Kansas lawmakers consider bills to help women file lawsuits against abortion providers

Brittany Jones, president of Kansas Family Voice, says a proposed bill helps women who did not receive specific information about an abortion before the procedure to sue their doctors without going in front of a medical malpractice board. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)

By Morgan Chilson

Kansas Reflector

TOPEKA — Kansas women who believe they didn’t receive correct information from medical professionals before an abortion will have a streamlined option to take legal action if a proposed bill moves forward.

House Bill 2727, heard Thursday at the House Federal and State Affairs Committee, proposes several changes to the Women’s Right to Know Act, which mandates information women receive before an abortion.

The bill would allow women to shorten proceedings if they file a lawsuit without also filing a medical malpractice complaint. Women would accept limited damages of $5,000.

The bill also allows individuals to bring a civil action against their physician if information about mifepristone isn’t provided as set in the law. Mifepristone is a medication used in combination with other medications to end pregnancies.

House Bill 2729, also heard Thursday, addresses language used by providers to communicate about mifepristone.

Brittany Jones, president of Kansas Family Voice, testified in favor of the bill, saying it gives women the “real means” to enforce the law if their rights are violated. 

“The key provisions of HB 2727 allow women alleging a violation of informed consent requirements to limit her recovery as was explained, and if the plaintiff makes the election, this case does not go through the medical malpractice screening panel, which is often dominated by the very advocates who violated her rights in the first place,” she said.

Jones said under current law, a medical malpractice claim goes through a screening panel, which can be a 180-day process. The panel is made up of doctors who practice in the same arena as the doctor accused of malpractice, she said. 

“Especially in cases of abortion, they’re very typically rejected because of that, as well as attorneys, and it can include lay people,” she said.  

HB 2727 allows the woman filing the claim to elect not to go through the screening panel, speeding up the trial process, Jones said.

Lucrecia Nold, with the Kansas Catholic Conference, testified in favor of HB 2727 because it would allow women who have felt “harmed by the abortion industry” and rarely come forward to sue. 

“They often feel embarrassed, ashamed and feel intimidated with the thought of going up against doctors in the abortion industry,” she said. “Another reason is the financial barrier. So often, the abortion industry preys on the poverty of women.”

The bill would alleviate the burden or fear a woman might have when filing a lawsuit, Nold testified. 

“It streamlines the statutory damages these women acquire due to the lack of information provided to them leading up to or after the time of their abortion,” she said.

Nold referred to a Johnson County trial in which three women said they weren’t given proper information before choosing to abort, and each said they wouldn’t have done so had they been fully informed.

Committee members asked Nold to provide information from the trial when she couldn’t answer specifics about the testimony. 

Opponents to the bill included Mainstream Coalition and Planned Parenthood.

Taylor Morton, legislative affairs and organizing manager with Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes, said her organization opposes HB 2727 because it allows people to file “baseless lawsuits” against abortion providers.

“This bill serves to increase burdens on providers and stigmatize the provision of abortion care, and it does not fix the problems inherent to the Women’s Right to Know Act,” she testified. “House Bill 2727 functions only to intimidate abortion providers with the threat of baseless lawsuits and provides no benefit to patient safety.”

Informed consent is a “cornerstone” of abortion care, Morton said. She also said the bill goes against the will of Kansans, who overwhelmingly voted to support abortion access in August 2022.

HB 2729 also addressed mifepristone and required abortion providers to give a form from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to a woman receiving an abortion at least 24 hours before the procedure. 

In addition, the bill amends a notice required to be posted in free-standing surgical outpatient clinics and other facilities to update information about mifepristone and to refer to KDHE.

Jones and Nold joined Jeanne Gawdun of Kansans for Life in testifying in support of HB 2729. Jones said the bill makes sure abortion providers eliminate ambiguity within their communications to patients by mandating that KDHE provide the forms and set out rules for displayed communications. 

“These amendments ensure that any future speech challenges to the Women’s Right to Know are clear about whose speech is being provided, and that is no way the provider’s speech,” Jones said. “The state of Kansas has every right to communicate truthful, scientifically supported information to women considering abortion.”

Morton testified in opposition, saying restrictions set in place are “designed to shame and stigmatize people seeking abortion care as a means of making abortion less accessible.”

“The ability of patients and providers to have open and truthful conversations about care is a cornerstone of informed consent,” she said. “Providers should not have to provide state mandated misinformation to patients.”

Rep. Clarke Sanders, R-Salina, challenged Morton to identify information that is incorrect.

“Under the Women’s Right to Know Act, the law that this bill amends, providers have to provide medically unfounded information to patients linking risk of premature birth in future pregnancies and breast cancer with abortion, which is again medically unfounded, not based in truth,” Morton said. 

In addition, providers are required to tell patients that an abortion can be reversed, which is a medically inaccurate claim “that can potentially be really dangerous for patients,” she said.

Sanders responded that others would argue the information is accurate.

This article was republished with permission from the Kansas Reflector. The Kansas Reflector is a non-profit online news organization serving Kansas. For more information on the organization, go to its website at www.kansasreflector.com.