New York Assembly Bill A07230

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/21/25
• Refer: 3/21/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Establishes duties for pharmacies when pharmacists employed by such pharmacy refuse to fill prescriptions on the basis of personal beliefs; requires a pharmacy to ensure the prescription is filled by another pharmacist; requires the pharmacy to inform individuals of items not in stock; requires such items to be ordered by another pharmacist without delay; sets forth penalty provisions.

Summary

A07230 would add a new section to the Education Law governing pharmacy duties when an employed pharmacist refuses to fill a valid prescription because of personal beliefs. The bill states legislative findings that religious liberty is protected, but that such beliefs cannot impede access to legal prescriptions, including contraception. If a product is in stock and one pharmacist refuses to fill it, the pharmacy must ensure another pharmacist fills the prescription without delay, subject to the customer’s consent in situations where the customer knows of the refusal. If the product is not in stock, the pharmacy must immediately tell the customer that the item is unavailable but may be ordered, and, with the customer’s consent, ensure another pharmacist orders it without delay. The bill also prohibits pharmacies from employing pharmacists who engage in conduct intended to deter a customer from obtaining a valid prescription, including refusing to return the prescription, refusing a lawful transfer, humiliating or harassing the customer, or breaching confidentiality. It clarifies that pharmacies are not required to keep every product in stock, and it limits the ordering requirement to products the pharmacy otherwise handles for the relevant health condition.

Impact

The bill would create a new statutory duty for pharmacies in New York to provide a functional path to fill valid prescriptions when an individual pharmacist objects on personal-belief grounds. It would also expose pharmacies to civil penalties of up to $5,000 per day of violation, capped at $500,000 in a single proceeding, and would allow aggrieved individuals to sue for actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees. The measure would likely affect pharmacy operations, staffing practices, prescription-handling procedures, and compliance policies, especially in contexts involving contraception and other medications that may trigger conscience-based refusals.

Sentiment

The bill’s framing suggests strong support for patient access to lawful prescriptions and a clear intent to limit the practical effect of pharmacist refusals. The available context does not include committee debate or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of organized support or opposition in the legislative record provided. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to address a perceived access problem and to affirm that pharmacies must ensure continuity of service despite individual objections.

Contention

The main point of contention is the balance between religious or moral objections by pharmacists and the patient’s right to obtain a lawful prescription without delay. Supporters would likely emphasize access to contraception and other medications, while opponents may argue that the bill intrudes on conscience rights and imposes liability on pharmacies for employee conduct. Another likely issue is the bill’s requirement that pharmacies not employ pharmacists who engage in conduct intended to deter access, which could be viewed as a strong regulatory mandate affecting hiring, workplace policy, and professional autonomy.