Editorial: Protect access, right to abortion

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed its nearly 50-year-old holding in Roe v. Wade that abortion is protected by a woman’s constitutional right to privacy. That has thrown open the door for each state in the nation to make laws concerning women’s reproductive autonomy — whether interfering with that autonomy, or protecting it.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization put responsibility for the legal status of abortion in the hands of each state — and made access to abortion for women dependent upon where they are standing at the time they seek this treatment. So, our state lawmakers’ attempts to codify abortion law have significance not only for Hawaii, but for the nation.

Hawaii’s legislators have introduced 11 abortion- related bills in this legislative session. Some would expand abortion protections; others would prohibit them.

Senate Bill 1 (SB1), a shield law, would protect Hawaii health care providers who perform abortions sought by women who live in other states, and it is the most urgent of the batch. It must be enacted in this session.

SB1 allows health-care providers to do their jobs, for women from out of state seeking this health care here, without fear of civil or criminal interference from outside of Hawaii. Similar law has been enacted in other states, and Hawaii, long a protector of access to abortion and the right to choose, should be eager to do so as well.

SB1 also would authorize physician assistants to provide abortions. This is warranted. Abortion provided by advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) has been authorized by law in this state since 2021. Including physician assistants, as with APRNs, will make abortion more widely accessible, particularly on neighbor islands.

Hawaii’s broad base of support for abortion rights was evident last year, when former Gov. David Ige issued an executive order specifying that abortions are legal in Hawaii and protecting health care providers from out- of-state interference. That reinforces the argument for SB 1’s passage.

Also well worthy of support, SB 890 would prohibit Hawaii from denying or interfering with a woman’s right to an abortion — and while that prospect may not be likely, a law that bans the state from interfering with access to abortion would send a clear message to women here that Hawaii values their bodily autonomy.

More valuable is SB 890’s specification that APRNs and other licensed, authorized health care providers can legally prescribe abortion medications after a telehealth consultation. Telehealth access to reproductive health care should be protected by law, providing women in rural areas or without easy access to a physical doctor’s office better access to care.

On the other side of the coin, bills have been introduced to prohibit abortions under specific circumstances. The fact that any about-face in the law concerning abortion in Hawaii is being suggested, shows why protections are needed. Laws restricting access to abortion in Hawaii beyond current law would be misguided:

>> House Bill 685, disingenuously known as the “Women’s Rights Bill,” seeks to limit abortions to 15 weeks. Hawaii currently allows abortion until the point of viability, or ability to survive outside the womb, which is generally accepted to be 23-24 weeks. There is no compelling reason to change this limit.

>> HB 1275 outlaws “chemical” abortions, but its long list of exemptions, such as for treatment to protect the mother, treatment for a natural miscarriage and the sale, use, prescription or administration of birth control, shows that there is no health-related reason to do so.

>> SB 254 presents itself as prohibiting the abortion of a fetus that is “capable of experiencing pain,” but in actuality reduces the time span available for a woman to obtain an abortion. Hawaii’s current standard, viability of the fetus, should remain Hawaii law.