Family Council Sends Freedom of Information Act Request to UAMS

On February 14, Family Council sent a Freedom of Information Act Request to the University of Arkansas for Medical Science (UAMS) concerning hormone therapies and puberty suppressants.

Family Council requested the following from UAMS:

  1. Any and all information (including educational materials in any medium) made available within the past five years to patients or their parents/guardians concerning treatment with a hormone, hormone suppressant, and/or pubertal blocker for the following conditions:
    • Primary ovarian insufficiency
    • Hypogonadotropic hypogonadism
    • Turner syndrome
    • Precocious puberty
    • Endometriosis
    • Polycystic ovarian syndrome
    • Heavy or painful menstruation
    • Cancer
  2. Any and all information (including copies of blank consent forms) used within the past five years for the purpose of obtaining a patient’s or parent/guardian’s informed consent to treatment with a hormone, hormone suppressant, and/or pubertal blocker for the same conditions listed in 1. above.

In response, Leslie Taylor, Vice Chancellor of the Office of Communications & Marketing at UAMS, told us:

I have been in contact with the chair of OB/GYN as well as other physicians and clinic managers in that department. We do not have materials that we give to patients concerning the conditions described in your FOIA request. When patients present with those issues they are handled through discussions during the private patient appointment. We also do not have consent forms “for the purpose of obtaining a patient’s or parent/guardian’s informed consent to treatment with a hormone, hormone suppressant, and/or pubertal blocker for the same conditions.” Because we are an academic health care institution, our providers rely on evidence-based information. They sometimes refer patients to web sites where there is information on some of these conditions. The two sites that are primarily used are the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists https://www.acog.org/ and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine https://www.smfm.org/.  Three other sites where physicians have directed patients include the Endometriosis Association https://endometriosisassn.org/ & https://www.lupron.com/ or https://www.orilissa.com/hcp?cid=ppc_ppd_orilissahcp_ggl_brnd_10319&gclid=Cj0KCQiAmKiQBhClARIsAKtSj-kFtKTbnn4VHu-hDRkBaFl_X8lSPAtXLSsMJGB5GpxER8rmxdffd3waAg5fEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

In 2021 the Arkansas Legislature passed the Save Adolescents From Experimentation (SAFE) Act.

The SAFE Act is an excellent law that protects children from sex-reassignment procedures, puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones.

Researchers do not know the long term effects that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones can have on kids.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has never approved puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for the purpose of gender transition. Doctors are giving these hormones to kids off-label, in a manner the FDA never intended.

That is part of the reason many experts agree that giving puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children is experimental, at best.

Opponents of the SAFE Act have argued that the law makes it more difficult to use hormones to treat precocious puberty or similar conditions. However, the SAFE Act contains exceptions for these kinds of treatments, and it isn’t clear what protocol institutions like UAMS follows when patients suffer from these sorts of conditions — other than to refer them to information from other medical associations.

For what it is worth, UAMS operates a pro-transgender Gender Clinic that offers hormone replacement therapies and referrals for sex-change surgeries.

The ACLU and others filed a lawsuit against the SAFE Act last summer, before the law officially took effect, and a federal judge in Little Rock has temporarily blocked the state from enforcing it.

Several business interests and the Biden-Harris Administration also have joined the fight against Arkansas’ SAFE Act.

Arkansas’ Attorney General has appealed that order to the Eighth Circuit to let the state enforce the SAFE Act. A trial in the case is scheduled for the week of July 25, 2022.

Searcy County Passes Pro-Life Resolution

On February 14 the Searcy County Quorum Court passed a resolution affirming the county is Pro-Life.

Searcy County is Arkansas’ fourteenth Pro-Life County.

Act 392 of 2021 by Rep. Kendon Underwood (R – Cave Springs) and Sen. Gary Stubblefield (R – Branch) affirms that cities and counties can designate themselves as Pro-Life.

Act 392 also makes it clear that Pro-Life Communities can install signs or banners announcing that they are Pro-Life.

Since Act 392 was enacted last year, Arkansas has seen a rapid expansion of Pro-Life Cities and Counties across the state.

Washington, Benton, CrawfordCleburnePopeJacksonSalineFaulknerPerrySebastianLeeWhite, and Prairie counties have adopted Pro-Life resolutions — and so have cities and towns like MariannaRussellvilleSpringdaleLaGrangeMoroAubrey, Haynes, and Marshall.

Public opinion polling has shown time and again that the vast majority of Arkansans believe abortion ought to be either completely illegal or legal only under certain circumstances. It makes sense that so many communities in Arkansas would vote to affirm that they are Pro-Life.

Look for other cities and counties pass their own Pro-Life resolutions in the coming months!

Marry Early, but Don’t Live Together First

New data is poking holes in what’s become a prominent cultural myth. “When it comes to divorce,” write Brad Wilcox and Lyman Stone in The Wall Street Journal, “the research has generally backed up the belief that it’s best to wait until around 30 to tie the knot.” This is because the divorce rate is generally lower for those who wait to wed.  

However, according to the National Survey of Family Growth, there’s an interesting exception to this modern-day rule of thumb. Couples in their 20s who don’t cohabitate first have some of the lowest divorce rates of any group. Though it’s not exactly clear, from the research anyway, as to why this is the case. This particular cohort is disproportionately religious, something that is linked to lower divorce rates across the board. Even so, the data sheds further light on the relationship between cohabitation and marriage in American society.  

Decades of studies have led sociologists to broadly conclude that cohabitation leads to higher rates of divorce. In general, living with a partner, even one that eventually becomes a spouse, is associated with a 15% higher chance of splitting up. One Stanford study indicates that the rate is twice as high for those who cohabitate with someone other than their future spouse.  

“We generally think that having more experience is better….” says University of Denver psychologist Galena Rhoades, “but what we find for relationships is just the opposite.” More partners mean more comparison, she argues, which can make it harder to achieve long-term contentment. Cohabitation also teaches couples that one can always head for the exit when problems seem too daunting, instead of to press in and stick it out.  As a result, while marriages in general are more stable at 30, marriage to one partner is better, even if at a younger age.  

Still, despite a significant amount of data that says otherwise, society pushes a very different story about living together. People in their 20s, says convention, should avoid commitment, establish themselves professionally, and certainly try living together before tying the knot. For a generation raised in divorced homes, skepticism toward marriage is understandable … as is the desire to “try it before you buy it.” After all, this is the same generation who never has to pick a restaurant before checking its rating on Yelp.  

And so here we are, in a culture where both delayed marriage and cohabitation are “normal,” but relational satisfaction is rare. 

Married couples report more satisfaction across the board than cohabiting couples, in all kinds of areas, and report more trust by double digits. Even couples who’ve had to persevere in marriage through difficult seasons report higher levels of satisfaction. Marriage is also broadly connected with better health and wellbeing, not to mention the wellbeing of children, 40% of whom today are born out of wedlock.   

Though the data about marriage is overwhelming, fewer and fewer are choosing it. Compared to only 9% of Americans in 1970, more than a third of adults today (35%) will never tie the knot. That’s not to say they won’t have romantic relationships and create children. They will simply opt out of marriage.  

Given the relevant data, the idea that one should not get married “too early” emphasizes the wrong factors. Wisdom should always be exercised with commitments this big, but at the same time, age matters far less than the commitment itself.  Limitless sexual experience, self-actualization, and the freedom to leave don’t actually produce relational happiness in the long term. In fact, they damage it.  

In short, as a project of self-fulfillment, marriage might be worthless. As a way to reap the rewards of self-sacrifice, its value is incalculable.  

Christians know why. Marriage is a part of the created order. Though some marriages will tragically end for various reasons and others may want marriage but struggle to find it, the Church can provide vital community for all of its members, while still promoting marriage for the God-given good that it is. And when marriages hit rocky ground, resources like Focus on the Family’s Hope Restored conferences, are available for those willing to fight for reconciliation … with incredible stories of success. 

Ultimately, though, a successful marriage requires the same thing as Christianity, a commitment to something bigger than ourselves.

Copyright 2022 by the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Reprinted from BreakPoint.org with permission.