Kansas tries to require abortion reversal pill disclosure — despite dispute over science

Kansas lawmakers have renewed an attempt to require abortion clinics inform residents about the possibility of reversing a medication abortion, despite concerns that the information is not medically accurate.

A similar bill reached the desk of Gov. Laura Kelly in 2019 and was rejected, with legislators falling one vote shy of overturning her veto at the time.

The Kansas House approved the bill Wednesday on an 85-39 vote, with one Democrat joining all Republicans in voting for the measure. That margin would allow lawmakers to overturn a potential veto from Kelly.

Under House Bill 2439, an abortion clinic would be required to give patients notice that says that mifepristone, the first of a two-pill sequence used in medication abortions, "is not always effective in ending a pregnancy" and that "it may be possible to reverse its intended effect" if the second drug, misoprostol, has yet to be administered.

More:Kansas is back in court on abortion rights. How does the August amendment vote factor in?

The provision will be an addition to existing requirements that clinics obtain informed consent from patients and outline state law prohibiting coerced abortions, as well as telling patients they can change their mind before an abortion without issue.

"This bill is needed now more than ever," Rep. Susan Humphries, R-Wichita, said in debate on the Kansas House floor Tuesday. "Women have the right to know this type of information and it is being kept from them."

But critics argue the information isn't medically supported and said it was in direct contrast to an August 2022 vote on a proposed constitutional amendment where Kansans rejected a measure that would have eroded state-level abortion protections.

"Our Kansans deserve medically accurate information, not state-mandated deception," said Rep. Melissa Oropeza, D-Kansas City. "Kansas deserves providers who are free to stick to fact-based health care and are not forced to spread scientific myths."

Debate comes amid Texas case on mifepristone approval

The legislation comes as medication abortions have garnered increased attention in the wake of the overturning of Roe v. Wade last year and the subsequent focus on the topic nationally.

An alliance of anti-abortion groups are currently arguing in federal court in Texas that the Food and Drug Administration improperly approved mifepristone when it was OK'd for use in the United States in 2000.

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk is considering whether to grant the request for a preliminary injunction, which would have the effect of removing or limiting access to the drug, which major medical groups argue has a clear safety record.

In Kansas, two-thirds of abortions in 2021 were carried out using mifepristone, according to an annual report from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.

Typically, a person will take mifepristone to block progesterone, a hormone that contributes to the development of a pregnancy. Misoprostol is taken 48-72 hours later to complete the process.

Some say that quickly administering doses of progesterone can counteract the impact of the mifepristone pill. Supporters point to a 2018 study that says the treatment is effective.

Jonathan Scrafford, a Wichita OBGYN, said he has delivered babies after successfully reversing abortions. Supporters point to an article from an anti-abortion media group that the 4,000 babies have been delivered successfully after mifepristone was administered but does not state where that figure is from.

"Civil servants such as yourselves, serve an important role in ensuring that citizens receiving health care in our state have access to important information about options regarding services they're receiving," Scrafford said during the committee hearing. "And in our current state of affairs, they simply aren't receiving that information."

But the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, however, has said the treatment is "not based on science and do not meet clinical standards."

Critics have argued that studies promoting the practice's effectiveness have been victims of selection bias. Another study aimed to do a larger scale examination of the reversal method but stopped early because of safety concerns.

In written testimony, Katie Baylie, director of legislative affairs for Planned Parenthood of the Great Plains Votes, the political arm of the group that has three abortion clinics in Kansas, said the proposed legislation is harmful and infringes on a patient-doctor relationship.

"There is no scientific evidence that proves reversing a medication abortion is possible. Patients seeking healthcare deserve honest and accurate medical advice," Baylie said. "Legislation surrounding health care should be grounded in high quality evidence."

More:After Kansas abortion vote, lawmakers advance bill requiring care for infants 'born alive'

Kansas lawmakers pass 'born-alive' bill, abortion definition change

The Kansas Senate also advanced two other bills related to abortion, including legislation to require doctors to save infants born alive following an attempted abortion.

That bill also garnered stiff criticism from opponents, who argued that the practice does not occur. Anti-abortion advocates argue the state's current laws against infanticide and child abandonment are not sufficient for the situation.

And the body also approved legislation to create a new legal definition of "abortion" at the behest of anti-abortion groups, clarifying that treatment for ectopic pregnancies and birth control are not abortions.

During debate on the amendment vote, opponents argued that efforts to restrict abortion could implicate ectopic pregnancies and birth control access.

Then-Attorney General Derek Schmidt issued a legal opinion that ectopic pregnancies were not abortions under state law.

More:Kansas could redefine 'abortion' in state law. What would that mean?

Senate Minority Leader Dinah Sykes, D-Lenexa, argued, however, that the language was part of a long-term effort to lay the groundwork for another amendment vote.

She pointed to comments made by Solicitor General Anthony Powell, arguing in support of two anti-abortion laws before the Kansas Supreme Court on Monday, where he said, 'It wouldn’t surprise me," if another amendment was brought.

"Kansas voters should listen to (Attorney General) Kris Kobach and the legislators who support this legislation because they are making it very clear that they want to control these private decisions, no matter what the voters say," Sykes said.

Sen. Beverly Gossage, R-Eudora, said it was merely a logical move to elaborate on what the definition entailed.

"By just clarifying this definition, of course it is not controlling anyone," she said.

This article originally appeared on Topeka Capital-Journal: Kansas abortion pill reversal bill renewed, despite science dispute