Find Bill
Find Your Legislator
Legislative Deadlines
Dec. 13, 2022
RSS Feed Permanent URL -A +A

Minutes for SCR1613 - Committee on Judiciary

Short Title

Amending the bill of rights of the constitution of the state of Kansas to reserve to the people the right to regulate abortion through their elected state representatives and senators.

Minutes Content for Tue, Jan 21, 2020

The hearing for SCR1613 and HCR5019 was held concurrently with the House Federal and State Affairs Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing the same testimony at the same time.

Jason Long gave a presentation on SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that the amendment to the Kansas Constitution would explicitly state that there is no constitutional right to abortion and reserving to the people the ability to regulate abortion through the elected members of the legislature of the State of Kansas. (Attachment 1)

Proponent Testimony

Jeff Chaney testified as a proponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that the intent is to return state law to the way it was prior to the Kansas Supreme Court decision in Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt. This will make it clear that the Kansas Constitution does not independently secure a right to abortion nor does it independently require government funding of abortion.(Attachment 2)

Elizabeth Kirk testified as a proponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that the standard of judicial review adopted in Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt is so rigorous that it is likely to unsettle existing abortion law in Kansas and to result in a legal landscape for abortion in Kansas that is more permissive than either the current federal standard or the original federal standard established by Roe.v. Wade.(Attachment 3).

Brittany Jones testified as a proponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that the new interpretation of the state constitution could put present regulations at risk, such as the following: a woman's right to know and waiting periods; parental notification; clinic licensing and forced government funding of abortion. These are practical safety features that could be at risk if the amendment does not restore the way things have been.(Attachment 4).

Jonathan Scrafford testified as a proponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that it should be the right of the people of Kansas to determine the state's position on abortion. (Attachment 5).

Lisa Gilbert testified as a proponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining the need for informed medical care for pregnant teens that includes parental guidance and mental health care. (Attachment 6).

Jacque Pfeifer testified as a proponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that without parental notification and consent our state will face inconsistent laws regarding the governing of youth. She also testified that minors are not ready to make long-term decisions for themselves due to their developmental stages. We should not promote quick answers to serious decisions that will impact them for the rest of their lives. (Attachment 7).

Catherine Powers testified as a proponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining the new interpretation of the constitution would allow female adolescents to consent to a procedure such as abortion without a parent or guardian's consent. This goes against existing rules of informed consent and does not consider the physical, emotional or psychological health of the young mother who does not have her support system around her. (Attachment 8).

Ann Marie Alvey testified as a proponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining the long term mental health results of abortion (regret; guilt; shame) that can manifest years after the event,and explained that she wants to be able to vote on an issue that impacts all women in Kansas. (Attachment 9)

Danette testified as a proponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining her own experience with abortion and expressing a desire to put this amendment in front of Kansans to vote on for themselves. (Attachment 10).

Jeanette Pryor testified as a proponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that the Kansas Catholic Conference representing four Bishops and Dioceses of Kansas oppose the Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt.decision and they want to see that Kansas voters have the opportunity to reverse this decision.(Attachment 11).

Jeanne Gawdun testified as a proponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that abortion facilities are not well regulated and that valuable safeguards, even cleanliness standards, are not being enforced. She sees this amendment as a way for the legislature to enact reasonable regulations on the industry. (Attachment 12).

Daniel J. Coughlin testified as a proponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that amending the state constitution allows the people of Kansas the ability to express themselves and to change the constitution as they desire, not as a Supreme Court interprets it. (Attachment 13).

Bob L. Corkins testified as a proponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that the Liberty Alliance believes the Kansas Supreme Court has misinterpreted fundamental rights with its Hodes decision,and that respecting all persons' self-autonomy, family decisions and procreation decisions does not justify ending a human life. This needs to be put to the vote of Kansas to get a final answer.(Attachment 14).

Oral proponent testimony ended. The House recessed at 10:52 until 12:00 to go to Chambers, but the Senate part of the hearing continued with questions for the conferees. The House returned to the  hearing at 12:03. They had more questions for conferees. 

Opponent Testimony

Nancy Lusk testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining her concern that the amendment is proposed to return the state to the status before the Hodes decision, but it will leave the door open for every abortion restriction possible, even a complete ban on abortion. This will put women at risk who have life-threatening situations that require an abortion.(Attachment 15).

Joy Koesten testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that turning around the Hodes decision would strip the right of self-determination and autonomy from half the population of Kansas. If the members of this committee truly want to support pro-life policies and reduce the numbers of abortions, please focus on policies that help women prevent unwanted pregnancies as well as policies that ensure that a woman and her fertilized egg have only the best care from conception to old age. (Attachment 16).

Rachel Sweet testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that Kansans deserve the right to make their own personal, private medical decisions without government interference. A constitutional amendment would increase government overreach into our private lives. (Attachment 17).

Nigel Morton testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that using the state constitution to take basic protections and healthcare away from people is a betrayal of our values and the purpose of the constitution. (Attachment 18).

Gavriela Geller testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that it would allow the state to prohibit members of Jewish and other affected faith communities from making reproductive health decisions in accordance with their faith's tenets, in violation of the separation of church and state. (Attachment 19).

Kara Motley and Medical Students for Choice, Kansas City, Ks. testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that they are taught as medical students to protect a patient's personal autonomy. In order to make informed decisions, patients must fully understand the risks and benefits of a procedure. To allow outside bias to influence a patient's decision is a gross violation of their autonomy. This legislative action attempts to interfere with a patient's choice and is a violation of their autonomy. (Attachment 20).

Sandy Brown testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that the Kansas Abortion Fund has watched options for reproductive health care erode through government action, particularly over the last decade. This is particularly true for low income people who are often also people of color. Passing this amendment will create one more barrier and remove one more level of support from people who have very few options. Decisions about ending a pregnancy are deeply personal and should be left to a woman, her family, her doctor and her faith, not to politicians in Topeka. (Attachment 21)

Julie Burkhart testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining.that Kansas politicians want to substitute their will for a woman's right to decide, in consultation with her family, her faith and her doctor, whether she has an abortion or not. They want to put Kansas women' rights and health up to a vote. This is the first step in passing an all-out ban on abortion in Kansas, and this is where politicians are clearly out of step with what the voters really want.(Attachment 22).

Kathleen Marker testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that even if we do not agree on abortion, we should agree that it is a personal, private medical decision made by a woman, her family, her faith and her doctor. This amendment denies the right to reproductive freedom given in the Kansas Constitution. (Attachment 23).

Mary Reynolds speaking for Sara Hutchinson Ratcliffe and representing Catholics for Choice, testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that this amendment is a violation of the core principles of their Catholic faith: namely the primacy of conscience, the imperative for social justice and respect of religious freedom. A woman should be able to follow her conscience on important moral matters, such as deciding to continue a pregnancy. This amendment would not allow that. (Attachment 24).

Karen Wiederaenders testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that if Roe.v. Wade is repealed at the federal level, the language of this amendment will leave the door open for impediments and obstacles that will put women's lives at risk. (Attachment 25).

Nadine Johnson testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that Kansas has a history of pioneering freedom and equality. Passing this amendment would attempt to re-write Kansas history and restrict a woman's personal autonomy. (Attachment 26).

Megan McQuinn testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 telling her story of abortion: explaining how she was misled into becoming pregnant; and how bringing the child to term would have ruined her future. The life she has today would not have been possible if she had not had the fundamental right to determine what happens to her own body. (Attachment 27).

Selina Sandoval testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that abortion care is one component of women's health care. Women come to this need for many reasons: health risks; the inability to get contraception; contraception failure; and more. Abortion is a serious decision and not made lightly. It is a decision that should be made by a woman and her doctor. It does not need the added restrictions that this amendment would add to the process. (Attachment 28).

Valerie French testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that abortion is healthcare. Ensuring access to safe abortion protects women's lives. This amendment would almost eliminate abortion in Kansas and that would lead to women getting unsafe abortions. It would not stop women from having them; it would only stop them from having safe abortions. (Attachment 29).

Margaret Kramar testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that one may believe passionately that abortion is murder from the moment of conception, and due to the right of separation of church and state, one has a right to that belief. Such views should be respected. However, it should be acknowledged that not everyone shares that religious belief, and due to the First Amendment, there is no right to force religious beliefs on others.  (Attachment 30).

Helena Buchmann testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that all her life she has watched Kansas government officials attempt to control people's bodies. She asks that we stop this trend now and vote no on this amendment so the next generation of Kansans do not have to ask if their state values them and trusts them to make intelligent decisions. (Attachment 31).

Wendy Budetti testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that basic human rights should not be put to a vote. This proposed amendment puts the control of a woman's body into the hands of the voters, half of whom are biologically prohibited from experiencing pregnancy. (Attachment 32).

Angela Martin testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that, as a high-risk obstetrician, she sees women who never wanted to consider abortion, but it may have become the only option left to them. Do not remove this choice from a woman whose life is at risk or whose baby cannot be brought to term healthy. (Attachment 33).

Emily Martinelli testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that her patients need safe access to abortion care.Some women cannot afford to bring another baby into the world -- either because of their health or the economic situation. Without this fundamental human right of medical care, women are at increased risk of death simply by being pregnant, not to mention the increased literal and emotional cost associated with pregnancy. (Attachment 34).

Elise Higgins testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that this amendment takes away rights from Kansas women. We can disagree on abortion, but we should agree that it is a personal, private medical decision made by a woman, her family, her faith and her doctor. Kansans deserve the right to make their own choices without politicians interfering. (Attachment 35).

Coree Unruh testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 sharing her experience with abortion, explaining that an unwanted pregnancy would have trapped her into a cycle of poverty. Being able to end that pregnancy allowed her to become a contributing member of society and gave her the freedom to become a loving mother from a planned pregnancy. This amendment asserts that the right to bodily autonomy for Kansans is newly discovered and therefore not an inherent right granted to us by the Creator. This attitude is either specifically targeted to repress the earning potential of women or is a slippery slope to fewer freedoms. (Attachment 36).

Inas Younis testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that, as a Muslim, her faith teaches that all life is sacred, but it does not subscribe to the position that abortion should be categorically prohibited. Islam believes a fetus is precious but survival of the mother always takes precedence.  There are very real and detrimental implications from this amendment that would complicate the understanding of the limitations of government's power in legislating private lives, moral autonomy and freedom of religion. (Attachment 37).

Diane Bellquist, speaking for Elizabeth Smith of the Center for Reproductive Rights, testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that passing the amendment could have devastating and lasting consequences for women and families in Kansas and that it is prohibited by core human rights principles. (Attachment 38).

The Senate recessed to go to the Senate Floor at 2:11. The House committee recessed as well. Both Committees resumed the hearing at 3:00.

Bob Eye, speaking for Heather Shumaker, National Women's Law Center, testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that the role of a constitution, both federal and state, is to protect our rights from infringement. This proposed amendment does the opposite, by taking away the right of abortion present under the existing constitution. (Attachment 39).

Alicen Fleming testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that she chose to end her family's cycle of generational poverty by making the hard decision to have an abortion and to pursue her education. It is her constitutional right to decide when, why, how, and with whom she becomes a mother. It should not be mandated by a constitutional amendment.(Attachment 40).

Phil Wood testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that he and his wife faced the difficult choice to end a pregnancy when their unborn twins would not be able to survive. It was not an easy choice, but he does not want that option removed from people who might face it in the future. (Attachment 41)

Jae Moyer testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that in an attempt to restrict women's choices to control their own bodies, this amendment could restrict a woman's access to a procedure that could save her life. (Attachment 42).

Linda Aldridge testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that abortion in Kansas is already overly restricted, forcing women to seek abortions in other states or to go through with pregnancies that might otherwise have been terminated. This puts a disproportionate burden on poor women and women of color who do not have the resources of more affluent women. (Attachment 43).

Lindsey Mills, speaking for Lynn M. Paltrow and representing the National Advocates for Pregnant Women testified as an opponent of SRC1613 / HRC5019 explaining that this amendment does not "Value Them Both." It puts an undue burden on women, many of whom are already mothers, who find themselves in trying circumstances. Moreover, this kind of measure has been used in other states to subject pregnant women to forced medical interventions and to arrest and jail women who have no intention of ending a pregnancy. (Attachment 44).

Oral testimony ended. There were questions and discussions from both committees. Committees were adjourned at 4:12 PM.

Written-Only Proponent Testimony was submitted by the following people:

Written-Only Opponent Testimony was submitted by the following people: