Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.02.100 (2026)
Reproductive privacy—Public policy
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The sovereign people hereby declare that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy with respect to personal reproductive decisions.
Accordingly, it is the public policy of the state of Washington that:
(1) Every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse birth control;
(2) Every pregnant individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse to have an abortion, except as specifically limited by RCW 9.02.100 through 9.02.170 and 9.02.900 through 9.02.902;
(3) Except as specifically permitted by RCW 9.02.100 through 9.02.170 and 9.02.900 through 9.02.902, the state shall not deny or interfere with a pregnant individual's fundamental right to choose or refuse to have an abortion; and
(4) The state shall not discriminate against the exercise of these rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.
[ 2022 c 65 s 2; 1992 c 1 s 1 (Initiative Measure No. 120, approved November 5, 1991).]
Notes:
Legislative affirmation—2022 c 65: "The legislature affirms that:
(1) It is the long-standing public policy of this state to promote access to affordable, high quality sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion care, without unnecessary burdens or restrictions on patients or providers. In 1970 Washington was one of the first states to decriminalize abortion before Roe v. Wade; and in 1991 the people of Washington passed Initiative Measure 120, the reproductive privacy act, further protecting access to abortion services;
(2) It has been 30 years since the passage of the reproductive privacy act. It is time that we modernize and update the language to reflect current medical practice;
(3) In 2004 and 2019, respectively, Washington attorneys general Christine Gregoire and Robert W. Ferguson issued opinions clarifying that Washington state law allows certain qualified advanced practice clinicians to provide early in-clinic and medication abortion care and recommended that Washington statutes be updated to provide further clarity;
(4) Although the abortion rights movement has historically centered on women in our advocacy, that must no longer be the case and it is critical that we recognize that transgender, nonbinary, and gender expansive people also get pregnant and require abortion care. Washington's law should reflect the most inclusive understanding of who needs abortions and be updated with gender neutral language. All people deserve access to qualified providers in their community who can provide whatever method of abortion care works for them and no individual who chooses to manage their own abortion should fear arrest or prosecution because of their pregnancy decision or outcome; and
(5) All people deserve to make their own decisions about their pregnancies, including deciding to end a pregnancy. It is the public policy of the state of Washington to continue to protect and advance equal rights to access abortion care that meets each individual's needs, regardless of gender or gender identity, race, ethnicity, income level, or place of residence." [ 2022 c 65 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2025–2026 · leading case: Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Myron Kreidler, 130 F.4th 757 (9th Cir. 2025).
Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Myron Kreidler, 130 F.4th 757 (9th Cir. 2025). “That is, the Parity Act does not increase the theoretical possibility that an employee or a member of an employee’s family would seek an abortion. Instead, the real-world effect of the Parity Act’s complained-of provision is simply that CEDAR PARK ASSEMBLY OF GOD V.”
In Re The Complex Litig. Div. Of Wa Ag (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). “RCW 9.02.100; Pacheco v. United States, 200 Wn.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.