WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 2010

An Act amending the act of November 10, 1999 (P.L.491, No.45), known as the Pennsylvania Construction Code Act, in Uniform Construction Code, further providing for revised or successor codes; and, in exemptions, applicability and penalties, repealing provisions relating to exemptions.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz and 8 co-sponsors

HB 2010 would abolish abortion in Kansas by prohibiting abortion procedures and creating severe criminal offenses for performing abortions and destroying fertilized embryos.

Referred to Housing & Community Development
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 2010

Summary — HB 2010 (Prohibiting abortion procedures; creating crimes for unlawful abortion and unlawful destruction of a fertilized embryo)

Note: multiple unrelated bills titled “HB 2010” appear in the provided materials (from other states). This summary covers the Kansas HB 2010 described in the fiscal note (introduced January 22, 2025) — the measure that would prohibit abortion and create related criminal offenses.

Purpose

HB 2010 would abolish abortion in Kansas by prohibiting abortion procedures, creating new criminal offenses for performing abortions and for destruction of fertilized embryos in the context of assisted reproduction, and by amending/repealing existing statutory provisions related to abortion. The bill also seeks to limit judicial relief and federal preemption in challenges to the statute.

Key provisions

  • Prohibits abortion statewide; defines “abortion” as use or prescription of any instrument, drug, substance, device or other means intended to cause the death of an “unborn child.”
  • Creates two criminal offenses:
    • Unlawful performance of an abortion (knowingly performing an abortion): designated a severity level 1 person felony.
    • Unlawful destruction of a fertilized embryo (in the ART process): also a severity level 1 person felony.
  • Expands criminal-liability provisions to include attempts, conspiracies, and solicitations for these offenses; explicitly adjusts how attempt/conspiracy/solicitation statutes apply to these crimes.
  • Carves out exceptions for procedures intended to:
    • Save the life or preserve the health of the pregnant person (text uses “unborn child”/health exception language);
    • Remove a dead unborn child after spontaneous miscarriage, stillbirth, or ectopic pregnancy.
  • Defines “unborn child” to begin at fertilization and cover pre-embryo/embryo/fetus stages.
  • States that any federal statute, regulation, order, or court decision purporting to override the Act is “void”; authorizes (but does not require) state actors to intervene in federal litigation.
  • Provides that any Kansas judge who enjoins, stays, overrules or voids the Act “shall be subject to impeachment and removal.”

Fiscal and administrative impacts (from Kansas Division of the Budget / KDHE / Attorney General estimates)

  • Potential loss of federal Title X family planning grant funds (KDHE reports Title X funding to KDHE: $2.9 million in FY2025, $3.5 million FY2026, $4.1 million FY2027). KDHE indicates additional state funding (~$301,842 total across funding levels for 12.00 FTE equivalents at varying appointment levels) would be required to maintain services.
  • Loss of Title X could also remove local health departments’ access to 340B pharmacy pricing, increasing pharmaceutical costs and threatening service continuity—especially in rural counties.
  • Office of the Attorney General estimates litigation/defense costs of roughly $4.5 million in FY2026 and $512,672 in FY2027 (State General Fund), including hiring 2 attorneys and 2 legal assistants and contracting outside counsel; plus tech/training costs (~$92,940).
  • Judicial and corrections impacts are possible (increased district court caseloads, potential prison admissions), but total fiscal effect is not estimated.
  • Board of Healing Arts and Board of Pharmacy anticipate possible increases in complaints/investigations; most other agencies reported no or manageable fiscal effects.

Who is affected

  • Health care providers who perform abortion or assist reproductive technologies; clinics that receive Title X funding; local and county health departments (particularly rural areas); patients seeking family planning and reproductive-health services; state legal and judicial systems (defense litigation, prosecutions, courts); law enforcement and corrections if convictions lead to incarceration.
  • The fiscal note notes substantial impact on county health departments required to match federal funds (40% match) if federal funding is lost.

Procedural status / timeline

  • Introduced January 22, 2025. Fiscal note dated February 11, 2025.
  • Committee activity recorded (referred to House Health and Human Services; withdrawn and re-referred between Health and Human Services and Interstate Cooperation on multiple dates). Testimony and public hearing activity occurred in March 2025. As of the last recorded action in the provided materials, HB 2010 was withdrawn from the Health and Human Services Committee and rereferred to the Committee on Interstate Cooperation.

Notable legal and policy issues

  • The bill would create severe criminal penalties for medical providers and extend criminal liability into assisted reproduction contexts.
  • KDHE and other state entities warn of loss of federal family-planning funding and downstream impacts on rural health services and contraceptive access.
  • The bill’s provisions attempting to limit federal preemption and to subject judges to impeachment raise separation-of-powers and constitutional litigation risks; the Attorney General forecasts significant litigation costs.

If you would like, I can prepare a one-page chart summarizing the fiscal impacts by agency and by fiscal year, or a brief timeline of the bill’s committee actions.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.