Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Abortion Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BRN advisory committee recommends board endorse bill widening procedural abortion provider authority
Summary
The California BRN Impact Committee voted to recommend endorsement of AB1973, which would authorize nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and physician assistants to perform specified "procedural abortions" after required clinical and didactic training; the committee recorded a majority vote in favor and asked the full board to weigh training and emergency-transfer safeguards.
The California Board of Registered Nursing's Impact Committee voted April 9 to ask the full board to endorse AB1973, a bill that would broaden the statutory term "abortion by aspiration" to authorize qualified advanced-practice clinicians to perform a wider set of procedural abortion techniques after completing specified clinical and didactic training.
Marissa Clark, the BRN's chief of legislative affairs, told the committee the bill would "delete the reference to abortion by aspiration and instead authorize nurse practitioners, nurse midwives and physician assistants to perform procedural abortions after also completing specified clinical and didactic training." She said the measure would also require clinicians to "establish and maintain procedures for consultation, collaboration, referral and transfer of care to a physician and surgeon in complex cases and cases with complications."
The change would be notable because, as Clark explained, some procedural abortions include techniques sometimes used in later first-trimester or second-trimester care (for example, dilation and evacuation). Committee members discussed both access and safety: supporters said expanding the authorized provider pool could improve access in communities with limited services, while others urged careful attention to minimum training and to plans for handling surgical complications.
"I recommend endorsing it with the exception of looking at physician assistance training," Dr. Andrea Espinosa told the committee, signaling conditional support that sought clearer standards for how training would apply to nonphysician clinicians. By contrast Dr. Edward Ray said, "No, I do not recommend endorsing this bill," citing concerns about procedural complexity and managing rare but serious complications.
The committee recorded a roll-call vote recommending endorsement: Committee Chair Samantha Gamblewar voted yes; Dr. Ray voted no; Dr. Espinosa voted yes with caveats; Jan Johnson Griffin voted no; Kevin Maxwell voted yes; and other members seconded the motion. BRN staff will include the committee's recorded views and the concerns raised about training and emergency-transfer procedures in the board briefing when the full board considers a formal position.
What happens next: AB1973 was in the appropriations process at the time of the meeting. The committee asked staff to track bill movement and to return to the advisory committee with further analysis of training standards and implementation implications.
