Hearing set on request to halt 4 Arkansas abortion laws

3 restrictions to take effect next month

A federal judge on Monday set a July 13 hearing to consider two groups' request that she temporarily halt the enforcement of four new Arkansas abortion laws.

A week ago today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas and the national Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit on behalf of Frederick Hopkins, a physician who provides abortions at Little Rock Family Planning Services. The lawsuit challenges four laws approved by Arkansas lawmakers this year. Three are scheduled to take effect July 30, and the fourth is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1.

The first three greatly restrict the use of dilation and evacuation procedures, considered the safest method for second-trimester abortions by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; ban abortions that are sought based on the sex of the fetus; and require doctors performing abortions on anyone 16 or younger to preserve the fetal tissue and notify local police.

The fourth law being challenged in the suit would require doctors to notify a woman's family members about their right to participate in the disposition of tissue from her abortion or miscarriage.

The ACLU says the laws -- Acts 45, 733, 1018 and 603, respectively -- would heavily restrict or outright ban abortion in the state. The group says the laws would do that by eliminating abortion care for some women; allowing a woman's partner or other family members to block her abortion; invading the privacy of a girl and her family; and unduly burdening providers while forcing them to violate doctor-patient confidentiality.

Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas, said in announcing the lawsuit that "Arkansas politicians have passed laws that defy decency and reason just to make it impossible for a woman to get an abortion."

[EMAIL UPDATES: Get free breaking news alerts, daily newsletters with top headlines delivered to your inbox]

Nancy Northup, president and chief executive officer of the Center for Reproductive Rights, based in New York, said the new legislation essentially bans abortion in the second trimester.

But Jerry Cox, president of the conservative, anti-abortion group Family Council, said he found it "almost unbelievable" that the groups are challenging laws that he said are designed to protect girls and ensure doctors know a woman's medical history before performing an abortion.

The suit names as defendants Pulaski County Prosecuting Attorney Larry Jegley as the enforcer of the challenged provisions, and the chairman and members of the state Medical Board, which is required under the new legislation to impose penalties against doctors who violate the provisions.

No response had been filed as of Monday, but is expected before the hearing that U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker, to whom the lawsuit was randomly assigned, has scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. July 13. The case went to Baker after U.S. District Judge Billy Roy Wilson recused, saying he was hearing cases in another district and unable to preside over the emergency requests. Baker will hear arguments on the motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, either of which would block the laws from taking effect until she could consider the merits of the lawsuit in detail and decide on the constitutionality of the laws.

On the same day the lawsuit was filed, Planned Parenthood and Little Rock Family Planning Services filed a second lawsuit in federal court in Little Rock. That case was randomly assigned to U.S. District Judge James Moody Jr.

Filed on behalf of the clinics that provide abortions in Little Rock and Fayetteville, and their patients, the lawsuit names the Arkansas Department of Health as a defendant and challenges Section 2 of another law, Act 383 of 2017. The law would create more rules for clinics and would require the department to immediately suspend a clinic's license if the agency discovered a violation.

Its sponsor, Rep. Robin Lundstrum, R-Elm Springs, has said its purpose was to "clean up antiquated language," but the clinics say it was designed to imperil their existence.

Lundstrum said last week that she was "very saddened to hear about this lawsuit," which she called "very pathetic."

An injunction is also being sought in that case until its merits can be decided, but no injunction hearing had been scheduled as of Monday. No response had been filed in that case as of Monday, either.

Metro on 06/27/2017

Upcoming Events