Use quotes to search for exact phrases. Use AND/OR/NOT between keywords or phrases for more precise search results.

Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt

The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit challenging SB 36:

This case challenges a regulatory scheme that would have gone into effect on November 14, 2011. If enforced, the scheme would prevent the provision of abortion services in any medical establishment not licensed as an abortion facility, even where prompt termination of pregnancy is needed to prevent serious harm to the woman’s health. It would impose medical practice requirements that are onerous, unrelated to the standard of care, irrational, and that have no more relevance to abortion procedures than to other medical procedures performed in similar settings in this state. Moreover, the regulatory scheme singles out the few Kansas physicians who provide abortions from among all other physicians in the state for the imposition of these burdensome and unjustified requirements. This discriminatory treatment and the specific requirements imposed by the regulatory scheme are not rationally related to any legitimate state interest, and they would serve only to punish and harm the physicians who provide and women who seek legally- and constitutionally-protected abortion services.


The court issued a temporary restraining order against the permanent regulations on November 10, 2011 and on December 2, 2011, the parties agreed that the law would remain blocked the law throughout the remainder of the lawsuit.


**Last updated January 9, 2019