An Arizona woman's viral Facebook post about a Walgreens pharmacist refusing to fill her prescription for a drug she needed to induce miscarriage may have some wondering if pharmacists in Texas can do that too.

The answer is yes.

A change to the Texas Pharmacy Act that took effect last year gave state pharmacists "exclusive authority" to determine whether or not to dispense a drug — and they don't have to explain why.

Part of the original intent of House Bill 2561 was to make it easier for pharmacists to refuse to serve patients who might be abusing painkillers. But language added by Rep. Matt Krause of Fort Worth allowed them to refuse to fill prescriptions on moral grounds. Sen. Van Taylor of Plano added exclusive authority, which gives pharmacists the final say.

“I do believe that a pharmacist needs that ability to use clinical judgment,” said Steven Pettit, director of pharmacy operations for North Texas-based Dougherty’s Pharmacy. But like others, he says there’s room for interpretation of the law.

“The various reasons that a pharmacist could apply that judgment is where individuals will disagree on if it is appropriate or not."

While laws in several states have made it easier for hospitals and doctors to object to performing abortions or offering contraception, the debate has been expanding more frequently to pharmacists, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In the Arizona incident, Nicole Mone Arteaga said the pharmacist refused to fill her prescription when she went to a local Walgreens. The pharmacist asked if she was pregnant, according to news reports. She explained that the baby she was carrying did not have a heartbeat and her doctor had given her the prescription for a pregnancy-terminating drug, which she preferred to the alternative, a surgery to remove the fetus.

Arteaga said she left the store crying.

As of 2012, at least six states had laws on the books allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill some kinds of prescriptions due to moral concerns, according to the national legislatures group. It’s unclear if more state laws have been enacted since.

In Texas, the change, which took effect in September, says that, “Notwithstanding any other law, a pharmacist has the exclusive authority to determine whether or not to dispense a drug.”

In Arizona and other states, the law applies specifically to contraceptives. But the Texas law allows pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription of any drug even if the company where they work doesn’t have such a policy.

“The pharmacist now has the exclusive right to determine whether or not they want to dispense prescriptions. They do not have to if they choose not to,” said Allison Benz, executive director of the Texas State Board of Pharmacy, which licenses the state’s pharmacies and their staff, and tracks whether they are in compliance with the law.

That worries health advocates, who fear it can result in a system of legalized discrimination, especially for women, given the already controversial nature of women’s reproductive rights.

What happened in Arizona is a case study in what could go wrong, they said.

“I stood at the mercy of this pharmacist explaining my situation in front of my 7-year-old, and five customers standing behind only to be denied because of his ethical beliefs,” said Arteaga in the Facebook message that has been shared by more than 37,000 people since she posted it Friday. She was able to get the pills from another Walgreens.

The pharmacy chain later apologized and tweeted its policy. It said store policy allows a moral objection in order to respect “sincerely held beliefs.” Walgreens pharmacists are required to transfer the prescription to another pharmacist in a timely manner. The chain said it is looking into how the case was handled.

Arizona state Sen. John Kavanagh, a Republican who co-sponsored the 2009 law that includes the refusal clause, told Bloomberg on Tuesday he was surprised that Arteaga wasn't more sympathetic with the pharmacist.

“What’s the problem?” he said. “She got what she wanted. The pharmacist complied with the law. I don’t see why she doesn’t respect the pharmacist’s right to not do this.”

But such policies can leave a patient feeling “publicly shamed” said Kelli Garcia, director of reproductive justice initiatives for the National Women’s Law Center. It also can delay access to medically necessary care.

“From the patient’s perspective, we expect providers to put our care first and make decisions based on what’s medically needed,” she said.

“When providers are able to use their religious and moral beliefs to make decisions about health care, they are using those beliefs to determine what care people need. And that is really troubling to me.”