HHS Committee advances two abortion-related bills to full Nebraska Legislature
LINCOLN, Neb. (Nebraska Examiner) - Abortion appears likely to be debated on the floor of the Nebraska Legislature again this year after a legislative committee advanced two related bills on Wednesday night.
The Health and Human Services Committee voted 5-0 to advance Legislative Bill 632 from State Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair. That bill would require any health care facility performing and completing on-site elective abortions to dispose of the remains of the aborted fetus by cremation or burial, or, if not possible, in a manner directed by the State Board of Health.
The committee also voted 4-2 to advance LB 512 from State Sen. Rick Holdcroft of Bellevue, which would require doctors to screen pregnant women for ectopic pregnancies and schedule a follow-up appointment 3 to 28 days after prescribing abortion-inducing medications.
‘Basic respect’
LB 632, from Hansen, is mirrored off of a Minnesota law adopted in 1987, which at least 15 other states also have adopted. The Minnesota law defines “remains of a human fetus” to mean a fetus that has “reached a stage of development so that there are cartilaginous structures, fetal or skeletal parts after an abortion or miscarriage.”
Hansen’s bill defines “aborted unborn child” as “physical remains of an unborn child at any stage of gestation whose life has been terminated by an elective abortion.”
Hansen also noted that a Nebraska law from 2003 already requires licensed hospitals to have a written policy about the “disposition of the remains of a child born dead at such hospital.”
LB 632 would not require health care facilities to notify women who receive an abortion of the method of disposition.
At his bill’s hearing last week, Hansen said LB 632 is about public health and human dignity.
“All of us understand the horror that is felt when a human body has been subjected to indignity, desecration or neglect,” Hansen testified. “Both reasons — public and environmental health and the basic respect to the bodies of the dead — are as applicable to the tissue and blood of children who have died by elective abortions as to babies who have died from natural causes.”
‘Simply a political statement’
Andi Curry Grubb, executive director of Planned Parenthood North Central States, blasted the bill as “vague and unworkable” and said it would effectively impose a funeral requirement at any stage of pregnancy. She called the requirements “shortsighted and disrespectful” and said the bill could impose religious or spiritual views.
“It does nothing other than burden abortion providers and patients, shame and stigmatize care and further remove patients’ control over their own health,” Curry Grubb testified. “All of these issues highlight that this bill is unserious and simply a political statement.”
State Sen. Brian Hardin of Gering, chair of the HHS Committee, and Curry Grubb disagreed over whether the bill addressed “human remains” or “fetal tissue,” and Hardin asked what Planned Parenthood currently does with the remains after an abortion.
“What we do currently is completely in line with what most other health care providers who manage fetal tissue do,” she responded.
Hansen responded that he had never seen a testifier “grasp at so many straws.” On her religion allegations, he said his bill had “nothing to do with that whatsoever” and that he wasn’t seeking to restrict access to care.
State Sen. Dan Lonowski of Hastings chose Hansen’s bill as his 2025 priority, increasing the likelihood it will be scheduled for debate this year.
“Just to dispose of aborted remains in a haphazard way, I think it just lowers the dignity and the respect we should have for all human life,” Lonowski said Thursday.
Holdcroft seeks path forward
Opponents of Holdcroft’s bill related to chemical abortions said it could put reproductive care farther out of reach or push them to find the medications in less safe or regulated ways.
State Sen. Merv Riepe of Ralston, a Republican and former hospital administrator, opposed that bill. He said Wednesday that Holdcroft’s bill wasn’t about protection and was instead a blockade.
State Sen. Glen Meyer of Pender countered that he viewed the bill as in the interests of women’s health and that he would oppose the bill if it was a back-door attempt to ban access.
Hansen noted Holdcroft’s bill would not require women to show up for the follow-up appointment.
State Sen. John Fredrickson of Omaha, the other “no” vote, said voters had already weighed in. State Sen. Dan Quick of Grand Island was the lone senator not to vote for or against the bill, saying he was waiting until he understood more how the bill would impact women.
Quick and Fredrickson were “present, not voting” on Hansen’s bill.
Holdcroft confirmed Thursday that his bill is unlikely to get a priority designation this year, but said he would still work to find a path forward for his measure he said was “pro-women’s health.”
“We’re going to just look for an opportunity on the floor to possibly amend it to a like bill and see what can be done there,” Holdcroft said. “Otherwise, we’ll carry it over to next year.”
Nebraska Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Nebraska Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Aaron Sanderford for questions: info@nebraskaexaminer.com.
Click here to subscribe to our 10/11 NOW daily digest and breaking news alerts delivered straight to your email inbox.
Copyright 2025 KOLN. All rights reserved.
