HB 2337 Prejudicially Regulates the Provision of Healthcare
▪ Men, women and children have a right to equitable, fair and gender neutral treatment in healthcare issues under the law.
▪ HB 2337 regulates issues of women’s reproductive healthcare services, facilities and providers in a prejudicial manner that is not supported by any evidence-based data.
▪ HB 2337 is intended to restrict abortion even further by eliminating small practitioners who safely do abortion procedures in their office-based practices.
▪ The Legislature should only concern itself with regulating healthcare in an evidence-based, non-gender specific, non-prejudicial fashion for the preservation of the public safety and welfare.
Supporting Facts against HB 2337
Nationally, abortion entails half the risk of tonsillectomy and one-hundredth the risk of an appendectomy, and, in the first trimester, is eleven times safer than childbirth.
Of women who have first trimester abortions, 97% report no complications, 2.5% have minor complications and less than 0.5% require additional surgical procedure or hospitalization.
BOHA reports that far more cosmetic surgeons are sued for medical malpractice than abortion providers.
KMS Guidelines would cover procedures including: sigmoidoscopy (short-distance colon scope), colonoscopy (long-distance colon scope), gastroscopy (esophagus/stomach scope), bronchoscopy (lung scope), laparoscopy (abdominal organ scope), intra-uterine biopsy
(endocervical and endometrial), breast biopsy, tubal ligation and vasectomy.
These guidelines, which would be universally applied, would treat men, women and children equitably; and not prejudicially or moralistically.
Here are the two bills that are already up in the Kansas House, they are on the House Calendar and could come up for a House Floor vote at anytime:
