Three bills before the 2025 Legislature would allow voters in the next election to decide whether the state Constitution should be amended to ensure reproductive rights including access to contraceptives and abortion in certain circumstances.

Senate Bill 297 Opens in a new tab and its companion, House Bill 728 Opens in a new tab, would add a question on the 2026 mid-term ballots that if approved by voters would add a new section to the Constitution declaring that the state “shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, including: the right to choose to obtain an abortion of a nonviable fetus; an abortion that is necessary to protect the life or health of the parent; and the right to choose to obtain or use contraceptives.”

A separate proposal, Senate Bill 350 Opens in a new tab, would specifically ask voters if they also want to amend the state Constitution to prohibit any law from being enacted or any state action “that denies or interferes with a person’s right to obtain contraceptives or voluntarily engage in contraception.”

Under the bill, contraceptives generally means any drug, device or biological product intended for use in the prevention of pregnancy or for other health needs, that is approved or licensed under federal law. These would include intrauterine devices and emergency contraceptive medications such as Plan B.

SB 350 notes that 14 states — California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — and Washington, D.C., have statutory or constitutional protections for the right to contraception.

The bill does not mention abortion.

Both SB 297 and SB 350 passed their initial committee hearings, and HB 728 has yet to be scheduled for any, just days ahead of this week’s deadline for bills that start in the House and Senate to cross over to the other chamber, action necessary to keep the bills alive this legislative session.

The constitutional amendments also would acknowledge reproductive rights as a fundamental value in Hawaii, if voters decide so.

Groups submitting testimony in “strong support” of SB 297, part of a package of bills supported by the Women’s Legislative Caucus, include AAUW of Hawai‘i; the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists District VIII, Hawai‘i Section; the UNITE HERE Local 5 labor union; and the Pacific Birth Collective.

Among those submitting testimony opposing SB 297 was Eva Andrade, president and CEO of Hawaii Family Forum Opens in a new tab, an organization active in “issues affecting Hawaii’s faith-based community and from a biblical world­view,” according to its website.

“It opens the door for vague abortion policies while silencing future legislative efforts to provide safeguards for life and family … ,” Andrade wrote in her testimony. “We wouldn’t want reproductive rights enshrined into the Constitution.”

She said “vague language” in the bill “opens the door for extreme interpretations” and could be used to eliminate parental notification laws. Andrade also argued such a constitutional amendment is unnecessary because women in Hawaii already have “unfettered access” to abortion, contraception and pregnancy- related medical care and the Constitution already guarantees a right to privacy.

The bills found support from a couple of University of Hawaii students asked about the issue last week on the Manoa campus. Ka‘enaaloha Watson believes that having reproductive care options, including abortion, are important.

“It’s so case by case, why not have that protection?” Watson said.

Watson said she feels grateful to live in Hawaii, where reproductive rights have not changed despite a spate of state abortion bans that followed the U.S. Supreme Court decision that essentially overturned the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

“I feel lucky to be in Hawaii because we are protected in that way,” Watson said.

She said she understands faith-based, pro-life views but believes religious beliefs should be left out of legislation protecting reproductive rights.

“I think the separation of religion and law needs to be upheld within our Constitution,” she said.

Jess Natale, a UH graduate with a bachelor’s degree in biology, believes that continued access to abortion procedures will save lives.

“There can be emergencies and complications where sometimes an abortion is needed,” she said. “They should put this bill in place to protect those rights.”

Natale also believes that access to contraceptives shouldn’t be up for debate.

“If a woman isn’t feeling prepared to raise a kid, she should have access to contraceptives to prevent that,” Natale said.

Natale thinks voters should be given a chance to strengthen the state Constitution to further support a fundamental right for women to decide what happens to their bodies.

“I’m not pro abortion,” she said. “I’m pro choice.”

It’s unclear how changing Hawaii’s Constitution — if voters approve the amendments proposed in SB 297, HB 728 and SB 350 — would be affected should the U.S. Supreme Court make future rulings banning abortion or contraceptive access on a nationwide basis.

The court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson left it up to each state to decide whether to allow or prohibit abortions.

In response, Gov. Josh Green signed a new law following the 2023 legislative session that allows women to have abortions in Hawaii, including women who come to the islands from states that ban abortions, while also protecting health care workers who perform the procedures.