Three women and two doctors are suing the state of Kansas over a law that cancels a person’s end-of-life decisions if they are pregnant — a move believed to be the first of its kind since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
The lawsuit, filed Thursday in a Kansas state district court, claims the law violates the Kansas Constitution by denying pregnant people the right to control their medical care. The plaintiffs argue that this rule violates personal autonomy and equal protection under state law.
In Kansas, as in all U.S. states, people can create legal documents known as advance directives. These outline their medical preferences if they become unable to communicate or make decisions themselves. However, Kansas is one of about 10 states where these directives become invalid if the patient is pregnant — no matter the stage of pregnancy.
Some states place limits based on the fetus’s viability or chance of survival. But Kansas law automatically blocks a pregnant person’s end-of-life choices, even if the fetus cannot survive. These types of laws have existed for decades but have rarely been challenged in court.
Renewed Scrutiny in the Post-Roe Era
This lawsuit comes amid growing concern over how end-of-life care laws intersect with new restrictions on abortion. Earlier this month, national attention focused on a case in Georgia, where a brain-dead pregnant woman was reportedly kept on life support due to the state’s abortion laws.
The Kansas plaintiffs argue that these laws force them to give up control over personal medical decisions. One of the women, Emma Vernon, is currently pregnant. She says she wants life-sustaining care only if her fetus has a real chance of being born healthy and living a meaningful life. Kansas law would override that request.
“I am no less capable of planning my medical care simply because I am pregnant,” Vernon said in a statement. “I know what is best for me.”
Doctors Also Join the Fight
Two Kansas physicians are also part of the lawsuit. They say the vague law leaves them unsure about what care they are allowed to provide to pregnant patients with terminal conditions. They fear being exposed to legal consequences if they honor their patients’ wishes.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Compassion & Choices, an end-of-life care advocacy group, and If/When/How, a reproductive justice legal nonprofit. Also assisting is Kansas lawyer Pedro L. Irigonegaray, known for representing Dr. George Tiller, a provider of late-term abortions who was murdered in 2009 by an anti-abortion extremist.
The lawsuit targets the Kansas Attorney General, the state Board of Healing Arts (which regulates health professionals), and the district attorney in Douglas County. None of the named officials responded to requests for comment on Thursday.
How Advance Directives Work in Kansas
In Kansas, an advance directive includes two main parts:
Durable Power of Attorney – This allows someone to appoint another person to make medical decisions on their behalf.
Declaration or Living Will – This details whether the person wants life-sustaining treatments like ventilators or feeding tubes if they develop a terminal condition.
However, Kansas law clearly states that the declaration has “no effect during the course of the qualified patient’s pregnancy.”
The plaintiffs argue that this law treats people who can become pregnant as second-class patients. It strips them of a right given to all others — the ability to refuse life-sustaining treatment under specific conditions.
A History of Legal Battles Over Pregnant Patients’ Rights
This isn’t the first time this issue has reached the courts. A high-profile Texas case in 2014 gained national attention. Marlise Muñoz, who was declared brain-dead while about 14 weeks pregnant, was kept on life support against her family’s wishes because of Texas’s similar pregnancy exclusion law.
Her family insisted she never wanted to be kept alive artificially, though she hadn’t signed a written directive. A judge eventually ordered the hospital to remove her from life support, stating that the law didn’t apply to someone already deceased. The fetus, the court noted, was not viable.
Such laws reflect what some states describe as a commitment to “protect fetal life.” But legal experts say these policies raise constitutional concerns — especially after Roe v. Wade was overturned.
Legal Experts Warn of Unequal Rights
Nina Kohn, a law professor at Syracuse University, called these laws “constitutionally problematic.” She explained that states may now use them more aggressively to protect fetuses, but doing so may violate the rights of pregnant people.
This isn’t the first legal challenge to such a law. In 2018, four women in Idaho sued over their state’s pregnancy exclusion. A federal judge ruled in 2021 that the restriction violated constitutional rights under the First, Fifth, and 14th Amendments.
Now that abortion rights are being decided at
