Kansas judge says decision to strike abortion restrictions not ‘even a close call’

TOPEKA — A Kansas judge took a sledgehammer to a slate of abortion restrictions dating back to 1997, ruling the state came up short in arguing the Kansas Legislature should be able to impose waiting periods, mandate abortion reversal disclosures and require doctors to obtain patients’ reasons for seeking an abortion.

Christopher Jayaram’s 260-page decision, written while he was still serving as a Johnson County District Court judge, came at a canny moment. He was sworn in as a Kansas Supreme Court justice hours after issuing the opinion Monday and voters across the state were set to answer a ballot question Tuesday that could change the way Supreme Court justices are selected.

The resolution in the abortion restriction case followed three years of litigation. Jayaram took nine months to author his decision after a two-part, seven-day bench trial wrapped up in October in Johnson County. He ruled the state’s abortion restrictions violated Kansans’ right to bodily autonomy and “infringe upon a woman’s fundamental rights.” 

It’s an affirmation of the right to an abortion in Kansas following a 2022 vote in which voters rejected a constitutional amendment that could’ve led to further restrictions and a 2024 state Supreme Court decision that cemented Kansans’ right to bodily autonomy.

Kansas abortion providers and clinics sued the state in June 2023, and Jayaram temporarily blocked restrictions that were passed by the Legislature over the course of more than two decades.

Among the laws Jayaram struck down by making his injunction permanent were requirements for abortion providers to give government-scripted information to patients; supply patient paperwork in specific fonts, sizes and colors; tell patients at least five times that medication abortions can be reversed, which isn’t regarded by scientists and medical organizations as safe; and obtain reasons from patients for their decision to seek an abortion. 

“Today’s ruling allows me to do my job the way I was trained to and focus on what’s most important: my patients,” said Traci Lynn Nauser, an OB-GYN in Kansas and lead plaintiff in the case. “I have been caring for patients for nearly 30 years, but these laws have interfered with my ability to provide high-quality, evidence-based health care. I have been forced to lie to my patients and delay, or even deny, people care for no medical reason. This is not how health care should work.”

Attorneys representing the state had the obligation of meeting the strict scrutiny standard to justify retention of abortion mandates, but Jayaram said in the decision the state “simply failed to clear that high bar.”

It wasn’t “even a close call,” he wrote. 

“Invariably, some will likely disagree or take issue with the court’s ultimate conclusions and findings, whether based upon specific moral, ethical or spiritual concerns,” Jayaram wrote.

However, he said those considerations are separate from the court’s role in evaluating the state’s potential constitutional encroachments imposed under the guise of authority.

“Those constitutional guarantees include the people’s rights to make their own decisions regarding their bodies, health, family formation and family life-decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy — all of which are necessary corollaries to the right of bodily autonomy,” he said.

Brittany Jones, president of anti-abortion organization Kansas Family Voice, slammed Jayaram’s decision and the timing of its publication, characterizing both as controversial.

“All of these things simply give women information, give them more time and make sure we know why women are seeking abortions so that we can actually help them,” Jones said in a social media post Tuesday.

Jayaram was sworn in as a justice of the Supreme Court at a private ceremony. He was Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s pick to replace retired Chief Justice Marla Luckert. A nominating commission interviewed applicants and recommended three finalists for the vacancy. The governor made the final selection.

Jones alerted her organization’s social media followers to Jayaram’s decision in the abortion case. 

“If you think the Supreme Court is not political in Kansas, then wait ’til you hear what just happened,” Jones said.

Jayaram released the decision at 4:50 p.m. Monday, Jones said, which appears on the decision’s filing stamp. The Supreme Court announced Jayaram’s swearing in at 6:55 p.m. Monday. Because of the proximity to a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment, Jones encouraged viewers to vote “yes” in favor of the proposed constitutional amendment that would require the statewide election of justices to the state Supreme Court.

“Kansans should be outraged with the political machinations of their current Supreme Court,” Jones told Kansas Reflector.

She accused Jayaram of not wanting Kansans to know about his decision before voting in Tuesday’s primary.

Proponents and opponents of the amendment have acknowledged abortion as central to the placement of the question on Aug. 4 ballots. Republicans who support the question’s passage have said the Supreme Court erred in its rulings to affirm abortion as a fundamental right under the Kansas Constitution. Democrats have advocated for rejection of the ballot question, arguing the court has protected abortion rights and maintaining a merit-based appointment system for justices continues that protection. 

Alice Wang, senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights who represented plaintiffs in the case, said the decision is a reflection of the will of Kansans.

“Restrictions like these only exist to push abortion care out of reach. And as we’ve seen across the country, people are dying because of delays in accessing essential health care,” she said. “Still, politicians have repeatedly ignored this reality and their voters as they continue to push for harmful laws”