Skip to main content

SB 5826

In Committee

Senate

Postsecondary/med. abortion

Concerning access at public postsecondary educational institutions to medication abortion.

This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.

How does a bill become law?
  1. Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
  2. Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
  3. Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
  4. Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
  5. Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
  6. Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
Introduced: January 11, 2026
Last Action: January 23, 2026
Status: S Ways & Means
Companion Bill:

AI Analysis

This analysis was generated by AI and may contain errors. It is not legal advice. Always refer to the official bill text for authoritative information.
People & CommunitiesPeople-leaningCorporate & Wealthy Interests

This bill requires Washington’s public colleges and universities to make medication abortion accessible to students by the 2027–28 academic year, either directly through student health centers or via robust referral and support services. It aims to reduce travel, cost, and wait-time barriers that delay care—especially after the *Dobbs* decision increased demand in the state.

  • By the start of the 2027–28 academic year, every student health center at a public college or university in Washington must offer access to medication abortion through a state reproductive health program, a partnership with a safety net provider (including telehealth), or another cost-effective method.
  • Colleges and universities without a student health center must provide information and referral services for medication abortion, including training staff to help students access telehealth appointments and support (e.g., private space, devices, technical help).
  • All public institutions must maintain a dedicated webpage with clear information about reproductive health services—including prenatal care and abortion options—and links to campus resources for academic accommodations related to pregnancy or abortion care.
  • The bill defines key terms (e.g., medication abortion, safety net abortion provider) and establishes a new chapter in Title 28B RCW to formalize these requirements.
  • The legislature explicitly states that medication abortion is safe, effective, and a legal right, and affirms the goal of making it as accessible and affordable as possible for students.

Who is affected

  • Students at public postsecondary institutionsStudents at public colleges and universities in Washington who may need abortion care, especially those facing financial, geographic, or time-related barriers to accessing services off-campus.
  • Student health centersStudent health centers at public colleges and universities, which must now offer or facilitate access to medication abortion by the 2027–28 academic year.
  • Public institutions without student health centersPublic institutions of higher education that do not operate student health centers, which must provide information, referrals, and support for telehealth-based abortion care.
  • Safety net abortion providersSafety net abortion providers, which may be contracted to supply telehealth or in-person medication abortion services to students through partnerships with campus health centers.
Effective: July 28, 2026Fiscal impact: The bill does not specify a direct fiscal impact, but requires institutions to use the most cost-effective method to provide medication abortion services. This may involve minimal new spending on staff training, telehealth infrastructure, or partnerships—potentially offset by leveraging existing state programs or contracts.
Model: Intel/Qwen3-Coder-Next-int4-AutoRoundGenerated: Mar 19, 2026 at 9:21 PM

Pro/Con Analysis

Stronger case for benefits

Potential Benefits (5)
  • Dramatically improves access to time-sensitive reproductive healthcare for students—especially low-income, rural, and first-generation students—by reducing travel distances, wait times, and out-of-pocket costs, thereby supporting health equity and academic persistence.

    HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 1(3), Sec. 3(1)(a), Sec. 3(3)(a)
  • Ensures students can access academic accommodations and private, dignified telehealth spaces on campus, reducing stigma and helping prevent academic disruption or dropout due to reproductive health needs.

    EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(a)-(d), Sec. 3(3)(b)(ii)
  • Affirms students’ legal right to abortion care through standardized, nonjudgmental information access—countering misinformation and reducing psychological distress associated with navigating care independently.

    Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 3(3)(b)(iii), Sec. 1(5)
  • Strengthens the state’s safety net abortion provider network by mandating partnerships with state-contracted clinics, potentially increasing service volume and sustainability for those providers.

    HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(a)(ii), Sec. 2(4)
  • Leverages telehealth and existing state reproductive health programs to scale care efficiently—reducing avoidable ER visits related to delayed abortion care and improving overall public health outcomes.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4), Sec. 3(1)(a)(iii)
Potential Concerns (3)
  • Mandates new operational responsibilities and infrastructure (e.g., telehealth setup, staff training, webpage maintenance) for public colleges and universities, which may strain already-constrained student health center budgets and divert resources from other campus health priorities.

    EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(a), Sec. 3(2), Sec. 3(3)(a)
  • While the bill emphasizes cost-effectiveness, institutions may prioritize low-cost telehealth partnerships over hiring additional clinical staff, potentially limiting long-term capacity building and job creation in campus health services.

    Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(b) — 'most cost-effective option'
  • Requiring institutions to provide devices for telehealth appointments may strain campus IT budgets, especially at smaller regional campuses, and could inadvertently expose students to data privacy risks if device management and cybersecurity protocols are under-resourced.

    Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(d) — 'student access to electronic devices'

Who Is Most Affected

Students at public postsecondary institutionsPositive Impact

Low-income, rural, and first-generation students—especially those without reliable transportation or financial means—will benefit most, as the bill directly reduces travel, cost, and wait-time barriers to time-sensitive care. This supports retention, academic success, and bodily autonomy.

Student health centersMixed Impact

Student health centers will gain new clinical responsibilities and may need to hire or train staff, but the bill’s cost-effectiveness requirement may limit full staffing. Larger campuses with existing telehealth infrastructure will adapt more easily than smaller regional colleges.

Public institutions without student health centersMixed Impact

Institutions without student health centers must invest in referral infrastructure and staff training, but avoid clinical liability and staffing burdens. This may disproportionately burden smaller, under-resourced institutions with high student populations.

Safety net abortion providersPositive Impact

Safety net abortion providers (e.g., Planned Parenthood affiliates, community health centers) will likely see increased demand and state-contracted revenue, but may face capacity strain if student referrals surge without additional funding.

State higher education administrationMixed Impact

State higher education leadership and the Student Achievement Council will gain new oversight responsibilities, but the bill does not allocate dedicated funding—potentially straining existing administrative resources.

Sponsors

Senator Nobles(Democrat)District 28Primary
Senator Alvarado(Democrat)District 34Secondary
Senator Chapman(Democrat)District 24Secondary
Senator Conway(Democrat)District 29Secondary
Senator Dhingra(Democrat)District 45Secondary
Senator Hasegawa(Democrat)District 11Secondary
Senator Liias(Democrat)District 21Secondary
Senator Pedersen(Democrat)District 43Secondary
Senator Riccelli(Democrat)District 3Secondary
Senator Saldaña(Democrat)District 37Secondary
Senator Shewmake(Democrat)District 42Secondary
Senator Slatter(Democrat)District 48Secondary
Senator Stanford(Democrat)District 1Secondary
Senator Trudeau(Democrat)District 27Secondary
Senator Valdez(Democrat)District 46Secondary
Senator Wilson(Democrat)District 30Secondary