Committee Passes Bill to Address Obscenity in Libraries

Current Events, , ,

On Monday the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a measure addressing obscene material in libraries across Arkansas.

S.B. 81 by Sen. Dan Sullivan (R – Russellville) and Rep. Justin Gonzales (R – Okolona) prohibits giving or sending harmful sexual material to a child. The bill also eliminates exemptions for libraries and schools in the state’s obscenity statute, and it clarifies how library patrons can go about contesting objectionable material at a library.

As we have written before, the Jonesboro public library has been at the center of multiple controversies over its decision to place books with sexually-explicit images in its children’s section while failing to adopt a policy that separates sexual material from children’s content.

Librarians have made it clear that they want to be free to share obscene material. The library in Jonesboro went so far as to post on Facebook that it isn’t the library’s responsibility to protect kids from obscenity.

Other public libraries in Arkansas have failed to separate sexual material from children’s material as well.

Public libraries are supposed to be for everyone. More and more, Family Council is hearing from people who are deeply troubled by the obscene children’s books that librarians have placed on the shelves of their local libraries.

Bills like S.B. 81 help address those problems.

The bill now goes to the Arkansas Senate for a vote.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

READ MORE

Legislation Would Help Protect Children from Medical Malpractice in Sex-Change Procedures

Current Events, Legislation, , ,

A bill filed at the Arkansas Legislature on Monday would help protect children from medical malpractice when it comes to sex-change procedures.

S.B. 199 by Sen. Gary Stubblefield (R – Branch) and Rep. Mary Bentley (R – Perryville) clarifies that a child who undergoes a sex-change procedure can sue the healthcare provider who performed procedure if the child suffers any physical, psychological, or emotional injury as a result.

Under S.B. 199, the child could file a lawsuit the if he or she experiences:

  • A physical or physiological injury from the sex-change procedure
  • A psychological or emotional injury from the sex-change procedure
  • An injury from treatments related to the sex-change procedure
  • An injury from the after-effects of the sex-change procedure

    A child who suffers one of these injuries from a sex-change procedure would have until the age of 48 to file a lawsuit against the healthcare provider, because some injuries from sex-change procedures may not become evident until well into adulthood.

    The bill also spells out informed-consent processes for sex-change procedures that healthcare providers can follow to help defend against the possibility of a lawsuit, and it clarifies that Arkansas law does not require healthcare professionals to perform sex-reassignment procedures.

    More and more, scientific evidence shows sex-reassignment procedures may be harmful to children. That is why it is important for our laws to protect children from these procedures and give them legal options they can follow if they are harmed by one of these sex-change procedures.

    Research published just last month calls into question the original studies that encouraged doctors to give puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children with gender dysphoria.

    In 2021 a major hospital in Sweden announced that it would no longer give puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to kids.

    Last year the U.K.’s National Health Services closed its Tavistock gender clinic that gave puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children for many years. Many families have indicated their children were subjected to sex-reassignment at that clinic despite an obvious lack of scientific evidence in favor of the procedures and inadequate mental health screenings for children with gender dysphoria.

    A gender-identity clinic in Scotland faces similar accusations from former patients who say healthcare professionals rushed them into sex-change procedures.

    And last July the U.S. Food and Drug Administration finally added a warning label to puberty blockers in America after biological girls developed symptoms of tumor-like masses in the brain.

    S.B. 199 will help protect children from these dangerous sex-reassignment procedures, and it will provide them and their families with legal recourse if they are injured by a sex-change procedure.

    You Can Read S.B. 199 Here.

    Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

    READ MORE

    Circuit Court Upholds Law Preventing State of Arkansas from Doing Business With Companies That Boycott Israel

    Current Events

    On Thursday the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a law prohibiting the State of Arkansas and its public entities from doing business with companies that boycott Israel.

    In 2017 the Arkansas Legislature passed Act 710.

    The law generally prohibits public entities in Arkansas from contracting with or investing in businesses that boycott Israel.

    The law applies to state government, state agencies, state boards and commissions, political subdivisions of the state, public retirement systems, and public colleges and universities.

    As a result of the law, any state contract valued over $1,000 must contain a clause stating that the contractor will not boycott Israel.

    Following Act 710’s passage, Arkansas Times and the ACLU sued, arguing that the law places an unconstitutional condition on government contracts and compels speech.

    U.S. District Judge Brian Miller in Little Rock dismissed the lawsuit, but the case was appealed to the Eighth Circuit.

    On Thursday the circuit court upheld the law as constitutional.

    The decision said the law did not violate the First Amendment, noting that, “[Act 710] does not ban Arkansas Times from publicly criticizing Israel, or even protesting the statute itself. It only prohibits economic decisions that discriminate against Israel.”

    You Can Read The Decision Here.

    READ MORE