Kansas abortion amendment takes big step forward, but faces uncertain future in House

An abortion amendment to the Kansas Constitution that could affect regulations of the procedure for decades has cleared a key hurdle, moving the state closer to an all-out fight over whether it should recognize a woman’s right to end her pregnancy.

The Senate approved the amendment on a 28-12 vote on Wednesday night that fell largely along party lines, with Republicans backing the amendment and Democrats opposing it. The measure now heads to the House, where its prospects are uncertain.

Gov. Laura Kelly on Thursday condemned the measure, deploying the governor’s bully pulpit to try to sway lawmakers to oppose it. Kelly, a former state senator, called for a “resounding no vote” in the House. She said the amendment, which says the state constitution doesn’t include the right to an abortion, would throw Kansas back into the “dark ages.”

“In the state Senate, I had a vote,” the Democratic governor said. “I no longer have a vote on this issue, so I have to use my voice.”

Amendment supporters say it ensures lawmakers retain power to set abortion regulations after a Kansas Supreme Court decision last spring that found a right to an abortion within the state constitution. Anti-abortion activists fear the opinion imperils decades of restrictions they credit with sharply reducing abortions in the state.

The Senate vote followed an emotional hours-long debate on the state’s 159th birthday and marked a significant victory for the amendment. In less than two weeks, the proposal has advanced halfway through the legislative process — lightning speed in a place where bills can languish for months or years.

“If we don’t pass this constitutional amendment, we will lose the right to have any say over that procedure,” Senate President Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican who carried the bill during the debate, said of abortion.

She added that failing to pass the amendment will result in the Legislature ceding the power to legislate on abortion to the courts.

“I vote no on this because I don’t want to make women slaves — slaves to what government says they should be doing with their bodies,” Sen. David Haley, a Kansas City Democrat, said in opposition.

The measure’s fate now rests with the House, where supporters will have to win over 84 lawmakers — no small feat in a 125-member chamber that spans the ideological spectrum. If the House approves the amendment, it will go to a statewide vote.

Kansas would join a small club of states with constitutions restricting abortion rights if the amendment is ultimately adopted. A coalition of organizations opposed to abortion have modeled the measure in part on a 2014 Tennessee amendment, which says the state constitution doesn’t guarantee the right to an abortion.

Abortion rights supporters contend the Kansas amendment is laying the groundwork for a future abortion ban or severe restrictions that would threaten the ability of women to access the procedure in Kansas. Underscoring their fears, Tennessee’s governor plans to pursue banning abortions as early as six weeks into pregnancy, when a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

“This would open up the floodgates to regulate every aspect of a woman’s reproductive life, her childbearing,” said Julie Burkhart, founder and CEO of Trust Women, which operates a Wichita clinic that offers abortion services.

Jeanne Gawdun, a lobbyist for Kansans for Life, said amendment supporters “don’t have a crystal ball.” She said current abortion laws — those requiring parental consent, informed consent by women, health and safety standards — should be preserved.

“What we’re dealing with is the here and now. And the here and now is: unlimited abortion hurts women and babies,” Gawdun said. “These safeguards deserve to be protected.”

If both the Senate and House pass the amendment with two-thirds support, it will go to a statewide vote for final approval. Kelly couldn’t veto the measure.

But the amendment faces an uncertain future in the House, where Republicans hold 84 seats — exactly the two-thirds majority needed to advance the measure. Despite the supermajority, the GOP caucus includes both hard-right conservatives and moderates, raising questions about whether party leaders can keep all their members onboard. Additionally, it remains unclear whether the small number of Democrats who have supported anti-abortion bills in the past will vote for the amendment.

House Speaker Ron Ryckman, an Olathe Republican, on Wednesday didn’t directly say whether supporters have marshaled enough votes to pass the proposal.

“We’ll see what they send over to us,” Ryckman said before the Senate debate. He said up to 90 lawmakers have committed at various points to voting for an amendment.

One fault line among lawmakers centers on whether the proposal should be put before voters during the August primary election or the November general election. The resolution moving through the Legislature currently calls for voters to decide the question in August.

The August election is expected to produce a smaller turnout than the November election, which will feature a presidential contest this year. Some lawmakers and political observers suspect placing the amendment on the August ballot would drive conservatives to the polls, potentially harming moderate Republicans in primary races.

During a debate that stretched well into the evening, senators brushed away an attempt to change the date of the election to November, with the idea failing largely along party lines. Sen. John Doll, of Garden City, and Sen. John Skubal of Overland Park, were the only Republicans to back the change.

“I want the people of Kansas to decide — and I would pray and hope that they would vote for this constitutional amendment — but I would rather see it with 70 percent turnout than 22 percent turnout,” Doll said.

Amendment supporters raised several objections to moving the election date, from the idea that adding the question on the November ballot would lead to “voter fatigue” to suggestions that abortion restrictions could be in danger if lawmakers wait.

“I believe we have to act for the greater good, for the higher calling, and that we need to put this on the ballot quickly because of the risk we’re taking if we don’t,” Wagle said.

Wagle, who is a candidate for U.S. Senate, faced a question about whether the push to vote in August is politically motivated. During a Republican caucus meeting before the debate, Sen. Dennis Pyle of Hiawatha said he had been told Wagle had demanded the amendment be placed on the August ballot. Wagle said that was “absolutely false.”

Senators also rejected a change that would have prohibited the Legislature from banning abortion in cases of rape, incest and to protect the life of the mother. Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, a Topeka Democrat who proposed the change, said lawmakers could put “no greater protection in a constitutional amendment for the women of Kansas than to say the Legislature cannot prohibit abortion under these circumstances.”

Wagle said the amendment as drafted protects women in vulnerable situations “by applying the same laws to them and not carving out an exception.”

This story was originally published January 29, 2020 at 9:03 PM with the headline "Kansas abortion amendment takes big step forward, but faces uncertain future in House."