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.