OU May Find Itself in Plan B Debate Soon

Since its approval by the FDA in 1998 Plan B, more commonly known as the ‘morning after pill’, has been a controversial topic—seeing several courtrooms and legislative attempts to ban or restrict it as recently as 2004. Women on the OU campus seeking the pill may run into some controversy of their own since some pharmacists at the Goddard Health Center on campus refuse to dispense any form of Plan B to students.

Oklahoma state laws protect pharmacists’ right to refuse to fill prescriptions; as a result women seeking to protect against pregnancy may find it difficult to get a hold of the pill. Plan B must me taken within 72 hours of intercourse to have the best chance at preventing pregnancy.

The pill—which prevents ovulation, fertilization and the implanting of an egg in the uteran wall—contains a higher dosage of the same hormones found in birth control pills and is 89% effective in preventing pregnancies.

“I have heard that there are pharmacists at Goddard that will refuse to give Plan B, I have it on pretty good authority that they do invoke the conscious clause,” said Stephanie Heck, sponsor of the Center for Social Justice here at OU. “Often students don’t have the means or knowledge of surrounding areas to go elsewhere for their medical needs. They’re kept on campus, they need to be able to see doctors and pharmacists here, which is why we have a health care center on campus. So it can be really harmful to students— especially female students when we’re talking about Plan B.”

Goddard denied having any pharmacists who invoke the Conscience Clause and maintained that as long as students met the state required legal age of 18, and carried a prescription, it would be filled.

Oklahoma is one of 45 states that require a prescription for Plan B, however under the Conscience Clause, an amendment added onto the Oklahoma House Bill 2054, which was passed in 2005, pharmacists have the right to refuse to dispense the drug if it violates their moral or religious beliefs.

Problems arise when women with limited resources, such as college girls without a car or women from very rural areas, cannot obtain the pill and therefore may be forced to deal with an unplanned pregnancy because the pill was withheld from them.
According to a study by the Oklahoma Child Advocacy Institute released in Sept. 2010, Oklahoma is ranked the fifth state with the highest teen pregnancy rate. Amongst 18 and 19 year olds it has the second highest pregnancy rate, following closely behind Mississippi.

“I worry about women in rural communities,” says Kathy Moxely, a representative for OU’s Women’s Outreach Center. “There may be one pharmacist, there may be one option only and if that person decides that they’re not comfortable, what does that do for those community members who need that service?”

Advocates of restricting Plan B oppose it not only because it is, according to right to life groups such as Americans United for Life, a form of abortion, but also because they argue it will increases the risk of promiscuity and unsafe sex practices among teens.

However, two separate studies—one reported by The New York Times in 2004, the other by USA Today in 2005—showed that sex habits of teenagers did not change after the introduction of emergency contraceptives like Plan B.

Both studies, which were published by The Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology and The Journal of the American Medical Association respectively, concluded that teenagers were no more likely to participate in risky sexual behavior or abandon birth control practices than before the FDA’s approval of Plan B. These studies have since been used by advocates who move to make Plan B an over the counter drug, in hopes of making it more accessible to people who have need, but little means of getting it.

In June of 2005 The New York Times also reported on an Illinois pharmacist who was suing the state for his right to refuse to dispense Plan B because it violated his religious beliefs. Pharmacist Luke Vander Bleek refused to even stock his pharmacies with emergency contraceptives, which violated an order passed by the Illinois governor at the time.

Similarly a nurse was suing Eastern Illinois University at the same time, claiming she was denied a promotion at the university because of her opposition to filling emergency contraceptive prescriptions. In both cases the plaintiffs argued that their right to refuse on an ethical basis was no less than a patients right to a prescription.

“ I feel like if you’re going into the medical field to serve others, you shouldn’t let your own bias get in the way of that,” says Junior Pre-Medical student Christine Ariana. “ I think it’s a little ridiculous that we have all the health care measures available, and they’re not available to everyone.”

The debate over availability of emergency contraception on college campuses is not a new one. In early 2004 the United States Senate killed legislation that moved to prohibit the distribution of emergency contraceptives at state funded universities and colleges. The legislation was narrowly passed by the House of Representatives, but the Senate’s Education and Health Committee soundly struck it down 10-4.

The Washington Times attributed Virginia Delegate Robert G. Marshall- R as the legislation’s front-runner, who had pushed similar legislation since 1994 and vowed to continue to do so as long as he was in politics—a promise he has stuck to as recently as 2007.

Julia Earhardt, a Women’s and Gender Studies professor at the University of Oklahoma, who heard about the issue from a student in her class, said she was enraged to hear that some Goddard Pharmacists were refusing to fill Plan B prescriptions.
“As students, you may a student health fee and the pharmacists at Goddard are supposed to fill your prescriptions,” Erhardt said. “I think that when a doctor writes a young woman a prescription, it is a pharmacist’s responsibility to fill that prescription, no questions asked.”

The debate stems as far back as 1991, when the University of Florida fired one of its pharmacist for refusing to fill a student’s prescription for an emergency contraceptive. Though emergency contraception had not yet received its official blessing from the FDA at the time, it was considered a legal drug. According to the St. Petersburg Times, after attempting multiple compromises with the pharmacist the university finally let him go because the students come first.

Then President John Lombardi was quoted by the Times as saying “the perspective is whether the student is getting reasonable service from the pharmacy. Reasonableness is showing up with a legal prescription and getting it filled in a reasonable time. If the person looking at you from across the counter has a religious problem with filling it, that’s his problem. He does not have the right to impose his religion on you.”

This heated topic has been a sore spot in politics for sometime now, and does not appear to be going away anytime soon. Though OU’s health services claims to put the students before the clause, only time can test that. Eventually OU— and many other universities— may be faced with similar situations to the University of Florida, as legislation continually battles to find a common ground.

“I personally I feel that laws like [the Conscience Clause] are unethical,” Heck says. “I don’t know that it if I were patient who had made a decision with my doctor that a medicine was necessary for me, I don’t know that I would appreciate a pharmacist standing in the way and saying that they felt morally opposed to any medicine that I was choosing to take.”

Students seeking alternative places to obtain emergency contraception may have more success at Planned Parenthood, whose Norman location is 2100 W. Lindsey St. They house another location in Oklahoma City at 619 NW 23rd Street. For more information on hours, costs and services visit www.ppcok.org or call them at (405)-360-1556

To hear more of what Professor Julia Erhardt and Women’s Outreach Center representative Kathy Moxely have to say; as well as further insight from Pre-Med student Christine Ariana , who is also a student employee at the Goddard Health Center, check out the clip below:

Practice Video

Protesting Military Funerals Becomes a First Amendment Debate

On Wednesday Oct. 6, 2010 the Supreme Court began the first hearings in Snyder v. Phelps. The case will determine whether or not protesting a military funeral is protected by the First Amendment. This case has attracted huge publicity around the nation because it will set a precedent for future rulings of this nature.

The case was originally argued in a civil court, according to a PBS article, by Albert Snyder. Snyder's son, a U.S. Marine, was killed in combat in 2006. After the Westboro Baptist Church protested his son's funeral and condemned him and his son on their website, Snyder successfully sued them for 11 million dollars. He contended that they had intentionally cause him sever emotional distress.

The ruling was overturned by a Federal Appeals Court who argued that the actions of the Phelps family-- the primary make-up of Westboro Baptist Church-- was protected by the First Amendment. Many people, such as renowned CBS writer/anchor Bob Scheifer, are torn between this ruling because the topic is so emotionally charged: they don't want their freedom of speech infringed, but believe there must be exceptions. This is the argument OU junior Adam Endres makes.

"I think it's like going into a movie theatre and yelling 'fire!'-- you can't do it. So therefore there has to be other exemptions where the freedom of speech doesn't apply, and I think that this should be one of them," says Endres, a junior in the Army ROTC Officer Program here at OU. "People have died for our country and they should be given their final respects, and not have their families go through the hardship of having people there to protest their sacrifice for their country."

Endres does say he is on the fence about the issue because while he bases that argument emotionally, politically he has to concede that it is their right under the First Amendment to protest and express themselves. Endres' sentiments have been echoed by Gov. Deval Patrick-Dof Massachusetts, and the topic has been brought up in several campaign debates. To follow the story visit www.cbs.com.

Junior Army ROTC Officer Program student Adam Endres

To hear more of what Endres had to say listen to the clip below.

Colbert's Congressional Testimony: Mockery or Advocacy?

Sept. 24, 2010 renowned comedian and TV personality Stephen Colbert, of Comedy Central’s ‘The Colbert Report’, appeared before a House Judiciary subcommittee to testify on immigration reform and the conditions of migrant workers.

Colbert was invited to testify by subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren. His presence was almost immediately contested by Rep. John Conyers-D, who initially asked for Colbert to simply submit a statement and leave before the hearing started. This request was withdrawn after strong groans from the hearing’s audience, according to one ABC News account.

Last summer, Colbert was one of 16 people who participated in the UFW “Take Our Jobs” campaign, where he took the place of an immigrant worker on a farm for one day. His presence was a heated topic amongst both parties. Rep. Jason Chaffetz-R shared Conyers sentiments, alluding to the hearing as ‘fake’ according to a CBS News report. Others such as Nancy Pelosi-D welcomed Lofgren’s invitation to the Comedy Central host.

“It’s difficult to say why Congress invited Colbert to testify,” said political science junior Madison Niederhauser. “These people in mainstream media do use politics for comedic effect, but it does educate people. I think in Congress’ mind, if they got someone like Colbert to testify rather than some senator, they would get more viewers and therefore more notoriety for the issues.”

Madison Niederhauser reads articles over Colbert’s recent testimony

While the comedic forum of shows like Colbert’s serve as a launch pad for issues, they’re satire can be dangerous if people misinterpret it Niederhauser said. To watch clips from the hearing visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwIL3Tr3N9Y