It was close. When Democratic Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed a contentious abortion “reversal” bill that had been passed overwhelmingly by the Republican super-majority in both houses of the state legislature, the party leadership figured an override would be a slam dunk. But they didn’t count on losing one Republican and four Democrats who had voted for the bill but would not oppose the governor’s veto. That left them a single vote short of the 84 needed in the House to defeat that veto of the reversal procedure that is disputed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other physicians.
It was the second victory in a week for reproductive rights advocates in Kansas. On April 25, in a stunning decision in the case of Hodes & Nauser MDs, PA, et al. v. Derek Schmidt et al., the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution recognizes the right to abortion, regardless of federal law. The court stated in response to SB 95, a 2015 Kansas law that banned dilation and evacuation (D and E), the most common form and safest second-trimester abortion procedure, which is recommended by the World Health Organization:
“Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights provides: ‘All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' We are now asked: Is this declaration of rights more than an idealized aspiration? And, if so, do the substantive rights include a woman’s right to make decisions about her body, including the decision whether to continue her pregnancy? We answer these questions, ‘Yes.’”
That decision likely will have repercussions for other abortion restrictions that may be proposed or already be on the books in the state.
The failed override means that abortion clinics and doctors will not be required, as Senate Bill 67 commanded, to provide women with written and verbal information about the highly disputed technique for supposedly “reversing” pill-induced abortions. Medication abortions account for 61% of the Kansas total, according to the state health service. Had the bill been enacted into law with the governor’s signature, the penalty for failure to comply with its provisions would have been a $10,000 fine. On a second violation, a physician or operator of a health facility could be charged with a felony.
A woman seeking a medication abortion is prescribed mifepristone—also known as RU486—to stop the growth of the fetus. Within 48 hours, a second drug, misoprostol, is taken to terminate the pregnancy. A woman who changed her mind after taking RU486 would not take the second pill and also receive high doses of progesterone, which has been used to help women avoid miscarriages. This so-called “reversal” technique was pioneered by Dr. George Delgado, the operator of one of those lying, so-called “crisis pregnancy centers,” Culture of Life Family Services in San Diego, California.
Tim Carpenter at the Topeka Capital-Journal reports:
Sen. Barbara Bollier, a Mission Hills Democrat and retired physician, said practicing physicians had a right to make decisions about patient care based on science. Demands placed on the medical profession by the bill aren’t grounded in rigorous scientific research, she said.
“If we start directing what physicians say or are required to tell patients, particularly in an arena when there is no scientific backing for that said statement, we are going into very dangerous territory,” Bollier said. “That is an egregious infringement on the practice of medicine by this body.”
Infringement though it be, unproven and untested though it be, in eight other states the Republican governors have signed such “reversal” bills into law, one of them just last week in Oklahoma.