The Kansas Supreme Court issued two decisions on Friday striking down a series of abortion rules and restrictions that reaffirmed its 2019 decision that the state constitution guarantees the right to terminate a pregnancy.

In its first opinion, the Kansas Supreme Court upheld the district court’s decision. The court reaffirmed that Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights protects a pregnant person’s right to terminate a pregnancy. Specifically, the court found that the state did not provide adequate evidence to justify S.B. 95 under the strict scrutiny standard. The Court found the state’s arguments were primarily moral and philosophical and lacked concrete evidence.

While the state argued that banning D&E promoted the value and dignity of human life, the court found that this interest was too broadly stated and not supported by evidence showing that the law was necessary or effective in achieving this goal. The state did not provide new evidence or depose the plaintiffs’ witnesses which further weakened its position. The court noted that S.B. 95 was underinclusive, meaning it did not address other activities that posed similar threats to the state’s purported interests, which also further undermined its claim that the law was narrowly tailored.

In 2015, the Kansas Legislature passed Senate Bill 95 (S.B. 95), which banned the common second-trimester abortion procedure known as Dilation and Evacuation (D&E). The bill permitted D&E only when necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life or prevent substantial and irreversible physical impairment. Physicians Herbert C. Hodes and Traci Lynn Nauser, challenged the law by claiming it violated the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

In 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled in Hodes & Nauser v Schmidt that the Kansas Constitution protects a fundamental right to personal autonomy, which includes the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy. This decision mandated that any government action impairing this right must pass “strict scrutiny,” which is the highest standard of judicial review. This means the state must show that the law serves a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

After the 2019 decision, the case was sent back to the Shawnee District Court to determine if S.B. 95 could meet the strict scrutiny standard. The district court found that the state failed to prove the law’s constitutionality. Specifically, it held that the state did not demonstrate that banning D&E furthered a compelling governmental interest in a narrowly tailored way. The court imposed a permanent injunction which prevented the law from being enforced. The state then appealed this decision, subsequently bringing the case back to the Kansas Supreme Court.

In its second opinion, the Court addressed a series of statutes and regulations concerning the licensure of abortion provider facilities. This case also involved Hodes & Nauser, who challenged the constitutionality of these regulations.

In 2011, the Kansas Legislature passed Senate Bill 36 (S.B. 36), which created new licensing requirements for medical facilities providing abortion care. The regulations covered extensive aspects of facility operations, including staffing, procedures, equipment, and the physical environment. The Kansas Supreme Court upheld the district court’s decision to strike down these regulations on several grounds.

First, the Court determined that the state failed to provide sufficient evidence that the regulations furthered the purported compelling interests of protecting maternal health and regulating the medical profession. The Court found that the state’s arguments were primarily based on legislative assertions and goals without concrete evidence showing that the regulations were effective in achieving these interests.

Furthermore, the Court found that the regulations were not narrowly tailored. For instance, the Court found that certain regulations such as those related to drug administration restricted the ability of qualified staff to assist in patient care which imposed restrictions the Court ruled unnecessary.

The Court also addressed the issue of severability, which is to say that no part of the challenged regulations could operate independently. The Court found the state failed to prove that the remaining provisions would still effectively carry out the legislature’s intent without the unconstitutional parts.

The Center for Reproductive Rights represented the Kansas doctors who challenged the laws, and Nancy Northup, the organization’s president and CEO, praised the court’s decisions as a major victory for the health, safety, and dignity of Kansans and the Midwest:

This is an immense victory for the health, safety, and dignity of people in Kansas and the entire Midwestern region, where millions have been cut off from abortion access. We will continue our fight to ensure Kansans can access the essential healthcare they need in their home state