2 CommentsAbortion, Act One, ,

Rep. Linda Tyler (D-Conway) has been named by The Arkansas Times—an extremely liberal newspaper—as one of their “Arkies of the Year”. Why? Because, according to the Times, “As chair of the Public Health Committee, the Conway Democrat quietly shepherded the defeat of 10 radical anti-abortion bills during the general session.” Of course, the bills in question weren’t “radical”—there’s nothing radical about saving unborn babies and protecting women.

Another “Arkie of the Year,” according to the Times, was the Arkansas Supreme Court for striking down the Adoption and Foster Care Act, more commonly known as Act One. This good law that 56% of the voters approved at the ballot box in 2008 protected adoptive and foster children in the state’s care from being placed in high-risk homes. More specifically, in homes where two people are living together in a sexual nature outside of marriage. This environment has been proven to be one of the most unstable places for children.

Click here to read the entire article.

Related posts:

Default ThumbnailVideo of Rep. Tyler Adjourning Health Committee Without Roll Call Vote Arkansas Named Most Pro-Life State in America for Fourth Year in a Row Default ThumbnailA Courtyard Named 9/11 Four Home Schoolers Named Among 2023 National Merit Scholar Semifinalists

2 comments

  1. Robert

    You guys clearly demonstrate willful ignorance or you you don’t really understand the cocepts contained within the constitution.

  2. James

    Enlighten us, Robert, on which specific article or section of the Constitution SPECIFICALLY provides the fundamental right, not just “concept,” that protects the SPECIFIC counter interests to the bill that outweigh its enactment pursuant to a majority vote of the state’s citizens through the state’s vested policing powers of protecting the “health, safety, and general welfare” of its citizens? What willful ignorance of these constitutional concepts is demonstrated through adherence to procedural-due-process requirements in regulating “rights” not deemed fundamental under substantive-due-process protection?

Comments are closed.