Senate hearing: proponents push pharmacy access to prescription contraceptives; opponents cite safety and conscience concerns
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
A Senate committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 42, which would authorize pharmacists to prescribe certain self‑administered hormonal contraceptives, including oral contraceptive pills and the patch, to people 18 and older after a self‑screening questionnaire and blood‑pressure check.
The bill’s sponsors and medical proponents said the measure would expand access and reduce unintended pregnancies, noting that 30 states and Washington, D.C., have enacted similar laws. Senator Rachel Cabral Guevara and Representative Kitchens described evidence showing a substantial portion of unintended pregnancies are associated with lack of consistent contraceptive access and said pharmacist prescribing is an evidence‑based way to reduce those barriers.
“Pharmacists are uniquely positioned to provide these services within community pharmacies,” said Marina Mays, a faculty member at a school of pharmacy and a primary‑care pharmacist. Mays noted that 99.7 percent of Wisconsinites live within 30 minutes of a pharmacy and described studies showing strong agreement between patient self‑screening and clinician evaluation for contraindications.
The bill requires pharmacists to use a self‑screening questionnaire developed with guidance from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, perform a blood‑pressure screening, and report the prescription to the patient’s primary health care provider. Participation by pharmacists is voluntary, and the bill includes a requirement that pharmacists who prescribe carry malpractice liability insurance.
Opponents included the Wisconsin Catholic Conference and Pro Life Wisconsin. Tia Itzia of the Wisconsin Catholic Conference said pharmacists lack the comprehensive diagnostic relationship and access to medical records that physicians have and raised a list of potential health risks she said require ongoing evaluation by a doctor. “Hormonal contraceptives are potent drugs that have been shown to increase the risk of serious diseases,” she said in testimony submitted to the committee.
Matt Sandy of Pro Life Wisconsin told the committee he and his organization oppose the bill on moral grounds and argued that many hormonal methods can act, in some cases, after fertilization by altering the uterine lining and preventing implantation — a mechanism he characterized as abortifacient. He cited medical literature and urged the committee to oppose broader access.
Supporters pushed back on claims of increased clinical risk, citing guidance from ACOG and the Centers for Disease Control that screening for many contraceptives requires no physical exam beyond blood‑pressure measurement, and that pregnancy itself carries higher thromboembolism risk than most contraceptives. Several speakers noted Oregon’s experience after passage of similar law: a published analysis estimated reduced unintended pregnancies and taxpayer savings in the first two years.
Committee members asked whether the malpractice requirement is mandatory and how the bill protects pharmacists’ conscience rights; sponsors said pharmacists’ participation is voluntary and the bill includes insurance requirements for participating pharmacists but raised concerns about corporate pressures that could arise.
The committee did not take a final vote during the hearing.
Ending: The hearing gathered medical, legal and ethical testimony on access and safety; lawmakers signaled further consideration of liability and conscience protections before final action.
The bill’s sponsors and medical proponents said the measure would expand access and reduce unintended pregnancies, noting that 30 states and Washington, D.C., have enacted similar laws. Senator Rachel Cabral Guevara and Representative Kitchens described evidence showing a substantial portion of unintended pregnancies are associated with lack of consistent contraceptive access and said pharmacist prescribing is an evidence‑based way to reduce those barriers.
“Pharmacists are uniquely positioned to provide these services within community pharmacies,” said Marina Mays, a faculty member at a school of pharmacy and a primary‑care pharmacist. Mays noted that 99.7 percent of Wisconsinites live within 30 minutes of a pharmacy and described studies showing strong agreement between patient self‑screening and clinician evaluation for contraindications.
The bill requires pharmacists to use a self‑screening questionnaire developed with guidance from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, perform a blood‑pressure screening, and report the prescription to the patient’s primary health care provider. Participation by pharmacists is voluntary, and the bill includes a requirement that pharmacists who prescribe carry malpractice liability insurance.
Opponents included the Wisconsin Catholic Conference and Pro Life Wisconsin. Tia Itzia of the Wisconsin Catholic Conference said pharmacists lack the comprehensive diagnostic relationship and access to medical records that physicians have and raised a list of potential health risks she said require ongoing evaluation by a doctor. “Hormonal contraceptives are potent drugs that have been shown to increase the risk of serious diseases,” she said in testimony submitted to the committee.
Matt Sandy of Pro Life Wisconsin told the committee he and his organization oppose the bill on moral grounds and argued that many hormonal methods can act, in some cases, after fertilization by altering the uterine lining and preventing implantation — a mechanism he characterized as abortifacient. He cited medical literature and urged the committee to oppose broader access.
Supporters pushed back on claims of increased clinical risk, citing guidance from ACOG and the Centers for Disease Control that screening for many contraceptives requires no physical exam beyond blood‑pressure measurement, and that pregnancy itself carries higher thromboembolism risk than most contraceptives. Several speakers noted Oregon’s experience after passage of similar law: a published analysis estimated reduced unintended pregnancies and taxpayer savings in the first two years.
Committee members asked whether the malpractice requirement is mandatory and how the bill protects pharmacists’ conscience rights; sponsors said pharmacists’ participation is voluntary and the bill includes insurance requirements for participating pharmacists but raised concerns about corporate pressures that could arise.
The committee did not take a final vote during the hearing.
Ending: The hearing gathered medical, legal and ethical testimony on access and safety; lawmakers signaled further consideration of liability and conscience protections before final action.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting