Anti-abortion groups and reproductive rights advocates sparred in a Kansas legislative committee room this week over a bill that opponents say would give embryos and fetuses the same legal rights as pregnant women — a legal concept known as fetal personhood.
HB 2062 would allow a judge to ask fathers to make child support payments beginning at the moment of conception. Payments would be capped at the mother’s direct medical and pregnancy-related expenses, plus interest.
House lawmakers have passed HB 2062 with enough votes to override a likely veto by Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly. Lawmakers sent a similar bill to Kelly’s desk last year, but did not override her veto.
Disagreement over bill’s subtext
Proponents of the bill say it’s an effort to ensure that women do not bear the sole financial responsibility for a pregnancy. That includes anti-abortion advocates, who argue that it could reduce the number of abortions that occur due to financial need.
“No woman should ever feel that abortion is her only option, and House Bill 2062 may help alleviate at least some of the financial stress that a pregnant woman may face at a critical time for her and her child,” Jeanne Gawdun, a lobbyist for Kansans for Life, said during a Thursday Senate committee hearing.
But reproductive rights advocates argued the bill is a veiled attempt to chip away at abortion rights in Kansas, despite the state’s constitutional protections that allow terminating a pregnancy until 22 weeks.
“On the surface, this bill appears to be a means of supporting pregnant people and families. But in reality, it is an attempt to advance an anti-abortion agenda by further codifying fetal personhood language into Kansas law,” said Taylor Morton, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes.
“This could pave the way for laws that criminalize or restrict health care during pregnancy down the road,” Morton said.
Proponents of the bill denied that the intent behind the bill was anything other than child support.
“This has nothing to do with personhood,” said Brittany Jones, a lobbyist for the conservative advocacy group Kansas Family Voice.
“A father is a father from the moment of conception, and so we want to recognize that and make sure that he is supporting the woman who's carrying his child,” Jones said.
Jones added that Kansas law already recognizes that unborn children have certain rights, including the ability to be trust beneficiaries.
Kansas also has a legislative declaration that life begins at fertilization and unborn children have interests in life, health and well-being. That makes the state one of 17 to have established fetal personhood by law or judicial decision, according to the reproductive rights organization Pregnancy Justice.
What does fetal personhood mean for Kansas?
The immediate practical significance of existing fetal personhood references in Kansas statute — as well as any new fetal child support legislation — is unclear, due to state constitutional protections for abortion rights. Voters decisively rejected a proposal to unwind those protections in 2022.
“We have these mentions of fetal rights littered throughout state laws without a really clear sense of when or which are enforceable,” said Mary Ziegler, a professor and legal historian at the University of California, Davis School of Law.
Much depends on how state courts interpret and enforce fetal personhood legislation. Still, Ziegler said it’s not a stretch to consider the Kansas child support bill as part of a broader anti-abortion strategy.
“We live in a reality where any measure involving fetal protection of any kind has to be understood as part of the strategy to establish fetal rights that would apply across the board — with respect to IVF, with respect to abortion,” she added.
The Kansas bill is one of several to gain traction in state legislatures around the country in recent years. Louisiana passed a fetal child support law in 2023, and a similar bill narrowly failed in Kentucky last year. Proposals have been introduced in a handful of other states.
Ziegler said it’s reflective of a broader perspective within conservative politics.
“Namely, the idea that pregnant women are entitled to support, but that that responsibility does not fall on the government,” she said.
“Instead, they’re outsourcing that task to religious charities, crisis pregnancy centers, and now people who are involved with the pregnancy.”
Lingering questions
During the Thursday hearing, Melissa Stiehler, advocacy director for Loud Light Civic Action, called the bill “dishonest and conniving” due to House Republicans’ rejection of an amendment that would have removed the portion of the bill that defines “child” as including any unborn child from the date of conception. The amendment would have still enabled pregnant women to receive compensation for pregnancy-related medical expenses.
“My real question is, if child support is not the heart of this bill, then what is?” Stiehler asked. “Presumably, we can only assume that the fetal personhood language that is in this bill was the goal all along.”
Senate Republicans dismissed Stiehler’s claims.
“I would say that your suggestion would actually directly impugn the integrity of members of this Legislature,” said Sen. Doug Shane, a Louisburg Republican.
“It, I believe, is the intention of every legislative committee up here to openly and honestly and transparently conduct their business in hearings,” said committee chairwoman Sen. Kellie Warren, a Leawood Republican.
“To suggest otherwise, I think, is not very accurate.”
Democratic lawmakers expressed concern about the bill’s implementation.
“How is a woman to go into a court of law and have the date of conception determined?” asked Sen. Ethan Corson, a Prairie Village Democrat.
“What I worry about, and what I think a lot of Kansas women would worry about, is setting up a procedure where women are going to have to go into a court of law and submit maybe an affidavit or something that says, ‘Here are the dates that I had intercourse and here's who I had intercourse with.’”
He and Sen. Patrick Schmidt, a Democrat from Topeka, also criticized the bill’s failure to define the parameters of pregnancy-related expenses, complicating the work of judges tasked with interpreting it.
“We’re going to have a range of disparate outcomes as a result of this law,” Schmidt said. “I think it’s not really ready for prime time.”
Rose Conlon reports on health for KMUW and the Kansas News Service. The Kansas News Service is a collaboration of KCUR, KMUW, Kansas Public Radio and High Plains Public Radio focused on health, the social determinants of health and their connection to public policy.
Kansas News Service stories and photos may be republished by news media at no cost with proper attribution and a link to ksnewsservice.org.
