@article{ brushwood_conscientious_1993,
  title = {Conscientious objection and abortifacient drugs},
  volume = {15},
  issn = {0149-2918},
  abstract = {The legal right to assert a conscientious objection is reviewed, using as an example the dispensing of abortifacient drugs by pharmacists. The three areas of law that most significantly concern the right to assert a conscientious refusal are employment law, conscience clauses, and religious discrimination law. Each of these is reviewed, with descriptions of recent cases. It is concluded that employment law protects refusals that are consistent with public policy, but does not permit an employee's personal policy to determine how a business will be run; that conscience clauses appear to provide protection for pharmacists who object to dispensing abortifacients, but that the precise meanings of critical words and phrases in some clauses need to be defined; and that even though laws of religious discrimination require that employers accommodate religious beliefs, they may not protect a pharmacist who objects to dispensing abortifacients if the accommodation becomes unreasonably burdensome.},
  language = {eng},
  number = {1},
  journal = {Clinical therapeutics},
  author = {Brushwood, D B},
  month = {February},
  year = {1993},
  pmid = {8458050},
  keywords = {Abortifacient Agents, Conscience, Contraceptive Agents, Female, Employment, Federal Government, Female, Human Rights, Humans, Pharmacists, Pregnancy, Public Policy, Religion and Medicine},
  pages = {204--212; discussion 168}
}

{"_id":"86fWrhE8ZDRjTKNR5","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Brushwood","B, D."],"bibbaseid":"brushwood-b-conscientiousobjectionandabortifacientdrugs-1993","bibdata":{"abstract":"The legal right to assert a conscientious objection is reviewed, using as an example the dispensing of abortifacient drugs by pharmacists. The three areas of law that most significantly concern the right to assert a conscientious refusal are employment law, conscience clauses, and religious discrimination law. Each of these is reviewed, with descriptions of recent cases. It is concluded that employment law protects refusals that are consistent with public policy, but does not permit an employee's personal policy to determine how a business will be run; that conscience clauses appear to provide protection for pharmacists who object to dispensing abortifacients, but that the precise meanings of critical words and phrases in some clauses need to be defined; and that even though laws of religious discrimination require that employers accommodate religious beliefs, they may not protect a pharmacist who objects to dispensing abortifacients if the accommodation becomes unreasonably burdensome.","author":["Brushwood","B, D"],"author_short":["Brushwood","B, D."],"bibtex":"@article{ brushwood_conscientious_1993,\n title = {Conscientious objection and abortifacient drugs},\n volume = {15},\n issn = {0149-2918},\n abstract = {The legal right to assert a conscientious objection is reviewed, using as an example the dispensing of abortifacient drugs by pharmacists. The three areas of law that most significantly concern the right to assert a conscientious refusal are employment law, conscience clauses, and religious discrimination law. Each of these is reviewed, with descriptions of recent cases. It is concluded that employment law protects refusals that are consistent with public policy, but does not permit an employee's personal policy to determine how a business will be run; that conscience clauses appear to provide protection for pharmacists who object to dispensing abortifacients, but that the precise meanings of critical words and phrases in some clauses need to be defined; and that even though laws of religious discrimination require that employers accommodate religious beliefs, they may not protect a pharmacist who objects to dispensing abortifacients if the accommodation becomes unreasonably burdensome.},\n language = {eng},\n number = {1},\n journal = {Clinical therapeutics},\n author = {Brushwood, D B},\n month = {February},\n year = {1993},\n pmid = {8458050},\n keywords = {Abortifacient Agents, Conscience, Contraceptive Agents, Female, Employment, Federal Government, Female, Human Rights, Humans, Pharmacists, Pregnancy, Public Policy, Religion and Medicine},\n pages = {204--212; discussion 168}\n}","bibtype":"article","id":"brushwood_conscientious_1993","issn":"0149-2918","journal":"Clinical therapeutics","key":"brushwood_conscientious_1993","keywords":"Abortifacient Agents, Conscience, Contraceptive Agents, Female, Employment, Federal Government, Female, Human Rights, Humans, Pharmacists, Pregnancy, Public Policy, Religion and Medicine","language":"eng","month":"February","number":"1","pages":"204--212; discussion 168","pmid":"8458050","title":"Conscientious objection and abortifacient drugs","type":"article","volume":"15","year":"1993","bibbaseid":"brushwood-b-conscientiousobjectionandabortifacientdrugs-1993","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["Abortifacient Agents","Conscience","Contraceptive Agents","Female","Employment","Federal Government","Female","Human Rights","Humans","Pharmacists","Pregnancy","Public Policy","Religion and Medicine"],"downloads":0,"html":""},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://oncourse.iu.edu/access/content/user/jdodell/Public%20Folder/colib.bib","creationDate":"2014-12-11T22:13:23.973Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["abortifacient agents","conscience","contraceptive agents","female","employment","federal government","female","human rights","humans","pharmacists","pregnancy","public policy","religion and medicine"],"search_terms":["conscientious","objection","abortifacient","drugs","brushwood","b"],"title":"Conscientious objection and abortifacient drugs","year":1993,"dataSources":["jzatBN8frdsbSEMvG"]}