2025: Jennifer Balkcom Was The Primary Sponsor Of A Bill To Create A 72-Hour Waiting Period Before Doctors Could Mail, Provide, Or Supply Abortion Medication

March 2025: Balkcom Was The Primary Sponsor Of A Bill To Create A 72-Hour Waiting Period Before Doctors Could Mail, Provide, Or Supply Abortion Medication

March 2025: Balkcom Was The Primary Sponsor Of H.B. 553, “An Act Revising Abortion-Inducing Drug Laws.” In March 2025, Balkcom was the primary sponsor of H.B. 553, “an act revising abortion-inducing drug laws.” [North Carolina General Assembly, H.B. 553, 3/27/25]

• H.B. 533 Would Require Doctors And Drug Manufacturers To Wait 72 Hours After Obtaining A Patient’s Informed Consent Form To Mail, Provide, Or Supply Abortion Medication. “Current law makes it unlawful for any individual or organization within the State to mail, provide, or supply an abortion-inducing drug directly to a pregnant woman without her proper voluntary, informed consent, in violation of GS 90-21.83A(b)(2)a. It also makes it unlawful for any manufacturer or supplier of an abortion-inducing drug to ship or cause to be shipped any such drug directly to a pregnant woman without her proper voluntary, informed consent, in violation of GS 90-21.83A(b)(2)a. Amends GS 14-44.1 making it unlawful for any individual or organization to mail, provide, or supply an abortion-inducing drug unless all three conditions are satisfied: (1) at least 72 hours before mailing, providing, or supplying the drug, a qualified physician or professional informs the pregnant woman, in person, of the information contained in the consent to a medical abortion form as identified in GS 90-21.83A(b); (2) all informed consent requirements in GS 90-21.83A(b) are satisfied, except GS 90-21.83A(b)(2)b. pertaining to the probable gestational age of the unborn child; and (3) the drug must be FDA approved. Makes it unlawful for any manufacturer or supplier to ship or cause to be shipped any abortion inducing drug unless all three of the conditions above are satisfied.” [North Carolina General Assembly, H.B. 553 Bill Summary, 3/27/25]
• H.B. 533 Would Criminalize Doctors If They Mailed, Provided, Or Supplied Abortion Medication Without Following The 72-Hour Waiting Period. “Makes technical change moving the prohibition of a lack of knowledge or intent that the abortion-inducing drug will be administered outside the physical presence of a physician as a defense to the end of the subsection (a) and makes the prohibition applicable to the entire subsection. Amends the punishment for an individual or organization that violates the section to a Class H felony (was, a noncriminal infraction subject to a $5,000 fine per violation). Adds six new subsections to GS 14-44.1 creating a civil cause of action for relief in court if this section is violated; these subsections (1) explain who can bring a civil action for relief; (2) define the statute of limitations; (3) outline the civil remedies a court can award in addition to any other civil or criminal penalties authorized by law (4) provide a cause of action against a supplier or manufacturer of abortion-inducing drugs allowing additional injunctive relief for a spouse, parent, or guardian of a woman who suffered an alleged violation of the manufacturer/supplier subdivision described above; (5) set out a penalty for frivolous or bad faith civil actions; and (6) requires any foreign nonprofit or business entity that ships, delivers, or procures abortion-inducing drugs to or in the state to have a certificate of authority from the Secretary of State. Effective December 1, 2025 and applies to offenses committed on or after that date.” [North Carolina General Assembly, H.B. 553 Bill Summary, 3/27/25]

Balkcom Said She Supported Banning The Mailing Of Abortion Pills

Balkcom Said The Comstock Act Should Be Enforced To Ban Interstate Transportation Of Abortion-Inducing Drugs. QUESTION: “The Comstock Act, which bans interstate transportation of abortion-inducing drugs, should be enforced.” BALKCOM: “Strongly Agree.” [iVoterGuide, Jennifer Balkcom, 2026]

Guttmacher Institute: Mandated Waiting Periods Before Abortions Were Medically Unnecessary And Caused Delays In Women Seeking Abortion Care

Guttmacher Institute: Mandated Waiting Periods Before Abortions Were Medically Unnecessary And Conflict With Principles Of Medical Ethics. “Waiting periods are not medically necessary and conflict with the principles of medical ethics. Waiting periods serve no medical purpose; these hurdles are intended to make abortion less accessible. Like all health care providers, abortion providers operate under the principles of medical ethics and are required to obtain informed consent before an abortion procedure. Informed consent counseling should not aim to hinder or discourage patients from receiving care, but rather ensure that patients have the relevant and accurate information needed to make health care decisions. Waiting periods are almost never required for other medical procedures. Imposing them on women seeking abortion is an unnecessary burden and singles out these patients as unable to make informed decisions without the imposition of a state-mandated waiting period.” [Guttmacher Institute, 1/22/20]

Guttmacher Institute: The Overwhelming Majority Of Women Were Confident In Their Decision To Have An Abortion And Mandated Waiting Periods Only Added A Delay Between A Woman’s Decision And Her Procedure. “Women are confident in their decision to have an abortion. Mandated waiting periods only add a delay between a woman’s decision and her procedure. A study of Wisconsin’s 2013 mandatory preabortion ultrasound law found that 93% of women were certain in their decision to obtain an abortion, both before and after the law was implemented. A nationally representative survey of abortion patients conducted in 2008 found that 92% of women reported they had made up their mind to have an abortion prior to making an appointment. According to a study of women seeking abortion at a U.S. clinic in 2008, 99% of abortion patients reported being ‘sure’ or ‘kind of sure’ of their decision to have an abortion, and 98% reported that ‘abortion is a better choice for me at this time than having a baby.’” [Guttmacher Institute, 1/22/20]

Guttmacher Institute: “Waiting Periods Can Contribute To Delays In Obtaining Abortion Care, Which Is Problematic Because Both The Cost And Risk Of An Abortion Increase As The Pregnancy Continues.” “Waiting periods can contribute to delays in obtaining abortion care, which is problematic because both the cost and risk of an abortion increase as the pregnancy continues. An expert panel convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine in 2018 found that requiring a waiting period before receiving an abortion may increase both the risk of complications for the patient and cost of the procedure, with no evidence that waiting periods improve abortion safety. In a 2014 nationwide survey of abortion patients, two circumstances were associated with a longer time to appointment and making the appointment more than two weeks before the procedure: exposure to disruptive life events and living in a state with a waiting period. Three studies conducted in Mississippi in the early 1990s found that the state’s mandatory in-person counseling and 24-hour waiting period were associated with a decline in the abortion rate, a rise in abortions obtained out of state and an increase in the proportion of second-trimester abortions.” [Guttmacher Institute, 1/22/20]