Planned Parenthood and abortionists want to end informed consent in Kansas

If Planned Parenthood and Kansas abortionists succeed in their challenge against Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach over Kansas’ Woman’s Right to Know Act, a law requiring a woman's informed consent before an abortion, it could have national repercussions.

Key Takeaways:

• The Kansas 'Woman's Right to Know Act' is under attack, as members of the abortion industry seek to label the informed consent law as illegal "stigma" under state law.

• Some say the abortion industry views abortion not as healthcare, but as some sort of 'super-healthcare' that is immune from any sort of regulation.

• If the abortion industry has its way and ends the Act which ensures that women are fully informed about all the repercussions of abortion before they consent, it could reverberate nationwide.

The Context:

The Woman's Right to Know Act ensures that women are fully informed of the abortion procedure, the life of their preborn children, the risks of abortion, and the life-affirming resources available to them before making an abortion decision.

If the plaintiffs in the case, Hodes & Nauser v Kobach, are successful and the Woman’s Right to Know Act is struck down, abortionists in Kansas will be able to deny women the reasonable information needed for an informed decision on abortion, and women will be more vulnerable to coercion and manipulation.

The case also has nationwide implications, because if Planned Parenthood and independent abortionists are allowed to label informed consent for abortion illegal “stigma” in Kansas, abortionists in other states may follow suit.

The Backstory:

Passed in 1997 and revised since, the Kansas Woman’s Right to Know Act ensures that expectant mothers receive the following reasonable information and resources before undergoing abortions (except in a medical emergency, when the woman is unable to receive the information):

• Information about the risks of the abortion procedure to the woman’s health and fertility

• A description of the proposed abortion procedure

• The notice that “the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being”

• Information about the medical risks of carrying an unborn child to term

• Information about any need for anti-Rh immune globulin therapy

• The option to view an ultrasound image of the preborn child and hear the preborn child’s heartbeat at no cost

• Information about the preborn child’s development, including information about fetal pain

• Information about medical assistance benefits that may be available for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care 

• Information about the father’s liability for child support

• The notice that a coerced abortion, even for a minor, is illegal, and that free and voluntary consent on the part of the woman is required; the notice that the woman has the right to contact local or state law enforcement to receive protection from physical abuse or violence

• Information about alternatives to abortion

• Information about the unique risks of the abortion pill regimen and information about 'Abortion Pill Reversal,' so that if the mother changes her mind after taking the abortion pill she knows what help is available

• The advice that the woman is free to withhold or withdraw her consent to the abortion at any time before the procedure, without affecting her right to future care and state and federal benefits to which she is entitled

• Disclosures from abortion providers on any disciplinary action they have been subject to, whether or not they have malpractice insurance, and whether or not they have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility in the event of any emergency; other information about the physician

The law also requires that abortionists provide women with a 24-hour waiting period before their abortions. This provision is meant to:

1. give women time to consider the risks of abortion and alternative choices.

2. protect women from possible pressure and coercion from profit-driven abortion businesses.

What's Happening:

The plaintiffs are also challenging the state’s abortion reporting law, which ensures that data concerning women’s primary reasons for choosing abortions is provided to the state. Provision of this data plays a crucial role in lawmakers’ and healthcare providers’ ability to give women the support they need during pregnancy and beyond.

According to Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the defendant in the case, Kansas AG Kris Kobach, stated:

“Kansas women and their unborn children deserve the best possible care, and this law, which has stood for decades, is an important step of providing that care. Planned Parenthood has always cared more about its bottom line than women’s health and is actively working to hide important health information from women that could be a matter of life or death. We are urging the court to uphold this commonsense protection that prioritizes the lives of women and their children in Kansas."

Harm and Stigma

In an interview with Live Action, ADF Senior Counsel Lincoln Wilson called the case “significant.” He and several of his colleagues are working alongside Kobach in defending the Kansas law.

According to Wilson, the theory of harm advanced by the abortionist plaintiffs is that “any regulation of abortion causes stigma. And therefore makes the law unlawful. That’s the direction Planned Parenthood is pushing. It’s quite a radical theory.”

Other states, including those that permit abortion, have similar laws requiring informed consent for abortions and the reporting of abortion data. If a Kansas judge overturns the Woman’s Right to Know Act, will judges in other states follow suit?

'Super-healthcare'?

Wilson noted that the abortionist plaintiffs are challenging the informed consent law, ironically, under the guise of promoting women’s autonomy.

The truth is, abortionists know that women are less likely to choose abortion when they receive the information necessary to make a fully-informed decision. The lead abortionist in the case, Dr. Traci Nauser, testified that some women changed their minds about their abortions and chose life after going through the informed consent process, Wilson noted.

It is a well-established fact that the regulation of informed consent for specific medical procedures is within the state’s power. Somehow, abortionists and Planned Parenthood seek to escape these commonsense regulations that are meant to protect patients.

“I think what Planned Parenthood’s theory really is; it’s not that abortion is healthcare and should be regulated like any other form of healthcare. But rather that it’s some type of ‘super-healthcare’ that is exempt from regulation,” Wilson said.

The trial is ongoing in the Johnson County District Court this month.

The Bottom Line:

It is clear that the abortion industry in Kansas is actively seeking to overturn any remaining commonsense regulations on abortion in the state. Tragically, Kansas already has permissive abortion laws and the state has quickly become a national center for the killing of the preborn, ever since the 2022 ballot initiative enshrined abortion in the state constitution.