During Christine Gregoire's lackluster campaign for governor in 2004, the Democratic Partyâaware that Gregoire wasn't giving Democrats any meaty reasons to vote for herâresorted to badmouthing Gregoire's opponent, Dino Rossi. The Democrats rightly painted Rossi as a social conservative who opposed blue-state litmus tests like abortion rights. And so Gregoire, despite running as a cipher, eked out a victory based on who she's not. But it turns out she's not who she's not.
With social conservatives launching a massive assault on women's rights in Olympia, Gregoire is nowhere to be found. For more than a month, the Washington State Board of Pharmacy has been considering rules that may allow pharmacists the right to refuse to fill prescriptions for moral reasons, such as opposition to Plan B ["Bitter Pill," April 13.] (These are known as "refusal" clauses by women's rights groups and "conscience" clauses by religious conservatives.)
After second-guessing its original April 21 draft, which had prohibited pharmacists from refusing to fill prescriptions because of personal beliefs, new board language introduced last week, may now produce rules that will err on the side of protecting pharmacists' feelings over protecting women's health and privacy.
According to Steven Saxe, executive director of the pharmacy board, the working draft rules had originally only allowed pharmacists to back out of filling a prescription for medical reasons such as "therapeutic contraindications" (meaning a prescription would lead to a bad drug interaction). However, Saxe says that at the most recent hearing on May 2, board member Donna Dockter reintroduced language into the equation that would "provide for more options or opportunities for a pharmacist not to fill a prescription for reasons other than medical objections." According to Amy Luftig, deputy policy director for Planned Parenthood of Washington, Dockter spent the majority of the meeting expressing her strong opposition to a pharmacist's duty to fill lawful prescriptions and advocated for new language that would permit a pharmacist to refuse a patient and refer them somewhere else.
The board is now trying to reconcile Dockter's language with the original languageâwhich alarms women's rights groups. "What's alarming is that [the new language] elevates personal concerns of the pharmacist over the patient's care," says Nancy Sapiro, senior legal and legislative counsel for the Northwest Women's Law Center.
Since Gregoire doesn't have a record of standing up for Democratic values (her disappearing act on I-912, last year's gas-tax repeal, comes to mind), advocates like Sapiro, shouldn't waste any time appealing to Gregoire's conscience to get her to emulate leaders like Illinois's Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich. (Last year, Blagojevich used his bully pulpit to convince his state rules board to draft rules guaranteeing a woman's right to prescription contraceptives with "no delays, no hassles, no lecture.") Knowing Gregoire, I'd suggest advocates appeal to her focus-group sensibility instead.
No polling has been done on the pharmacy- board question in Washington State, but Illinois isn't a bad test case. While Illinois (population 12 million) is twice as big as Washington (population 6 million), the two states have similar political leanings. Illinois has two Democratic senators and a Democratic governor. So does Washington. Illinois voted for Kerry 55 to 44. Washington went for Kerry 53 to 46. Illinois has ten Democrats in Congress and nine Republicans. Washington has six Democrats and three Republicans. Blagojevich reportedly decided to act after he saw the following polling: In Illinois, 66 percent were opposed to rules that would allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception. (Only 26 percent favored "refusal" or "conscience" clauses). And 79 percent of independents polled were opposed. In short, timid Gregoire can rest assured that in a blue state, this one's a no-brainer.
Gregoire's policy adviser, Christina Hulet, says the governor made her position "very clear to the board." It's true that in a January 18 letter to the board, Gregoire said, "It would be inappropriate for pharmacists to... deny prescriptions based on their personal objections." However, Gregoire has not spoken out since, nor addressed the public on the issue. Hulet says "the governor is concerned" about the new language that would "allow pharmacists the right to refuse on personal grounds." And while the governor has no plan to stump on the issue, Hulet says the governor has authorized Hulet to testify at the next pharmacy board hearing to make Gregoire's position clear.
If only someone, a pollster, or whomever Gregoire listens to, would authorize Gregoire to make her position clear. 
