Kansas House committee hears divided testimony on bill to shield pregnancy centers from local regulation

The House Committee on the Federal and State Affairs heard extensive testimony on House Bill 26‑35, the Pregnancy Center Autonomy and Rights of Expression Act, during a committee hearing on Feb. 20. Committee staff described the bill as defining pregnancy centers, banning state and local requirements that would compel centers to perform or refer for abortion or to provide abortion‑promoting materials, and creating a private right of action with possible damages and attorney fees. The summary also noted the bill would allow the legislature, by concurrent resolution, to appoint members to intervene in legal challenges under KSA 62‑24.

Proponents representing pregnancy resource centers, faith organizations and allied legal groups urged members to support the bill. Jean Gowden, director of government relations for Kansans for Life, said Kansas is "home to around 50 pregnancy resource centers and maternity homes" and described statewide programs and an asserted high client satisfaction rate. Denise Burke, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, told the committee HB 26‑35 is meant to prevent pregnancy centers from being "singled out for discrimination and censorship" and cited examples of local ordinances elsewhere that, she said, attempted to compel speech or regulate centers' signs and communications.

Several center leaders testified about individual client services. Ruth Martinez Tisdale, executive director of 2 Lines Pregnancy Clinic in Overland Park, described a client story and said her clinic served more than 1,000 individuals last year and provided over $200,000 in direct assistance. Bridget Smith, CEO of Insight Women's Center in Lawrence, and Kelly Werkowitz of Nativity House KC described counseling, nursing staff and long‑term programs designed to support parenting and economic stability.

Opponents and public health groups urged caution. Laurel Burchfield, advocacy director at Mainstream Coalition, told the committee the bill "absolutely privileges one specific faith belief over another" and argued that centers receiving public funds or operating like health facilities should be subject to regulation. Speakers for Planned Parenthood and other health organizations warned that many so‑called crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are unregulated, that some advertise medical services they do not provide, and that misleading information can delay time‑sensitive care. Taylor Morton of Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes said CPCs can be "insulated from regulatory oversight" under the bill as drafted.

Committee members pressed both sides on facts and implementation. Representative Clayton asked how the bill's hiring protections would operate and what "pro‑life" hiring qualifications would mean in practice; respondents said some centers use mission statements, statements of faith and explicit affirmations (including that life begins at fertilization) as hiring criteria. Representative Hoskins referenced ethics concerns raised by the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; proponents pointed to a 2024 Charlotte Lozier Institute study cited in testimony as evidence of client satisfaction and services provided.

The committee closed the hearing on HB 26‑35 without a vote and entered the written record for additional testimony. No neutral witnesses spoke in person. The chair said written proponents were included in the committee packet and the committee moved on to other business. The record reflects competing claims: proponents emphasized constitutional protections against compelled speech and asserted community service by pregnancy centers; opponents urged medical oversight, accurate public health information and safeguards for patients. The committee did not take final action on HB 26‑35 during this meeting.

Next steps: the hearing record remains open for written testimony; the bill’s future schedule was not decided during the session.