• JackFromWisconsin@midwest.socialOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    At face value this seems like the thing that republicans wouldn’t support… that being said the article says that the assembly is “expected to pass a Republican-authored, bipartisan bill”.

    • Brett Hoover@fediscience.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      @JackFromWisconsin @archomrade

      It’s part of a long play to eventually take the decision to administer the pill away from doctors, so it can be legal for individual points-of-contact for accessing the pill to refuse to provide it based on personal religious beliefs. With a critical mass of refusers and no intervention by a doctor, the pill becomes effectively banned in some places.

        • Brett Hoover@fediscience.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          @archomrade The end-game is to take the decision from doctors entirely and give it to someone else. Doctors are far less likely to refuse to prescribe the pill than pharmacists are to refuse to provide it, if they know they have the authority to block its access. It’s easier for all 1-4 pharmacists in a red district to collude than it is to get all doctors in the area to do it. The goal of this kind of legislation is to take that authority from doctors and give it to people willing to gatekeep.

          • Brett Hoover@fediscience.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            @archomrade This is also the strategy that underpins right-wing efforts to make the pill over-the-counter: once doctors aren’t prescribing it the decision to carry it or not rests entirely with the point-of-contact for access. You can effectively build “dry counties” for the pill this way.