Topeka ? Abortion opponents won two victories Wednesday in the House.

On a 72-51 vote, the House sent the Senate a bill protecting health care providers from being fired or sued for refusing to perform abortions or some other services.

The measure faces uncertainty in the Senate, where abortion rights supporters have been able in recent years to block proposals restricting the procedure. A solid majority of House members opposes abortion.

House members also voted 73-49 to give first-round approval to a resolution ordering the attorney general to file a lawsuit with the Kansas Supreme Court, asking it to declare that life begins at conception.

Final action is scheduled for today, and passage then is supposed to set the lawsuit in motion  without Senate action, since the resolution would not need that chamber’s approval.

Some abortion opponents have sought passage of such a resolution for several years but have not seen it advance in either chamber. Under a 1975 law, the attorney general must raise issues of constitutional law before the Kansas Supreme Court if directed to do so by one chamber.

“It’s the best method the House of Representatives has to show the importance of life,” said Rep. Dan Williams, R-Olathe, a supporter of the resolution. “That issue is vital to the issue of abortion, as well as many of the issues we deal with.”

Supporters of the first measure  a bill containing the proposed “Health Care Providers’ Rights of Conscience Act”  have said it isn’t an anti-abortion bill.

The measure would ban discrimination against doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other health workers who refuse to participate in a limited list of services.

On the list are abortion, birth control, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, assisted suicide, artificial insemination, “assisted reproduction,” infanticide and fetal experimentation.

Supporters said the bill is designed to prevent any punitive action  including firing  against health workers.

The measure would also bar lawsuits against hospitals, clinics and health plans for failing to provide any of the services.

Sen. Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, a supporter of the measure, said the bill protects civil rights but added, “Really, I don’t think the Senate knows much about it yet.”

Abortion rights supporters believe the bill is an attempt to limit access to abortion, by making it easier for providers to refuse to perform them.

“I’m assuming the peanut of it is abortion,” said Sen. Sandy Praeger, R-Lawrence, an abortion-rights supporter.

As for the resolution, supporters say the issue of when life begins is ripe for review by the courts because of advances in medical science since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion across the nation.

The lawsuit would be filed after Feb. 1, 2003 Â when a new attorney general has taken office. Atty. Gen. Carla Stovall, an abortion-rights supporter, is running for governor.

“I think we should recognize scientific fact and truth,” said Rep. John Toplikar, R-Olathe.

But critics questioned whether the courts will answer that question, or simply uphold Roe v. Wade.

“I just didn’t see it as a proper use of the attorney general’s authority,” said Minority Leader Jim Garner, D-Coffeyville.