An anti-choice bill passed Wednesday by a Kansas legislative committee could have broad implications for how all health care—not just reproductive care—is provided.

An anti-choice bill passed Wednesday by a Kansas legislative committee could have broad implications for how all health care—not just reproductive care—is provided.

Shutterstock

An anti-choice bill passed Wednesday by a Kansas legislative committee could have broad implications for how all health care—not just reproductive care—is provided.

SB 304, introduced Monday by the GOP-controlled Senate Ways and Means Committee, would amend the state law regulating the use of medication abortion.

The bill as introduced would require that when a drug is administered through the use of an intravenous (IV) drip or intravenous intermittent infusion and the “administration of such drug results in inducing an abortion, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the prescription for such drug shall be given to the patient in the same room and in the physical presence” of the prescribing physician.

Medication abortion is not induced by the delivery of drugs through an IV.

Sex. Abortion. Parenthood. Power. The latest news, delivered straight to your inbox. SUBSCRIBE

However, any number of medications that could be delivered through an IV could “unintentionally” cause an abortion. Given the common practices associated with IV medication prescription, the practical effect seems to be that it would require a pregnant person’s attending physician to be present when medication was delivered through an IV.

The intent of the legislation is an apparent attempt to end an injunction on a law passed in 2011 that banned telemedicine abortion care. The law prohibits a physician from prescribing medication such as RU-486 without being in the physical presence of the patient.

Kathy Ostrowksi, Kansans for Life’s legislative director, said she supports the bill and that the legislation keeps the original intent of the 2011 law—prohibiting doctors from providing access to an abortion from a computer screen miles away.

“[The bill] will clarify an exemption that will hopefully allow the court to at least grant this anti-webcam protective provision to come out from under the injunction and go into effect,” Ostrowski told the committee, reported the Topeka Capital-Journal.

Jeff Chanay, chief deputy attorney general, said in written testimony that he supported the legislation, citing the addition of an exception to the law in case of a medical emergency.

“In the 2011 case, the plaintiffs have filed claims based upon the lack of a medical-emergency provision in the statute and an undue burden claim based on the current medication-in-person requirement,” said Chanay, reported the Topeka Capital-Journal. “Both claims assert that these provisions violate patient rights of privacy under the Kansas Constitution.”

Stephanie Toti, senior counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the Associated Press that the bill does not fix the constitutional problem with the law, and that specific requirements for physicians usually “aren’t medically appropriate.”

There were no witnesses that testified against the bill, which was granted a committee hearing one day after being introduced.

The bill was passed unanimously by the GOP-led committee, and now awaits consideration by the full senate. Republicans hold a 32-8 senate majority.