Bills both protecting, prohibiting abortions in Hawaii introduced

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic decision not to guarantee a women’s right to an abortion, 11 abortion-related bills have been introduced this Legislative session that would both expand abortion protections and prohibit them.

One of the most significant would protect health care providers who perform abortion services, while another is intended to shield Hawaii from actions taken by other states.

Senate Bill 1 would ensure that Hawaii health care providers who perform abortions are granted protection from legal action for performing abortions on women from other states that restrict abortions.

The bill is designed to protect local health care providers from lawsuits and criminal charges following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson in June that overturned a woman’s right to an abortion.

“I think it’s similar to other shield laws that other states that want to protect reproductive rights are considering and passing,” said state Sen. Gil Keith-Agaran (D, Wailuku-Kahului-­Waihee), who helped introduce the bill.

SB 890 also would prohibit Hawaii from denying or interfering with a woman’s right to an abortion and clarifies that advanced practice registered nurses and other health care providers may administer abortion medications via telehealth technology.

“I expect that you’ll hear that bill moving forward for further debate and discussion,” Keith-Agaran said. “… Protecting reproductive rights in Hawaii is going to be a major issue this year.”

State Sen. Angus McKelvey (D, West Maui-Maalaea-South Maui) said that SB 1 reinforces former Gov. David Ige’s executive order following the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Ige’s executive order ensures that abortions are legal in Hawaii and protects health care providers.

“Protecting reproductive rights is important for us to be able to codify this important executive order,” said McKelvey, who also helped introduce SB 1.

The Healthcare Association of Hawaii wrote in an email that it supported Ige’s executive order “on abortion protections for providers and are interested in efforts to codify those protections. The Association is still reviewing bills introduced related to reproductive health services, especially as they relate to provider protections and enabling access to needed care for women and birthing people in the state. We are still in the process of reviewing all measures that will be considered by the Legislature this upcoming session and will look forward to discussing any proposals with our members in order to form our full position on the various issues being discussed.”

SB 1 makes it clear that abortion restrictions in other states do not apply in Hawaii, McKelvey said.

“It protects for civil action being issued by these other states and, basically, it won’t allow them to use long-armed statutes to use our court system to bring these actions,” McKelvey said.

SB 1 also would allow licensed physician assistants to perform abortions, a proposal that has been considered before.

Keith-Agaran and McKelvey believe that having physician assistants perform abortions will help women in rural areas of Oahu and the neighbor islands.

“Often it’s the physician assistants’ prescriptive powers that may be your primary health care,” Keith-Agaran said.

Hawaii continues to suffer from a health care shortage across the state, especially in rural and smaller communities, McKelvey said.

“In our rural communities, our neighbor island communities, there may not be access to a physician to be able to get these much-needed services performed,” McKelvey said. “There could also be a shortage of advanced practice registered nurses, as well.”

Dr. Lee Buenconsejo-­Lum, acting dean of the University of Hawaii’s John A. Burns School of Medicine, wrote in an email that “JABSOM does not have a physician’s assistant program, if passed, this law would not impact the education that our students and residents receive at the John A. Burns School of Medicine’s educational programs within our supporting health systems and clinics.”

Other bills

This year’s abortion bills included some introduced by Republican legislators designed to prohibit abortions under specific circumstances, including:

>> House Bill 685 would prohibit abortion of a fetus that has a heartbeat.

>> HB 1275 would outlaw “chemical” abortions, while allowing exemptions such as necessary treatment to protect the mother, treatment for a natural miscarriage and the sale, use, prescription or administration of any contraceptive agent administered before conception or before pregnancy.

>> SB 254 prohibits an abortion of a fetus that is capable of feeling pain.

Savannah Williamson, a UH political science junior, said she panicked when she heard about the Supreme Court’s ruling, especially for her friends attending universities in conservative states.

Post-Roe future

Williamson now lives in McCully but grew up in Marin County, just north of San Francisco.

“Living here and, like, being from California … obviously we’re pretty progressive and blue …,” Williamson said. “But I have a lot of friends going to … schools, especially in some of the more red states. So it was definitely concerning in terms of that.”

With the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade guaranteeing abortion rights, and allowing individual states to decide abortion laws, Williamson said some of her friends considered switching schools, depending on whether their states tried to restrict abortions.

Williamson said she also worries that the availability of birth control measures will become a new target.

“Immediately my mind kind of went to, like, birth control, because I think that was a big thing that was also talked about with Roe v. Wade — you know, what classifies a baby at conception, this kind of stuff,” Williamson said. “Plan B (the morning after pill) I know was even talked about as being, like, deemed inhumane or whatever. If someone were to use it they could have been punished for using that.”

Eliminating birth control would trigger other health concerns among women, Williamson said.

“Bottom line, I think if someone is traveling out of state to come and receive a service they are obviously seeking it for a reason — they don’t feel safe, they don’t feel like their rights are being met within their own state,” Williamson said. “… It shouldn’t be up to the outside states to deem what’s allowed and what’s not (in Hawaii).”

Shelby Mattos, a UH journalism student from Kaimuki, was not concerned by the Supreme Court’s decision because she said she believes that the right to abortion is protected in Hawaii.

“When I heard that Roe v. Wade was overturned, it was a very sad day,” Mattos said. “Because on the mainland, basically you have removed all of those types of rights from women and from people who want to make those decisions.”