DOCSLIB.ORG

BRW Document 1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 1 of 465

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
BRW Document 1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 1 of 465 Case 4:19-cv-00046-BRW Document 1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 1 of 465 u. f i\kiFrcQRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNTED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAN 2 2 2019 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION iA~ES W. McCO--rACK, CLERK y, S j DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK FAMILY PLANNING PLAINTIFFS SERVICES and PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF ARKANSAS AND EASTERN OKLAHOMA d/b/a PLANNED PARENTHOOD GREAT PLAINS v. No. lf:/q-cv-16- BRw' ARKANSAS BOARD OF HEAL TH DEFENDANT NOTICE OF REMOVAL Defendant Arkansas Board of Health removes this action from the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 1. Plaintiffs operate licensed abortion facilities m Arkansas. After inspecting Plaintiffs' facilities in January and February 2018, the Board discovered that Plaintiffs were not complying Arkansas's Woman's Right-to-Know Act. Among other things, the Act prohibits Plaintiffs from "requir[ing] or obtain[ing] payment for a service provided in relation to abortion ... until the expiration of the forty-eight-hour reflection period" that the Act requires. Ark. Code § 20-16-1703(d). The Board then issued an order finding Plaintiffs in violation of that prohibition. 2. Plaintiffs claim that section 20-16-1703(d) and the Board's order based on that section violate the U.S. and Arkansas Constitutions. Plaintiffs initially filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in which they argued that the Board's order did not comply with Arkansas administrative-procedure law. But on January 21, 2019, they made clear in their reply brief in support of their mandamus petition that the petition is a vehicle for pursuing their constitutional claims. They "claim that Ark. Code Ann. § 20-16-1703(d) violates the taking clauses of the U.S. This case assigned to District Judge Wi/.sot1- and to Magistrate Judge _'J...,...o-=il~~----- Case 4:19-cv-00046-BRW Document 1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 2 of 465 Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution; the equal protection clauses of the U.S. and Arkansas Constitutions, the privacy rights of the U.S. and Arkansas Constitutions; and the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution." Reply to Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus at 4 n.1, Little Rock Family Planning Servs. v. Ark. Bd. of Health, No. 60cv-18-8090 (Jan. 21, 2019, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct.). 1 Plaintiffs filed a mandamus petition, in other words, to ensure "that these constitutional issues are preserved for review in this Court"-i.e., the Pulaski County Circuit Court-"and on appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court, if necessary." Id. at 4. 3. At a January 22 hearing on Plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandamus and other matters, the Pulaski County Circuit Court denied that petition but proceeded to the merits of Plaintiffs' claims under the U.S. and Arkansas Constitutions. That court found on the record a substantial probability that section 20-16-1703( d) violated either or both Constitutions. 4. This action is removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) because Plaintiffs' claims arise under the Constitution of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (providing federal courts with original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law). 5. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law constitutional claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and § 1441(c) because they are so related to the federal claim as to "form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 6. This Notice of Removal is timely filed within 30 days after the Board's receipt "of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). 1 Plaintiffs' reply brief is included in the state-court record being filed simultaneously with this Notice of Removal. Case 4:19-cv-00046-BRW Document 1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 3 of 465 7. True and correct copies of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon the Board are filed together with this Notice of Removal as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). 8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), the Arkansas Board of Health will promptly serve upon Plaintiffs' counsel and file with the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, a true and correct copy of this Notice of Removal. For these reasons, the Arkansas Board of Health removes this action from the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Respectfully Submitted, LESLIE RUTLEDGE Arkansas Attorney General By: Jr4~. NICHOLAS J. BRONNI (Ark. Bar No. 2016097) Solicitor General DYLAN L. JACOBS (Ark. Bar No. 2016167) Assistant Solicitor General MICHAEL A. CANTRELL (Ark. Bar No. 2012287) Assistant Solicitor General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 682-3661 Fax: (501) 682-2591 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Case 4:19-cv-00046-BRW Document 1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 4 of 465 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dylan L. Jacobs, hereby certify that on January 22, 2019, I served a copy of the foregoing by electronic mail and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Bettina E. Brownstein Bettina E. Brownstein Law Firm 904 West Second Street, Suite 2 Little Rock, AR 72201 [email protected] cPJ~ Dylan L. Jacobs Case 4:19-cv-00046-BRW Document 1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 5 of 465 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Pulaski County Circuit Court Larry Crane, Circuit/County Clerk 2018-Nov-26 14:48:06 60CV-18-8090 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKA AS C06D06 : 2 Pages ---DIVISION LITTLE ROCK FAMILY PLANNING PLAINTIFFS SERVICES and PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF ARKANSAS AND EASTERN OKLAHOMA DBA PLANNED PARENTHOOD GREAT PLAINS v. ARKANSAS BOARD OF HEALTH DEFENDANT APPEAL FROM ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION Plaintiffs Little Rock Family Planning Services and Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma dba Planned Parenthood Great Plains appeal from an order of the Arkansas Board of Health ("ABOH") issued November 8, 2018 which is adverse to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' research indicates that the order is insufficient under the law to permit judicial review of the order and have thus filed a motion with the ABOH requesting that it revise its order. However, to prevent any waiver or default of their ability to appeal, Plaintiffs file this timely notice of appeal. In the event Defendant revises its order, as requested by Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs is likely to file an amended notice of appeal. Designation and transmittal of the record is governed by Ark. Code. Ann. §25-15-212, which requires Defendant to transmit at its cost the entire record of the proceedings below for this appeal. Case 4:19-cv-00046-BRW Document 1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 6 of 465 Respectfully submitted: edLt:--=:., Cr'/f~z------------ Bettina E. Brownstein (85019) .._____ Bettina E. Brownstein Law Finn 904 West Second Street, Suite 2 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Tel: (501) 920-1764 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs On Behalf of Arkansas Civil Liberties Foundation, Inc. for Plaintiff Little Rock Family Planning Services Case 4:19-cv-00046-BRW Document 1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 7 of 465 Bettina E. Brownstein 904 W. Second St Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Tel: (501) 920-1764 E-mail: hcttinahrownstcinr,, gmail.com November 26, 2018 Via E-mail to Monty Baugh at [email protected] Re: Appeal from Arkansas Board of Health Decision v. Little Rock Family Planning Services and Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma dba Planned Parenthood Great Plains, Case No. 60cv- l 8-8090, Pulaski Circuit Court. Mr. Monty Baugh, Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Monty: This letter is to inform you that Little Rock Family Planning Services and Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma dba Planned Parenthood Great Plains have appealed a decision of the Arkansas Board of Health to the Pulaski Circuit Court. The case no. is referenced above. In this appeal, Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. § 20-16-1703( d). Cordially, Bettina E. 8rownstein Attorney for Plaintiffs :RECEIVED NCV 2 9 2018 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS Case 4:19-cv-00046-BRW Document 1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 8 of 465 - Not an Official Document Page 1 of 3 Report Selection Criteria Case ID: 60CV-18-8090 Citation No: Docket Start Date: Docket Ending Date: Case Description Case ID: 60CV-18-8090 - LR FAMILY PLANNING SERV ET AL VAR BOARD OF HEALTH -NON-TRIAL Filing Monday , November 26th, 2018 Date: Court: 60 - PULASKI Location: Cl - CIRCUIT Type: AP - ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL Status: OPEN - CASE OPEN Images: Case Event Schedule No case events were found. Case Parties Seq End Assoc Type ID Name # Date JUDGE 7965389 HON. TIM FOX - 6TH DIVISION PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT • Aliases: !Fox I PLAINTIFF 16378044 LITTLE ROCK FAMILY [TI PLANNING SERVICES D Aliases: none 6 DEFENDANT 16378046 ARKANSAS BOARD OF HEALTH https://caseinfo.arcourts.gov/cconnect/PROD/public/ck_public_ qry _ doct.cp_ dktrpt_dock... 11/29/2018 Case 4:19-cv-00046-BRW Document 1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 9 of 465 - Not an Official Document Page 2 of3 II II II Aliases: II none 4 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT 1005736 KEHLER, LAURA ATTORNEY KATHERINE Aliases: none 5 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER 1003620 BROWNSTEIN, ATTORNEY BETTINA ELLEN Aliases: BROWNSTEIN, BETTINA E.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hawaii Attorney General Joins Coalition Challenging Arkansas' Unconstitutional Abortion Ban During COVID-19 Pandemic
    DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DAVID Y. IGE GOVERNOR CLARE E. CONNORS ATTORNEY GENERAL For Immediate Release News Release 2020-52 April 20, 2020 Hawaii Attorney General Joins Coalition Challenging Arkansas’ Unconstitutional Abortion Ban During COVID-19 Pandemic HONOLULU – Hawaii Attorney General Clare E. Connors has joined a multistate coalition of 19 attorneys general seeking to stop the State of Arkansas from banning almost all procedural abortions in the state, as the state has improperly used the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-2019) public health crisis as a justification. The coalition filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, supporting the plaintiffs in In re Leslie Rutledge, as they fight to preserve access to reproductive health care for the women across Arkansas. “The continuing COVID-19 crisis should not be used as an excuse to do away with longstanding constitutional rights,” said Attorney General Connors. “The actions taken by the Arkansas Department of Health are not necessary to respond to the COVID-19 crisis, and adversely impact matters related to women’s health.” Women seeking an abortion in Arkansas typically have the choice between one of two options: a medication abortion (induced by taking two different prescription drugs) or a procedural abortion (which does not require general anesthesia or incision). Medication abortions can take place through the 10th week of pregnancy in Arkansas, while a procedural abortion can currently take place through approximately 22 weeks of pregnancy, despite new state laws, passed last year, attempting to scale back that period to just 18 weeks.
    [Show full text]
  • Seeing and Believing: Mandatory Ultrasound and the Path to a Protected Choice
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2008 Seeing and Believing: Mandatory Ultrasound and the Path to a Protected Choice Carol Sanger Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, and the Law and Gender Commons Recommended Citation Carol Sanger, Seeing and Believing: Mandatory Ultrasound and the Path to a Protected Choice, UCLA LAW REVIEW, VOL. 56, P. 351, 2008; COLUMBIA PUBLIC LAW RESEARCH PAPER NO. 09-195 (2008). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1564 This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Columbia Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper Group Paper Number 09-195 SEEING AND BELIEVING: MANDATORY ULTRASOUND AND THE PATH TO A PROTECTED CHOICE (version of Dec. 9, 2008) BY: PROFESSOR CAROL SANGER COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1306460 SEEING AND BELIEVING: MANDATORY ULTRASOUND AND THE PATH TO A PROTECTED CHOICE * Carol Sanger Several state legislatures now require that before a woman may consent to an abortion, she must first undergo an ultrasound and be offered the image of her fetus. The justification is that without an ultrasound, her consent will not be fully informed. Such legislation, the latest move in abortion regulation, supposes that a woman who sees the image will be less likely to abort.
    [Show full text]
  • State Facts About Abortion Arkansas National Background and Context Abortions
    State Facts About Abortion Arkansas National Background and Context abortions. Abortion is a common experience: At current rates, about three in ten • In 2011, 1.1 million American American women will have had an abortion by the time she reaches age women obtained abortions, 45. Moreover, a broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions. 58% producing a rate of 16.9 abortions of women having abortions are in their 20s; 61% have one or more per 1,000 women of reproductive children; 85% are unmarried; 69% are economically disadvantaged; and age. The rate is a decrease from 73% report a religious affiliation. No racial or ethnic group makes up a 2008, when the abortion rate was majority: 36% of women obtaining abortions are white non-Hispanic, 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women 30% are black non-Hispanic, 25% are Hispanic and 9% are of other 15-44. racial backgrounds. Contraceptive use is a key predictor of women's recourse to abortion. • In 2011, 4,370 women obtained The very small group of American women who are at risk of abortions in Arkansas, producing a experiencing an unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives rate of 7.6 abortions per 1,000 account for more than half of all abortions. Many of these women did women of reproductive age. Some not think they would get pregnant or had concerns about contraceptive of these women were from other methods. The remainder of abortions occur among the much larger group states, and some Arkansas of women who were using contraceptives in the month they became residents had abortions in other pregnant.
    [Show full text]
  • June 2020 Letter from 116 House Members Ask H.R
    June 2020 Letter from 116 House members ask H.R. 6742, the Protecting Life in Crisis Act, be included in the next bipartisan COVID-19 relief package. By Dave Andrusko On June 5, Rep. Mike Amendment, there are already The letter asks that H.R. towards abortions or abortion Conaway (R-TX) led 116 efforts underway to undercut 6742 — the Protecting Life coverage. In addition, this bill Members of the House in and bypass these long-held in Crisis Act — be included also addresses any attempts to sending a letter to House protections.” in the next bipartisan use refundable tax credits from and Senate leadership stating COVID-19 relief package. being used to purchase coverage that it is essential that Hyde "This straightforward on the exchanges or for COBRA protections are applied to any legislation extends existing continuation coverage.” funding or tax credits provided Hyde Amendment protections The letter concludes with this for the health care needs of to any COVID-19-related powerful declaration: unemployed Americans. healthcare provision." “The respect for life “Polling consistently shows that Specifically, the letter is one of the founding a majority of Americans do not explains, H.R. 6742 “prohibits principles of both support using tax dollars to fund any funds that are authorized or our nation and of our abortion,” the letter explains. appropriated for the purposes healthcare system. No The House Members of preventing, preparing for, or system that subsides emphasize that “Despite the responding to the COVID–19 abortion can be said longstanding congressional and pandemic, domestically and to fully life up to that public support for the Hyde Rep.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Pages for Dissertation
    POLITICS AND POVERTY: WOMEN’S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS IN ARKANSAS, 1942-1980 Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this dissertation is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This dissertation does not include proprietary or classified information. _________________________ Melanie Kay Welch Certificate of Approval: ______________________ ________________________ David C. Carter Ruth C. Crocker, Chair Professor Professor History History ______________________ ________________________ Tiffany A. Thomas George T. Flowers Assistant Professor Dean History Graduate School POLITICS AND POVERTY: WOMEN’S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS IN ARKANSAS, 1942-1980 Melanie K. Welch A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Auburn, Alabama May 9, 2009 POLITICS AND POVERTY: WOMEN’S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS IN ARKANSAS 1942-1980 Melanie K. Welch Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this dissertation at its discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense. The author reserves all publication rights. _________________________ Signature of Author _________________________ Date of Graduation iii VITA Melanie Kay Welch, a daughter of John B. and Sandra Kay (Inness) Welch, was born November 6, 1976, in Little Rock, Arkansas. She graduated from Mayflower High School in 1995. She entered the University of Central Arkansas in Conway, Arkansas in 1994 and graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree in history in 1999. She entered the Masters program in history at Auburn University in August 2000. She changed to the direct-track Ph. D. program in history at Auburn in 2001, majoring in Modern American history, with minor fields in Early American history and archival studies.
    [Show full text]
  • AMERICA: How Legislative Overreach Is Turning Reproductive Rights Into Criminal Wrongs Copyright © 2021 National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
    ABORTION IN AMERICA: How Legislative Overreach Is Turning Reproductive Rights Into Criminal Wrongs Copyright © 2021 National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercialNoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc- nd/4.0/. It may be reproduced, provided that no charge is imposed, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) is acknowledged as the original publisher and the copyright holder. For any other form of reproduction, please contact NACDL. For more information contact: National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers® 1660 L Street NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 Phone 202-872-8600 www.NACDL.org/Foundation This publication is available online at www.NACDL.org/AbortionCrimReport ABORTION IN AMERICA: How Legislative Overreach Is Turning Reproductive Rights Into Criminal Wrongs Martín Antonio Sabelli President, NACDL San Francisco, CA Christopher W. Adams Immediate Past President, NACDL Charleston, SC Lisa M. Wayne President, NFCJ Denver, CO Norman L. Reimer Executive Director, NACDL & NFCJ Washington, DC Subcommittee of Women in Criminal Defense Committee Nina J. Ginsberg Alexandria, VA Lindsay A. Lewis New York, NY C. Melissa “Missy” Owen Charlotte, NC CONTENTS About the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the NACDL Foundation for Criminal Justice . .1 Preface. 2 Foreword . 3 Acknowledgements ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
    [Show full text]
  • Petition for Certiorari
    No. ______ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— LESLIE RUTLEDGE, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Arkansas, et al., Petitioners, v. LITTLE ROCK FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES, et al., Respondents. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ———— PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ———— LESLIE RUTLEDGE Arkansas Attorney General OFFICE OF THE ARKANSAS NICHOLAS J. BRONNI ATTORNEY GENERAL Solicitor General 323 Center St., Ste. 200 Counsel of Record Little Rock, AR 72201 VINCENT M. WAGNER (501) 682-6302 Deputy Solicitor General nicholas.bronni@ ASHER STEINBERG arkansasag.gov MICHAEL A. CANTRELL DYLAN L. JACOBS Assistant Solicitors General JENNIFER L. MERRITT Senior Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Petitioners WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 QUESTION PRESENTED The question presented is: Whether the Fourteenth Amendment bars States from prohibiting abortions that are sought solely because of a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. (i) ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW Petitioners are Leslie Rutledge, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Arkansas; Larry Jegley, in his official capacity as Prosecuting Attorney of Pulaski County; Matt Durrett, in his official capacity as Prosecuting Attorney of Washington County; Sylvia D. Simon, in her official capacity as Chairman of the Arkansas State Medical Board; Rhys L. Branman, Veryl D. Hodges, Brian T. Hyatt, Timothy C. Paden, Don R. Phillips, John H. Scribner, David L. Staggs, and, automatically substituted under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Elizabeth Anderson, Edward “Ward Gardner,” and Betty Guhman, in their official capacities as members of the Arkansas State Medical Board; and, also automati- cally substituted under Fed.
    [Show full text]
  • May Update Letter
    MAY 2020 UPDATE LETTER Dear Friends, “It’s like a daily soap opera. There’s something new all the time.” That’s how one Arkansas official soberly described the COVID-19 outbreak in a text message to me a few weeks ago. He wasn’t making light of the outbreak, either. His point was that we seem to be experiencing one crisis after another. Over the past two months our country has endured a public health emergency and an economic catastrophe all at once. Stories from Europe sound like something out of a book about medieval plagues while New York, New Orleans, and other major cities have seen thousands of sick and dead. During the coronavirus outbreak, I have been in daily communication with Governor Hutchinson’s office, Attorney General Leslie Rutledge’s office, Arkansas Surgeon General Dr. Greg Bledsoe, and other state officials. Family Council is doing its part to help Arkansans during this time. I told one of Governor Hutchinson’s staff members that I believe his office would be shocked to know how many churches want to help. Arkansans are tired of sitting at home, watching the coronavirus coverage on television. Several ministers have asked INSIDE: me what they can do about it. — We’re doing what we can to help churches get in the fight against “Fear Not!” COVID-19 right now, but this is going to be an ongoing effort. In The tragedy of some ways, this is like a big tornado or an ice storm: The cleanup abortion has not — efforts are going to continue long after the storm itself has passed.
    [Show full text]
  • Nacdl Report Abortion in America
    NACDL REPORT ABORTION IN AMERICA: HOW LEGISLATIVE OVERREACH IS TURNING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INTO CRIMINAL WRONGS: Arkansas Appendix1 I. Introduction In 1988, Arkansas passed Constitutional Amendment 68, which provides that “[t]he policy of Arkansas is to protect the life of every unborn child from conception until birth, to the extent permitted by the Federal Constitution.” –Ark. Const. amend. LXVIII, §. Since that time, Arkansas has passed numerous laws affecting the ability of women to obtain an abortion within the State. Due to the voluminous nature of these “anti-abortion” laws, this appendix will not address all Arkansas laws concerning abortion, but instead will focus only on recent 2019 laws and pending legislation. However, to provide context, it is useful to provide a brief recap of the current state of the law in Arkansas concerning abortion. II. Recent History of Abortion in Arkansas In 2013, Arkansas passed the “Human Heartbeat Protection Act” which criminalized abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy if a heartbeat was detected.2 At the time of its enactment, it was one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the nation. In May of that year, a federal judge issued an injunction against the Arkansas law and in 2015, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling— 1 permanently blocking the Amendment’s enforcement.3 The injunction left intact the portion of the Amendment that required a check for fetal heartbeat for women seeking an abortion, as well as notice to the woman when a heartbeat was detected.4 However, the most important change made in 2013 was to the definitional section of the general provisions of Title 5, which is the primary code section dealing with criminal offenses.
    [Show full text]
  • Shifting Abortion Attitudes Using an Empathy-Based Media Intervention: a Randomized Controlled Study" (2019)
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 5-2019 Shifting Abortion Attitudes using an Empathy- based Media Intervention: A Randomized Controlled Study Mary Ellen Hunt University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Public Health Education and Promotion Commons, Women's Health Commons, and the Women's Studies Commons Recommended Citation Hunt, Mary Ellen, "Shifting Abortion Attitudes using an Empathy-based Media Intervention: A Randomized Controlled Study" (2019). Theses and Dissertations. 3256. https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/3256 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Shifting Abortion Attitudes using an Empathy-based Media Intervention: A Randomized Controlled Study A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Community Health Promotion by Mary Ellen Hunt Kansas State University Bachelor of Science in Family Studies and Human Services, 2012 University of Arkansas Master of Science in Community Health Promotion, 2014 May 2019 University of Arkansas This dissertation is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. ______________________________ Kristen Jozkowski, Ph.D. Dissertation Director __________________________________ ___________________________________ Ron Warren, Ph.D. Heather Blunt-Vinti, Ph.D. Committee Member Committee Member ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Brandon Crawford, Ph.D. Kelly Cleland, M.P.A., M.P.H. Committee Member ex officio Committee Member __________________________________ Wenjuo Lo, Ph.D. Committee Member ABSTRACT U.S. abortion restrictions diminish access and perpetuate a culture of hostility toward abortion seekers.
    [Show full text]
  • Abortion Pill "Reversal": Where's the Evidence?
    Medication abortion ADVANCING NEW STANDARDS IN REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH "reversal" ISSUE BRIEF, JULY 2020 Abortion Pill "Reversal": Where's the Evidence? mifepristone 200 mg taken alone found that 23% of Since 2015, legislators in at least twenty patients had a continuing pregnancy 7 days later. 3 states have introduced bills that would This study included patients pregnant only through require clinicians to inform patients 49 days’ or 7 weeks’ gestation. There is no evidence during pre-abortion counseling that the abortion pill can be “reversed” if that progesterone treatment increases the chance the patient were to change their mind of the pregnancy continuing, and a recent study after taking it. This is despite the fact raises concerns about its safety. that there is no rigorous evidence documenting the safety and effectiveness The initial reports on “reversal” included three case of “reversal” treatment. So-called series, each of which had significant limitations.1,2,4 abortion “reversal” bills have been passed None of the reports includes a comparison group into law and implemented in six states or appropriate oversight by an ethics committee. as of 2020: Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Some patients in these case series had an ultrasound Nebraska, South Dakota, and Utah. before receiving treatment, and only those with continuing pregnancies were given progesterone. Patients with a continuing pregnancy 1-2 days What is abortion pill "reversal"? after mifepristone are much more likely to have a pregnancy that continues to term, so this pre- Abortion pill “reversal” is an experimental treatment selection of patients inflates the success rate developed by Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Filed 06/26/19 Page 1 of 57
    + I i Case 4:19-cv-00449-KGB Document 1 Filed 06/26/19 Page 1 of 57 . / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES, PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF ARKANSAS & EASTERN OKLAHOMA, DIBIA PLANNED PARENTHOOD GREAT PLAINS, STEPHANIE Ho, M.0., and THOMAS TvEDTEN, M.D., on behalf of themselves and their patients, JAM By:~~.&1-1-...,....~'-F:~~~ Plaintiffs, v. LESLIE RUTLEDGE, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Arkansas; LARRY JEGLEY, in his official capacity as CIVIL ACTION Prosecuting Attorney of Pulaski County; MATT DURRETT, in his official capacity as Prosecuting Attorney of Washington County; SYLVIA D. SIMON, M.D., in her official capacity as COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND Chairman of Arkansas State Medical Board; DECLARATORY RELIEF ROBERT BREVING JR., M.0., VERYL 0. HODGES, 0.0., JOHN H. SCRIBNER, M.O., OMAR T. ATIQ, M.O., RHYS L. BRANMAN, M.O., RODNEY GRIFFIN, M.O., MRS. MARIE HOLDER, BRIANT. HYATT, M.D., MR. LARRY 0. "BUDDY" LOVELL, TIMOTHY C. PADEN, M.D., DON R. PHILLIPS, This case assigned to Distri~il/~ M.O., WILLIAM L. RUTLEDGE, and M.D., DAVID and to Magistrate Judge d L. STAGGS, M.D., in their official capacities as officers and members of the Arkansas State Medical Board, and NA THANIEL SMITH, M.D., M.P .H., in his official capacity as Director and State Health Officer of the Arkansas Department of Health, Defendants. Case 4:19-cv-00449-KGB Document 1 Filed 06/26/19 Page 2 of 57 / TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]