for inviting me to speak today before 

this Committee on the issue of Freedom of Conscience for Small 

Pharmacies. 

For the record I am not a pharmacist. I run the Pharmacists Association, and we represent about 2,500 pharmacists in the State 

of Illinois, both in the independent retail setting, the chain stores, 

hospitals and long-term care. So, for the record, I would like to 

clarify that I am not a pharmacist. 

Ladies and gentlemen of the House Committee on Small Business, on April 1, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich invoked a rule 

providing all pharmacists to provide contraceptives based on valid 

lawful prescriptions without delay. As initially implemented, this 

emergency rule posed a substantial risk to patient care and created 

a substantial challenge for pharmacists as licensed in our State. 

9

Since that time, the emergency ruling has been modified, and the 

proposed language will be reviewed by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules on August 16th. The language is now being promulgated as follows, as I have listed in my testimony, and I won’t 

take your time to read it there for your reference. 

As rulings now are being enforced, the Illinois Pharmacists Association on behalf of its members has taken a formal position that 

we can accept these modifications. However, we feel it is imperative that the reference to health care personnel, as cited in the Illinois Health Right of Conscience Act, be amended to specifically include pharmacists by reference than simply by inference as health 

care personnel. The initial impact of this edict was harrowing for 

Illinois pharmacists as many of the small rural communities did 

not carry emergency contraceptive, often indicated as Plan B. 

These pharmacies did not stock this item because of any personal 

or religious beliefs, but simply the principles of supply and demand. As one pharmacy told me they had two requests for it in 

about 5 years, so it is not a product that they inventoried. Because 

what we are finding is the reality in the small communities that 

if a women finds herself in need and determines that with the advice of her physician, that pregnancy could be imminent, then she 

oftentimes will seek a pharmacy in a nearby metropolitan area to 

preserve and protect her privacy and anonymity. So what we find 

is these small rural pharmacies have very little demand, not because the need isn’t there, but due to privacy issues oftentimes a 

woman might go to another area. 

Now these pharmacies are being challenged as to how to respond 

to the new ruling of the Governor. Most still do not carry the product, but have established a relationship for a personal referral with 

a nearby chain store, who will now typically stock this product due 

to the new mandate and the corporate requirement for compliance. 

The ruling provides for the ability of the pharmacist with the patient’s permission to transfer the prescription to a local pharmacy 

of the patient’s choice or return the prescription to the patient. 

Unfortunately, what we are now finding is that some individuals 

are testing select pharmacies to discern the willingness of the pharmacy to fill their prescription. A case in point is a woman who 

would drive over 100 miles to a very small rural pharmacy to get 

her prescription filled when she had passed multiple metropolitan 

areas. 

This initiative has been utilized now at several pharmacies that 

happen to be owned by Illinois legislators. This has caused concern 

and fear for rural pharmacies that they may also be targeted in its 

plot to force pharmacies into compliance, thereby creating the need 

for many pharmacies to now inventory this product in the event 

they might be tested. 

This situation has caused many pharmacists to examine their 

own profession and dedication. They feel they no longer have the 

right to determine their own fate in the dilemma of dispensing. 

Should they or shouldn’t they dispense? 

Pharmacists are now beginning to question their rights under 

the new mandate. Irrespective of their personal beliefs, many pharmacists are now facing a reality. If it is oral contraceptives today, 

what might the prescription be that will be mandated tomorrow? 

10

Pharmacists are health care professionals as defined in Illinois 

statute and expected to be treated as the professionals that they 

are trained to be. The commitment of the pharmacist is to preserve 

and protect the health and safety of their patients. 

This can quite easily be met by allowing pharmacists to do as 

they always have. If a medicine is not in stock, they may offer to 

order it for the patient or in the event of a time-sensitive prescription like Plan B, they make a referral to a fellow local professional. 

This ruling has created limited economic hardship on many small 

pharmacists, but the threat of a noncompliance complaint for legitimately not having this product in stock has created a much greater 

burden on all pharmacists. 

As a result, some pharmacists are questioning the viability of 

maintaining their practice in the State of Illinois. Some with whom 

I have spoken are contemplating relocating to other nearby States 

that will allow them to practice without fear of legal intervention. 

This consideration will undoubtedly have significant impact on the 

availability, affordability and access to quality health care in many 

remote rural areas, rendering those patients in greatest need to 

drive greater distance to have their prescriptions filled. 

Only time will tell the true cost implication of these decisions. 

Pharmacists by nature are quite diligent in their efforts to comply. 

But the outside influence of certain individuals testing selected 

pharmacists has created new fear that is greater than any inventory item. These pharmacists fear their license may be in jeopardy 

if they fail to comply with a mandate such as that, irrespective of 

their personal beliefs. The cost of compliance has become an emotional as well as an economic burden. 

Some are entertaining the option of carrying no oral contraceptives so as not to be subject to the rule, and therein further eliminating the ability to have health care for women in need. Also, the 

chairman has referenced a number of other economic issues that 

could become subject to this. The Illinois Pharmacists Association 

has also urged the Governor to give further consideration to recognize the Right of Conscience for Pharmacists. But for those choosing to be so trained, we suggest allowing properly trained pharmacists to dispense Plan B without a prescription under the formal 

protocols of a licensed physician. 

This is now being done in at least six other States. This would 

allow pharmacists to be properly trained to counsel and dispense 

and pharmacies to be willing to dispense emergency contraception 

without a prescription. This, we feel, addresses the availability of 

emergency contraception and also provides the potential for savings 

as well. 

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the privilege and opportunity to be with you here today. I will be happy to try to address 

any questions you might have. 

[Mr. Patton’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you very much. Our next witness 

is Linda MacLean, testifying on behalf of the American Pharmacists Association. We look forward to your testimony. 

11

STATEMENT OF LINDA GARRELTS MacLEAN, WASHINGTON 

STATE UNIVERSITY 

Ms. MACLEAN. Thank you. Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman, 

and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today and present the views of the American 

Pharmacists Association, and I will be referring to that organization as APhA throughout the rest of my testimony. 

I am Linda Garrelts MacLean, a pharmacist and an active member of APhA. I have been in practice about 27 years and am the 

former co-owner of two community pharmacies in Spokane and 

Deer Park, Washington. 

APhA is the national pharmacist association that is the largest 

in the United States. APhA members practice in virtually every 

area of pharmacy. APhA appreciates the committee’s investigating 

the impact duty-to-fill proposals will have on small pharmacies. I 

will be summarizing my written statement, which was submitted 

to the Committee. 

Recent activity has magnified the conscience clause issue and 

does not reflect reality. The vast majority of pharmacists dispense 

the vast majority of prescriptions. Regardless, pharmacists want to 

retain the ability to opt out of providing services to which they object. New drugs can be introduced into the market. A pharmacist 

should not be expected now to sign off on all future products. 

Conscious clauses are a standard way to address the situation 

and often applied broadly to physicians, nurses as well as pharmacists. In 1998, APhA adopted a two-part policy which supports 

the ability of a pharmacist to opt out of dispensing a prescription 

for personal reasons and also supports the establishment of systems so that the patient’s access to health care is not disrupted. 

The policy supports stepping away but not stepping in the way. 

There are several types of systems that could be put in place to 

ensure patients receive access to their care. To begin, a pharmacist 

should carefully consider where to practice. A pharmacist who objects to physician-assisted suicide would choose a practice outside 

the State of Oregon or outside a practice that participates. A pharmacist with personal objections to dispensing hormonal contraceptives would avoid practicing in a Title X clinic. 

Other systems include staffing the pharmacy so that another 

pharmacist in the same pharmacy can dispense the prescription 

and referring or transferring the prescription to another pharmacy, 

something that the Illinois executive order did not allow. An active 

communication plan also can help. When prescribers and patients 

know which pharmacies carry certain drugs, patients can be directed to those pharmacies. 

For example, in rural Washington State, potential patients are 

directed to pharmacists who participate in Washington’s emergency 

contraceptive care program. And, in areas where no pharmacist 

will dispense a medication, it may be the prescriber who chooses 

to dispense the product. These systems should be established 

proactively. 

Before a pharmacist is presented with a prescription—and it 

should be seamless, the pharmacist-patient interaction should mirror what occurs with any prescription. If the prescription cannot be 

dispensed, then the patient must be aware of available options. 

12

Pharmacists should not use their position of power to berate patients to their personal beliefs or to obstruct patient access to therapy, such as refusing to return a patient’s prescription. 

To balance the negative reports, I would like to describe the efforts of pharmacists to increase access to emergency contraception. 

Pharmacists in seven States have legal authority to describe and 

dispense emergency contraceptives under collaborative agreements 

with prescribers. Legislation to establish similar programs were introduced this year in nine different States. Where pharmacists 

have this authority, patients may go directly to a participating 

pharmacist to receive their prescription for emergency contraceptives, expediting access to care when time is of the essence. 

While serving as president for the Washington State Pharmacists 

Association, I was instrumental in helping enact emergency contraceptive authority in Washington, the first State to do so. 

Since then, hundreds of pharmacists have been trained and thousands of emergency contraception interventions have been done by 

local pharmacists. Duty-to-fill requirements can impact the clinical 

role of the pharmacist by conflicting with the pharmacist’s legal responsibilities to assess the clinical safety and appropriateness of 

every prescription. 

If pharmacists were forced to act as robots, and dispense all lawfully prescribed prescriptions, then patients would be at risk for receiving dangerous but lawful prescriptions. 

For example, a prescription calling for an overdose for an antibiotic to which the patient is allergic is lawful, or a prescription 

calling for an overdose that might be 10-fold what it should be is 

lawful but likely fatal to the patient. 

The clinical role of the pharmacist was overlooked in Illinois Governor Blagojevich’s April 1st duty-to-fill order. After pharmacies expressed concerns, the Governor clarified that the order was not intended to ′′interfere in any way with a pharmacist’s responsibility 

to conduct prospective drug utilization review.′′ Illinois patients are 

fortunate that the Governor was willing to clarify his order, but 

other patients might not be as fortunate. 

Duty-to-fill proposals affect small business by dictating how the 

business must accommodate its staff, in this case the pharmacist. 

For example, some proposals would require a pharmacy to order a 

product if it is not in stock, a decision that should be left up to the 

pharmacy. Some pharmacies may be willing to order a drug, but 

depending on the patient’s needs, the timing and the drug cost, 

special ordering of the drug may not be a viable option. The realworld solution to these situations is that patients are referred to 

other pharmacies or alternative arrangements are made. 

Potential unintended consequences of duty-to-fill proposals include a pharmacy choosing not to stock a certain product, a pharmacy rescinding its conscious clause protections or forcing pharmacists to participate in current opt-in programs. It is important 

to keep this issue in perspective. 

While any instance of a pharmacist obstructing access to medications must be addressed, such situations are rare. Of the nearly 3.3 

billion prescriptions dispensed each year in the outpatient setting, 

proponents document few examples of refusals, leaving us to quesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:27 Jul 29, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\22612.TXT MIKE
13

tion the need for new laws, when better implementation and well 

implemented systems may be the answer. 

One individual’s rights should not outweigh another’s. Our policy 

balances the needs of the patient and the individual needs and duties of the pharmacist. Implemented well, patients receive care and 

pharmacists are not—will not be forced to ignore their personal beliefs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share the perspective of pharmacists on this issue. 

[Ms. MacLean’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you. Let me ask all of you this 

question. Have any of you testified before a Congressional Committee before? All right. You are doing very well. 

Our last witness is Megan Kelly of Geneva, Illinois. We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MEGAN KELLY 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Take a sip of water, sit back and relax and 

tell us your own story in your own words. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, good morning, I want to thank the Committee for inviting me today on the issue of pharmacist refusal. I 

appreciate your time and willingness to listen to my story. My 

name is Megan Kelly. I live in Geneva, Illinois. I am married, I am 

a mother and a high school art teacher. 

Recently, in trying to make a responsible decision about my 

health and family planning, I was humiliated and discriminated 

against by a pharmacist who refused to fill my prescriptions for 

birth control pills and emergency contraception based on her own 

personal views. This pharmacist put my health in danger by refusing to fill my prescription and imposing a delay in my ability to access my legally prescribed medication. 

On Sunday of 4th of July weekend I went to get my birth control 

prescription filled and found out I had no more refills left. When 

my usual pharmacist tried to contact my doctor, she was told that 

I had to make my annual appointment before I could get the prescription filled. 

My doctor was also out of town due to the fact that it was 4th 

of July. After not being able to use my birth control pills for 3 days, 

my doctor recommended that I use the emergency contraception 

pill as a precautionary measure. That is why I tried to get both the 

birth control and the emergency contraceptive pill script filled. 

My doctor’s office called my prescription into a local Jewel-Osco 

pharmacy in St. Charles, which is a town over but close to my 

home, and was told my medication was available. When I went to 

pick up my medication the pharmacist on duty said she would not 

fill my prescription because of her personal beliefs and that I would 

have to get my prescription filled elsewhere. 

I was shocked. I asked for the store manager who said he could 

not force his pharmacist to fill my prescription, and he was also not 

a pharmacist so he could not fill it. But they were willing to transfer it to another location. 

14

He also told me that there was a store memo that was put out 

that did say that it was okay for their company, for their pharmacists, to refuse their patient’s prescriptions. 

I called the pharmacy district manager for Albertson’s, Inc., who 

operates Jewel-Osco. She did confirm that this policy was true. 

After a bit of research, once I got home from this experience, I 

since learned that what I supported at the time was true that 

Jewel-Osco pharmacy in St. Charles was in violation of an emergency rule that Illinois Governor Blagojevich signed on April 1st, 

which was talked about, and the Joint Committee on Executive 

Rules is expected to meet to talk about whether to make the rule 

permanent in August. 

As a patient, I consult with my doctor about the best course of 

treatment. In writing my prescription my doctor is doing her job 

and acting in my best interest. I do not expect a pharmacist to 

breach that relationship I have with my doctor and endanger my 

health. When pharmacists refuse to dispense medicine, they are 

not doing their job. Their job is to dispense medication, not moral 

judgment. A pharmacist’s personal views do not belong in my 

health care. 

As a consumer, I have a right to walk into any pharmacy in 

America and expect to have my prescription filled without unnecessary delays or discrimination. It is completely unacceptable for this 

store to refer customers to another provider at a different location. 

As in this case, as in my case, this practice can result in humiliation and based on the nature of the medication poses a health risk 

when the prescription is not filled in a timely manner. Birth control pills must be taken every day at the same time to be effective 

and the effectiveness of emergency contraception diminishes dramatically as time goes on. 

It is the responsibility of pharmacies to ensure that all individuals’ needs are met and that no one becomes a target of discrimination. The Jewel-Osco pharmacy in St. Charles currently employs a 

pharmacist who is jeopardizing women’s health by refusing to fill 

legal physician-prescribed family planning medication. 

The bottom line is this, if a woman and her doctor have already 

discussed the need for contraception, she should be able to walk 

into any pharmacy in America and expect to have her prescription 

filled without unnecessary delays or discrimination. Women should 

never be denied basic health care services by pharmacists who 

choose to impose their own beliefs on others. 

My story is not unique. It has happened to others, not only in 

Illinois but all across the Nation. I would like to thank you again 

for listening to my story. 

[Ms. Kelly’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you very much. We are going to set 

the 5-minute clock for members asking questions. 

Ms. Nix, I have a question with regard to the rule that you set 

forth on page 6 of your testimony. I have read through that. Then 

I read your summary on page 7, the second bullet point. Do you 

see that? 

Mr. PATTON. To whom are you speaking? 

Chairman MANZULLO. Ms. Nix, I am sorry. Do you see that? 

Ms. NIX. Yes. 

15

Chairman MANZULLO. That says pharmacies that stock contraceptive medications must fill valid, lawful prescriptions for all contraception without delay. Where do you see that language in the 

proposed regulation? 

Ms. NIX. The first sentence says, ′′Upon receipt of a valid lawful 

prescription for a contraceptive, a pharmacy must dispense the contraceptive or suitable alternative permitted by the prescriber to the 

patient or the patient’s agency without delay.′′ Chairman MANZULLO. That doesn’t answer the question. 

Ms. NIX. I am sorry, what is your question? 

Chairman MANZULLO. The question is that the comment that you 

said that pharmacies that stock contraceptive medications— 

Ms. NIX. Right. 

Chairman MANZULLO. —implied that if pharmacies do not 

stock— 

Ms. NIX. That is correct. 

Chairman MANZULLO. —emergency contraceptives, they are exempt from the rule. But that is not in the language of it. 

Ms. NIX. Let me see if I can find it where it says that you stock 

it—if you are out of it, you have to order in the normal course. 

Chairman MANZULLO. All right. 

Ms. NIX. If your normal course is not to carry it, then you don’t 

have to carry it. 

Chairman MANZULLO. That is pretty loose. 

Ms. NIX. I think we have discussed that with the Pharmacists 

Association. There is a general understanding that it hasn’t been 

a problem, but if we need to tighten that up— 

Chairman MANZULLO. I am just saying there is a lot of confusion 

as to whether or not a pharmacist, a pharmacist does not believe 

in contraception at all, and does not stock it. 

Ms. NIX. Yes, that would not be a problem with our rule. If we 

would need to clarify something on our website about that we could 

do it. 

Chairman MANZULLO. What about the Catholic health care organizations? 

Ms. NIX. Yes, they had contacted us as well and asked for some 

clarifications in the rule, which were provided. The other thing is 

that their pharmacies are within their hospital or association and 

are not the class of pharmacy that this rule applies to. 

Chairman MANZULLO. So you discriminate among pharmacies 

based upon— 

Ms. NIX. The rule applies to pharmacies that are in the retail 

business of providing prescriptions. So that in the normal course of 

what they even advertise, you know, transfer your prescription 

here, it is those types of pharmacies that advertise themselves and 

the business and would like to fill people’s prescriptions. If it is 

within a hospital system or others, the rule does not apply. We are 

dealing with the retail pharmacies that pharmacies deal with on a 

daily basis. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Pharmacies and hospitals fill prescriptions—Ms. MacLean, could you clarify that for us? 

Ms. MACLEAN. Some institutional pharmacies do have outpatient 

pharmaceuticals now. That did not used to be the case but you are 

absolutely correct. 

16

Chairman MANZULLO. So if you are under the umbrella of a 

Catholic hospital and you are a pharmacist, you don’t worry about 

it. But if you have the same religious and spiritual beliefs as pharmacist Vander Bleek, then you are under the prescription of this 

law? 

Ms. NIX. If you are a retail pharmacy you are covered. 

Chairman MANZULLO. You didn’t use the word retail. 

Ms. NIX. That is what it refers to. Under the technical reading 

of the licensing it is retail pharmacies. 

Chairman MANZULLO. So pharmacies and hospitals that are not 

considered to be retail, that is correct? 

Ms. NIX. That is correct. They are considered to be a different license. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Then where does that say within this language that it refers only to—is it a division 1 pharmacy that is considered to be retail? 

Ms. NIX. Yes. 

Ms. MACLEAN. But there are some hospitals who do fill for outpatient use. 

Ms. NIX. In Illinois? In Illinois you are talking about? 

Ms. MACLEAN. I can’t tell you Illinois. 

Ms. NIX. Yes. I think our pharmacy expert is here if we need to 

clarify it. 

Chairman MANZULLO. You can ask him if he knows. 

If you could give your name and position for the record and give 

the answer, we would appreciate that. Spell your last name. Go 

ahead. 

Mr. HUGHES. Thanks. My name is Pat Hughes, H-u-g-h-e-s. I am 

the General Counsel of the Illinois Department of Financial and 

Professional Relations, which regulates, among other things, the 

practice of pharmacy, the profession of pharmacy. 

In answer to your question about the classes of pharmacy, I 

think that sort of the tail end there hit the nail on the head. Division 1 pharmacy is the division that is referred to in the rule. That 

is a classic retail pharmacy that you might encounter. It is possible 

to put that pharmacy, you know, almost anywhere, but any retail 

pharmacy that is division 1 would fall under the rule. Any other 

pharmacy, a traditional hospital pharmacy, that was not a division 

1 pharmacy, the rule would not cover too, whether that is part of 

a Catholic hospital system or any other kind of hospital system. 

Chairman MANZULLO. What if that hospital also does retail? 

Mr. HUGHES. Occasionally a division 1 license could be on a hospital premise. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Did that occur in Illinois? 

Mr. HUGHES. On a handful occasions. That rule would apply to 

any division 1 hospital—excuse me, any division 1 pharmacy regardless of where it is. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Velazquez. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Ms. Nix, I would like to know how the Governor’s emergency order will impact a pharmacist’s ability to run 

and operate their business. How would you respond to some pharmacist’s assertion that they will be unable to run their business if 

17

they personally object to emergency contraception? Does it provide 

for remedies to a pharmacist owner who objects? 

Ms. NIX. Yes. If a pharmacist/pharmacy owner objects to contraceptives, then they do not have to stock contraceptives. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Some have expressed concern that the Governor’s order could lead to pharmacies dispensing drugs that actually hurt women because of the requirements on the order. How 

does the order require that the safety of the patient is paramount? 

Ms. NIX. The rule clarifies—the permanent rule will make clear, 

and the temporary rule has also, that the pharmacist is to do their 

normal course of business, check drug interactions, do counseling, 

whatever is in the normal course. That is paramount. In the patient—there was an example mentioned earlier about a higher dose 

of antibiotics. Clearly that is not what is intended here. The permanent rule makes it very clear that pharmacists should do their normal course of business in patient safety before prescription. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Ms. MacLean, in your testimony you talk about 

how your organization wants to protect a pharmacist’s right to 

refuse filling prescriptions in a significant number of situations. 

Doesn’t the ability of pharmacists to deny filling a prescription preserve the responsibilities of the prescribing physician? 

Ms. MACLEAN. Well, we actually have two systems in place in 

Washington. When a pharmacist steps away from a prescription, 

for example, for a Plan B medication, that pharmacist can call a 

neighboring pharmacy and transfer it over the phone. We can find 

out what their hours are, we can find out if they have it in stock. 

We can find out if they take the insurance company that the person is presenting with. So that is one situation where we can actually ensure that a women gets a medication that she wants by 

transferring the prescription. 

The second situation in Washington is that some pharmacists 

have prescriptive authority protocols in place. For example, I have 

one. I could write the prescription and dispense it, if it is appropriate for that one. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. But my question is, in the sense that how, if 

pharmacists by taking such action of denying filling a prescription, 

injects herself or himself between the patient and the doctors? 

Ms. MACLEAN. I look at pharmacists. It is one of the things that 

we actually train our students in pharmacy school about, is that 

the pharmacist acts on the patient’s behalf, as a patient advocate. 

I can give you an example. I had a person come into the pharmacy not too long ago, that she was able to pay for the emergency 

contraceptive, that we would be able to administer for her, administer and dispense. We were unable to bill the type of insurance 

that she had, and so I picked up the phone, I called Planned Parenthood, and I said I think this is a candidate for you, can you help 

me out? 

So I acted as the patient’s advocate. I was able to find out if they 

took her insurance, what the hours were, and I got instructions on 

how to get her there. So the pharmacist can be a facilitator. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Let me phrase my question in a different way. 

I just want a yes or no answer. Would you agree there must be a 

balance when it comes to ensuring access for women to meet their 

reproductive needs and addressing the concerns of pharmacists? 

18

Ms. MACLEAN. I believe in balance. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Ms. Kelly, I want to talk to you, and first I want 

to thank you for coming here and sharing your story. I know that 

this is not an easy experience for anyone. Before you went to the 

pharmacy, did you work with your doctor to determine the appropriate family planning medicine necessary in your situation, and 

how did it make you feel when the pharmacist told you it will not 

dispense these drugs because it was against his moral beliefs? 

Ms. KELLY. Yes, I did talk to my doctor, and she was the one 

that recommended this. I have been with this doctor for a while, 

and she knows my family plan that my husband and I have kind 

of developed for us. 

When I went into the pharmacy, I was shocked. I just had never 

heard of this really happening to anyone. I didn’t think it was 

legal, but I didn’t know about the Blagojevich’s emergency ruling. 

But I figured it had to be illegal. So I was very shocked and embarrassed. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Congresswoman Musgrave. 

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing today. 

My district has four large cities and then a lot of small towns. 

And the retail pharmacists in those small towns make an incredible contribution to the community, especially communities where 

there are a number of elderly folks that live. 

I so much appreciate what you said, Mr. Vander Bleek, about an 

anchor pharmacy and what it does for Main Street in small towns. 

And there will be a clothing store there and a grocery store still 

there, because people get their prescriptions filled and then they 

shop. It means a great deal. 

I guess I was taken aback by your testimony, Ms. Kelly. As the 

mother of four children, I wanted doctors to be available on holiday 

weekends, but they weren’t. I wanted to be able to fill a prescription, even after it had run out, but, doggone it, they wouldn’t do 

it anyway. So I faced inconveniences to me, living a very busy life. 

Before I even got into politics, I thought my life was busy. 

Sometimes I had to drive across town to get a prescription filled. 

I had to drive several miles. But I still did it, and it seems unseemly to me to compare a matter of inconvenience to a matter of 

conscience. I am taken aback that inconveniences in a person’s life 

would weigh in such as a matter of deeply held beliefs. I think 

about those pharmacists in my communities and I think about 

what they do for the population there, and I am very respectful of 

their deeply held beliefs. 

I, for one, want to go on record saying this is a most appropriate 

matter for the Small Business Committee to take up. It affects the 

communities. It affects the livelihood. And I will tell you, what are 

we going to do next? Are we going to mandate that doctors forego 

their vacations, because I want them here on a holiday weekend? 

Are we going to say you have to extend your hours in your pharmacy because I need something at 10 o’clock at night? Are we going 

to say, you have to be there on Sundays? Let’s get real. 

The American consumer has a great deal of opportunity to buy 

what they need, to get what they want, but sometimes, they may 

have to wait 20 minutes longer to start their dinner party, and 

19

they may have to drive across town. But I think, in America, we 

expect our small business owners, such as pharmacists, to be able 

to exercise their moral beliefs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Congressman Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I ask unanimous consent to enter my entire statement into the 

record. 

Chairman MANZULLO. All the statements of the witnesses and 

the members will be admitted into the record in their entirety, 

without objection. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. 

It seems to me, at least according to the title given to the hearing, that we have been called to discuss freedom of conscience for 

small pharmacies. I do believe it is a misleading title. If we are 

honest and to the point, we are not actually talking about freedom 

of choice for small business pharmacies here, the underlying issue, 

in my mind, what is at stake is the freedom of choice period. We 

are here to talk about just one more way that the government can 

aid in tearing down a woman’s right to access to methods of birth 

control. 

Quite frankly, and I want to associate myself with the ranking 

member’s statement at the beginning, we are offended that under 

our jurisdiction, such programs at the 7(a) loan, the Micro loan, the 

8(a) loan program and countless other SBA programs are being 

sidelined while we take this little foray into reproductive rights 

issues. 

A woman who chooses birth control as her contraceptive method 

is doing two things, in my mind: She is, number one, exercising her 

basic right to chose how to govern her own body, and, number two, 

by taking control of her reproductive health, she is acting to govern 

her own body in a very responsible manner. 

This woman and her doctor have made the decision that a prescription for birth control is in her best interests. Given that, I will 

say that a third party does not have the right to override the decision made by a woman and her physician, which is where this 

hearing comes into play. 

Simply put, our Small Business Committee is doing a disservice 

to women’s rights by even holding this hearing. Moreover, it is 

going to cause more problems to small businesses in terms of litigation and as we look at all these other issues associated with this 

discussion. 

I have just a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me begin with Mr. Vander Bleek. 

It is your view, if I understand your testimony from the written 

as well your verbal comments, it is your view that pharmacies do 

not have an ethical obligation to protect women’s health by providing medically necessary prescriptions. Do you think pharmacists 

should have the right to refuse any prescription they disagree with 

morally? For instance, what about drugs for people living with HIV 

or AIDS, Viagra, drugs derived from embryonic stem cell research? 

Couldn’t the list of drugs objectionable to some pharmacists potentially grow quite long, and should there be any limits? 

20

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. In response to that, I think it is interesting 

that some people might want to confuse my position and say I am 

discriminating against a class of people or a particular medical condition of people. I am objecting to a medication and what that 

medication does. 

I have regard for the third person in the relationship. There is 

me. There is the expectant mother that comes in. And there is the 

live child that I have to recognize has the possibility of existing, 

and that my involvement in dispensing this prescription is involvement in the extinguishing of that life. 

With regard to embryonic stem cell research, I oppose that, too. 

With regard to treating other people’s ailments, I have never had 

any issue with treating people for AIDS, for infertility, for treating 

people for incontinence or any other type of condition. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me follow up with a hypothetical. As you are 

aware, the Christian Science religion teaches diseases should be 

treated through prayer, and worshippers have been known to 

refuse medical treatment and drugs. 

If I understand the premise, and correct me if I am wrong, correctly, the logical conclusion would be that a Christian Science 

pharmacist ought also to be allowed to deny all manners of drugs 

to patients based on his or her personal belief that medicine is not 

the appropriate way to treat a disease? 

Would you agree, and, if you don’t agree, what is the difference? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. I would agree with that, but I also would 

submit that Christian Science pharmacist would have a very limited practice. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I said hypothetical. 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. Right. Right. This is interesting, if I can respond further to you, Congressman. Pharmacy is a very competitive marketplace. The pharmaciesthat compete directly against me 

use major media to advertise to my customers every evening. You 

can hardly watch 2 hours of network television in my community 

without being confronted with three or four advertisements by 

pharmacies who want your business. There is not even a necessity 

for me to refer business anywhere, because everyone knows who all 

the other competitors are. 

In the case of where we have been confronted with a prescription 

for Plan B and we respectfully have returned the prescription, the 

patient has no problem at all finding another pharmacy. In fact, 

they could probably give me directions to the other pharmacies. So 

we are not denying access to anything. 

With respect to the contention that somehow I am inserting myself in a patient-physician relationship, nothing could be further 

from the truth. Indeed, what I am requesting here, government to 

stop trying to pull me into that relationship. I stand here. They 

have their relationship. I don’t want to be involved in products that 

might endanger human life, and I request that I can still own a 

pharmacy, a small business in the State of Illinois and be excerpted from that requirement that I need to be pulled into that 

particular relationship. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Congressman King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

21

I direct my first question to Mr. Vander Bleek. Mr. Vander 

Bleek, in your testimony, you define the process of the beginning 

of life. Could you define again for this committee your position on 

when life begins? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. My position is a scientific position of when 

life begins: Two 23-chromosome gametes,one from a male, one from 

a female human being, meet and form a 46-chromosome human 

being. It is at that point where that is a new and unique individual, not half mom, half dad, but part of each, and a new independent human being. That embryo, if it does not perish, will never 

become anything else. It will never become another animal life 

form. It will not become a baseball bat or a banana. It will become 

a human being. 

So I have moral concern for all human beings at every stage of 

life, and I reject that in my practice of pharmacy, which has been 

one that preserves human life, the sanctity of human life, and one 

that has regard for people’s health care, should become one that 

also involves extermination of same. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Vander Bleek, would you describe the length of 

time that that takes? Could that be described within an instant? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. Within an instant. 

Mr. KING. Ms. Nix, would you describe an instant that your position would be of when life begins? 

Ms. NIX. My official position? I can’t do that on behalf of the Governor. I am sorry. 

Mr. KING. So you can’t take a position on behalf of the Governor 

as to when life begins? 

Ms. NIX. Correct. I don’t know what his personal opinion is on 

that. 

Mr. KING. Therefore, the Governor has a position aside from 

that, I would think then. 

Mr. Patton? 

Mr. PATTON. Not being a medical person—and I think this is 

really the crux of the debate here, is, when does life begin? Is it 

the implantation of the egg in the womb, or is it the fertilization 

of the egg by the sperm? I think that is the basis which really 

draws a lot of the debate, is the uncertainty of when life begins. 

I think it is an individually held belief. 

Mr. KING. Not a scientific fact. It is an individually held belief? 

Mr. PATTON. I believe so, yes. 

Mr. KING. Then would you disagree with Mr. Vander Bleek? 

Mr. PATTON. I wouldn’t disagree with him, no. I wouldn’t disagree with him. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. KING. No, thanks, I have only a few minutes. 

But the science that we have heard here does come from Mr. 

Vander Bleek. So I am going to then ask if Ms. MacLean could 

offer some science to put some insight into this? 

Ms. MACLEAN. Mr. King, I don’t believe I can speak on behalf of 

APHA on that. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, and I am not going to ask you, Ms. Kelly, 

because I don’t think that you have represented yourself as being 

a professional in this field. 

22

So I do think that is the crux of this matter. And there are two 

central points here. One of them is, when does life begin, and 

science has continually been reestablishing a religious belief that 

the Catholic Church has held forever, and that is Mr. Vander 

Bleek’s position, for the reason that Catholic scientists have examined this as thoroughly and more thoroughly than I suspect Mr. 

Vander Bleek has. 

So I think it is a clear scientific fact that life has to begin at 

some instant, and this is the only instant that can be described, 

and so if we are going to err on the side of life, we must not take 

the life after the point of conception. 

So the next question then is, if it is a religious position, as maybe 

was implied by Mr. Patton, then do we have religious freedom in 

this country, or don’t we? 

So I will focus the next question then to Ms. Nix, and that is, 

I have here a copy of the conscience clause in the Illinois statute, 

and I don’t have it thoroughly covered here or the substance of it 

necessarily, but I would ask you to speak to it. Under conscience, 

part of the definition is a sincere set of moral convictions arising 

from belief in and relation to God. 

So how does your Governor’s office reconcile the conscience 

clause with religious held beliefs and the scientific facts of when 

life begins, especially because I think there has been a reference 

made to the drugs that might be used for suicide? 

Ms. NIX. The rule, as the Governor has put it in place, does not 

apply to an individual pharmacist. It applies to a pharmacy. So the 

pharmacy that is in the business of providing prescription drugs 

just needs to make sure that the prescription gets filled without 

delay or returned, if the patient would prefer that. The pharmacy 

then will have to figure out— 

Mr. KING. Excuse me. So if the pharmacy takes the position they 

are going to provide contraceptives but not Plan B morning after 

pills, then they will be compelled though by that order, regardless 

of whether it is a pharmacy position or a pharmacist position? 

Ms. NIX. Right. Because we are relying on the Food and Drug 

Administration’s definition of contraceptive. 

Mr. KING. So you would exempt it then somehow by a Governor’s 

rule, the conscience clause in the statute? 

Ms. NIX. No, the Food and Drug Administration says that contraceptives prevent pregnancy, so the class of prescriptions that are 

in the rule are contraceptives that prevent pregnancy. So, the situation is the pharmacy who is selling prescription drugs needs to 

make sure that it gets covered. They can have somebody else come 

in. They can have a different pharmacist on call. There are a lot 

of different things they can do. 

In an individual case where there is a belief that because Plan 

B is basically the same thing as monthly pills, just in a different 

dose, that if the belief of that individual pharmacist-pharmacy 

owner is that contraceptives are problematic for them, then we 

don’t require that. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. I see I am out of time. I would reiterate 

though it has been described as emergency contraception, but it is 

an early abortion. Thank you. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Congresswoman Sanchez. 

23

Ms. SANCHEZ. I find it highly amusing that we are debating 

when life begins in the Small Business Committee. I would submit 

that that is probably a discussion left better for other committees. 

Ms. MacLean, I want to jump right into the questions here because I have many, and I am shocked and appalled at some of the 

statements that have been made by some of the members here and 

some of the testimony today. 

But can you tell me the position of the AMA and the FDA with 

respect to Plan B? Do they consider that an abortion pill? 

Ms. MACLEAN. I can’t speak on behalf of the other organizations. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay. You don’t know the answer. 

Ms. Nix. 

Ms. NIX. No, the FDA and the AMA do not. Contraceptives prevent pregnancy, and, like I mentioned, RU-486 is not a contraceptive, and it is not part of this rule. RU-486 can only be administered by a doctor. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Ms. Nix. 

Mr. Vander Bleek, I am sure you are aware that the chemicals 

contained in monthly birth control prevent fertilization. Are you 

also aware that the chemicals in emergency contraception, also 

known as Plan B, also prevent fertilization, and do you realize that 

if you are selling monthly contraceptives, that you are already selling emergency contraceptives, that the only difference is the packaging and the dosage? 

Are you aware of that? A yes or no will suffice. 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. Well, you had several questions there. To 

which do you want me to answer? 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Are you aware that the chemicals— 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. I am aware that the chemicals are the same. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Are the same. And do you realize what the difference is in the dosage on the packaging? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. I am aware of that, and also the intent of 

when it is to be taken in the directions. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. The right to obtain birth control without being— 

Chairman MANZULLO. The witness will be allowed to complete 

his answer. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I asked specifically for a yes or no answer. I have 

very limited time to ask questions. I would like the right to ask 

them without interference. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Proceed. But if you cut him off again, I am 

going to give him time to answer. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. The right to obtain birth control without interference has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Additionally, polls 

show that eight in ten Americans say pharmacists who personally 

oppose birth control for religious reasons should not refuse to sell 

oral contraceptives. 

The America Medical Association has also taken the position that 

pharmacists should not be allowed to use discretion in determining 

what drugs they will dispense if there is a valid and legal prescription. 

My question to you, which is again a yes or no question, do you 

think the Supreme Court, a majority of Americans and the AMA 

are wrong? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. I do. 

24

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Vander Bleek, it is estimated that 95 percent 

of American women use some form of birth control at some point 

in their lives. Now, I am sure that your community has a large percentage of women who use some form of monthly birth control. Basically, there is a captive market for prescription birth control that 

would provide your business with a steady monthly flow of income. 

Do you sell contraceptive birth control? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. I do. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Do you sell condoms in your pharmacy? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. I do. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Vander Bleek, you realize that if you don’t 

want to dispense emergency contraceptive in the form of Plan B, 

which contains the exact chemical compound as monthly birth control, the Governor’s order gives you the option to stop selling birth 

control altogether? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. I don’t read that in the statute there, but— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Perhaps Ms. Nix could enlighten us? 

Ms. NIX. Yes, that is the case. 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. It is not in the statute, though, Ms. Nix. It 

is in your summary, but it is not in the statute. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Would you support the rule if it specifically said 

that? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. No, I don’t support the rule at all. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. So even though it is the same chemical compound, 

and if you morally were opposed to dispensing emergency contraceptive and it gave you the option and said if you are morally opposed to contraceptive in that form, you could opt out of having to 

provide it, if you simply agree to stop providing contraceptive in 

pill form, you would still not support the rule? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. There is a product that is used to help reline 

the stomach in cases of stomach ulcers that also causes a spontaneous abortion. It is the same chemical. Do I dispense it to cause 

a spontaneous abortion? No, I don’t. Do I dispense the same chemical to help someone’s stomach? Yes, I do. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. The question is, would you support the rule and 

your answer was—yes or no again? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. I would support the rescinding of the rule. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. Kelly, I want to talk to you a little bit about emergency contraceptives, and I am very sorry for the experience you have had. 

With respect to the fact that having to travel around to find somebody who would fill your prescription, I have heard one member on 

this panel describe that as a ′′minor inconvenience.′′ Where emergency contraception is concerned, isn’t there is a window of opportunity in which it is effective and a window of opportunity in which it is not? 

Ms. KELLY. Yes, 72 hours. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. So having to drive perhaps in a rural community 

to other cities to find somebody who could perhaps fill that prescription, it could actually foreclose that window of opportunity for 

it to be effective, is that not correct? 

Ms. KELLY. Yes. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. That is a decision that your doctor discussed with 

you? 

25

Ms. KELLY. Yes. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I have no other questions. I see my time has expired. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Congressman Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, let me first thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

for holding this important hearing. I don’t think discussion of an 

issue, no matter how delicate, is inappropriate, even in a forum 

such as this, which is primarily involving small business, but clearly, we have a small business impact here. 

Mr. Vander Bleek, I would submit to you that your definition of 

life is one that is found in embryology textbooks in medical schools, 

so I appreciate what you have said today. 

I think again, in dealing with a sensitive issue such as this, it 

is important to pull back and look at the principle at stake. We 

have heard the word ′′discrimination′′ thrown about quite frequently here on the panel. Were you being discriminated against 

by the Governor and the State of Illinois? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. I absolutely believe I am. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Let’s apply the principle further. Could then 

the Governor in the State of Illinois impose its will on a doctor, for 

instance, who might object to certain prescriptions because of 

sound medical reasoning? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. I don’t know why that couldn’t be done if 

this can be done. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I think, again, that is one of the reasons to 

look at the issue carefully, in the context not only of small business 

but the larger issue of how it affects other medical providers. 

Thank you for coming today. 

Chairman MANZULLO. I have a question to Ms. Nix, and that is, 

you say the regulation is aimed only at pharmacies and not pharmacists. But what do you do when it is one and the same, when 

there is only one pharmacist in the pharmacy? Clearly, it is the intent that relates to that pharmacist. What do you do in a case like 

that? Why don’t you exempt them? 

Ms. NIX. The same rules would apply. 

Chairman MANZULLO. I don’t think you understand my question. 

You took pains to explain that this regulation is aimed at the retail 

establishment. 

Ms. NIX. Right. 

Chairman MANZULLO. And not the individual pharmacist. 

Ms. NIX. Right. Because in many cases— 

Chairman MANZULLO. Let me finish my question. But in Mr. 

Vander Bleek’s case, and lots of pharmacies, especially small town 

pharmacies across rural Illinois, the pharmacy equals the pharmacist. What do you do in a case like that? 

Ms. NIX. Well, that is why there is a provision that says if that 

pharmacy-pharmacist has a moral objection with contraceptives, 

they don’t have to carry it. 

Chairman MANZULLO. See, the problem here is this: The problem 

is that it is Mr. Vander Bleek’s right of conscience that he is invoking. It is a subjective intent. Arguments as to whether or not it is 

the same chemical or when life begins are interesting, but they are 

academic. Isn’t that essentially what a right of conscience is, is 

26

what goes on inside your own mind, regardless of whether or not 

there is academic or social verification? 

Ms. NIX. Yes. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Well, that is him. He may be the only 

pharmacist in the State of Illinois that believes that by issuing this 

it is an abortifacient, but yet it is his conscience. 

Ms. NIX. I know. But it is not an abortifacient. That is a definition of the Food and Drug Administration. 

Chairman MANZULLO. But when you read the Health Care Right 

of Conscience Act, let me read to you again what ′′conscience′′ means. It says ′′′′Conscience means a sincerely held set of moral 

convictions arriving from belief in and relation to God, or which, 

though not so derived, arises from a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by God among adherents to religious 

faith.′′ That is a subjective standard. Wouldn’t you agree? 

Ms. NIX. Yes. 

Chairman MANZULLO. So you disagree with his decision as to 

when life begins— 

Ms. NIX. No, I don’t disagree with his position. I just said I am 

not taking a position on behalf of the Governor. 

Chairman MANZULLO. I understand. The Governor disagrees 

when life begins. But it is the pharmacist’s conscience that has to 

be protected, isn’t that correct? 

Ms. NIX. The pharmacy, if you are a pharmacy in the business 

of providing prescription drugs, our rule applies to you and says 

you need to figure out a way to get it. If you would like to have 

another pharmacist come in and do it, that is fine. 

Chairman MANZULLO. What if it is a doctor in a small town, and 

someone goes to that doctor for an abortion? The conscience act applies, doesn’t it? 

Ms. NIX. Right. That is correct. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Should it be any different for a pharmacist 

who believes that abortion is wrong? 

Ms. NIX. See, the pharmacist isn’t allowed to prescribe an 

abortificant, only contraceptives, and that is what the rule applies 

to. 

Chairman MANZULLO. That means you have made the decision. 

Ms. NIX. I haven’t made a decision. I am just relying on the Food 

and Drug Administration’s classification of contraceptives. 

Chairman MANZULLO. I understand that. The issue here is what 

goes on in his mind as a sincerely held belief, such as a conscientious objector. There are people that objected to us going into World 

War II when we were invaded. The issue wasn’t whether or not 

their objection was well-founded in fact or theology, but it is what 

was entertained within their own mind, and that is protection of 

the individual’s conscience. I think that is what he is trying to say. 

Wouldn’t you agree, Mr. Vander Bleek? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. I would. 

Chairman MANZULLO. I am out of time here. We can do a second 

round. 

Ms. Velazquez? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Vander Bleek, you say that you disagree 

with the decision of the Supreme Court that upheld the right to obVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:27 Jul 29, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\22612.TXT MIKE
27

tain birth control without interference. But the problem that I have 

is, or maybe you can help me understand, why is it that it is hard 

for some people to understand that you should make money off of 

one type of birth control for women and yet refuse to sell another, 

particularly in light of the fact that the American Medical Association says that there is no distinction? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. Well, I think it is important to know that 

regular birth control is very different than emergency contraceptive, as I was not able to enter into Ms. Sanchez’s discussion. But 

regular birth control pills are taken daily as directed by the manufacturer to be taken to stimulate gonadotropin hormone blocking 

and to stop ovulation and to stop fertilization and the creation of 

a new human being. Emergency contraceptive has only one FDA 

indication, to be taken after unprotected sex or contraceptive failure. 

My question and the unanswered scientific question is, what 

happens to the potential of a live human embryo when the woman 

is doing these large blasts of hormones? Now, could it work as a 

contraceptive? Sure. But could it also work as abortifacient? Who 

knows? It hasn’t been studied, and it has no concern to those who 

are studying the product. It has concern to me. 

So with regard to how much money I might make on contraceptives, I will submit that I make precious little, if any. But in the 

case of the two products being grouped together for the politics of 

promoting abortion and stuffing it down the throats of the pharmacy owner, I object to that, too. 

Also at issue here, that hasn’t been mentioned, I don’t want to 

take too much of your time, Ms. Velazquez, but the idea of pregnancy and the definition of a contraceptive and that pregnancy 

doesn’t begin until a live human embryo embeds into the woman’s 

uterus is preposterous in thinking that is the only time when that 

embryo has any value to the rest of us. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Congresswoman Musgrave. 

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I noted in your testimony, Mr. Patton, where you spoke of women 

driving long distances from urban areas to go to a rather remote 

pharmacy to try to obtain Plan B prescriptions. 

Can you envision a way, with this kind of rule coming down, and 

Federal legislation pending, that pharmacists, if you will, will be 

targeted because they had a moral objection to filling these prescriptions? 

Mr. PATTON. Absolutely. It is happening already. 

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. I would like Mr. Vander Bleek to respond to 

that also, please. 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. Well, I kind of didn’t understand the question the way Mr. Patton did. Could you mention it again? 

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Certainly. I would be happy to. 

In his testimony, he alluded to the fact that women who wanted 

to have a Plan B, if you will, prescription filled, would be in an 

urban area, but yet drive out to a remote pharmacy, if you will, to 

get the prescription filled or to ask that it be filled. 

I was just wondering if you thought individuals, as yourself for 

instance, could be targeted in this kind of a situation? 

28

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. Well, I believe that there might be individuals that would want to target me, but I would also like to submit 

that people that know me and know my family in the communities 

that we serve don’t really have any interest in pushing this issue. 

We dealt with 15,000 different individual patients in our pharmacies last year. The product has been on the market for 2 years. 

We only had two requests for the product. Both were handled confidentially and the patients had absolutely no complaint with our 

service. So I don’t think there is a big demand or, either, a big 

issue on it, other than the Governor’s order. 

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. When you have a rule or if you have Federal 

legislation pending now, it could become a big issue to you. 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. It is a big issue right now in the State of 

Illinois alone, absolutely. 

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Exactly. 

In regard to pharmacists humiliating a person that comes in, 

could you respond to that, please? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. I don’t support that at all. In fact, if I really 

were to investigate the concerns that the other witness had here 

and if I really found that the pharmacist had intent to humiliate 

and was trying to humiliate the patient, I would discharge them 

from my staff. I don’t think that is appropriate in any case in a 

pharmacy. 

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. How important is privacy? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. Well, we are federally regulated and mandated to keep the patient’s health information completely private, 

and we comply with all those laws and regulations, in addition to 

more that we have in our own policies. 

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Thank you, Mr. Vander Bleek. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Mr. Patton, if I may ask you a couple of questions. In your testimony, you claim that a number of pharmacists in Illinois are rethinking their practice and some are considering moving out of the 

State. Do you know of any pharmacist that has either moved out 

of Illinois or plans to do so within the next year because of the Governor’s order that we are talking about today? 

Mr. PATTON. No, I don’t have any specifics. But part of it will 

also be predicated upon the final ruling that will be promulgated 

before JCAR. This is information that has been provided to me; 

and as a matter of fact, even Mr. Vander Bleek I believe on CNN 

News referenced the fact that that might be an alternative he has 

to face. 

One of the other pharmacists, actually two of the pharmacists, 

have another lawsuit against the Governor. They are down in the 

Metro East area of St. Louis. She said she feels that is her only 

alternative to be able to continue practicing her profession, is to 

move out of State. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me follow up on that. Perhaps one of the reasons that pharmacists are not actually moving out—is it because 

the order provides for some reasonable alternatives for pharmacists 

who may object to dispensing emergency contraceptives? 

29

There are alternatives that we discussed here today. Is that a 

mitigating factor to this exodus that you are predicting? 

Mr. PATTON. I don’t believe it is at this point because, again, as 

Ms. Nix has said, the rule as it is being promulgated requires the 

pharmacy to comply with the law which—therein the pharmacy, 

whoever it may be, is going to be dependent upon the pharmacist 

to be compliant with that. If the pharmacist chooses not to, then 

they are going to be caught between a rock and a hard place, between jeopardizing the potential for the pharmacy to be in noncompliance with the rule. 

That is part of the problem, the fact that the pharmacist who has 

the personal beliefs are going to ultimately be held accountable for 

the actions and therein possibly the discipline for the pharmacy. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. If I may, Ms. Nix, how does that accommodate 

those alternatives, how does that accommodate that pharmacist? 

Ms. NIX. Our intent in having the rule apply to the pharmacy is, 

in many instances there is more than one pharmacist on staff. So 

if in the course of business the pharmacy has figured out that they 

have one pharmacist that is uncomfortable with some prescription 

filling, they can make sure that there is someone on call to come 

in and do it. They can also ask—if the patient prefers, they can 

just get their prescription back and go somewhere else. 

What we want to make clear is, in many of these instances, these 

prescriptions can be for all kinds of things. At the JCAR hearing 

there was a case of a doctor prescribing emergency contraceptives 

to stop extremely heavy hemorrhaging. A woman, basically her life 

was at risk, and she was able to get the prescription in that case. 

We have focused a lot today on the birth control aspect of it, but 

a lot of these contraceptive drugs are used for other things, and in 

some cases an emergency contraceptive is used for other things, 

and those decisions are known between the woman and her doctor. 

We just want to make sure when she goes to a pharmacy, she is 

able to get her prescription filled. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. One last question, if I may, Mr. Patton, following 

up on the last point. Do you believe that a woman whose doctor 

prescribed birth control for medical reasons, other than to prevent 

pregnancy, for example, an ovarian cyst, should they also be denied 

medical care that their physician determined they need? 

Mr. PATTON. No, they should not be denied medical care, by all 

means. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Or the prescription to be dispensed? 

Mr. PATTON. I understand. I was going to finish. 

But, you know, you can’t usurp the right and moral conscience 

of the pharmacist at the same time. There again I believe it would 

be a personal belief. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. The premise we are talking about is pregnancy—

for a second, let’s say that—and the reason for the prescription is 

not to prevent pregnancy, but to deal with a very critical and perhaps emergency health situation. You would still agree that that 

denial is okay? 

Mr. PATTON. As an association, there have been several references to the position of the AMA, and as of June of this year, the 

AMA supports the right of conscience for pharmacists to be able to 

step away from dispensing the medication. So it seems to me there 

30

has been some premise that the AMA supports the issuance of the 

contraceptives, but they too respect the right of conscience, and it 

specifically states that in their resolution. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Based on your answer, that would extend to vaccines that were developed where the development was aided by the 

use of, let’s say, fetal tissue? 

Mr. PATTON. I don’t have a position on that, sir. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to make a little announcement to the committee. As I 

walked out of my office I saw a little sign on my press secretary’s 

desk that says ′′former embryo.′′ we do have an interest in the lives 

of embryos, and in fact we have had at least 81 ′′snowflake babies′′ that have been frozen for up to 9 years that are now walking and 

talking and laughing and loving. And I have held three of them in 

my arms, and they are real, and I support the comments made by 

Mr. Vander Bleek with regard to that. 

But I turn to the testimony of Megan Kelly. Ms. Kelly, just a couple of issues. And I wanted to be gentle with you, because I know 

that you are in a territory you are probably not very comfortable 

with today. 

But I see that in your testimony you said a pharmacist’s personal 

views do not belong in my health care. I think by now we have established that they are religious views on the part of the pharmacist as opposed to personal views. Would you concede that point? 

Ms. KELLY. No. 

Mr. KING. Okay, then I won’t debate that with you. I think that 

is clear, at least to me and most of this panel, that certainly Mr. 

Vander Bleek has some strongly held religious beliefs; and I think 

it fits well within the conscience clause of the Illinois code. 

But I turn to another point, and I quote from your written testimony. ′′as a consumer, I have a right to walk into any pharmacy 

in America and expect to have my prescription filled without unnecessary delays or discrimination.′′

I would argue, at the time of that incident, it was not a right, 

but maybe a perception; there was that kind of a right as a consumer. That is one of the things about being a business person in 

business, that you have a right to run your business. There are 

rights that go with that, and if we impose government mandates 

on business of all kinds, whether it is this pharmacy issue here 

today, or whether it is—whether a carpenter can use a power nail 

gun as opposed to a hammer, any time we impose regulations, we 

are taking rights away from the entrepreneurs in this country. 

When we do that, we diminish the numbers of them, their profitability and their motivation for being part of this economy, with 

small business creating 80 percent of the new jobs in America. 

So I am very, very sensitive to new regulations being put upon 

people that are in business; and this right to walk into a pharmacy, 

I think, at that time was an erroneous assumption. But I would 

point out—and I think is implied here, if not clearly said—that an 

individual who was serving you, if they had used the kind of demeanor that is insisted upon by Mr. Vander Bleek, this would not 

have been an issue. Is that correct? 

Ms. KELLY. No, she was very polite. 

31

Mr. KING. Really. So it was the point that she didn’t deliver the 

Plan B for you upon request? 

Ms. KELLY. Correct. And my birth control. 

Mr. KING. And you said, ′′I was shocked. I figured it had to be 

illegal.′′ Ms. KELLY. Yes. 

Mr. KING. I am astonished by that. But I am not going to belabor 

the point. 

I will say this then: You can take this same philosophy and you 

can extrapolate this on point after point after point. Anyone who 

can establish the political power and the leverage to move forward 

with this kind of philosophy and set aside a conscience protection, 

however it might have been contrived within the law and the rule, 

then you could also set aside, not just religious freedom, but many 

other beliefs as well. 

You could require bookstores to carry pornography; you could require all retail establishments in Illinois to carry Lotto cards and 

any other kind of gambling equipment there is; you could require 

anyone who sold soft drinks to also sell alcohol; you could require 

the pharmacist to sell euthanasia /suicide drugs; you could require 

doctors to perform abortions, all under this same philosophy. 

So I see this progression of society, and I back myself up to being 

a young man who believed that we had freedoms that were in this 

institution, they were guaranteed to us and our birthright as Americans and an inherited right of people who attain citizenship here 

through legal means, to be protected in that, protected in our property rights, in our rights to conscience, in our rights to freedom of 

speech and assembly and religion and press; and this is a diminishment of those rights. And to hold the pharmacies responsible and 

require them to provide something that goes beyond their conscience, whether it is a pharmacy or a pharmacist, I think is a distinction without a difference. 

So I would go back to the conscience protection that is there and 

pose the question, Ms. Nix, does this set aside Illinois’ conscience 

protection clause? 

Ms. NIX. I need to preface this by saying I am not an expert on 

the Illinois Health Care Conscience Act. It does not clearly cover 

pharmacists or pharmacies and there has been some attempt, I 

think, as Mike has mentioned, to have that covered. That is not the 

case right now. 

Mr. KING. Excuse me. Do you then take exception with any of 

this progression in the diminishment of rights that I have used 

with regard to bookstore pornography, Lotto cards, alcohol, suicide 

or doctors performing abortions? Where would your governor draw 

the line? 

Ms. NIX. Well, pharmacies are in the business of providing prescription drugs. I would say that a retail store that sells soft drinks 

is not in the business of providing alcohol, so there is a difference. 

Class 1 retail pharmacies put themselves out there, they advertise 

that they fill prescriptions; and we are just saying if you advertise 

you fill prescriptions, you should fill the prescription. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Ms. Sanchez. 

32

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Kelly, let’s assume a hypothetical for a moment and let’s assume that the emergency contraceptive that you were prescribed 

legally by your doctor was to prevent hemorrhaging. How do you 

think it would have put your health at risk if you would have had 

these delays in terms of trying to seek out a pharmacy that would 

provide that medication for you? 

Ms. KELLY. It would have greatly put my health at risk. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Ms. MacLean, in certain situations it is appropriate to place restrictions on businesses if there is a clear public 

policy purpose, including efforts by the FDA to ensure, for example, 

that pharmacies don’t sell unsafe drugs, or requiring that businesses comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act or even requiring farmers to avoid using certain pesticides. 

If the State of Illinois has determined that this is an important 

health issue, isn’t it acceptable that they require pharmacies to dispense these drugs, and if the pharmacist chooses not to, the State 

does offer them alternatives? 

Ms. MACLEAN. I am not as familiar with your particular law, but 

it does look to me like they do provide alternatives. 

I talked about systems. That is what APJ believes. I mean, our 

policy supports it, a two-item policy, and we do believe in systems. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. You stated in your earlier testimony that you believe in balance. 

Ms. MACLEAN. I do believe in balance. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Would you agree that some of the proposed 

changes being made to the Blagojevich order would accommodate 

some of these concerns that you discussed in your testimony? I am 

talking specifically about including accommodations that allow the 

pharmacist to have time to stock the drug or seeking another pharmacist to fill the order. 

Does it appear to you that there are at least some alternatives 

and some balance that is being maintained, or trying to be maintained? 

Ms. MACLEAN. I don’t believe the pharmacy needs one more restriction or one more regulation. I think the business needs to be 

able to do what it does best, and that is care for patients. 

Yes, we have talked a lot about drugs, we have talked a lot about 

prescriptions, but truly what a pharmacist does is care for patients; 

and if a pharmacist must step away because of a conscience clause, 

that pharmacist still has the obligation to ensure that a woman 

gets what she needs. 

What I can tell you is, that is what I see day in and day out. 

Whether it is because we don’t have this particular expensive drug 

on the shelf, if it is emergent, and that patient needs a drug, I can 

call five pharmacies and transfer the prescription. I can ensure I 

have taken care of that patient. 

If it is not emergent, you mentioned a 72-hour window, recent research shows that we can actually dispense emergency contraception for up to 120 hours. If it is not emergent, we can decide on 

what the best route is. 

But truly, pharmacists take care of patients. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. So if I am understanding your testimony correctly, 

you are saying that the regulation, even though it provides alterVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:27 Jul 29, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\22612.TXT MIKE
33

natives for pharmacies, that you are opposed to it because it is a 

regulation, despite the fact that there may be significant public policy interest towards making sure that women have access to getting their legally written prescriptions filled. 

Ms. MACLEAN. See, I don’t believe that. Right now, women are 

being taken care of. The public policy supports that pharmacists 

are taking care of patients and providing access, which is one of 

the reasons that pharmacists all over the United States are really 

trying to look to the legislative arena for the support to be able to 

expand Pharmacy Practice Acts all throughout the United States, 

to be able to operate with a corroborative practice agreement. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I am not sure that I have gotten an answer to that 

question, but I would like to move on to Ms. Nix. 

Ms. Nix, do you believe that the proposed changes to the order 

offer pharmacies alternatives and offer them ways to accommodate 

women who walk in with legally written prescriptions, so that they 

receive the medicines that they and their doctors have decided are 

necessary for their health and well-being? 

Ms. NIX. Yes, we believe that is the case. 

I think earlier someone mentioned about having to keep certain 

things in stock and things like that, that the rule does not require 

that. It just says if you don’t have something in stock, you get it 

in the normal course of reordering. So I think it tries to strike the 

right balance between making sure that a woman’s health care 

needs are met and the pharmacy’s practice of dispensing the drugs. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Ms. Nix, does the physician have a legal 

obligation to prescribe Plan B? Can you force a physician— 

Ms. NIX. No, I believe you cannot. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Why should it be any different than a 

pharmacist being forced to dispense it? 

Ms. NIX. The physician and woman decide what is best in her 

health care. So if the physician decides Plan B is not the way to 

go because of the woman’s health, then— 

Chairman MANZULLO. What if he decides Plan B is not the way 

to go because of a conscience clause? 

Ms. NIX. I know that there are some physicians in Illinois that 

don’t prescribe oral contraceptives at all because that is their belief, and that if the pharmacist had that belief, they don’t have to 

carry contraceptives either. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Let me be very specific. We are only talking about Plan B here. 

Ms. NIX. See, the problem is that we are not pharmacology experts. We are relying on the Food and Drug Administration for 

that. 

Chairman MANZULLO. That is the problem. That is the problem, 

is there is a rule being made here where there is a lack of knowledge here— 

Ms. NIX. We are relying on the Food and Drug Administration. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Let me finish. 

There is a lack of knowledge going on. The FDA is about as clear 

as mud. No one understands what that organization is doing. I am 

being very frank with you. 

34

The issue here is this: Under Illinois law, under the Health Care 

Right of Conscience Act, can a physician be forced to prescribe Plan 

B? 

Ms. NIX. No. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Because of the doctor’s conscientious belief; is that correct? 

Ms. NIX. That is correct. 

Chairman MANZULLO. You would apply a different standard to 

pharmacists who would be forced to dispense it; isn’t that correct? 

Ms. NIX. No, because we are not forcing—the rule applies to a 

pharmacy. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Let’s talk about that. 

Mr. Patton, in the State of Illinois, how many pharmacies have 

one pharmacist? 

Mr. PATTON. I can’t speak specifically, but the vast majority of 

the small, independent pharmacies, aside from the chain stores, 

they will oftentimes have one pharmacist. 

Chairman MANZULLO. How many chain stores are there in Morrison, Illinois? 

Mr. PATTON. I can’t speak to that. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Mr. Vander Bleek, how many pharmacies 

in Morrison, Illinois? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. There is one pharmacy in Morrison, Illinois. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Would you, Ms. Nix, entertain the thought 

that you would exempt these sole proprietors? I mean, they can’t 

rely on anybody else within their own store. 

Ms. NIX. If they have a moral conscience objection to contraceptives, that is fine. 

Chairman MANZULLO. No, I am talking about Plan B. 

Ms. NIX. But the problem is that FDA categorizes Plan B as— 

Chairman MANZULLO. No, I am talking about what is in his 

mind. 

Ms. NIX. Plan B is monthly pills, just in a different dosage. 

Chairman MANZULLO. You have made the decision to determine 

the conscience, whether or not the moral conscience of every pharmacist in the State of Illinois should agree with your statement, because you are saying that he cannot invoke the conscience clause 

of the Health Care Right of Conscience Act in order to keep from 

dispensing that particular drug. 

Ms. NIX. Pharmacists are not specifically included in that act. 

Chairman MANZULLO. I would take note of that, Mr. Patton, and 

I would take note of the record that pharmacists are not included 

in the Right of Conscience Act. 

Ms. NIX. They have offered amendments. 

Chairman MANZULLO. I would suggest you better do more than 

that because what you are going to see is, you are going to see the 

collapse of small-town pharmacies. This is a Small Business Committee. 

Mr. PATTON. That is part of the reason I am here, sir. 

Chairman MANZULLO. That is one of the reasons we are here. 

With all due respect, I don’t think you understand that pharmacists equal pharmacies in most pharmacies in the State of Illinois in the rural areas. There is just one person there working in 

35

one store, who doesn’t have associates, who is not part of a bigger 

drugstore. 

You are not protecting that individual’s right of conscience, because you have determined that he cannot invoke the right of conscience based upon a moral belief that this may or may not be an 

abortifacient, and the jury is out as to whether or not it is. 

It is his mind, and it is important, and I think that a pharmacist 

should have the same right not to dispense as a doctor should have 

not to prescribe. It is an individual decision based upon a subjective intent within the mind of that individual. 

Ms. Kelly, you are doing a great job over there. All of you witnesses are doing a great job. Let me have some dialogue here. 

Ms. Nix, Ms. Kelly was referred to another pharmacy that was 

across town. That is St. Charles; is that correct, Ms. Kelly? 

Ms. KELLY. Yes. 

Chairman MANZULLO. And how big is St. Charles, about 30,000 

people? 

Ms. KELLY. Yes. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Then how far was it from the pharmacy 

where you were denied this prescription to the secondary pharmacy? 

Ms. KELLY. Actually, I went to the Jewel-Osco to start out with, 

and that was in St. Charles, and I ended up going to a Walgreen’s 

that was in Geneva, probably like 20 minutes. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. So it was 20 minutes apart. 

So the situation that Ms. Kelly gave would be how the regulation 

would operate; is that correct, Ms. Nix? 

Ms. NIX. In that situation, the Osco should have made sure that 

there was someone on staff that would have filled the prescription 

and could have offered Ms. Kelly the option: We will bring in another pharmacist, they will be in in 10 minutes; or would you prefer to take your prescription and go elsewhere? 

Chairman MANZULLO. You would bring a pharmacist in from another store? 

Ms. NIX. Or another person on the staff. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Referring her to another nearby location 

would not satisfy the requirements of the statute? 

Ms. NIX. If the patient would like that, that would be acceptable. 

That has to be the patient’s choice though. 

Chairman MANZULLO. What this would say is, there has to be a 

pharmacist available to come to the store in order to make the prescription filled, as opposed to asking the customer to go to another 

store that is nearby. 

Ms. NIX. They could ask that patient which she preferred. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Where do you see that in the statute? 

Ms. NIX. It says, at the request of the patient, the prescription 

can be returned at the request of the patient. 

Chairman MANZULLO. So she could have insisted that they bring 

somebody in? 

Ms. NIX. Well, right now her complaint is being investigated by 

the Department of Financial Regulation, so we can’t go into all the 

details. 

36

Chairman MANZULLO. In Mr. Vander Bleek’s case, if somebody 

came to you and said they wanted that prescription, is there anybody you could call in, Mr. Vander Bleek? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. In all my pharmacies, all the pharmacists 

are conscientious objectors. We have an ongoing effort to attempt 

to get pharmacists to come out into our rural areas to work in our 

pharmacies. It is an ongoing recruiting effort. 

We know what Walgreen’s pharmacists in the city of Chicago are 

earning in their last contract because it has been published. They 

have been out on strike. I would like to tell you that our compensation that we are offering young pharmacists is competitive and, indeed, most of the times trumps what Walgreen’s is paying their 

people; and we still can’t get people to come out to the rural area 

to practice pharmacy. 

Chairman MANZULLO. So no one would be available to cover? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. No one is available, and it is not practical. 

It is not practical for business to try to procure these pharmacists. 

Would I not possibly be violating these people’s civil rights by saying to them, You can only be on my staff if you would dispense 

Plan B and you don’t have a religious problem with abortifacients? 

Would I not get myself in some trouble with that as well? 

See, that is the whole thing. How do I procure these pharmacists? How do I make this business run? How do I keep giving 

access to people in the State of Illinois? And if I want to follow the 

rule of the State of Illinois and rid my pharmacies of all contraceptives so that I can be exempted from this rule, what does that do 

to the access to other contraceptives of people out in the rural area 

where I practice? 

All of this talk about having to go somewhere for Plan B, what 

about having to go to somewhere for your regular monthly contraceptive prescription because now my four pharmacies don’t carry 

them? 

Chairman MANZULLO. Ms. Velazquez. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Vander Bleek, would you oppose a requirement that you notify potential customers in advance, perhaps by a sign on your 

front door, or at the pharmacy counter, that the store would not fill 

a prescription so that individuals can decide whether to patronize 

the store or not? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. Generally, I oppose— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yes or no. 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. Generally, I oppose requirements on my 

business and would rather do that in a way that we might— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. So you would support that type of 

provision? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. Yes, but not a requirement. I might do it for 

patient—you know, for their own use. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Do you have a sign in your pharmacies? 

Mr. VANDER BLEEK. No. We are not allowed not to stock the 

product right now. So— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. Nix, would you please clarify that they cannot put a sign in 

their door to say that they will not sell? 

Ms. NIX. Pat, is that right? 

37

Mr. HUGHES. There is no—there is no regulation of their communication to the patients in that regard. There are some minimum 

things that the pharmacy must advertise regarding hours and 

things of that nature. But that kind of extra communication to the 

patient would be in the discretion of the business. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. And if they choose to do it, can they do it? 

Mr. HUGHES. Under Illinois law, nothing would prevent them. 

Yes. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Nothing would prevent. 

Ms. Nix, under the order, if a pharmacy does not sell contraceptives, can they be forced to sell plan B? 

Ms. NIX. No. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. They are not? 

Ms. NIX. No, if they don’t sell contraceptives, they don’t. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Ms. MacLean, I understand that you object to 

the Illinois order because you believe that a voluntary structure 

could better meet the needs of patients without compromising the 

objections of pharmacists. 

However, what would you propose if pharmacists in certain parts 

of the State all choose not to participate? What options will that 

leave a patient? 

Ms. MACLEAN. Well, I think that entails having a system that is 

proactive in place already, and so the pharmacists need to talk 

with the primary care providers, whether it is a physician or a 

nurse practitioner or a PAC to have some kind of a plan or system 

in place. 

Could I just clarify one thing? I can speak to how much small 

business would be impacted if, in fact, we all had to have on-call 

pharmacists. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. But how that proactive plan will handle this 

equation if all—a large part of pharmacists opt out? 

Ms. MACLEAN. Because, for example, my friend in Republic, 

Washington, would have a system in place whereby the nurse practitioner knows that she is not carrying Plan B, and so that would 

be dispensed out of her office, for example. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Ms. Kelly, we have heard from opponents that, 

under the Governor’s order, if the pharmacy chooses to comply by 

not offering any contraceptive, any contraception, they claim that 

it will have the unintended consequence of limiting women’s options, causing them to drive 50 miles or more. 

As a consumer, do you think this is a valid reason for voiding the 

order? 

Ms. KELLY. No, not if people have to travel so far to get the prescription, because more likely than not, they are not going to bother using the prescription. Then where are they? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you. I am going to ask that this 

transcript be typed up as soon as possible and sent to every legislator in the State of Illinois, to the Governor’s office to demonstrate, if anything, that this piece of legislation or proposal is not 

clear, that there are standards here that perhaps are not being met 

for the purpose of trying to maintain these pharmacies in small 

towns. 

38

I represent nine counties, and in six of those counties, the counties are losing population. People are leaving, the pharmacies are 

closing, along with other retail businesses. The last thing that we 

need is to—especially in these very conservative and rural areas in 

America, in Illinois, place upon the pharmacist yet another reason 

to close the shop. We all know what it is like when the local pharmacy closes down. It is one of the most difficult things in the world. 

Let me commend each of the witnesses. None of you has ever testified before Congress before. Your answers are clear, crisp, when 

you didn’t know, you said you didn’t know. When you wanted to 

answer with one word, you did that. You were very generous with 

your time. 

Ms. Kelly, Ms. MacLean, Mr. Patton, Ms. Nix, Mr. Vander Bleek, 

thank you for coming to Washington. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

39


22612.001
40


22612.002
41


22612.003
42


22612.004
43


22612.005
44


22612.006
45


22612.007
46


22612.008
47


22612.009
48


22612.010
49


22612.011
50


22612.012
51


22612.013
52


22612.014
53


22612.015
54


22612.016
55


22612.017
56


22612.018
57


22612.019
58


22612.020
59


22612.021
60


22612.022
61


22612.023
62


22612.024
63


22612.025
64


22612.026
65


22612.027
66


22612.028
67


22612.029
68


22612.030
69


22612.031
70


22612.032
71


22612.033
72


22612.034
73


22612.035
74


22612.036
75


22612.037
76


22612.038
77


22612.039
78


22612.040
79


22612.041
80


22612.042
81


22612.043
82


22612.044
83

Æ


22612.045