The House Higher Education Committee held a lengthy public hearing on House Bill 16-77, which would require Washington public institutions of higher education to provide access to or referrals for medication abortion through student health centers or, for campuses without health centers, via clear referral pathways and telehealth accommodations.

What the bill would require. Committee staff described the bill as obligating institutions with student health centers to offer access to medication abortion — either through on-site providers, a public program that connects patients to reproductive health services, or other delivery methods. Institutions without student health centers would be required to maintain an online resource with at least two qualified referral providers and to offer private spaces and technical support for students using telehealth. Staff clarified that the bill addresses medication abortion (the mifepristone/misoprostol regimen used to end an early pregnancy), not emergency contraception.

Supporters’ testimony. Students and reproductive-health organizations urged passage. Lake Washington High School students who now plan to go to college described how lack of on-campus access can disrupt education, with one testifier saying colleges should “ensure access to medication abortion” so students “receive timely, unbiased, and medically accurate care.” Advocates and campus health proponents described the University of Washington’s recent work to offer medication abortion and said campus access would reduce travel burdens and support students’ ability to continue classes and work.

Opposition testimony and concerns. Religious and pro-life groups opposed the bill, arguing the legislation frames abortion as a “human right,” that abortion “takes a human life,” and raising safety concerns about telehealth distribution. One opponent cited clinic websites and Department of Health listings to argue that appointments and telehealth options already exist and described the bill as addressing a “non-existent problem.”

Policy details and next steps. Staff noted a proposed substitute was expected and that a Senate companion or similar measure (SB 5321) provided a reference point for fiscal impacts. Staff also reminded participants of amendment deadlines. The committee did not record a vote in the transcript; the hearing featured large numbers of written pro and con filings and more than a dozen in-person testimonies.