The findings cite reports in Alabama of pharmacists refusing contraception. If enacted, pharmacies in Alabama that stock contraception would have to provide in-stock products without delay, offer transfer/referral or expedited ordering when out of stock, and avoid intimidation or privacy threats—while still allowing refusals for no prescription, inability to pay, or professional clinical judgment.
Arizona is named in the findings as a state with reported refusals. If enacted, pharmacies that stock contraception would need to dispense without delay and provide quick options when out of stock, with penalties and private lawsuits for violations, but the bill still allows refusal without a valid prescription (when required), inability to pay, or professional clinical judgment.
California is listed in the findings as having reports of refusals. The bill would set a federal baseline and explicitly allows stronger state protections to remain in place, so California could keep any stricter rules while pharmacies also comply with the new federal duties and enforcement exposure.
The District of Columbia is named in the findings as a place with reported refusals. If enacted, pharmacies that stock contraception in DC would have federal duties to dispense without delay, offer transfer/referral or expedited ordering when out of stock, and protect customers from harassment and privacy threats, with penalties and lawsuits for violations.
Georgia is cited in the findings for reported refusals. The bill would require pharmacies that stock contraception to provide it without delay when in stock and to offer quick transfer/referral or expedited ordering when out of stock, backed by penalties and private lawsuits, while keeping common refusal reasons (no prescription, can’t pay, clinical judgment).
Illinois is listed in the findings as having reports of refusals. If enacted, pharmacies that stock contraception would need to dispense without delay and provide quick options when out of stock, and Illinois could keep stronger customer protections because the bill does not override tougher state rules.
Louisiana is named in the findings as a state with reported refusals. The bill would create enforceable duties for pharmacies that stock contraception, including no-delay dispensing for in-stock products and quick transfer/referral or expedited ordering when out of stock, plus penalties and private lawsuits for violations.
Massachusetts is listed in the findings as a state with reported refusals. If enacted, pharmacies that stock contraception would have federal duties to avoid delaying or obstructing access and to protect privacy; Massachusetts could still enforce stronger protections under state law if they exist.
Michigan is named in the findings for reported refusals. The bill would require pharmacies that stock contraception to provide in-stock products without delay, offer transfer/referral or expedited ordering when out of stock, and avoid harassment or privacy threats, with penalties and private lawsuits for violations.
Minnesota is cited in the findings as a state with reported refusals. If enacted, pharmacies that stock contraception would be required to dispense without delay and give quick alternatives when out of stock, and Minnesota could keep any stronger state-level customer protections.
