logo
Assembly passes bipartisan health care bills including letting pharmacists prescribe birth control

Assembly passes bipartisan health care bills including letting pharmacists prescribe birth control

Yahoo14-05-2025
The bill passed 87-10 with only Republican lawmakers voting against. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)
The Wisconsin State Assembly, in a departure from prior floor debates this session, passed several widely bipartisan bills related to health care, including one to exempt direct primary care services from insurance laws and another to allow pharmacist to prescribe birth control.
AB 43 would allow pharmacists to prescribe certain birth control, including the pill and contraceptive patches, to patients 18 and older as a way of making it easier to access. Currently, Wisconsin patients have to make an appointment with a doctor or advanced practice nurse and answer a mandatory list of questions regarding their health before a doctor could prescribe birth control. Once a physician determines it safe, patients can take a prescription to a pharmacy to be filled.
Under the bill, pharmacists would have to give patients a self-assessment questionnaire and do blood pressure screening. If there are any 'red flags,' then a pharmacist would need to refer patients to see a physician.
Rep. Joel Kitchens (R-Sturgeon Bay) said during a press conference ahead of the session that the process included in the bill is 'much more rigorous' than when women get birth control online. He said it would also help women with family planning, noting that about half of pregnancies in Wisconsin are unplanned each year.
'These women are unlikely to finish school, and it will severely affect their potential earnings throughout their lives…' Kitchens said. 'Birth control is 99.9% effective when it's used according to directions and regularly. The lack of access is the biggest reason that it sometimes fails. Women will leave home for a couple of days and forget about it, or they can't make an appointment with their doctor, and this bill is going to help with all of that.'
This is the fourth time the Assembly has passed a similar bill. Last session, it passed a Senate committee but it never came for a floor vote.
Kitchens said he thinks there is a 'good chance the Senate will pass it this time.'
Rep. Jessie Rodriguez (R-Oak Creek) said in a statement that the policy 'will increase access to contraceptives, particularly for women who live in rural areas, where many Wisconsinites live closer to their pharmacy than they do to their doctor's office,' and urged her Senate colleagues to take up the bill.
'This is a good bill that will make for greater access to contraception. I have voted for this proposal four sessions in a row. I urge the Senate to follow our lead,' Rodriguez said.
The bill passed 87-10 with only Republican lawmakers voting against.
SB 4 would exempt direct primary care, which is a health care model where patients pay a monthly or annual fee to a physician or practice for access to primary care services, from insurance laws. Advocates have said that clarifying that insurance law doesn't apply to direct primary care doctors would encourage more providers to opt in to this model.
Bill author Rep. Cindi Duchow (R-Town of Delafield) said at a press conference that direct primary care 'is not insurance.'
'It's a private contract you have with the doctor, then you have insurance for something catastrophic — if you need to have surgery or you have a heart attack, you have insurance to cover that — but this is just for your everyday needs, and it's more one-on-one, and you have more personal experiences with the doctors,' Duchow said.
Rep. Robyn Vining (D-Wauwatosa) expressed concerns about the bill, noting that it is missing nondiscrimination language and that she would be voting against it.
'[This] is getting us nowhere helpful,' Vining said.
The nondiscrimination language, Vining referenced, was in relation to prohibiting discrimination on the basis of 'gender identity.' Conservative organizations had lobbied against the bill last session due to the inclusion of that language and it never received a vote in the Senate.
Vining expressed concerns that Evers might veto the bill without the nondiscrimination language.
Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) said she had similar concerns but would be voting for it.
'I think it is a good bill, and it does something that is important, but I do it knowing that I wish the bill could be stronger,' Subeck said.
The Assembly concurred in SB 4 in a voice vote. The Senate passed the bill in March, and it will now head to Evers' desk.
Lawmakers also concurred in SB 14, a bill to require written informed consent from a patient when a hospital performs a pelvic examination for educational purposes on a patient while the patient is under general anesthesia or otherwise unconscious. The bill was advocated for by Sarah Wright, a teacher who was subjected to a nonconsensual pelvic exam while she was undergoing abdominal surgery in Madison in 2009.
Subeck said it is a 'horrifying' story that Wright has shared every legislative session.
'[Wright] was unconscious. There was no medical need for a pelvic exam and medical students were brought in to do public exams in order to learn the procedure because it's easy as to learn on an unconscious individual,' Subeck said. 'This is tantamount to sexual assault. This is not giving consent. This is assuming consent from somebody who is unconscious.'
Subeck noted in a statement that lawmakers have been working on the legislation for over a decade.
'It has taken far too long, but we are finally honoring her bravery by putting an end to this disturbing and unethical practice,' Subeck said in a statement. 'Patients entrust medical professionals with their care at their most vulnerable moments. That trust must never be violated. Performing a medically unnecessary and invasive exam without consent is not only a breach of ethics — it is a violation that can feel indistinguishable from sexual assault.'
Rep. Joy Goeben (R-Hobart) noted that one study found that over 80% of medical students at major training hospitals reported performing pelvic exams on anaesthetized patients, but only 17% said that the patients were informed, while nearly half reported that the patients were rarely or never explicitly told so.
'I am really thankful for the bipartisan support,' Goeben said.
Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) said in a statement ahead of the session that the bills were a sign that lawmakers could work across partisan lines, but said they could do more.
'It is possible to come together to pass good, bipartisan bills that will move our state forward — but we know that there is so much work left to be done,' Neubauer said. 'Just last week, Republicans on the Joint Finance Committee cut proposals by [Evers] that would have lowered costs for working families and cut taxes for the majority of Wisconsinites. Removing these critical proposals from consideration and preventing future discussion is ridiculous, and on top of this, the GOP has refused to have public hearings, let alone votes, on popular and bipartisan legislation that would move our state forward.'
Ahead of the floor session, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) told reporters that work on the budget is on hold until legislative leaders meet in person with Evers. Republican lawmakers are seeking a tax cut in the budget.
'Our preferred option [is] to be able to get an agreed upon tax cut so that we know we have X dollars to invest in schools and health care and all the other things that are important,' Vos said. 'It's pretty hard for us to move forward… I think we're kind of on pause until we hear back from Gov. Evers.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Senate heads into recess as Trump tells Schumer to 'go to hell'
Senate heads into recess as Trump tells Schumer to 'go to hell'

UPI

time12 minutes ago

  • UPI

Senate heads into recess as Trump tells Schumer to 'go to hell'

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, speaks at a press conference calling on the administration to release the Epstein files in the U.S. Capitol building last week. File Photo by Annabelle Gordon/UPI | License Photo Aug. 3 (UPI) -- The U.S. Senate began its month‑long recess Saturday night amid negotiations to advance the nomination of dozens of Donald Trump's pending nominees, as the president told Sen. Chuck Schumer to "go to hell" when the talks collapsed. Trump, in a post to his Truth Social platform on Saturday, had wanted the Senate to stay in session but accused Schumer of "political extortion" for allegedly demanding a billion dollars in funding in order to approve dozens of his remaining "highly qualified nominees" for appointment to the administration. A source familiar with Schumer's alleged demands told Axios that Schumer wants the White House to release withheld federal funding in exchange for passing a small batch of the nominees. "Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL!" Trump said in his post. "Do not accept the offer, go home and explain to your constituents what bad people the Democrats are, and what a great job the Republicans are doing, and have done, for our country." Schumer later shared Trump's post and quipped, "The Art of the Deal." He later added that Trump had "attempted to steamroll" the Senate into approving his "historically unqualified nominees." But the standoff has led Senate Republicans to express support for the possibility that Trump use recess appointments, a controversial constitutional mechanism that allows the president to "temporarily" fill vacant positions when the Senate is in recess. "The Senate should immediately adjourn and let President Trump use recess appointments to enact the agenda 77M Americans voted for," Sen. Roger Marshall posted on Saturday. Senate Republicans also indicated they might pursue a change to Senate rules after they return from recess to make it easier to pass through confirmations. Sen. Markwayne Mullin told Fox News that lawmakers would be moving forward with a rule change in September.

Trump's tariffs are making money. That may make them hard to quit.
Trump's tariffs are making money. That may make them hard to quit.

Boston Globe

time41 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Trump's tariffs are making money. That may make them hard to quit.

Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'The good news is that Tariffs are bringing Billions of Dollars into the USA!' Trump said on social media shortly after a weak jobs report showed signs of strain in the labor market. Advertisement Over time, analysts expect that the tariffs, if left in place, could be worth more than $2 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade. Economists overwhelmingly hope that doesn't happen and the United States abandons the new trade barriers. But some acknowledge that such a substantial stream of revenue could end up being hard to quit. Advertisement 'I think this is addictive,' said Joao Gomes, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. 'I think a source of revenue is very hard to turn away from when the debt and deficit are what they are.' The Port of Baltimore on June 30, 2025. ALYSSA SCHUKAR/NYT Trump has long fantasized about replacing taxes on income with tariffs. He often refers fondly to American fiscal policy in the late 19th century, when there was no income tax and the government relied on tariffs, citing that as a model for the future. And while income and payroll taxes remain by far the most important sources of government revenue, the combination of Trump's tariffs and the latest Republican tax cut does, on the margin, move the United States away from taxing earnings and toward taxing goods. Such a shift is expected to be regressive, meaning that rich Americans will fare better than poorer Americans under the change. That's because cutting taxes on income does, in general, provide the biggest benefit to richer Americans who earn the most income. The recent Republican cut to income taxes and the social safety net is perhaps the most regressive piece of major legislation in decades. Placing new taxes on imported products, however, is expected to raise the cost of everyday goods. Lower-income Americans spend more of their earnings on those more expensive goods, meaning the tariffs amount to a larger tax increase for them compared with richer Americans. Tariffs have begun to bleed into consumer prices, with many companies saying they will have to start raising prices as a result of added costs. And analysts expect the tariffs to weigh on the performance of the economy overall, which in turn could reduce the amount of traditional income tax revenue the government collects every year. Advertisement 'Is there a better way to raise that amount of revenue? The economic answer is: Yes, there is a better way, there are more efficient ways,' said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and a former Biden administration official. 'But it's really a political question.' Workers welded steel components together at a Thomas Built Buses plant in High Point, N.C., on July 21, 2025. TRAVIS DOVE/NYT Tedeschi said that future leaders in Washington, whether Republican or Democrat, may be hesitant to roll back the tariffs if that would mean a further addition to the federal debt load, which is already raising alarms on Wall Street. And replacing the tariff revenue with another type of tax increase would require Congress to act, while the tariffs would be a legacy decision made by a previous president. 'Congress may not be excited about taking such a politically risky vote when they didn't have to vote on tariffs in the first place,' Tedeschi said. Some in Washington are already starting to think about how they could spend the tariff revenue. Trump recently floated the possibility of sending Americans a cash rebate for the tariffs, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., recently introduced legislation to send $600 to many Americans. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said last month of the tariffs. Democrats, once they return to power, may face a similar temptation to use the tariff revenue to fund a new social program, especially if raising taxes in Congress proves as challenging as it has in the past. As it is, Democrats have been divided over tariffs. Maintaining the status quo may be an easier political option than changing trade policy. Advertisement 'That's a hefty chunk of change,' Tyson Brody, a Democratic strategist, said of the tariffs. 'The way that Democrats are starting to think about it is not that 'these will be impossible to withdraw.' It's: 'Oh, look, there's now going to be a large pot of money to use and reprogram.'' Of course, the tariffs could prove unpopular, and future elected officials may want to take steps that could lower consumer prices. At the same time, the amount of revenue the tariffs generate could decline over time if companies do, in fact, end up bringing back more of their operations to the United States, reducing the number of goods that face the import tax. 'This is clearly not an efficient way to gather revenue,' said Alex Jacquez, a former Biden official and the chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal group. 'And I don't think it would be a long-term progressive priority as a way to simply collect revenue.' This article originally appeared in

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store