Without Conscience: A Critique of Pharmacist Refusal Clause Rhetoric Item Type text; Electronic Thesis Authors Silleck, Jennette Lynn Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 26/09/2021 13:53:26 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/193267 1 WITHOUT CONSCIENCE: A CRITIQUE OF PHARMACIST REFUSAL CLAUSE RHETORIC by Jennette Silleck _____________________ Copyright © Jennette Silleck 2008 A Document Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN’S STUDIES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2008 2 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This document has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this document are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the copyright holder. SIGNED: __Jennette Lynn Silleck_____________________ APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below: _____________________________________________ 4-14-08_____ Adam Geary Date Assistant Professor of Women’s Studies 3 Acknowledgements I would first and foremost like to thank my thesis committee Adam Geary, Laura Briggs, and Jennifer Nye. Without their help, knowledge, instruction, and encouragement, my thesis would be nothing. As my thesis chair, I want to acknowledge Adam Geary for the time he put into my thesis, his patience, and his ability to inspire my writing. He has truly helped make my thesis a reality. When I first started my thesis project, I envisioned interviewing students within the University of Arizona Doctor of Pharmacy program. I was denied access to the program by the dean and my entire thesis came to a screeching halt. Depressed and discouraged, I realized I needed to start over from scratch. Jennifer Croissant helped me get back on track and aided in the development of my thesis. I could not thank her enough for that extra push. Liz Kennedy and Arianne Burford are also deserving of an acknowledgement for the support they have given me during my experience in graduate school both professionally and personally. They are truly student-centered professors and have each and every student’s best interest at heart. I would also like to acknowledge the Women’s Studies Advisory Council for their generous financial contributions to both the 2007 and 2008 NWSA conferences where I presented chunks of my thesis. Finally, I want to thank my Women’s Studies graduate cohort for being a group of amazing people. Through both the good times and rough patches, they have proven to always be there for me and each other no matter what. I could not have asked for a better cohort and am truly thankful to be able to share this experience with them. 4 Table of Contents Abstract................................................................................................................................5 Prologue: My Own Introduction to Rhetorical Strategies………………………………6 Introduction………………………………………………………………………….……9 Chapter 1: Political Rhetoric……………………………………………………...….…20 Chapter 2: Scientific Rhetoric……..……………………………………………………40 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….59 Epilogue……………………………………………………………………………….…69 Works Cited........................................................................................................................70 5 Abstract The thesis analyzes the political and scientific rhetoric used to enact pharmacist refusal clauses. I examine how refusal clauses are rhetorically framed in politics as well as the “scientific” rhetoric advocates use to generate support for these laws. Additionally, I highlight the consequences these clauses have for women. Chapter one focuses on the political discourse of refusal clauses. I develop an analysis of the phrase “conscience” versus “refusal” clause. I expose how pharmacists and refusal clause advocates make discrimination claims using Cindy Patton as a theoretical framework. Finally, I examine “refusal narratives” from women who have been denied contraceptives by pharmacists. The second chapter analyzes “scientific” rhetorical strategies. Refusal clause advocates rhetorically reclassify contraceptives as an abortion method. I will discuss how this strategy of reclassification has wide implications on public policy. In the conclusion I present the negative consequences refusal clauses have on women. 6 PROLOGUE: MY OWN INTRODUCTION TO RHETORICAL STRATEGIES One evening in the fall of 2006, during my first week of graduate school at the University of Arizona, I sat down at my computer to check my e-mail and found the most misogynistic letter I have ever read waiting for me in my inbox. I had just moved to Tucson and was attempting to acclimate to a new city while simultaneously dedicating myself to a heavy course load full of complicated feminist theory. All too quickly, the excitement and passion I felt for what I was studying came to a crashing halt thanks to just one email. As an undergraduate at Ohio University, I wrote my senior thesis on refusal clauses and how these laws negatively affected women. Before moving across the country, I ran into an old family friend. I told her I was entering a Masters program in Women’s Studies and that I was going to focus on reproductive rights. She expressed an interest in my undergraduate paper and asked me to email it to her. I could not have known that she would promptly forward my paper on to a priest living in the heart of the Bible belt, asking him to give me the moral guidance I obviously lacked. I felt tricked, humiliated, and infuriated by her actions. Moreover, I was shocked by the Priest’s response. He introduced himself (I will refer to him as Priest X in my thesis to protect his identity), apologized for his “coarseness,” and assured me his intentions were not to offend me as a researcher. He claimed he was responding “in [his] own style and at [his] own cost in time and effort,” to my discourse and not to me as a person. He then wrote that he hoped his words would inspire me to “guide” my research in the “right direction,” blessed me in my “search for the truth,” and proceeded to rhetorically rip my paper apart. 7 This was my unsympathetic introduction to pro-refusal clause discourse and rhetoric. Priest X pulled out all the stops (both basic and sophisticated): using the term “conscience” as opposed to “refusal;” calling potential fetuses “innocent human beings;” minimizing the effects of refusal clauses on women as mere “inconveniences;” stereotyping the women who use emergency contraception as “drunks” and “sorority girls” who “banged the local frat rat;” equating forced pharmaceutical participation to WWII concentration camps; reclassifying contraceptives as abortifacients; providing quasi-scientific studies and clearly biased sources such as Priests For Life. All this, of course, was not without patronizing personal attacks (which I should point out Priest X promised not to do in his introduction) to “Grow the hell up!” “Use your brain and get a clue!” and irrational claims that the reason I want to be financially independent is because my parents do not love me enough to provide for me economically. Many of the strategies Priest X used are not limited to his own personal strategic tool kit but are instead representative of a broader framework of discourse, borrowed by refusal clause advocates from the well established and politically powerful anti-abortion movement. More specifically, he does not stand alone in his denouncement of women’s reproductive rights nor is he unaided in his argument that places white, middle class, and (mostly) male pharmacists as a minority in need of human rights and laws to protect them. In a way, my thesis is a direct response to Priest X’s email. In his introduction, he asked “if I offend you please let it inspire you to research what I’m saying.” And this is exactly what my thesis does. I have researched what he says as well as the way in which 8 he says it, and why he is saying it. My thesis analyzes and exposes the refusal clause proponents’ discourse and rhetorical strategies. 9 INTRODUCTION In this thesis I analyze the political and scientific rhetoric used to enact pharmacist refusal clauses. I examine how refusal clauses are rhetorically framed in politics as well as the “scientific” rhetoric advocates use to generate support for these laws. I also explain what is at stake when refusal clauses are enacted into law and highlight the consequences these clauses have for women and their reproductive rights. Pharmacist refusal clauses differ from state to state but generally they lawfully enable pharmacists to refuse to dispense medication (prescription or non-prescription)1. Many various forms of refusal clauses have been proposed differing in specifics but they typically target contraceptives and RU-486.2 Essentially, pharmacist refusal clauses attempt to protect pharmacists from legal liability and disciplinary, discriminatory,