Lawyers for Kansas abortion providers are getting ready to challenge a new Kansas law requiring clinics to ask women about why they are seeking an abortion.
They signaled during a recent status conference in Johnson County District Court that they expect to amend a lawsuit seeking to throw out the state’s Women’s Right to Know law, which puts in place various restrictions on abortion.
The law, including a 24-hour waiting period, has already been temporarily blocked while the case is litigated in district court.
A trial that had been set for next month has already been pushed back until February 2025.
Meanwhile, lawyers for the abortion providers have already indicated that they plan to amend their lawsuit to include the new abortion reporting requirement approved by the Legislature over the veto of the governor.
“The decision to have an abortion is deeply personal — no one should be forced to tell the government why they are making that decision,” said Alice Wang, staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights.
“It’s frankly frightening that the state of Kansas is attempting to collect this type of private information, and unclear how it will be used,” Wang said in an email Tuesday.
“We are committed to protecting the privacy and constitutional rights of Kansans and intend to challenge this harmful restriction in court.”
The lawsuit could be amended by next week.
The bill requires abortion clinics to ask women to pick the most important factor out of 11 reasons why they are seeking the procedure.
The bill requires women to be asked – they don’t have to answer – whether having a baby would interfere with their education, employment or career.
Other questions include whether the woman’s husband or partner wants the patient to have an abortion and whether the husband or partner is abusive.
Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed the bill, saying there was no “valid reason to force a woman to disclose to the legislature why she is seeking an abortion.”
Kelly alluded to the vote on the failed constitutional amendment that would have removed the right to an abortion from the state constitution.
“Voters do not want politicians getting between doctors and their patient by interfering in private medical decisions,” Kelly said.
The Senate voted 27-10 to override the governor’s veto. It was overridden in the House on an 84-41 vote.
The bill is set to take effect after it’s published in the statute book, which is July 1.
Supporters of the bill said it was necessary because it would help lawmakers find ways to support pregnant women and understand how abortion is affecting them.
They said the data is needed to develop policies and programs that address the needs of pregnant women in Kansas.
They pointed to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights think tank, to make the case for why data collection could be helpful.
“We’re never surprised by the hypocrisy of the abortion industry as their preferred think tanks ask these same questions of women,” said Danielle Underwood, spokesperson for Kansans for Life.
“On top of this, for years they have claimed pro-lifers are not doing enough to address the social circumstances surrounding abortion, yet now want to fight any attempts to do just that,” Underwood said in an email.
As a physician, Republican state Rep. Ron Bryce of Coffeyville said on the House floor that the questions weren’t outside the type of question that could be asked during a routine doctor’s visit.
“These questions do serve a purpose. They provide data on the underlying factors that drive young women into these difficult situations.
“These data help us as legislators address the difficulties and help us to focus resources toward the underlying factors rather than just assumptions.”
The lawsuit challenging the Women’s Right to Know law is predicated on a 2019 state Supreme Court ruling that found the state constitution protects the right to an abortion.
They brought the challenge after the law was amended in 2023 when the Legislature approved a bill requiring physicians to notify women that their drug-induced abortion can be reversed.
The lawyers for abortion providers argued the law violates the constitutional right to bodily autonomy and it should be held to a higher legal standard.
They said the law needs to meet a strict scrutiny standard, meaning there must be a compelling state interest and that the statute must be drawn up in a way that’s narrowly tailored to meet that standard.
Johnson Count District Judge Christopher Jayaram issued a temporary injunction preventing the state from enforcing broad sections of the Women’s Right to Know law, which was first enacted in 1997 and has been amended six times since.
In a 92-page ruling, Jayaram found that parts of the law in question would violate the state constitutional right to bodily autonomy and the abortion providers’ right to free speech under the state constitution as well.
