--- title: "Kansas — abortion law" description: "Abortion is legal in Kansas. The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that the state constitution protects the right to make personal decisions about whether to continue a pregnancy, which includes the right to an abortion. Abortion is generally available through the first 22 weeks of pregnancy measured…" type: "legislation" jurisdiction: "Kansas" as_of_date: "2026-07-12" source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/legislation/ks.html" --- # Kansas — abortion law _Kansas · United States_ ## Overview **Constitutionally protected; 22-week limit** Kansas protects abortion as a fundamental state constitutional right and generally permits it through 22 weeks from LMP, with post-viability limits and multiple statutory restrictions — some enjoined. Abortion is legal in Kansas. The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that the state constitution protects the right to make personal decisions about whether to continue a pregnancy, which includes the right to an abortion. Abortion is generally available through the first 22 weeks of pregnancy measured from the last menstrual period. After 22 weeks or once the fetus is viable, abortion is limited to cases where the woman's life or a major bodily function is at serious risk. Kansas voters rejected a constitutional amendment in August 2022 that would have removed these protections. Many older statutory restrictions — including waiting periods, scripted counseling, and medication abortion barriers — are currently being challenged in court and some have been temporarily blocked. Kansas has become a regional access point for abortion care since neighboring states enacted bans. > "Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights protects a fundamental right to personal autonomy, which includes the right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy." > — Hodes & Nauser, MDs v. Schmidt, 309 Kan. 610, 440 P.3d 461 (2019) **Legal analysis** Under Hodes & Nauser, MDs v. Schmidt, 309 Kan. 610, 440 P.3d 461 (2019) (Hodes I), the Kansas Supreme Court held that section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights protects a fundamental natural right of personal autonomy that includes the right to abortion, subject to strict scrutiny. The August 2022 ballot measure (HCR 5003) to overturn this holding was rejected 59%-41%. Statutory provisions at K.S.A. 65-6703 (viability ban) and K.S.A. 65-6722–65-6724 (Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act) bar abortion at 22 weeks LMP and beyond except for life or substantial-and-irreversible-physical-impairment-of-a-major-bodily-function. Two major 2024 Kansas Supreme Court rulings — Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach, No. 124,130 (permanently striking SB 95's D&E ban) and Hodes & Nauser v. Stanek, No. 125,051 (permanently striking facility licensure TRAP laws) — applied strict scrutiny and invalidated those restrictions. The 2023 lawsuit Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach, No. 23CV03140 (Johnson County District Court), resulted in a temporary injunction blocking portions of the biased-counseling law, the medication-abortion-reversal script, the 30-minute post-counseling waiting requirement, and certain format mandates; trial was held September–October 2025 and a final decision is pending. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Hodes & Nauser, MDs v. Schmidt, 309 Kan. 610, 440 P.3d 461 (2019), Syllabus, [Kansas Supreme Court](https://kscourts.gov/Cases-Decisions/Decisions/Published/Hodes-Nauser-MDs-v-Schmidt-Supreme-Cour) · K.S.A. 65-6723(f), subsection (f), [Kansas Legislature](https://www.kslegislature.gov/laws/065_000_0000_chapter/065_067_0000_article/065_067_0023_section/065_067_0023_k)* **Editor's note.** The Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach (No. 23CV03140) bench trial concluded in October 2025; the outcome may materially alter the procedural-requirements landscape. An editor should check for a ruling before publication. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ## At a glance Every machine-readable determination in the research document. Each value is derived from a sourced finding below. | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | Legal classification | Protected by constitution | | Gestational limit weeks | 22 | | Limit measured from | Last menstrual period | | Abortion currently available | Yes | | Ban or limit enjoined | No | | Mother expressly exempt | Yes | | Mother prosecutable in practice | No | | Self managed abortion criminalized | No | | Abortion charged as homicide | No | | Fetal homicide law | Yes | | Fetal wrongful death action | Yes | | Personhood language in law | Yes | | Personhood contradiction | Yes | | Medication abortion distinct status | Yes | | Mailing pills banned | No | | Method bans | D and x | | Telehealth prescribing allowed | Yes | | Physician only law | Yes | | Provider max penalty | Class A person misdemeanor (first); severity level 10, person felony (subsequent) | | Helpers criminally exposed | No | | Travel assistance criminalized | No | | Civil bounty law | No | | Shield state | No | | Waiting period hours | 24 | | State scripted counseling | Yes | | Ultrasound required | Offered | | In person visits required | 1 | | Parental involvement | Consent both parents | | Judicial bypass available | Yes | | Spousal consent or notice on books | No | | Medicaid coverage | Hyde only | | Private insurance restricted | Yes | | State funding posture | Defunds providers | | Rape incest exception | Not applicable | | Exceptions present | Life, Physical health, Ectopic miscarriage carveout | | Major pending change | Yes | ## Definitions **Termination causing fetal death; ectopic excluded** Kansas defines abortion as termination of a pregnancy knowing it will likely cause the death of the unborn child, excluding removal of ectopic pregnancies, dead fetuses, and contraception. Under Kansas law, 'abortion' means using any instrument, medicine, or drug to end a pregnancy knowing it will likely cause the death of the unborn child. The definition specifically does not include: removing a dead unborn child who died of natural causes, accident, or crime; removing an ectopic pregnancy (a pregnancy outside the womb, which is life-threatening); or using contraception that prevents fertilization or implantation. This means miscarriage management and ectopic pregnancy treatment are not abortions under Kansas law and are not subject to any abortion restrictions. > "'Abortion' means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug or any other means to terminate the pregnancy of a woman knowing that such termination will, with reasonable likelihood, result in the death of the unborn child." > — K.S.A. 65-6701(a) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-6701(a)(1) defines abortion as 'the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug or any other means to terminate the pregnancy of a woman knowing that such termination will, with reasonable likelihood, result in the death of the unborn child.' Subsection (a)(2) expressly excludes procedures done with intent to (A) preserve the life or health of the unborn child, (B) increase probability of live birth, (C) remove a dead unborn child who died of natural causes, accidental trauma, or criminal assault, or (D) remove an ectopic pregnancy. Subsection (a)(3) excludes contraception. Attorney General Opinion No. 2022-7 confirmed that treatment for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, and fetal demise does not constitute abortion under this definition. 'Unborn child' under 65-6732(c)(2) means offspring 'from the moment of fertilization until birth at every stage of biological development.' 'Viable' under 65-6701(m) means 'that stage of fetal development when it is the physician's judgment according to accepted obstetrical or neonatal standards of care and practice . . . that there is a reasonable probability that the life of the child can be continued indefinitely outside the mother's womb with natural or artificial life-supportive measures.' *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6701(a), subsection (a)(1), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0001.html) · Kan. Att'y Gen. Op. 2022-7 (July 22, 2022), at 3–4, [Washburn University School of Law](https://ksag.washburnlaw.edu/opinions/2022/2022-007.pdf)* ## Current status **Protected to 22 weeks LMP; viability limit applies** Abortion is a fundamental right under the Kansas Constitution through 22 weeks LMP; after that, it is allowed only for life or major-bodily-function threats with two-physician documentation. Because of the Kansas Supreme Court's 2019 ruling and the voters' 2022 rejection of a constitutional amendment, abortion remains a constitutionally protected right in Kansas. Abortion is broadly available in the first 22 weeks of pregnancy measured from the first day of the last menstrual period. After 22 weeks, abortion is permitted only when continuing the pregnancy would threaten the woman's life or cause a substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function. A medical emergency (life-threatening or risk of serious irreversible physical impairment) also overrides various procedural requirements. Kansas has no 'trigger law' and never enacted a pre-Roe criminal ban that could have been reactivated post-Dobbs. > "Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother." > — Hodes & Nauser, MDs v. Schmidt, 309 Kan. 610, 440 P.3d 461 (2019) **Legal analysis** The operative constitutional holding is Hodes I (2019): section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights protects abortion as a fundamental right, and any infringement must survive strict scrutiny. The statutory general limit is the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, K.S.A. 65-6722–65-6724, which prohibits abortion at 22 weeks gestational age (LMP) or more except where two unaffiliated physicians determine that abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman or to avert a 'substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.' K.S.A. 65-6703 separately prohibits abortion after viability with the same exceptions and process. These limits are in effect and not enjoined. By statute, Kansas prevents political subdivisions from regulating or restricting abortion (K.S.A. 65-6702(b)). The D&E ban (SB 95, K.S.A. 65-6741 et seq.) was permanently struck down in Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach, No. 124,130 (Kan. 2024). The abortion-facility TRAP licensing scheme (K.S.A. 65-4a01 et seq.) was permanently struck down in Hodes & Nauser v. Stanek, No. 125,051 (Kan. 2024). The partial-birth abortion (D&X) ban at K.S.A. 65-6721 operates as a limited method restriction. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Hodes & Nauser, MDs v. Schmidt, 309 Kan. 610, 440 P.3d 461 (2019), Syllabus, [Kansas Supreme Court](https://kscourts.gov/Cases-Decisions/Decisions/Published/Hodes-Nauser-MDs-v-Schmidt-Supreme-Cour) · K.S.A. 65-6724(a), subsection (a), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0024.html)* **Editor's note.** The 2025 Kansas Legislature introduced SB 174 and HB 2171 ('Abolish Abortion Kansas Act') that would criminalize all abortions; they are symbolic given the constitutional protection. ## Law-in-effect vs. law-on-the-books **Core protections in force; some restrictions enjoined** The constitutional right and statutory limits are fully in force; a Johnson County District Court temporary injunction blocks certain biased-counseling, abortion-pill-reversal, and format mandates. The Kansas constitutional protection for abortion is fully enforceable and not under any injunction. The 22-week and viability limits are also fully in force. However, several older restrictive laws are currently blocked by a court order: providers do not currently have to deliver the state's scripted counseling about disproven claims like abortion causing breast cancer, do not have to tell patients that medication abortion can be reversed, and do not have to comply with state-mandated typeface and font-size requirements for informational materials. A trial on these issues was completed in October 2025, and a final ruling is awaited. Additionally, the state's facility-licensing law that imposed special building and equipment requirements on abortion clinics has been permanently struck down and cannot be enforced. > "the Court issues a temporary injunction blocking parts of the mandatory waiting period and biased counseling requirements and blocking the 'abortion pill reversal' law in full" > — Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach, No. 23CV03140 (Johnson Cnty. Dist. Ct. Oct. 30, 2023) **Legal analysis** On October 30, 2023, Johnson County District Court Judge Christopher Jayaram issued a temporary injunction in Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach, No. 23CV03140, blocking enforcement of: (1) the requirement that providers tell patients medication abortion can be 'reversed' (65-6716); (2) certain state-scripted biased-counseling provisions in 65-6709 requiring providers to tell patients abortion increases risk of breast cancer and premature birth in future pregnancies; (3) the 30-minute post-counseling waiting requirement; and (4) the typeface/font/color specifications for written materials. The State appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals, which dismissed the State's appeal on November 14, 2024. A bench trial on the full merits was held September–October 2025. Permanent injunctions struck down the D&E ban (K.S.A. 65-6741 et seq.) in Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach, No. 124,130 (Kan. 2024), and the facility licensure TRAP law (K.S.A. 65-4a01 et seq.) in Hodes & Nauser v. Stanek, No. 125,051 (Kan. 2024). The 22-week and viability bans, parental consent (65-6705), partial-birth abortion ban (65-6721), sex-selection ban (65-6726), medication in-person requirement (65-4a10), physician-only restriction (65-4a10), and insurance restrictions (40-2,190) remain in effect. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach, No. 23CV03140 (Johnson Cnty. Dist. Ct. Oct. 30, 2023), [Center for Reproductive Rights](https://reproductiverights.org/cases/hodes-nauser-v-kobach) · Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach, No. 124,130, 551 P.3d 37 (Kan. 2024), [Justia / Kansas Supreme Court](https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/2024/124130.html)* **Editor's note.** The Johnson County trial in Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach (No. 23CV03140) concluded October 17, 2025; an editor should verify whether the court has issued a final decision before publication. ## Exceptions ### Life of the mother **Life exception; two-physician certification** Post-22-weeks and post-viability abortion is permitted to preserve the pregnant woman's life, requiring written determination by two unaffiliated physicians. After 22 weeks or when the fetus is viable, a physician may perform an abortion to save the pregnant woman's life. This requires a written referral from a second physician who is not legally or financially connected to the first, and both must independently conclude that the abortion is necessary to preserve the woman's life. A medical emergency also overrides waiting periods, parental consent requirements, and other procedural obligations. > "The abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman" > — K.S.A. 65-6703(a)(1) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-6703(a)(1) and 65-6724(a)(1) both require that two unaffiliated physicians determine the abortion is 'necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman.' The statutes explicitly exclude conditions 'based on a claim or diagnosis that the woman will engage in conduct that would result in her death.' K.S.A. 65-6701(g) defines 'medical emergency' as a condition that, in reasonable medical judgment, necessitates immediate abortion to avert death or where delay would risk 'substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function,' also excluding predicted self-harm. The medical-emergency exception overrides waiting periods (65-6709), parental consent (65-6705(j)), and medication in-person requirements (65-4a10(b)(2)). *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6703(a)(1), subsection (a), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0003.html) · K.S.A. 65-6701(g), subsection (g), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0001.html)* ### Physical health **Physical health exception; major bodily function** Post-22-weeks and post-viability abortion is permitted when continuing the pregnancy would cause a substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, certified by two physicians. After 22 weeks or once the fetus can survive outside the womb, abortion is allowed if carrying the pregnancy to term would cause a substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function — for example, permanent damage to the kidneys, heart, or other major organs. This requires written certification from two independent physicians, and the specific medical basis must be documented. Mental health conditions alone do not qualify; the statute defines 'bodily function' as physical functions only. > "a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function" > — K.S.A. 65-6703(a)(2) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-6701(b) defines 'bodily function' as 'physical functions only,' expressly excluding 'mental or emotional functions.' The health exception in K.S.A. 65-6703(a)(2) and 65-6724(a)(2) requires 'a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.' Both physicians must provide written determination, and the performing physician must document the specific medical diagnosis. Kansas has no separate mental-health exception. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6703(a)(2), subsection (a)(2), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0003.html) · K.S.A. 65-6701(b), subsection (b), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0001.html)* ### Mental health **No mental health exception** Kansas does not recognize a mental-health exception to its post-22-weeks/post-viability limits; 'bodily function' is statutorily defined to exclude mental and emotional functions. Kansas law does not have an exception for mental health. The health exception for later abortions explicitly covers only physical impairment of a major bodily function. The statute states directly that 'bodily function' means physical functions only and does not include mental or emotional functions. A pregnant person whose health risk is solely psychiatric or psychological cannot rely on this exception. > ""Bodily function" means physical functions only. The term "bodily function" does not include mental or emotional functions." > — K.S.A. 65-6701(b) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-6701(b) provides the controlling definition. The Kansas Attorney General in Opinion No. 2000-20 addressed whether a mental-health exception existed under the viability ban and concluded it does not. The two-physician certification required by K.S.A. 65-6703(a) and 65-6724(a) is limited to life and physical-health grounds. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6701(b), subsection (b), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0001.html)* ### Rape **No rape exception needed pre-22 weeks** Because abortion is broadly legal through 22 weeks, no separate rape exception is necessary; the post-22-week limits do not include a rape exception. There is no specific rape exception in Kansas abortion law because abortion is constitutionally protected and broadly available through 22 weeks regardless of the reason for the pregnancy. After 22 weeks, the only exceptions are to save the woman's life or prevent substantial and irreversible physical impairment — rape alone does not justify a post-22-week abortion. **Legal analysis** The post-22-week and post-viability statutes (K.S.A. 65-6703, 65-6724) contain only life and physical-health exceptions. There is no statutory rape or incest exception for post-22-week abortions. Because abortion is permissible on any ground through 22 weeks LMP under the constitutional protection recognized in Hodes I, the absence of a rape exception does not operate as a restriction at earlier gestations. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6724(a), subsection (a), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0024.html)* ### Incest **No incest exception needed pre-22 weeks** Same as rape: abortion is legal through 22 weeks on any ground under the constitutional right; no incest exception exists for post-22-week abortions. There is no specific incest exception because abortion is legal through 22 weeks regardless of circumstances. After 22 weeks, only life and physical-health grounds permit abortion. **Legal analysis** The analysis mirrors that for rape. No incest exception appears in K.S.A. 65-6703 or 65-6724. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6724(a), subsection (a), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0024.html)* ### Fatal fetal anomaly **No fatal-fetal-anomaly exception** Kansas has no explicit fatal-fetal-anomaly exception for post-22-week abortions; however, such abortions may fall under the physical-health exception if the condition threatens the mother's bodily function. Kansas law does not specifically list fatal fetal anomaly as a reason for abortion after 22 weeks. However, if the condition threatens the woman's life or would cause substantial and irreversible physical impairment, the existing life and physical-health exceptions could apply. Through 22 weeks, abortion for any reason — including fatal fetal anomaly — is legal. **Legal analysis** No statutory provision lists fatal fetal anomaly as an independent ground. The life/physical-health exceptions at K.S.A. 65-6703(a) and 65-6724(a) function as the only post-22-week gateways. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6703(a), subsection (a), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0003.html)* ### Ectopic pregnancy & miscarriage care **Ectopic and miscarriage treatment excluded** The statutory definition of abortion expressly excludes removal of an ectopic pregnancy and removal of a dead unborn child; these are not subject to any abortion restriction. Treatment for ectopic pregnancy — a dangerous condition where the embryo implants outside the uterus — is specifically excluded from the definition of abortion and is always legal. Similarly, managing a miscarriage (removal of a dead unborn child) is not considered an abortion under Kansas law. The Kansas Attorney General confirmed in a 2022 opinion that these are not affected by any abortion restrictions. > "Such use or prescription is not an 'abortion' if done with the intent to: . . . (C) remove a dead unborn child who died as the result of natural causes in utero, accidental trauma or a criminal assault on the pregnant woman or the unborn child; or (D) remove an ectopic pregnancy." > — K.S.A. 65-6701(a)(2) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-6701(a)(2)(C) excludes removal of 'a dead unborn child who died as the result of natural causes in utero, accidental trauma or a criminal assault on the pregnant woman or the unborn child.' K.S.A. 65-6701(a)(2)(D) excludes removal of 'an ectopic pregnancy.' AG Opinion No. 2022-7 confirms: 'the best conclusion under the Kansas statutes generally addressing abortion is that the termination of an ectopic pregnancy does not constitute an abortion.' The medical-emergency definition at K.S.A. 65-6701(g) separately provides an override for life-threatening conditions. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6701(a)(2), subsection (a)(2)(C)–(D), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0001.html) · Kan. Att'y Gen. Op. 2022-7, at 3–4, [Washburn University School of Law](https://ksag.washburnlaw.edu/opinions/2022/2022-007.pdf)* ## Methods ### Procedural surgical **Legal; D&E ban struck; D&X ban in force** Procedural abortion is legal through 22 weeks LMP; the D&E dismemberment ban (SB 95) was permanently struck down in 2024; the partial-birth abortion (D&X) ban remains in force with life/health exceptions. Surgical abortion procedures, including the dilation and evacuation (D&E) method commonly used in the second trimester, are legal in Kansas. The Kansas legislature tried to ban D&E in 2015, but the Kansas Supreme Court permanently struck down that ban in July 2024, ruling it violated the state constitution. A federal ban on a procedure called 'partial-birth abortion' (also known as intact D&E or D&X) also applies, and Kansas has its own state-law ban on that procedure with exceptions for life and physical health. > "S.B. 95 effectively bans a common method of second-trimester abortion called Dilation and Evacuation (D & E)." > — Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach, No. 124,130, 551 P.3d 37 (Kan. 2024) **Legal analysis** In Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach, No. 124,130, 551 P.3d 37 (Kan. 2024), the Kansas Supreme Court permanently invalidated SB 95 (K.S.A. 65-6741 et seq.), which had banned D&E procedures, holding the State failed to show the law was narrowly tailored to any compelling interest. The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (18 U.S.C. § 1531) applies nationally. Kansas also has a state-law partial-birth abortion ban at K.S.A. 65-6721, which prohibits the procedure on a viable unborn child unless the physician has a documented referral from an unaffiliated physician and determines it is necessary to preserve the woman's life or prevent substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function. First violation is a class A person misdemeanor; subsequent violations are a severity level 10 person felony. Kansas's facility licensure laws (K.S.A. 65-4a01 et seq.), which had imposed TRAP-style requirements on clinics, were permanently struck down in Hodes & Nauser v. Stanek, No. 125,051 (Kan. 2024). *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach, No. 124,130, 551 P.3d 37 (Kan. 2024), [Justia / Kansas Supreme Court](https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/2024/124130.html) · K.S.A. 65-6721, [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0021.html)* ### Medication **Legal but in-person dispensing required** Medication abortion is legal through 22 weeks LMP but statutorily requires in-person physician dispensing; the telemedicine ban was blocked by a 2022 injunction, making telehealth prescribing currently permitted. Medication abortion using mifepristone and misoprostol is legal in Kansas through 22 weeks. A Kansas statute says the prescribing physician must be in the same room as the patient when the medication is given. However, a state judge blocked enforcement of the ban on prescribing abortion pills via telemedicine in November 2022, so medication abortion by telehealth is currently available. Kansas law also requires that only a physician — not a nurse practitioner or physician assistant — can prescribe abortion medication, and the physician must make reasonable efforts to ensure the patient returns for a follow-up visit 12 to 18 days later. A controversial law requiring doctors to tell patients that medication abortion can be 'reversed' has been temporarily blocked by a court since October 2023. > "When RU-486 (mifepristone) is used for the purpose of inducing an abortion, the drug shall initially be administered by or in the same room and in the physical presence of the physician who prescribed, dispensed or otherwise provided the drug to the patient" > — K.S.A. 65-4a10(b)(1)(A) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-4a10(b) requires that mifepristone 'shall initially be administered by or in the same room and in the physical presence of the physician who prescribed, dispensed or otherwise provided the drug.' K.S.A. 65-1130(d)(1) prohibits advanced practice registered nurses from prescribing 'any drug that is intended to cause an abortion.' In Trust Women Foundation v. Bennett, a state court blocked enforcement of the telemedicine ban in November 2022. The 'abortion pill reversal' law (HB 2264, codified at K.S.A. 65-6716) requiring providers to inform patients that medication abortion may be reversible is temporarily enjoined by the October 30, 2023 order in Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach, No. 23CV03140. The attorney general threatened Walgreens with prosecution for offering mifepristone by mail in 2023, but no enforcement action has been taken. There is no standalone Kansas statute criminalizing mailing pills. **Conflicting authority.** The in-person dispensing requirement in K.S.A. 65-4a10(b) remains on the books but its enforcement against telemedicine prescribing has been enjoined since November 2022 — a gap between statutory text and current practice that is unresolved at the appellate level. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · K.S.A. 65-4a10(b)(1)(A), subsection (b)(1)(A), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/ks/chapter-65-public-health/ks-st-sect-65-4a10.html) · Trust Women Foundation Inc. v. Bennett, [Clearinghouse](https://clearinghouse.net/case/43487)* **Editor's note.** The Trust Women v. Bennett injunction is interlocutory, not a final judgment. The scope of the injunction and its interplay with K.S.A. 65-4a10(b) after the facility-licensure scheme was struck down in Stanek should be rechecked. ### Self managed **Not criminalized for the pregnant woman** No Kansas statute criminalizes a woman for self-managing her own abortion; Kansas abortion laws consistently exempt the pregnant woman from conspiracy prosecution and do not create direct criminal liability. Under Kansas law, a pregnant person who ends their own pregnancy — whether by ordering pills online, using herbal methods, or otherwise self-managing — does not face criminal prosecution under the state's abortion laws. Every major Kansas abortion statute includes a clause saying a woman on whom an abortion is performed cannot be prosecuted for conspiracy to violate the section. Kansas has no standalone self-managed-abortion crime. This does not mean self-management is legally protected — it simply means the abortion code does not reach the pregnant person. Other generally applicable criminal laws (such as fetal homicide statutes) explicitly exempt lawful abortion and the pregnant woman's own conduct. > "A woman upon whom an abortion is performed shall not be prosecuted under this section for a conspiracy to violate this section" > — K.S.A. 65-6703(e) **Legal analysis** Each major Kansas abortion prohibition contains a clause similar to that in K.S.A. 65-6703(e): 'A woman upon whom an abortion is performed shall not be prosecuted under this section for a conspiracy to violate this section pursuant to K.S.A. 21-5302.' See also K.S.A. 65-6726(c) (sex-selection ban: same language). Kansas has no statute analogous to, e.g., Oklahoma's 2022 self-managed-abortion felony. The definitional exclusion of contraception in K.S.A. 65-6701(a)(3) and the exclusion of dead-fetus removal further constrict the reach of the abortion code. The fetal homicide statute, K.S.A. 21-5419, applies to third parties and exempts lawful abortion and the mother's own acts. The drug statutes (K.S.A. ch. 65, art. 41) do not list mifepristone or misoprostol as controlled substances. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6703(e), subsection (e), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0003.html) · K.S.A. 65-6726(c), subsection (c), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0026.html)* **Editor's note.** While the abortion code exempts the pregnant woman, this does not foreclose prosecution under general criminal statutes in extreme or novel theories. No published Kansas case has prosecuted a woman for self-managed abortion. ## Actors ### Who may perform **Physician-only; APRNs prohibited from prescribing** Only a Kansas-licensed physician may perform or induce an abortion; APRNs are expressly prohibited from prescribing abortion-inducing drugs; this restriction is being challenged in Aria Medical Clinic v. Kansas Board of Nursing. Only a licensed physician (M.D. or D.O.) may perform an abortion or prescribe abortion medication in Kansas. Advanced practice registered nurses — including nurse practitioners and certified nurse-midwives — are specifically barred from prescribing any drug intended to cause an abortion. A Wichita abortion clinic and a nurse practitioner filed a lawsuit in April 2025 challenging this restriction, arguing it violates the Kansas Constitution. That lawsuit is pending. The Kansas Supreme Court permanently struck down facility-licensing requirements that had imposed special building and equipment standards on abortion clinics in 2024. > "No abortion shall be performed or induced by any person other than a physician licensed to practice medicine in the state of Kansas." > — K.S.A. 65-4a10(a) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-4a10(a): 'No abortion shall be performed or induced by any person other than a physician licensed to practice medicine in the state of Kansas.' K.S.A. 65-1130(d)(1): '[A]n advanced practice registered nurse shall not prescribe any drug that is intended to cause an abortion.' K.A.R. 60-11-104a(a)(2) mirrors this prohibition. The facility licensure scheme at K.S.A. 65-4a01 et seq., which required KDHE licensing for clinics performing five or more first-trimester abortions per month, was permanently struck down in Hodes & Nauser v. Stanek, No. 125,051 (Kan. 2024). The pending challenge in Aria Medical Clinic LLC v. Kansas Board of Nursing (Shawnee County District Court, filed April 22, 2025) alleges the APRN exclusion violates the equal protection and personal-autonomy guarantees of the Kansas Constitution; the court denied the state's motion to dismiss in December 2025. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-4a10(a), subsection (a), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/ks/chapter-65-public-health/ks-st-sect-65-4a10.html) · K.S.A. 65-1130(d)(1), subsection (d)(1), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://www.ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_011_0030.html)* **Editor's note.** The Aria Medical Clinic litigation is pending and could alter the APRN prohibition. ### Criminal civil exposure #### Pregnant woman **Expressly exempt from prosecution** The pregnant woman is explicitly exempted from criminal prosecution for conspiracy under every major Kansas abortion provision and faces no direct civil or criminal liability under the abortion code. Kansas law is clear: a woman who obtains an abortion cannot be criminally prosecuted under the state's abortion laws. Each major abortion statute contains a provision saying the woman 'shall not be prosecuted' for conspiracy to violate the law. The statutes also do not create any crime that the pregnant woman herself could directly commit — they target only those who perform or induce the abortion. A woman can sue a provider who violates certain restrictions (such as the sex-selection ban or performing a post-22-week abortion without proper documentation), and the 2024 coercion law protects women from being pressured into abortion. > "A woman upon whom an abortion is performed shall not be prosecuted under this section for a conspiracy to violate this section" > — K.S.A. 65-6703(e) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-6703(e): 'A woman upon whom an abortion is performed shall not be prosecuted under this section for a conspiracy to violate this section.' K.S.A. 65-6726(c) provides identical protection. The 2024 coercion statute, K.S.A. 21-5433, makes it a crime to coerce a woman into an abortion against her express wishes — protecting rather than targeting her. The civil-remedy provisions in K.S.A. 65-6703(g) and 65-6726(b) permit the woman (and in some cases the father or parents) to sue the provider, not vice versa. K.S.A. 65-6757 provides for anonymity of the woman in any civil or criminal action. There is no statutory basis for prosecuting a pregnant woman under the homicide code for abortion: K.S.A. 21-5419(f)(1) expressly excludes 'any act committed by the mother of the unborn child.' The definitional exclusion in K.S.A. 65-6701(a)(2)(C)–(D) of dead-fetus removal and ectopic-pregnancy treatment further insulates a woman from claims about pregnancy outcomes. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6703(e), subsection (e), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0003.html) · K.S.A. 21-5419(f)(1), subsection (f)(1), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/ks/chapter-21-crimes-and-punishments/ks-st-sect-21-5419.html)* #### Physician **Misdemeanor/felony; license discipline** Physicians face class A person misdemeanor for first offense of violating the post-viability or post-22-weeks ban (up to 1 year jail), severity level 10 person felony for repeat offenses, plus license revocation. A physician who performs an abortion in violation of the post-viability or pain-capable-unborn-child laws faces a class A person misdemeanor for a first conviction (punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine) and a severity level 10 person felony for a second or subsequent conviction. Violating the medication in-person dispensing requirement constitutes unprofessional conduct subjecting the physician to license discipline, including possible revocation. The D&E ban was struck down, so its penalties are not enforceable. The facility licensure TRAP laws were also struck down, so associated penalties for operating without a facility license are unenforceable. > "Upon a first conviction of a violation of this section, a person shall be guilty of a class A person misdemeanor. Upon a second or subsequent conviction of a violation of this section, a person shall be guilty of a severity level 10, person felony." > — K.S.A. 65-6724(j) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-6703(k) (viability ban): first conviction = class A nonperson misdemeanor; second or subsequent = severity level 10 nonperson felony. K.S.A. 65-6724(j) (pain-capable ban): first conviction = class A person misdemeanor; second or subsequent = severity level 10 person felony. K.S.A. 65-4a10(d): violation of medication-presence requirement = unprofessional conduct under K.S.A. 65-2837. Under the Kansas sentencing grid, a severity level 10 person felony carries presumptive probation for first-time offenders but 5–9 months imprisonment for aggravated criminal-history categories. K.S.A. 65-6721 (partial-birth abortion) penalties are class A person misdemeanor / severity level 10 person felony. The struck-down D&E ban (K.S.A. 65-6746) had class A person misdemeanor / severity level 10 person felony categories. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6724(j), subsection (j), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/ks/chapter-65-public-health/ks-st-sect-65-6724) · K.S.A. 65-4a10(d), subsection (d), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/ks/chapter-65-public-health/ks-st-sect-65-4a10.html)* #### Prescriber pharmacist **APRNs barred; pharmacists face general rules** APRNs are prohibited from prescribing abortion medication; pharmacists dispensing abortion medication by out-of-state prescription could face discipline under general practice rules, but no abortion-specific pharmacist statute exists. Advanced practice registered nurses cannot legally prescribe abortion medication in Kansas. Doing so would violate the Nurse Practice Act and could result in license discipline, including revocation, and a criminal misdemeanor. Pharmacists who dispense mifepristone or misoprostol are not addressed by any abortion-specific statute, but they could theoretically face general professional discipline or criminal exposure if they knowingly dispense for an unlawful abortion. There is no reported case of a Kansas pharmacist being prosecuted for dispensing abortion medication. > "an advanced practice registered nurse shall not prescribe any drug that is intended to cause an abortion." > — K.S.A. 65-1130(d)(1) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-1130(d)(1): 'an advanced practice registered nurse shall not prescribe any drug that is intended to cause an abortion.' K.S.A. 65-1120 authorizes license discipline including revocation. K.S.A. 65-1122(f) makes knowing violation of the Nurse Practice Act a class B misdemeanor. This prohibition is currently being challenged in Aria Medical Clinic LLC v. Kansas Board of Nursing. For pharmacists, K.S.A. 65-1626 et seq. (Pharmacy Act) provides general grounds for discipline, and a pharmacist knowingly dispensing abortion medication in violation of law could be subject to Board of Pharmacy discipline. No abortion-specific pharmacist criminal provision exists. *Sources — Semi-verified · Medium confidence · K.S.A. 65-1130(d)(1), subsection (d)(1), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://www.ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_011_0030.html)* **Editor's note.** The Aria Medical Clinic lawsuit may alter this regime. Pharmacist exposure is underexplored in Kansas case law. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. #### Nurses and staff **Low direct exposure; assisting is indirect** Clinic nurses and staff face no specific abortion-related criminal exposure as long as they act within their scope under a physician's direction; general accomplice-liability theory is theoretically possible but no Kansas case supports it. Nurses and clinic staff who assist with abortion care — preparing instruments, monitoring patients, providing aftercare — are not directly targeted by Kansas abortion statutes, which criminalize only those who 'perform or induce' an abortion. Acting under a physician's direction within their professional scope of practice is not 'performing or inducing.' The facility licensure laws that could have exposed staff to penalties for operating an unlicensed facility were permanently struck down in 2024. There is no known instance of Kansas clinic staff being prosecuted for assisting with legal abortion care. **Legal analysis** The abortion prohibitions in K.S.A. 65-6703, 65-6724, and related statutes target the person who 'perform[s] or induce[s]' an abortion — the physician. Kansas's general accomplice-liability statute, K.S.A. 21-5302(a), makes a person criminally responsible if they intentionally aid another in committing a crime, but application to clinic staff assisting in lawful medical care has no precedent in Kansas. The struck-down facility laws (K.S.A. 65-4a01 et seq.) had included penalties at K.S.A. 65-4a08 for operating without a license (class A nonperson misdemeanor), but those provisions are permanently enjoined. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Hodes & Nauser v. Stanek, No. 125,051, 551 P.3d 62 (Kan. 2024), [Justia / Kansas Supreme Court](https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/2024/125051.html)* #### Other helpers **No criminal exposure for assisting** Kansas has no law criminalizing a friend, family member, employer, or fund that helps a person obtain a lawful abortion; the 2024 coercion statute targets only those who pressure a woman into abortion against her will. Kansas does not criminalize helping someone get an abortion — friends who drive, parents who pay, employers who cover travel costs, and abortion funds that provide financial assistance all face no criminal exposure under current Kansas law for assisting with a lawful abortion. Unlike some states that have passed 'abortion trafficking' laws, Kansas has not enacted any statute that criminalizes assisting someone in obtaining an abortion. The 2024 coercion statute actually protects women by making it a crime to pressure someone into an abortion against their will. > "Coercion to obtain an abortion is engaging in coercion with knowledge that a woman is pregnant and with the intent to compel such woman to obtain an abortion when such woman has expressed her desire to not obtain an abortion." > — K.S.A. 21-5433(a) **Legal analysis** No Kansas statute criminalizes aiding, funding, or facilitating a lawful abortion. General accomplice liability (K.S.A. 21-5302) requires an underlying crime — if the abortion is lawful (within the 22-week limit and performed by a physician), there is no crime to be an accomplice to. The 2024 coercion law, K.S.A. 21-5433, makes it a person felony to coerce a woman into an abortion against her expressed wishes, with enhanced penalties if the perpetrator is the father of the unborn child and the woman is a minor. This statute protects reproductive autonomy rather than restricting assistance. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 21-5433(a), subsection (a), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch21/021_054_0033.html)* ## Aiding & assisting ### Travel assistance **No travel-assistance criminalization** Kansas has no 'abortion trafficking' or travel-ban statute; assisting someone with travel to obtain an abortion — including travel out of state — is not criminalized. Kansas has not passed any law making it a crime to help someone travel to get an abortion, whether the travel is within Kansas or to another state. Some states have enacted so-called 'abortion trafficking' laws that criminalize helping minors travel out of state for an abortion without parental consent; Kansas has no such law. Kansas also has no law restricting interstate travel for abortion by adults. > "No political subdivision of the state shall regulate or restrict abortion." > — K.S.A. 65-6702(b) **Legal analysis** No Kansas statute analogous to Idaho's 'abortion trafficking' law or Texas's SB 8 travel-assistance provisions exists. K.S.A. 65-6702(b) expressly prohibits political subdivisions from regulating or restricting abortion, which preempts any local ordinance that might attempt to restrict travel. The right to travel interstate is a fundamental federal constitutional right (Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999)), and Kansas has not enacted any legislation attempting to reach out-of-state conduct. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6702(b), subsection (b), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0002.html)* ### Funding **No liability for funding assistance** No Kansas law criminalizes or attaches civil liability to funding an abortion; private individuals, employers, and abortion funds may assist without legal exposure. There is no Kansas law that makes it a crime or a civil wrong to pay for someone else's abortion or contribute to abortion-related travel costs. Employer health reimbursement arrangements, abortion funds, and private donations are not regulated or restricted by abortion-specific laws. The state does restrict state funding (Medicaid and state employee plans), but this regulates government spending, not private assistance. **Legal analysis** No provision in the Kansas Statutes Annotated creates criminal or civil liability for providing funds for an abortion. The restrictions at K.S.A. 65-6733 (prohibiting state general fund money and certain other state funds from being used for abortion) and K.S.A. 40-2,190 (restricting insurance coverage) apply to government and insurance entities, not to private funding. Kansas has no SB 8-style civil bounty law. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6733, [Justia Law](https://law.justia.com/codes/kansas/chapter-65/article-67/section-65-6733)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Mailing pills **No standalone mail prohibition for pills** Kansas has no statute specifically criminalizing the mailing of abortion medication; the in-person dispensing requirement in K.S.A. 65-4a10(b) applies to the physician but does not directly regulate mail. Kansas does not have its own law making it a crime to send abortion pills through the mail. The relevant statute requires the prescribing physician to be in the same room as the patient when the medication is given, but it does not directly ban mailing. A court order blocks enforcement of the telemedicine ban, so receiving pills after a telehealth appointment is currently permitted. The Attorney General threatened legal action against a major pharmacy chain in 2023 for offering abortion medication by mail, but no prosecution has resulted. **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-4a10(b) requires in-person physician administration of mifepristone but does not create a separate offense for mailing. No Kansas statute parallels Texas's SB 4 or Louisiana's law criminalizing shipment of abortion-inducing drugs. The Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel has opined that the Comstock Act does not prohibit mailing of drugs where the sender lacks intent that they be used unlawfully (OLC Opinion, Dec. 23, 2022). The Trust Women injunction adds a practical layer: telemedicine prescribing is currently permitted, undercutting any argument that mailing pills pursuant to a valid telemedicine prescription violates the in-person statute. **Conflicting authority.** The attorney general's 2023 threat to prosecute Walgreens for mailing mifepristone suggests a potential enforcement theory not yet tested in court. No statutory text directly supports it. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · K.S.A. 65-4a10(b), subsection (b)(1)(A), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/ks/chapter-65-public-health/ks-st-sect-65-4a10.html)* **Editor's note.** Enforcement posture could shift with a change in federal administration or a new attorney general opinion. ### Providing information **Information provision not criminalized** Kansas has no law criminalizing the provision of information, referrals, or website links about abortion; the 2023 injunction blocking state-scripted messaging affirms that compelled speech faces First Amendment limits. Providing someone with information about how to obtain an abortion — including sharing a clinic's phone number, directing someone to a website, or explaining how medication abortion works — is not against the law in Kansas. There is no 'aiding and abetting' statute that reaches information-sharing about legal conduct. The courts have recognized that the First Amendment protects the right of doctors and clinics to provide accurate medical information without being forced to recite the government's script. **Legal analysis** No Kansas statute criminalizes speech about abortion. The October 2023 temporary injunction in Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach specifically blocked state-compelled speech that the court found to be inaccurate (the abortion-pill-reversal claim) and 'a thinly-veiled effort to stigmatize the procedure.' This injunction is grounded in the free-speech protections of section 11 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. Under strict scrutiny, the state's interest in compelling speech about abortion must be compelling and narrowly tailored; the Johnson County court found the state's scheme failed this test. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach, No. 23CV03140 (Johnson Cnty. Dist. Ct. Oct. 30, 2023), [Center for Reproductive Rights](https://reproductiverights.org/cases/hodes-nauser-v-kobach)* ### Civil bounty **No SB8-style civil bounty law** Kansas has not enacted a private civil-enforcement bounty law; civil remedies exist for specific violations (post-viability ban, sex-selection ban) but are limited to aggrieved parties — the woman, the father, or the minor's parents — not any private citizen. Unlike Texas, which allows any private citizen to sue anyone who assists an abortion for at least $10,000, Kansas has no such bounty law. Kansas statutes do allow civil lawsuits for certain abortion violations — for example, a woman or her spouse can sue a doctor who performs a post-viability abortion without proper documentation — but only the aggrieved individuals can sue, not any random person. These provisions have been on the books for years and are not comparable to SB 8. > "A woman upon whom an abortion is performed in violation of this section, the father, if married to the woman at the time of the abortion, and the parents or custodial guardian of the woman, if the woman has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief" > — K.S.A. 65-6703(g)(1) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-6703(g) authorizes civil actions by the woman, the father (if married to her), or the minor's parents/guardian for violations of the viability ban, with remedies including money damages for all injuries, statutory damages of three times the cost of the abortion, and attorney fees. K.S.A. 65-6726(b) provides a parallel civil remedy for sex-selection abortions. K.S.A. 65-6705(q) authorizes parents/guardians to sue for violations of parental-consent requirements. None of these provisions permit suit by an uninvolved third party, and none creates a minimum-damages floor designed to incentivize litigation. The 2025 bill SB 198, which would create a private cause of action for any abortion, is symbolic and extremely unlikely to become law given the constitutional right. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6703(g)(1), subsection (g)(1), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0003.html)* ## Procedural requirements ### Waiting period **24-hour waiting period; 30-minute block enjoined** A 24-hour waiting period between written informed consent and the procedure remains in effect; the additional 30-minute post-counseling waiting period is temporarily enjoined. You must receive state-mandated written information at least 24 hours before your abortion and sign a consent form. You cannot pay for the procedure until the 24 hours have passed. A separate requirement that you wait an additional 30 minutes after meeting privately with your doctor was blocked by a court in October 2023 and is not currently being enforced. This means in practice you need at least one in-person visit before the procedure day, though the consent information can be given in writing ahead of time. > "At least 24 hours before the abortion the physician who is to perform the abortion or the referring physician has informed the woman in writing . . ." > — K.S.A. 65-6709(a) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-6709(a) requires that at least 24 hours before the abortion, the physician provides specific written information. K.S.A. 65-6709(g) prohibits payment until the waiting period expires. The October 30, 2023 temporary injunction in Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach blocked the 30-minute post-counseling waiting requirement and HB 2749's 'reasons' reporting requirement, along with certain biased-counseling scripts. The core 24-hour waiting period itself was not enjoined; it remains in force. A medical emergency under K.S.A. 65-6701(g) overrides the waiting period. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · K.S.A. 65-6709(a), subsection (a), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0009.html)* **Editor's note.** The October 2025 bench trial may result in a permanent ruling that either expands or narrows the injunction. Verify the current scope before publication. ### Mandatory counseling **State-scripted counseling; some items enjoined** Kansas law requires providers to deliver state-scripted written and verbal counseling including contested medical claims; a court has temporarily blocked the mandate to tell patients about medication-abortion reversal, breast cancer risk, and fetal pain at 20 weeks. Kansas law requires your doctor to give you state-written information at least 24 hours before an abortion, including details about fetal development, the risks of abortion, and alternatives. Some of the information the state originally required doctors to say — such as claiming abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, causes premature birth in future pregnancies, or that medication abortion can be reversed — has been blocked by a court because medical evidence does not support those statements. The mandatory counseling also requires the provider to offer to show you an ultrasound image and let you hear the fetal heartbeat if audible, though you are not required to view or listen. > "there is no 'credible scientific/medical evidence that the "reversal" therapy proposed in the Amendment actually "affects" the effects of mifepristone. Indeed, the overwhelming weight of credible evidence, given this record, suggests that such a theory is misleading, untested, potentially-dangerous for women, and speculative.'" > — Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach, No. 23CV03140 (Johnson Cnty. Dist. Ct. Oct. 30, 2023) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-6709(a) specifies 15 items of written information, plus an offer to view ultrasound and hear heartbeat under K.S.A. 65-6709(b). The October 30, 2023 order in Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach blocked enforcement of the abortion-pill-reversal counseling (K.S.A. 65-6716), the statements about breast-cancer risk and premature-birth risk, and certain formatting specifications. The court stated the reversal claim was 'misleading, untested, potentially-dangerous for women, and speculative.' The requirement to offer ultrasound viewing under K.S.A. 65-6709(b) was not separately enjoined and remains operative. The broader 'Woman's Right to Know' informational website and printed materials remain state-produced but providers are not currently compelled to recite all contested claims. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach, No. 23CV03140 (Johnson Cnty. Dist. Ct. Oct. 30, 2023), [Center for Reproductive Rights](https://reproductiverights.org/cases/hodes-nauser-v-kobach)* **Editor's note.** The October 2025 bench trial may result in a permanent ruling; verify the current scope of the injunction before publication. ### Ultrasound requirement **Ultrasound offered, not mandated** Kansas requires the provider to offer the woman an opportunity to view the ultrasound image and hear the fetal heartbeat, but the woman is not required to accept; no mandatory ultrasound performance law exists. Before an abortion, your provider must give you the chance to see an ultrasound image of the fetus and, if the heartbeat is audible, to hear it. You are not required to look or listen — you can decline. The law does not require an ultrasound to be performed if it was not otherwise medically indicated; this is an 'offer' requirement, not a mandatory-display or mandatory-performance rule like those in some other states. > "the physician who is to perform the abortion . . . shall offer the pregnant woman an opportunity to view the ultrasound image of the unborn child and an opportunity to hear the fetal heartbeat" > — K.S.A. 65-6709(b)(2) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-6709(b)(2) requires the physician to offer the pregnant woman 'an opportunity to view the ultrasound image of the unborn child' and 'an opportunity to hear the fetal heartbeat.' K.S.A. 65-6709(b)(3) states: 'Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require a woman to view the ultrasound image or hear the fetal heartbeat.' This is less restrictive than states requiring mandatory ultrasound performance or display (e.g., Texas). The 22-week and viability laws require the physician to determine gestational age 'according to accepted obstetrical and neonatal practice' (K.S.A. 65-6703(c)), which normally includes ultrasound, but this is a medical-practice requirement, not a separate consent prerequisite. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6709(b)(2), subsection (b)(2), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0009.html)* ### In person visits **One in-person visit required** The combined requirements of the 24-hour waiting period and in-person medication dispensing for procedural abortion mean at least one in-person visit is necessary before the abortion; for medication abortion via telemedicine, the in-person requirement is enjoined. For a procedural abortion, you will need to come to the clinic at least once before the day of the procedure, because the 24-hour waiting period runs from when you receive the written information and sign consent. For medication abortion via telemedicine, the in-person dispensing requirement is currently blocked by a court order, so you may be able to obtain the medication without an in-person visit. However, the statute on the books still says the physician must be in the same room, and a final court ruling could change the current practice. A medical emergency exempts you from the waiting period entirely. > "The woman is not required to pay any amount for the abortion procedure until the 24-hour waiting period has expired." > — K.S.A. 65-6709(g) **Legal analysis** The 24-hour waiting period (K.S.A. 65-6709(a)) and the in-person medication requirement (K.S.A. 65-4a10(b)) together require at least one in-person visit for procedural abortion. For medication abortion, Trust Women Foundation v. Bennett (2022 injunction) blocked enforcement of the in-person requirement as applied to telemedicine prescribing. K.S.A. 65-6709(g) prohibits payment before the waiting period ends. The medical emergency override in K.S.A. 65-6701(g) waives both the waiting period and the in-person requirement. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · K.S.A. 65-6709(g), subsection (g), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0009.html)* **Editor's note.** Statutory text and current enforcement practice diverge for medication abortion. The Trust Women injunction is interlocutory and could be dissolved or narrowed. ## Minors ### Parental involvement **Both-parent consent; judicial bypass available** Unemancipated minors must obtain notarized written consent from both parents (or the custodial parent) before an abortion, unless waived by a court through judicial bypass or in a medical emergency. If you are under 18 and not legally emancipated, Kansas law requires you to get written, notarized consent from both of your parents — or your legal guardian — before you can have an abortion. If your parents are divorced and one has primary custody, that parent's consent is enough. If one parent is unavailable, the available parent's consent suffices. If you became pregnant because of sexual intercourse with your father, stepfather, or legal guardian, only your mother's consent is needed, and the doctor must report the abuse. If you cannot or do not want to involve your parents, you can ask a judge for a 'judicial bypass' to waive the requirement. > "Except in the case of a medical emergency, no person shall perform an abortion upon an unemanicipated minor, unless the person first obtains the notarized written consent of the minor and both parents or the legal guardian of the minor." > — K.S.A. 65-6705(a) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-6705(a) requires notarized written consent of the minor and both parents or the legal guardian, except in a medical emergency. Subsection (a)(1) provides that if parents are divorced or unmarried and living apart, consent of the parent with primary custody is sufficient. Subsection (a)(2) addresses unavailability of one married parent. Subsection (a)(3) addresses incest and requires mandatory reporting under K.S.A. 38-2223. The consent statute provides judicial bypass (subsections (b)–(f)). Violation by a provider is a class A person misdemeanor under subsection (k). A parent or guardian may pursue civil remedies under subsection (q), including money damages for all injuries, statutory damages of three times the cost of the abortion, and attorney fees. This statute is in force and not enjoined. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6705(a), subsection (a), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0005.html)* ### Judicial bypass **Bypass available; 48-hour ruling deadline** A minor may petition any Kansas district court for waiver of parental consent on grounds of maturity or best interests; the court must rule within 48 hours or the application is automatically granted; an expedited anonymous appeal is available. If you are under 18 and do not want to or cannot involve your parents, you can go to any Kansas district court and ask a judge to waive the parental consent requirement. You do not need a lawyer — the court will appoint one for you at no cost. The judge can grant the bypass if they find either that you are mature and well-informed enough to make the decision yourself, or that requiring your parents' consent would not be in your best interest. The court must decide within 48 hours (not counting weekends); if it doesn't, the application is automatically approved. If denied, you have a right to an expedited anonymous appeal, which must be completed within five days. All proceedings are kept confidential, and there are no filing fees. > "If the court fails to rule within 48 hours, excluding Saturdays and Sundays, of the time of the filing of the minor's application, the application shall be deemed granted." > — K.S.A. 65-6705(f) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-6705(b)–(i) provides the complete bypass procedure. Subsection (d) establishes the two grounds: maturity or best interests. Subsection (f) imposes the 48-hour deadline (excluding weekends) and provides automatic grant if the court fails to rule. Subsection (g) provides for expedited anonymous appeal within five days. Subsection (c) mandates confidentiality and anonymity. Subsection (i) prohibits fees. Subsection (m) permits the court to order a psychiatric or psychological evaluation. Subsection (n) provides detailed factors for the maturity determination: experience level, perspective, and judgment. Subsection (h) authorizes the Kansas Supreme Court to promulgate rules. The Kansas Court of Appeals held in In re Doe, 17 Kan. App. 2d 567 (1992) that Kansas residency is not required to seek a bypass. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6705(f), subsection (f), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0005.html)* ## Paternal spousal rights ### Consent or notice laws **No spousal consent or notice law** Kansas has no statute requiring spousal consent or spousal notification for abortion; such a law would be unconstitutional under Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976). Kansas does not require a married woman to get her husband's consent or to notify him before having an abortion. No such law exists in Kansas. Even if one did, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that states cannot give a husband veto power over his wife's abortion decision. **Legal analysis** No spousal-consent or spousal-notification provision exists in the Kansas Statutes Annotated. The Kansas parental-consent statute (K.S.A. 65-6705) addresses only minors and their parents or guardians. Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), held spousal-consent requirements unconstitutional, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), reaffirmed that spousal-notification requirements constitute an undue burden. While Dobbs abrogated the federal constitutional framework, the Kansas constitutional right to personal autonomy recognized in Hodes I independently protects against spousal-consent requirements under strict scrutiny. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Planned Parenthood of Cent. Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), at 70, [Justia / U.S. Supreme Court](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/52)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Enforceability **Danforth and Casey bar; Hodes I reinforces** Any spousal-consent or spousal-notice law would be unenforceable in Kansas under both the U.S. Supreme Court's Danforth/Casey precedents and the Kansas Constitution's personal-autonomy right under strict scrutiny. Both federal constitutional precedent and Kansas's own stronger state constitutional protection would make any spousal-consent requirement unenforceable. Even though the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs decision removed the federal floor, the Kansas Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Hodes I provides independent, stricter protection under the state constitution. > "We cannot hold that the State has the constitutional authority to give the spouse unilaterally the ability to prohibit the wife from terminating her pregnancy, when the State itself lacks that right." > — Planned Parenthood of Cent. Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 70 (1976) **Legal analysis** Under Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), the Court held that a state 'cannot delegate to a spouse a veto power which the state itself is absolutely and totally prohibited from exercising during the first trimester of pregnancy.' In Casey, 505 U.S. at 887–98, the joint opinion reaffirmed that spousal-notification requirements are an undue burden. Dobbs abrogated the federal right to abortion but did not overrule Danforth's specific holding regarding spousal veto — the question is unsettled at the federal level. Kansas, however, has its own constitutional protection under Hodes I, which subjects any infringement of the abortion right to strict scrutiny. A spousal-consent requirement would almost certainly fail strict scrutiny as not narrowly tailored to any compelling state interest. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Planned Parenthood of Cent. Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 70 (1976), at 70, [Justia / U.S. Supreme Court](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/52)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Other paternal rights **Father has civil standing and wrongful-death claim** A married father may bring civil actions for violations of the viability and sex-selection bans and has standing under the wrongful-death statute for an unborn child. Under Kansas law, a husband whose wife obtains an abortion in violation of the post-viability or sex-selection ban may sue the provider for money damages, including psychological injuries. Kansas also allows a wrongful-death lawsuit for the death of an unborn child. There is no 'putative father registry' that gives an unmarried father the right to block an abortion, and Kansas courts have not recognized a father's right to enjoin an abortion. A 2025 bill (HB 2062) proposed requiring child support from conception, but it did not pass. > "the father, if married to the woman at the time of the abortion . . . may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief" > — K.S.A. 65-6703(g)(1) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-6703(g)(1) permits a civil action by 'the father, if married to the woman at the time of the abortion,' for violations of the viability ban. K.S.A. 65-6726(b)(1) provides parallel standing for sex-selection violations. K.S.A. 60-1901 (wrongful-death statute) defines 'unborn child' to include 'a living individual organism of the species homo sapiens, in utero, at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth.' The Kansas Supreme Court has recognized wrongful-death claims for unborn children (Hale v. Brown, 287 Kan. 320, 197 P.3d 438 (2008)). The viability ban civil provision explicitly excludes cases where the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct. No Kansas court has granted a father an injunction against an abortion. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6703(g)(1), subsection (g)(1), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0003.html) · K.S.A. 60-1901(c), subsection (c), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch60/060_019_0001.html)* ## Fetal personhood ### Fetal homicide law **Fetal homicide at any stage; abortion exempt** Kansas makes it homicide to cause the death of an unborn child 'at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth,' but expressly exempts lawful abortion and any act by the mother. Kansas's fetal homicide law makes it a crime for a third party to kill an unborn child at any stage of pregnancy, from fertilization to birth, separate from any crime against the pregnant woman. But the law specifically says it does not apply to any lawful medical procedure — including abortion — or to any act by the pregnant woman herself. So, for example, a drunk driver who kills a pregnant woman and her fetus can be charged for both deaths, but a woman who has a legal abortion is not committing homicide. > ""Unborn child" means a living individual organism of the species homo sapiens, in utero, at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth." > — K.S.A. 21-5419(a)(2) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 21-5419(a)(2) defines 'unborn child' as 'a living individual organism of the species homo sapiens, in utero, at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth.' Subsection (b) provides that certain offenses against persons (murder, manslaughter, battery, etc.) apply to an unborn child. Subsection (f) provides: 'This section shall not apply to: (1) Any act committed by the mother of the unborn child; (2) any lawful medical procedure, including, but not limited to, an abortion, performed by a person licensed to practice medicine and surgery . . . or (3) the lawful dispensing or administration of lawfully prescribed medication.' This is a classic internal carve-out: the fetus is a person for homicide purposes, but the abortion exception and mother exemption prevent the personhood definition from reaching abortion. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 21-5419(a)(2), subsection (a)(2), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/ks/chapter-21-crimes-and-punishments/ks-st-sect-21-5419.html)* ### Wrongful death **Wrongful-death claim from fertilization** Kansas permits a civil wrongful-death action for an unborn child at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth; lawful abortion is not a wrong, so the cause of action does not reach it. Kansas law allows a wrongful-death lawsuit when an unborn child dies because of someone else's negligence or wrongful act, from the moment of fertilization. This means, for example, the family of a pregnant woman killed in a car crash can recover damages for the death of both the woman and the fetus. However, a lawful abortion is not a 'wrongful' act, so a wrongful-death claim cannot be brought against a provider who performs a legal abortion. Some pending legislative bills aim to remove the abortion exception from the wrongful-death statute. > ""Unborn child" means a living individual organism of the species homo sapiens, in utero, at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth." > — K.S.A. 60-1901(c) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 60-1901(c) defines 'unborn child' for wrongful-death purposes identically to the fetal homicide statute: 'a living individual organism of the species homo sapiens, in utero, at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth.' The claim requires a 'wrongful act or omission' causing death. Lawful abortion performed in compliance with Kansas law is not wrongful, so the wrongful-death statute does not provide a cause of action against an abortion provider for a lawful abortion. The 2025 'Abolish Abortion Kansas Act' bills (SB 174, HB 2171) would remove the abortion exception from the wrongful-death statute, but they are unlikely to pass given the constitutional right. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 60-1901(c), subsection (c), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch60/060_019_0001.html)* ### Personhood definition **Life begins at fertilization; subject to U.S. Constitution** A 2013 Kansas statute declares that life begins at fertilization and that unborn children have the rights of persons, but explicitly subjects this declaration to the U.S. Constitution and specific contrary provisions in the Kansas Constitution and statutes. In 2013, the Kansas legislature passed a law declaring that 'the life of each human being begins at fertilization' and that unborn children should be treated as having all the rights, privileges, and immunities of other persons. However, the law itself includes a crucial limitation: these rights are 'subject only to the constitution of the United States, and decisional interpretations thereof by the United States supreme court and specific provisions to the contrary in the Kansas constitution and the Kansas Statutes Annotated.' This means the personhood declaration does not override the Kansas constitutional right to abortion. The law also says it does not create a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child through her own behavior. > "the laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges and immunities available to other persons, citizens and residents of this state, subject only to the constitution of the United States, and decisional interpretations thereof by the United States supreme court and specific provisions to the contrary in the Kansas constitution and the Kansas Statutes Annotated." > — K.S.A. 65-6732(b) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-6732(b) provides: 'the laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges and immunities available to other persons, citizens and residents of this state, subject only to the constitution of the United States, and decisional interpretations thereof by the United States supreme court and specific provisions to the contrary in the Kansas constitution and the Kansas Statutes Annotated.' The 'subject to' clause is the operative limitation — it expressly subordinates the personhood declaration to the Kansas Constitution, which under Hodes I protects abortion as a fundamental right. Subsection (d) expressly states: 'Nothing in this section shall be construed as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.' The Kansas Supreme Court cited this statute in Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach (2024) as one of the state's asserted interests, but the court still struck down the D&E ban under strict scrutiny. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6732(b), subsection (b), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0032.html)* ### Contradictions analysis Kansas law contains deep internal contradictions on fetal personhood. K.S.A. 65-6732 declares that life begins at fertilization and that unborn children possess 'all the rights, privileges and immunities available to other persons,' and K.S.A. 21-5419 defines an unborn child as 'a living individual organism . . . at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth' for homicide purposes. Yet the personhood statute (65-6732) explicitly subordinates itself to the Kansas Constitution, which under Hodes I protects abortion as a fundamental right — meaning the fetus cannot be a constitutional 'person' for purposes of overriding the pregnant woman's autonomy. The fetal homicide statute expressly exempts (1) 'any act committed by the mother,' (2) any 'lawful medical procedure, including, but not limited to, an abortion,' and (3) lawful medication. Thus, the same legislature that declared the unborn a rights-bearing person from fertilization simultaneously permits — indeed, is constitutionally compelled to permit — the intentional termination of that person through abortion up to 22 weeks. The wrongful-death statute uses the same 'fertilization to birth' definition but does not reach lawful abortion because no 'wrongful act' occurs. The 2024 coercion statute (K.S.A. 21-5433) defines 'unborn child' identically, yet the offense protects a woman's right to choose abortion free from coercion — meaning the entity the statute calls a 'child' may be lawfully aborted moments later. This is the classic personhood paradox: the legislature treats the fetus as a person for some purposes (homicide, wrongful death, coercion) while the constitution and the legislature's own carve-outs treat it as not a person for purposes of abortion access. The 2022 ballot-measure defeat and the 2024 Hodes decisions confirm that the constitutional right prevails over the statutory personhood declaration. ## Telehealth & interstate questions ### Telehealth prescribing **Telehealth permitted by injunction** Telehealth prescribing of abortion medication is currently permitted under a 2022 injunction blocking the in-person requirement; the statute on the books still requires in-person physician presence. Right now, you can get medication abortion pills prescribed through a telehealth appointment in Kansas. A judge blocked the law that said the doctor had to be in the same room as you when the medication is given. This means you can consult with a Kansas-licensed physician by video and receive mifepristone and misoprostol by mail or at a pharmacy, without an in-person visit to a clinic. The law on the books still says in-person dispensing is required, and the court case is not fully resolved — a permanent ruling could change this. > "A Kansas judge has blocked a law banning doctors from prescribing abortion-inducing pills over telemedicine." > — Trust Women Foundation Inc. v. Bennett (Shawnee Cnty. Dist. Ct., Nov. 2022) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-4a10(b) requires the physician to be in the same room when mifepristone is administered. Trust Women Foundation Inc. v. Bennett (Shawnee County District Court) resulted in an injunction blocking enforcement of this requirement as applied to telemedicine in November 2022. The Kansas Court of Appeals and Kansas Supreme Court dismissed the state's appeals on procedural grounds, leaving the injunction in place. The Kansas Telemedicine Act (HB 2028, K.S.A. 40-211 et seq.) generally authorizes telehealth but portions were challenged as they interacted with the abortion-specific in-person requirement. The 2023 Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach litigation also touches on telehealth-related informed-consent questions. *Sources — Semi-verified · Medium confidence · Trust Women Foundation Inc. v. Bennett (Shawnee Cnty. Dist. Ct., Nov. 2022), [KCUR](https://www.kcur.org/2022-11-28/kansas-judge-blocks-law-banned-prescribing-abortion-pills-telemedicine)* **Editor's note.** The statutory text and enforcement reality diverge. The Trust Women injunction is interlocutory; final resolution is pending. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Out of state travel **Out-of-state travel not restricted** Kansas does not restrict residents from traveling to another state for an abortion, nor has it attempted to criminalize or penalize such travel. If you live in Kansas, you are free to travel to another state for an abortion, for any reason and at any stage of pregnancy, without fear of prosecution under Kansas law. Kansas has not passed any law that tries to reach conduct that occurs outside its borders, and the state constitution's protection of personal autonomy, combined with the fundamental federal right to travel, makes any such law extremely unlikely to survive legal challenge. **Legal analysis** No Kansas statute restricts or penalizes out-of-state travel for abortion. The Kansas Supreme Court's strict-scrutiny framework under Hodes I would almost certainly invalidate any such restriction. The federal constitutional right to travel (Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)) provides an independent barrier. Kansas has no 'abortion trafficking' statute that would reach interstate conduct concerning minors, unlike Idaho and some other states. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Shield or hostile laws **Not a shield state** Kansas has not enacted a shield law protecting its abortion providers or patients from out-of-state investigations or prosecutions; equally, it has not enacted hostile cross-border laws targeting out-of-state abortion activity. Kansas is not a 'shield state' — unlike New York, California, or Illinois, Kansas has not passed a law that would protect Kansas abortion providers from being investigated or sued by another state for providing abortion care to residents of that state. Governor Laura Kelly, a Democrat, supports abortion rights but has not issued a shield-law executive order. The Kansas legislature, controlled by Republicans, has not passed any shield legislation. At the same time, Kansas has not passed any law trying to punish people who help Kansas residents get abortions out of state. **Legal analysis** Kansas has no statute or executive order protecting providers from out-of-state subpoenas, extradition requests, or license actions related to providing abortion care that is lawful in Kansas but banned in the patient's home state. This leaves Kansas providers theoretically exposed to civil suits or professional discipline from states like Texas or Missouri that have sought to reach out-of-state conduct. However, as a practical matter, no such enforcement action has been attempted against a Kansas provider. The Kansas preemption statute (K.S.A. 65-6702(b)) prevents local anti-abortion ordinances, but this is an internal preemption, not an external shield. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6702(b), subsection (b), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0002.html)* **Editor's note.** The absence of a shield law is a notable gap given Kansas's role as a regional abortion-access point. Legislative proposals for a shield law have not advanced. ## Funding and insurance ### Medicaid **Medicaid limited to Hyde: life only** Kansas Medicaid (KanCare) covers abortion only when necessary to preserve the life of the mother, consistent with the federal Hyde Amendment, and does not cover rape or incest despite Hyde permitting it. If you are on Medicaid in Kansas (called KanCare), your insurance will cover an abortion only when it is necessary to save your life. Even though the federal Hyde Amendment also allows coverage for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, Kansas has not chosen to extend coverage that far. Kansas does not use state funds to cover abortion beyond what is required by federal law for life-threatening situations. > "Except to the extent required by federal law: (a) No moneys appropriated from the state general fund or special revenue fund or any other state moneys shall be expended for the performance of an abortion." > — K.S.A. 65-6733(a) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-6733 prohibits the expenditure of state general fund money, special revenue fund money, and other state moneys for abortion '[e]xcept to the extent required by federal law.' The federal Hyde Amendment requires state Medicaid programs to cover abortion in cases of life endangerment; coverage for rape and incest is optional. Kansas has not opted to cover rape or incest. No Kansas court has ordered broader Medicaid coverage under the state constitution. The Kansas Supreme Court in Hodes I did not address Medicaid funding directly, and the 2022 defeated amendment (HCR 5003) would have explicitly stated that the constitution 'does not require government funding of abortion.' *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6733(a), [Justia Law](https://law.justia.com/codes/kansas/chapter-65/article-67/section-65-6733)* **Editor's note.** Some advocates argue the Kansas Constitution's strict-scrutiny standard could require broader Medicaid coverage, but no court has so held. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Private insurance **Private insurance restricted; riders required** Comprehensive private health insurance plans in Kansas cannot cover elective abortion except to save the woman's life; separate optional riders must be purchased for broader abortion coverage. If you have private health insurance in Kansas — whether through your employer or purchased individually — your plan cannot cover abortion except when necessary to save your life. If you want abortion coverage, you must purchase a separate, optional 'rider' policy for an additional premium. This applies to all individual and group plans, health maintenance organizations, and the state employee health benefits plan. Kansas is one of the states that opted out of offering abortion coverage on the ACA health insurance exchange. > "Any individual or group health insurance policy . . . shall exclude coverage for elective abortions, unless the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of the mother." > — K.S.A. 40-2,190(a) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 40-2,190(a) requires all individual and group health insurance policies, medical service plans, HMO contracts, municipal group-funded pools, and the state employee health care benefits plan to 'exclude coverage for elective abortions, unless the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of the mother.' Coverage 'may be obtained through an optional rider for which an additional premium is paid' that 'fully covers the estimated cost of covering elective abortions per enrollee as determined on an average actuarial basis.' Subsection (b) prohibits any health insurance exchange within Kansas from offering plans that cover elective abortions. The ACLU challenged this law in ACLU of Kansas & Western Missouri v. Praeger, 863 F. Supp. 2d 1125 (D. Kan. 2012), but voluntarily dismissed the challenge in 2013. The law remains in effect. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 40-2,190(a), subsection (a), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch40/040_002_0190.html)* ### Exchange plans **ACA exchange plans barred from covering abortion** Kansas prohibits any health insurance exchange — state or federal — from offering plans that cover elective abortion, including through optional riders. If you buy health insurance through the ACA marketplace (HealthCare.gov) in Kansas, none of the available plans will cover abortion except to save your life. Kansas law explicitly bans the exchange from offering any plan with abortion coverage, even through a separate rider. This is more restrictive than the federal ACA default, which permits states to allow exchange plans to cover abortion with segregated premium payments. > "No health insurance exchange established within this state or any health insurance exchange administered by the federal government or its agencies within this state shall offer health insurance contracts, plans, or policies that provide coverage for elective abortions" > — K.S.A. 40-2,190(b) **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 40-2,190(b): 'No health insurance exchange established within this state or any health insurance exchange administered by the federal government or its agencies within this state shall offer health insurance contracts, plans, or policies that provide coverage for elective abortions, nor shall any health insurance exchange operating within this state offer coverage for elective abortions through the purchase of an optional rider.' This is a state opt-out under 42 U.S.C. § 18023 (the ACA's abortion-coverage opt-out provision). The provision was added by L. 2023, ch. 88, § 2, effective July 1, 2023. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · K.S.A. 40-2,190(b), subsection (b), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch40/040_002_0190.html)* ### State funding of providers **State defunds abortion providers** Kansas prohibits state funding for abortion providers; no state money may be used for the performance of abortion except as required by federal law. Kansas state government does not fund abortion services. State law prohibits spending any state money on abortion, with the only exception being what federal law requires — which means Medicaid coverage limited to saving the pregnant person's life. Additionally, Kansas has at various times sought to exclude Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from state-funded family-planning programs, though federal law limits the extent to which the state can do so. > "Except to the extent required by federal law: (a) No moneys appropriated from the state general fund or special revenue fund or any other state moneys shall be expended for the performance of an abortion." > — K.S.A. 65-6733 **Legal analysis** K.S.A. 65-6733(a): 'No moneys appropriated from the state general fund or special revenue fund or any other state moneys shall be expended for the performance of an abortion.' Subsection (b) extends this prohibition to 'any political subdivision, agency or instrumentality of the state,' and subsection (c) includes 'any payments to any person or entity in reimbursement or otherwise for the performance of an abortion.' The Kansas Legislature has periodically attempted to redirect Title X family-planning funding away from abortion providers, but federal regulations (42 C.F.R. § 59.5) generally require states to distribute funds based on merit and need rather than provider identity. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · K.S.A. 65-6733, [Justia Law](https://law.justia.com/codes/kansas/chapter-65/article-67/section-65-6733)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ## Penalties | Actor | Offense | Penalty | Verification | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Physician — post-viability violation | Performing abortion on viable unborn child without compliance with K.S.A. 65-6703 | First conviction: class A nonperson misdemeanor (up to 1 year jail, fine); subsequent: severity level 10 nonperson felony (5–9 months prison); plus license discipline | Verified at source | | Physician — pain-capable unborn child violation | Performing abortion on unborn child at 22 weeks LMP or more in violation of K.S.A. 65-6724 | First conviction: class A person misdemeanor (up to 1 year jail, fine); subsequent: severity level 10 person felony; plus license discipline | Semi-verified | | Physician — medication in-person requirement violation | Violating K.S.A. 65-4a10(b) (in-person medication administration) | Unprofessional conduct under K.S.A. 65-2837; license may be revoked, suspended, or limited by Board of Healing Arts | Verified at source | | Physician — partial-birth abortion | Performing partial-birth abortion on viable unborn child without documented referral and life/health determination | First conviction: class A person misdemeanor; subsequent: severity level 10 person felony; plus license discipline | Semi-verified | | Physician — sex-selection abortion | Performing abortion knowing it is sought solely based on sex of unborn child | First conviction: class A person misdemeanor; subsequent: severity level 10 person felony; plus civil damages, statutory damages of 3x cost of abortion, and attorney fees | Verified at source | | Physician — parental consent violation | Intentionally performing abortion on unemancipated minor without required parental consent | Class A person misdemeanor; plus civil liability for damages, subsequent medical costs, statutory damages of 3x cost of abortion, and attorney fees | Verified at source | | APRN — prescribing abortion medication | Prescribing drug intended to cause abortion in violation of K.S.A. 65-1130(d)(1) | Class B misdemeanor under K.S.A. 65-1122(f); license discipline up to and including revocation | Semi-verified | | Any person — coercion to obtain an abortion | Engaging in coercion knowing a woman is pregnant, intending to compel her to obtain abortion against her expressed wishes (K.S.A. 21-5433) | Person felony: 30 days–1 year imprisonment, $500–$5,000 fine; if offender is father/putative father (18+) of unborn child and pregnant woman is a minor: 90 days–1 year imprisonment, $1,000–$10,000 fine | Verified at source | | Pregnant woman | None under abortion code | Expressly exempted from conspiracy prosecution for abortion violations; no criminal exposure under homicide statute for acts committed by herself re: unborn child | Verified at source | ## Recent changes - **August 2, 2022** — Kansas voters rejected the 'Value Them Both' constitutional amendment (HCR 5003) by a 59%–41% vote, leaving intact the Kansas Supreme Court's 2019 ruling that the state constitution protects the right to abortion. *Sources — HCR 5003 (2021), Kansas Aug. 2, 2022 Special Election, [Kansas Secretary of State](https://www.sos.ks.gov/elections/22elec/2022-Primary-Election-Official-Vote-Totals.pdf)* - **November 28, 2022** — A Shawnee County District Court judge blocked enforcement of the in-person physician requirement for medication abortion as applied to telemedicine, allowing Kansas providers to prescribe abortion pills by telehealth for the first time. *Sources — Trust Women Foundation Inc. v. Bennett (Shawnee Cnty. Dist. Ct., Nov. 2022), [KCUR](https://www.kcur.org/2022-11-28/kansas-judge-blocks-law-banned-prescribing-abortion-pills-telemedicine)* - **April 27, 2023** — The Kansas Legislature overrode Governor Laura Kelly's veto to enact HB 2264, requiring physicians to tell medication-abortion patients that the effects of mifepristone 'may be reversible' — a claim unsupported by medical evidence. *Sources — L. 2023, ch. 85 (HB 2264), [Kansas Legislature / LegiScan](https://legiscan.com/KS/bill/HB2264/2023)* - **October 30, 2023** — Johnson County District Court Judge Christopher Jayaram issued a temporary injunction blocking enforcement of the abortion-pill-reversal mandate, portions of the biased-counseling law, the 30-minute post-counseling waiting period, and formatting requirements for consent materials. *Sources — Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach, No. 23CV03140 (Johnson Cnty. Dist. Ct. Oct. 30, 2023), [Center for Reproductive Rights](https://reproductiverights.org/cases/hodes-nauser-v-kobach)* - **July 1, 2024** — HB 2749 took effect, requiring providers to ask and report patients' reasons for seeking abortion and collect detailed demographic information; the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood immediately challenged it as part of the ongoing Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach litigation. *Sources — L. 2024, ch. 89 (HB 2749), [Kansas Secretary of State / Session Laws](https://sos.ks.gov/publications/sessionlaws/2024/Chapter-89-HB-2749.html)* - **July 1, 2024** — The 2024 coercion-to-abortion law (HB 2436) took effect, making it a crime to coerce a pregnant woman into having an abortion against her expressed wishes, with enhanced penalties when the perpetrator is the father and the woman is a minor. *Sources — K.S.A. 21-5433, subsection (a), [Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch21/021_054_0033.html)* - **July 5, 2024** — The Kansas Supreme Court issued two landmark rulings: Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach (No. 124,130) permanently struck down the D&E dismemberment ban (SB 95), and Hodes & Nauser v. Stanek (No. 125,051) permanently struck down TRAP facility-licensure laws targeting abortion clinics. *Sources — Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach, No. 124,130, 551 P.3d 37 (Kan. 2024), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/2024/124130.html)* - **April 22, 2025** — Aria Medical Clinic LLC and APRN Elyse Gilbert filed suit challenging Kansas's prohibition on APRNs prescribing abortion medication, arguing it violates the Kansas Constitution's equal protection and personal-autonomy guarantees. *Sources — Aria Medical Clinic LLC v. Kansas Board of Nursing (Shawnee Cnty. Dist. Ct., filed Apr. 22, 2025), [The Lawyering Project](https://lawyeringproject.org/our-work/aria-medical-clinic-v-kansas-board-of-nursing)* - **October 17, 2025** — The two-week bench trial in Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach (No. 23CV03140) concluded, challenging Kansas's mandatory waiting period, biased-counseling requirements, abortion-pill-reversal law, and reasons-reporting law; a final ruling is pending. *Sources — Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach, No. 23CV03140, [Kansas Reflector](https://kansasreflector.com/2025/10/23/kansas-navigates-post-dobbs-world-with-state-abortion-restrictions-in-limbo)* ## Pending changes ### Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach, No. 23CV03140 (Johnson County District Court) (Litigation) **Status.** Trial concluded October 17, 2025; post-trial briefing and final decision pending. Temporary injunction blocks certain restrictions; permanent ruling could either strike down or uphold the 24-hour waiting period, biased-counseling requirements, medication-abortion-reversal mandate, and reasons-reporting law under the Kansas Constitution. A ruling for the plaintiffs could permanently strike down the 24-hour waiting period, the abortion-pill-reversal mandate, biased state-scripted counseling including contested medical claims, and the requirement to report patients' reasons for seeking abortion. A ruling for the state could reinstate the blocked provisions and require providers to deliver state-scripted information and report patient reasons. *Sources — Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach, No. 23CV03140 (Johnson Cnty. Dist. Ct.), [Center for Reproductive Rights](https://reproductiverights.org/cases/hodes-nauser-v-kobach)* ### Aria Medical Clinic LLC v. Kansas Board of Nursing (Shawnee County District Court) (Litigation) **Status.** Complaint filed April 22, 2025; state's motion to dismiss denied December 2025; discovery and merits briefing underway. If successful, APRNs would be permitted to prescribe medication abortion, significantly expanding the pool of abortion providers in Kansas and potentially allowing abortion care at more rural and underserved locations. *Sources — Aria Medical Clinic LLC v. Kansas Board of Nursing, [The Lawyering Project](https://lawyeringproject.org/our-work/aria-medical-clinic-v-kansas-board-of-nursing)* ### SB 174 / HB 2171 — 'Abolish Abortion Kansas Act' (2025–2026 Session) (Legislation) **Status.** Introduced; referred to committees. Not expected to pass given the constitutional protection and Democratic governor. The bill would criminalize all abortions, remove abortion exceptions from the wrongful-death statute, and make no exception for rape or incest. If enacted (extremely unlikely), it would criminalize all abortion in Kansas, directly conflict with the Kansas Supreme Court's Hodes I strict-scrutiny holding, and almost certainly be enjoined immediately. *Sources — SB 174, 2025–2026 Kan. Leg., [Kansas Legislature](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/bills/sb174)* ### SB 198 — Near-total abortion ban with private civil enforcement (2025–2026 Session) (Legislation) **Status.** Introduced; referred to committee. Extremely unlikely to pass. Would prohibit abortion except to save the pregnant woman's life and create a private cause of action similar to the Texas SB 8 model. Symbolic legislation testing the political landscape; would be enjoined immediately if enacted. *Sources — SB 198, 2025–2026 Kan. Leg., [LegiScan](https://legiscan.com/KS/text/SB198/id/3103294)* ## Key authorities - **Hodes & Nauser, MDs v. Schmidt (Hodes I)** — 309 Kan. 610, 440 P.3d 461 (2019) _(Case)_ · [kscourts.gov/Cases-Decisions/Dec…](https://kscourts.gov/Cases-Decisions/Decisions/Published/Hodes-Nauser-MDs-v-Schmidt-Supreme-Cour) Established that section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights protects a fundamental right to personal autonomy that includes the right to abortion, subject to strict scrutiny — the foundational authority for all Kansas abortion law. - **Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach (D&E ban)** — 318 Kan. 940, 551 P.3d 37 (2024) _(Case)_ · [law.justia.com/cases/kansas/suprem…](https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/2024/124130.html) Permanently struck down the D&E dismemberment ban (SB 95) under the strict-scrutiny standard, holding the state failed to show the ban was narrowly tailored to a compelling interest. - **Hodes & Nauser v. Stanek (TRAP laws)** — 318 Kan. 995, 551 P.3d 62 (2024) _(Case)_ · [law.justia.com/cases/kansas/suprem…](https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/2024/125051.html) Permanently struck down the abortion-facility licensure TRAP laws (K.S.A. 65-4a01 et seq.), holding they infringed the right to abortion and the state failed to show they further a compelling interest. - **Kansas definition and general provisions** — K.S.A. 65-6701 _(Statute)_ · [ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/c…](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0001.html) Defines 'abortion,' 'medical emergency,' 'viable,' 'pregnant,' and other operative terms; carves out ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage management, and contraception. - **Post-viability abortion restriction** — K.S.A. 65-6703 _(Statute)_ · [ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/c…](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0003.html) Prohibits abortion after viability except for life or substantial/irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, with two-physician referral requirement; includes the mother-exemption and civil-remedy provisions. - **Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act** — K.S.A. 65-6722 to 65-6724 _(Statute)_ · [ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/c…](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0024.html) Prohibits abortion at 22 weeks LMP or more except for life or substantial/irreversible physical impairment; provides the operative gestational limit. - **Informed consent and waiting period** — K.S.A. 65-6709 _(Statute)_ · [ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/c…](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0009.html) Imposes the 24-hour waiting period, state-scripted written informed consent, and ultrasound offer requirement; partially enjoined by the 2023 temporary injunction. - **Physician-only and medication in-person requirement** — K.S.A. 65-4a10 _(Statute)_ · [codes.findlaw.com/ks/chapter-65-publi…](https://codes.findlaw.com/ks/chapter-65-public-health/ks-st-sect-65-4a10.html) Limits abortion performance to licensed physicians and requires in-person physician presence for medication abortion; in-person requirement enjoined as to telemedicine. - **Parental consent and judicial bypass** — K.S.A. 65-6705 _(Statute)_ · [ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/c…](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0005.html) Requires notarized written consent of both parents (or custodial parent) for an unemancipated minor's abortion, with an elaborate judicial-bypass procedure available. - **Fetal personhood declaration** — K.S.A. 65-6732 _(Statute)_ · [ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/c…](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch65/065_067_0032.html) Declares life begins at fertilization and that unborn children have the rights of persons, but explicitly subordinates itself to the U.S. and Kansas Constitutions and contrary statutes. - **Private insurance and exchange restriction** — K.S.A. 40-2,190 _(Statute)_ · [ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/c…](https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch40/040_002_0190.html) Bans comprehensive private insurance coverage of elective abortion and prohibits ACA exchange plans from offering abortion coverage; permits optional riders. - **State defunding of abortion** — K.S.A. 65-6733 _(Statute)_ · [law.justia.com/codes/kansas/chapte…](https://law.justia.com/codes/kansas/chapter-65/article-67/section-65-6733) Prohibits expenditure of state funds for abortion except as required by federal law, limiting Medicaid coverage to Hyde circumstances. - **Fetal homicide** — K.S.A. 21-5419 _(Statute)_ · [codes.findlaw.com/ks/chapter-21-crime…](https://codes.findlaw.com/ks/chapter-21-crimes-and-punishments/ks-st-sect-21-5419.html) Defines unborn child as a potential homicide victim from fertilization, but expressly exempts the mother and lawful medical procedures including abortion. - **Value Them Both Amendment (rejected)** — 2021 HCR 5003, rejected Aug. 2, 2022 _(Ballot measure)_ · [sos.ks.gov/elections/22elec/20…](https://www.sos.ks.gov/elections/22elec/2022-Primary-Election-Official-Vote-Totals.pdf) The voters' rejection of this amendment preserved the Kansas Supreme Court's constitutional protection of abortion and is the reason Kansas remains a regional access point post-Dobbs. - **Trust Women Foundation Inc. v. Bennett** — Shawnee County District Court, injunction issued Nov. 2022 _(Case)_ · [clearinghouse.net/case/43487](https://clearinghouse.net/case/43487) Enjoined enforcement of the in-person physician requirement for telemedicine medication abortion, enabling telehealth prescribing in Kansas. ## Research notes > Overall confidence: High. Analysis current as of July 12, 2026; research completed July 12, 2026. Before publication, verify: (1) whether the Johnson County District Court has issued a final decision in Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach (No. 23CV03140) following the October 2025 trial — this is the single most material pending development; (2) the current docket status of Aria Medical Clinic LLC v. Kansas Board of Nursing; (3) any 2026 legislative session activity on abortion bills; (4) the exact current text of K.S.A. 65-4a10 after the 2024 Stanek decision, as the statute may have been affected by the striking of the larger facility-licensure scheme. The statutory citations throughout reflect the 2024 Kansas Statutes Annotated as displayed on the Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes website; confirm that the 2025 supplement has not substantively altered any cited provision. Unresolved points: The exact scope of the temporary injunction in Hodes & Nauser v. Kobach (No. 23CV03140) as it interacts with the 24-hour waiting period — whether the 24-hour period itself is being enforced or was effectively blocked by the enjoining of related provisions — could not be definitively confirmed from publicly available documents. — The current enforcement posture of K.S.A. 65-4a10(b) (in-person medication requirement) after the facility-licensure scheme was struck down in Hodes v. Stanek is uncertain; the Trust Women injunction may have a different legal foundation now. — The status of the Kansas Court of Appeals dismissal of the state's appeal of the October 2023 temporary injunction — specifically whether it was dismissed on procedural grounds or with prejudice — has not been verified from primary court documents. — No Kansas appellate decision has squarely addressed whether the Kansas Constitution's strict-scrutiny standard requires Medicaid funding beyond Hyde or bars the private-insurance restriction; this is an open question. — Whether Kansas pharmacists face discipline for filling out-of-state telemedicine prescriptions for mifepristone/misoprostol mailed to patients in other states is an underexplored issue..