SESSION OF 2023
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON SENATE BILL NO. 180
As Amended by House Committee on Health
and Human Services

Brief*
SB 180, as amended, would establish the Women’s Bill
of Rights and provide a meaning of biological sex for
purposes of statutory construction. The bill would set
intermediate constitutional scrutiny as the standard of judicial
review to be applied with regard to laws and rules and
regulations that distinguish between the sexes and would
identify those areas where distinction between the sexes
would be related to important governmental objectives. The
bill also would require certain entities that collect vital
statistics for the purposes outlined in the bill to identify each
individual who is part of the collected data set as either male
or female at birth. The bill would include that individuals born
with a medically verifiable diagnosis of disorder/differences in
sex development would receive available federal and state
legal protections.

Defined Terms
The bill would provide that, despite any provision of
state law to the contrary, the following would apply with
respect to the application of an individual’s biological sex
pursuant to any state laws or rules and regulations:
● An individual’s “sex” would mean an individual’s
sex at birth, either male or female;

____________________
*Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research
Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental
note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at
http://www.kslegislature.org
 ● A “female” would mean an individual whose
biological reproductive system is developed to
produce ova;
● A “male” would mean an individual whose
biological reproductive system is developed to
fertilize the ova of a female;
● “Woman” and “girl” would refer to human females,
and “man” and “boy” would refer to human males;
● “Mother” would mean a parent of the female sex,
and “father” would mean a parent of the male sex;
and
● With respect to biological sex, separate
accommodations are not inherently unequal.
Standard of Judicial Review
The bill would note that laws and rules and regulations
that distinguish between the sexes are subject to intermediate
constitutional scrutiny. The bill would state intermediate
constitutional scrutiny prohibits unfair discrimination against
similarly situated male and female individuals but allows the
law to distinguish between the sexes where such distinctions
are substantially related to important governmental
objectives.
The bill would require, and state that is despite any
provision of state law to the contrary, that distinctions
between the sexes be considered substantially related to the
important governmental objectives of protecting the health,
safety, and privacy of individuals, with respect to the following
areas:
● Athletics;
● Prisons or other detention facilities;

2- 180
 ● Domestic violence centers;
● Rape crisis centers;
● Locker rooms;
● Restrooms; and
● Other areas where biology, safety, or privacy are
implicated that result in separate accommodations.
Vital Statistics Collection
The bill would require any school district, or public
school, and any state agency, department, or office or
political subdivision to identify each individual as either male
or female at birth who is part of collected vital statistics data
sets for the purpose of complying with anti-discrimination
laws or gathering accurate public health, crime, economic, or
other data.

Background
The bill was introduced by the Senate Committee on
Public Health and Welfare at the request of Senator Erickson.

Senate Committee on Public Health and Welfare
In the Senate Committee meeting, representatives of
Independent Women’s Law Center, Independent Women’s
Voice, and Women’s Liberation Front provided proponent
testimony, generally stating a long-standing legal precedent
requires equal treatment of similarly situated men and women
but allows differentiation between the sexes when privacy,
safety, or equal opportunity are at stake or when that
differentiation is substantially related to an important
government interest. The proponents stated this premise is
being threatened by those who want to redefine common sex-
3- 180
based words in a manner that separates sex from biology and
by those who think separate is inherently unequal when it
comes to sex. The proponents noted the bill would not
change existing laws but would establish a legal definition of
sex-based terms for clarity in the implementation of existing
law.
Written-only proponent testimony was provided by
representatives of the Kansas Catholic Conference and
Kansas Family Choice.
Opponent testimony was provided by a human services
professional, a private citizen, and representatives of the
American Civil Liberties Union, Equality Kansas, and Kansas
Interfaith Action. The opponents generally stated the bill
would not protect women’s rights but rather attempt to codify
into law outdated, inaccurate, and under-inclusive definitions
of sex and families and to absolve the State of its
responsibility not to discriminate against transgender
persons. The opponents stated the bill would try to codify in
law a right to exclude transgender persons from certain
spaces and erase persons who are nonbinary.
Written-only opponent testimony was provided by a
former Kansas state representative, a social worker, four
members of the clergy, an advanced practice registered
nurse, a traveling nurse, a retired educator, four private
citizens, and representatives of the Center of Daring and
Kansas Legal Services.

House Committee on Health and Human Services
In the House Committee hearing on March 6, 2023,
proponent testimony was provided by two representatives of
Independent Women’s Voice and a representative of
Women’s Liberation Front who generally stated that the
premise of the bill is to identify individuals based upon
objective observable biological sex rather than subjective
gender.
4- 180
 Written-only proponent testimony was provided by
representatives of Kansas Family Voice and Kansas Catholic
Conference.
Opponent testimony was provided by representatives of
American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, Equality Kansas,
Kansas Interfaith Action, Kansas Legal Services, Kansas
Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, United
School Administrators of Kansas and the Kansas
Superintendents Association, Mid-America LGBT Chamber of
Commerce, a physician, an attorney, and three private
citizens, who generally stated that the bill adopts overly
narrow definitions and discussed concerns around legality.
Written-only opponent testimony was provided by a
former Kansas State representative; representatives from the
Center of Daring, Kansas National Education Association,
and Mainstream Coalition; five members of the clergy; and 40
private citizens.
Written-only neutral testimony was received from a
representative of the Kansas Department of Corrections.
The House Committee recommended the bill be passed.
The bill was later withdrawn from the calendar and re-referred
to the House Committee.
The House Committee amended the bill as follows:
● To remove all the introductory clauses; and
● To add a new section to state that individuals born
with a medically verifiable diagnosis of
disorder/differences in sex development shall be
provided legal protections and accommodations
afforded under the Americans with Disabilities Act
and applicable Kansas statutes.


5- 180
Fiscal Information
According to the fiscal note prepared by the Division of
the Budget on the bill, as introduced, the Kansas State
Department of Education estimates enactment of the bill
would have a limited fiscal effect on school districts; a total
effect could not be estimated. The bill could have a fiscal
effect on Kansas Board of Regents institutions if the language
conflicted with National Collegiate Athletic Association or
other higher education-related policies or laws. Kansas higher
education institutions could lose the ability to host events,
which would decrease revenues, but the extent of that effect
is unknown.
The Office of the Attorney General states the
constitutionality of the legislation is likely to be challenged
and would likely need to go through the appellate process for
a definitive ruling on the validity of the law. The litigation could
be ongoing for two to four years depending on the court
system. The defense could be handled by agency staff using
existing resources, but there could be a potential need for
specialized outside counsel. If a challenge was successful,
the State could be ordered to pay plaintiff’s attorney fees and
costs. A total fiscal effect could not be estimated.
The Kansas Office of Judicial Administration states
enactment of the bill would have a negligible fiscal effect on
expenditures and revenue for the Judicial Branch.
According to the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment and the Kansas Human Rights Commission,
enactment of the bill would have no fiscal effect on the
operations of either of the respective agencies.
Any fiscal effect associated with enactment of the bill is
not reflected in The FY 2024 Governor’s Budget Report.
Women’s Bill of Rights; biological sex definition; standard of judicial review;
intermediate constitutional scrutiny; important governmental objectives; vital statistics

6- 180