[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6620618,"mediaKeyId","2805758-44f9a3617ba05dc37d2d56af70379772","parentId",2805758,"title","House adopts series of conference reports on budget, health, education and regulatory bills; key votes at a glance","audioSeconds",2790,"startMs",15158000,"endMs",17948000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2805758-44f9a3617ba05dc37d2d56af70379772&start=15158&end=17948","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2805758-44f9a3617ba05dc37d2d56af70379772/thumbnail_15158000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6620618/Kansas/House-adopts-series-of-conference-reports-on-budget-health-education-and-regulatory-bills-key-votes-at-a-glance","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620618-93b341f2ad05132dfc0b8ab1aaadaa4a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770612734&Signature=WYvS77U3GagKkomMxaC82ExYh9ZKosq~ZsdBslmyLvdIyAW8Snvfzf-z8bBQTT~flYq1aXofFzbTPfOyLFg~AgB2JwzSoFQDj1RMITUzLctPt-4VuRadb1Q7ex2qgQQnYvCzNs3-ytJN8yeBXoB8W1eflBxKECGJWXW2jI3zIvYS4Cgk3JvbHJfYAa7hfYkcLPNqECjM~e76kF~ElcTQ3Wz8xypWlKtEKI9~NBq6RReQUyhujl-k9-uhHscmQdqpJbbt0aw~69ODlHu~-IT2CbTAehtnxZkHhQV3uTOtHra3y3pddtvUCl7JDhtjlKbInYapsxT9RfxvYsu5Jcq0aA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Chamber Proceedings","date","2025-03-28T03:04:11.257Z","article","TOPEKA — The Kansas House on March 27, 2025, adopted a slate of conference committee reports and final actions across a wide range of policy areas, from the state budget and higher‑education provisions to election law, health and regulatory policy. Roll calls on the floor produced recorded tallies for multiple bills; the transcript records motion texts and final vote counts.

Nut graf: Many of the measures were conference committee reports resolving House–Senate differences. The most consequential of the day was the state budget conference report (Senate Bill 125), which the House adopted after negotiation and amendment. Lawmakers also adopted bills that affect health programs and regulatory oversight, among other topics.

Key votes and summaries (all vote totals are taken from the House floor roll calls recorded in the transcript):

- Senate Bill 125 (state budget, FY2025–26): Passed 89–36. The conference report adjusts appropriations for higher education, K‑12 programs, community colleges, economic development initiatives, water and other priorities. The transcript shows negotiators met several Senate positions (for example on community‑college funding and certain higher‑education items) and the House held others; the report was described at length on the floor and the final recorded vote was 89 in favor and 36 opposed.

- Senate Bill 126 (health package, House substitute for SB 126): Passed 123–1. Floor remarks indicate the measure represented a combined health‑policy package (newborn screening, children’s health insurance program, local public‑health issues and a health‑care access improvement program after conferees removed a separate ‘CHIPS’ provision). The House recorded final action with 123 yeas and 1 nay.

- House Bill 2062 (child support and unborn personal exemption): Passed 87–38. A lengthy, heated floor debate accompanied adoption of the CCR for this bill; see separate coverage for detailed reporting on that debate.

- House Bill 22 40 (requires legislative approval for agency amendments/waivers to public‑assistance programs and IDD services when the legislature is not in session): Passed 90–35. The conference report clarifies the Legislative Coordinating Council’s role when the legislature is not in session and specifies inclusion of IDD service changes.

- House Bill 22 28 (limits and procedures for local governments joining contingency‑fee litigation and requires certain public findings and AG review): Passed 73–52 after extended debate on home‑rule and municipal authority; the House rejected efforts to send the bill back to committee and recorded final passage.

- Senate Bill 21 (Kansas Permutual Racing Act): Passed 90–35. The conference report removes prior location restrictions on racing facilities, clarifies HHR machine locations and reorders where wagering tax revenues go (operational costs, horse‑breeding development fund and a horse‑fair/racing benefit fund) with statutory changes effective in 2028 for location rules.

- Senate Bill 42 (insurance package/codification of multiple insurance bills): Passed 124–1. The conference report combined multiple insurance‑related bills (online verification, agent response timeframes, title insurer audits, surety bond adjustments and third‑party fiduciary accounts) and was adopted on the floor.

- House Bill 20 56 (election law revisions, impersonation statute clarity, and voting machine testing timing): Passed 88–37. Conference language includes a revision to make the impersonation statute require intent, and changes testing timing for election machines so testing occurs before early voting begins.

- Senate Bill 125 (budget) — see above (89–36). The budget was the subject of extended floor explanation and questions about higher education, K‑12, regional university stabilization, social services (IDD slots and provider rates) and bonding; the transcript records the chair’s summary of compromise positions.

- House Bill 21 34 (open records and open meetings refinements; live streaming expectations; specified CORA/COMA exemptions): Passed 124–0. The adopted CCR clarifies when livestreaming must include entire meetings, makes exemptions for obscene records and addresses procedural timing for AG reviews of complaints.

- Senate Bill 30 (occupational licensing review): Passed 86–38. The conference report requires legislative review before new or materially changed occupational licenses take effect and requires annual reporting to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations; the bill exempts several health and high‑risk licensing boards.

- Senate Bill 156 (special‑claims and corrections limit change): Passed 120–4. The bill raises the threshold for Department of Corrections‑level claims (administrative handling) and sends higher claims to the Special Claims Against the State committee.

- Senate Bill 186 and Senate Bill 204 (criminal‑procedure and public‑records items consolidated in conference reports): Both recorded as adopted with lopsided majorities (recorded votes in transcript show large yeas and few or no nays). The measures include a range of criminal‑procedure refinements and record‑sealing provisions discussed on the floor.

Other actions: The House adopted numerous additional conference committee reports and appointments of conferees for bills still in conference; the transcript documents motions to adopt conference reports and roll calls across the afternoon and evening session. Several of those actions were routine or technical, while others (noted above) contained substantive policy changes.

Why this matters: The day’s actions included the state budget and multiple policy changes that will require administrative implementation, judicial interpretation and future legislative follow‑up. Budget compromises affect higher education, IDD waiver slots and provider rates, and committee language will require agencies to prepare implementation plans and, in some cases, reports to the Legislature.

Ending: The House completed a long floor calendar and adopted a broad set of conference committee reports; several measures are likely to require administrative rulemaking or have further legal review. Reported vote counts and the text of conference reports are available on the Legislature’s website for officials and the public.
","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Chamber Proceedings 03/27/2025","oneSentenceSummary","On March 27, 2025, the Kansas House adopted numerous conference committee reports covering the budget, health and human services, regulatory oversight and other matters. Major roll-call outcomes included the budget (SB 125) and multiple bills that passed by clear margins.","taxTitle","HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Kansas","taxId",15102,"location","Kansas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6620624,"Kansas House approves child‑support changes and tax exemption for unborn children after heated debate",5539,1191000,6730000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2805758-44f9a3617ba05dc37d2d56af70379772&start=1191&end=6730","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2805758-44f9a3617ba05dc37d2d56af70379772/thumbnail_1191000.jpg","/articles/6620624/Kansas/Kansas-House-approves-childsupport-changes-and-tax-exemption-for-unborn-children-after-heated-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620624-1a0fe82b3367d199979935b1a4285344/orig.mp4?Expires=1770612734&Signature=KdB6-ufZ~iV~DTK1fWjGX-NrqCYkZcxZ-tknLOig3i8g8nwzpWWrnyJt6dB73ynUut3cSB4wDcUN5XifNYZaivtHLO8cSrcngT2Rhf49LguemDzf9k2FNVAQX~-at1~fBdukwbd3cFfWcmuhVgCRDSPr7i3BjvIRg5hD7ToM3GIFgDQqr7PqeYA8-5OKSYI9-yErTxVpToMwtOH1cCeUUE0De26baObKljhAxhbFvD27E1VVjCILbqgySiM3qwhy6fXtbKfi1MK3I5-Q7TKPn-96KWdBfOXv3AFDVQ~wKCJUJxZzKtdNRkyIm2bmgmgv8bCoS0GfPjXowpZDMbZRsg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","TOPEKA — The Kansas House approved House Bill 2062 on March 27, 2025, adopting a conference committee report that (a) allows courts to calculate certain child‑support orders from the date of conception and (b) creates a state personal exemption connected to an unborn child that taxpayers may claim under conditions set in the bill. The House recorded final action on the measure by a roll call of 87 in favor and 38 opposed.

Supporters said the bill aims to help pregnant people cover pregnancy‑related costs and to clarify how certain assets, such as qualified retirement accounts, are treated in child‑support calculations. Representative Estes, who spoke in favor on the floor, said the measure “gives you a tax credit for pregnancy” and described the bill as “a very kind and loving bill,” recounting personal experience with pregnancy loss and medical bills.

Opponents faulted parts of the bill as legally uncertain and intrusive. Representative Osman, a floor opponent, described the measure as “fraught with legal uncertainty,” raising scenarios involving surrogacy, in vitro fertilization and selective reduction that he said the bill does not clearly resolve. Osman told colleagues: “All of these wild things will start happening … you assign a monetary value to [a certificate of stillbirth]. All of these wild things will start happening.”

Law, verification and fraud questions dominated the floor debate. Lawmakers pressed how the exemption and any related claims would be proven and administrated. Representative Howerton, speaking as a tax professional, said he had consulted the Internal Revenue Service framework and the Department of Revenue and that, in his view, “it is very simple, very cut and dry as far as proving whether or not you can claim this credit.” He noted a stillbirth certificate is issued at 20 weeks under state practice and could be used to document claims.

Other members warned the measure could create privacy and administrative burdens. Representative Weichel asked whether pregnancy‑related child‑support orders would require submission of detailed medical information and how that would affect other public benefits; Representative Hoye warned the bill could jeopardize federal matching funds because the federal child‑support definition starts at birth and the state’s expansion could change federal cost‑sharing. Hoye said potential in‑utero paternity testing could carry significant costs and staffing needs for the Department for Children and Families.

Several speakers raised the broader constitutional and policy dimensions. Representative Carmichael and Representative Moseley argued the measure furthers “fetal personhood” through civil‑code language and could lead to increased government scrutiny of reproductive health decisions. Representative Moseley said the bill “is about to further codify fetal personhood into Kansas law,” and warned that medical and legal consequences could follow for pregnant people.

The bill’s tax‑related element drew detailed procedural questions. Under the conference language discussed on the floor, the measure creates a personal exemption tied to an unborn child that mirrors treatment of dependents after a live birth. One House member on the floor described the exemption amount in the draft language as $2,320, and representatives and staff explained that, for live births, the exemption is an additional dependent exemption (effectively a double exemption in the child’s birth year). Lawmakers also referenced Georgia’s similar program as a cautionary example; Representative Sawyer Clayton noted Georgia’s policy had been criticized as difficult to administer.

Floor debate included repeated questions about how administration would work in special circumstances—surrogacy, stillbirth occurring out of a medical setting, twins or multiple births, adoption and divorce. Members emphasized that the Department of Revenue and courts would need implementing rules: “You have to be able to show that,” Representative Howerton said of documentation, adding that the Department of Revenue told him they could work with stillbirth certificates similar to death or birth certificates.

After extended debate and multiple members’ questions, the House adopted the conference committee report. The final roll call showed 87 yeas and 38 nays. The transcript records the motion to adopt the report and the roll call; the bill’s language as adopted includes both the child‑support provisions (allowing consideration from conception) and the tax exemption for unborn children under specified documentation rules.

The measure’s passage sets up further administrative and legal work. Lawmakers who opposed the measure said they expected court challenges and asked for clarifying guidance from agencies; proponents said implementing rules and standard documentation (e.g., stillbirth certificates) would address many concerns. The transcript records multiple members urging the Department of Revenue, the courts and relevant agencies to prepare guidance and procedures for handling claims, audits and questions of paternity.

Votes at a glance: The House adopted the conference committee report on House Bill 2062. Recorded final action: 87 in favor; 38 opposed.

Ending: House Bill 2062 passed the House after an hours‑long debate that centered on legal uncertainty around stillbirths, assisted reproduction and surrogacy, the mechanics of documenting claims to the Department of Revenue, the risk of tax fraud, and concerns about expanding civil‑law recognition of a fetus. The transcript shows the bill passed on the House floor; the bill’s next procedural steps are not specified in the recorded remarks.
","After hours of floor debate focused on legal uncertainty and privacy concerns, the Kansas House adopted the conference committee report on House Bill 2062, expanding when child‑support orders can be sought and creating a state personal exemption tied to an unborn child. The measure passed 87–38.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House adopts series of conference reports on budget, health, education and regulatory bills; key votes at a glance

Kansas House approves child‑support changes and tax exemption for unborn children after heated debate