Proponents urge 'She Wins' informed-consent and 24-hour reflection period; witnesses cite mental-health and informed-consent rationales

The committee heard multiple proponent witnesses in support of House Bill 347 (the "She Wins" Act), which would require expanded informed-consent disclosures and a 24-hour reflection period before elective abortions.

Cynthia Roy, a licensed professional clinical counselor, told the committee she sees women who later express trauma and regret and said additional time and substantive disclosure are necessary. "I'm here to give a voice to the girls and women who wish they had been told more details, and given a little more time to consider the possible devastation to their physical health, emotional health, mental health, and relational health," she said.

Priscilla Coleman (PhD), a retired professor who testified next, said a large international literature supports mental-health risks after abortion and argued the 24-hour waiting period is "scientifically justified, patient centered and essential to protect women's personal autonomy." She cited a recent longitudinal study she described as showing higher rates of suicide and hospitalization for suicidal ideation among women who had abortions compared with live births; the committee did not explore the study's methodology during the hearing.

Dr. Alicia Thomas Thompson, an OB-GYN, said informed consent in medicine requires explanations of risks, benefits and alternatives and urged consistent disclosure of known complications, including those that can be serious. "Giving women time to process information...promotes patient autonomy and responsible medical care," she said.

Emily Hoagler, an attorney with Americans United for Life, argued the state has authority to mandate medical disclosures under federal law and said the bill is narrowly tailored to nonemergency elective abortions and includes exemptions for immediate medical emergencies and miscarriages.

Committee members questioned witnesses about the operational effect of a 24-hour waiting period on access (particularly for patients who discover pregnancy later), how telehealth or mail-order medication abortion would meet the requirement, whether the statute creates a private right of action and the comparability of abortion to other elective procedures that have waiting periods. Witnesses said telecommunication-based consent options are contemplated for remote cases and that the bill includes exemptions for emergencies; they also said a statutory cause of action would provide patients a means to enforce standards of care.

The hearing concluded after proponent testimony; opponents were not recorded in the transcript provided.