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

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.

    Arkansas House Passes Measure Protecting Children from Adult Performances

    Above: Rep. Mary Bentley presents S.B. 43 in the Arkansas House of Representatives on Monday, February 6.

    On Monday the Arkansas House of Representatives passed a measure to protect children from adult performances.

    S.B. 43 by Sen. Gary Stubblefield (R – Branch) and Rep. Mary Bentley (R – Perryville) prohibits adult-oriented performances on public property, with public funding, or in view of minors.

    The bill defines “adult-oriented performance” as a sexual performance that includes nudity, sexual activities, or exposure of specific body parts. The bill also contains language about exposure of prosthetic private parts to protect children from explicit drag performances.

    S.B. 43 previously prohibited drag performances on public property or in view of children. It was amended in the House committee last week to apply more broadly to sexual performances and to prohibit public funding of those performances.

    The bill now goes to the Arkansas Senate for consideration.

    You Can Read S.B. 43 Here.

    Pro-Lifers to Stand Trial Today for Alleged Trespassing at Little Rock Abortion Facility in 2021

    Above: A Little Rock police officer arrests a pro-lifer for trespassing outside Little Rock Family Planning Services on January 15, 2021.

    Six pro-lifers are set to stand trial today in Little Rock on charges of misdemeanor trespassing at an abortion facility in 2021.

    Eva Edl of South Carolina; Chet Gallagher Tennessee; Dennis Green of Virginia; Calvin Zastrow of Michigan; Emily Nurnberg of Kansas; and Heather Iddoni of Michigan face misdemeanor criminal trespassing charges for allegedly blocking the entrance to Little Rock Family Planning Services — a surgical abortion facility in Little Rock — on January 15, 2021.

    Court records show the pro-lifers were convicted in February of 2022. Each was ordered to pay a $350 fine.

    However, their attorney appealed the conviction, and they are scheduled to appear in court today.

    In a separate case, five of the defendants also have been indicted by a federal grand jury in Tennessee for allegedly violating the Free Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.

    The FACE Act is a federal law generally intended to prevent people from obstructing abortion facility entrances.

    A federal indictment unsealed in October of last year alleges that Gallagher, Iddoni, Zastrow, Green, and Edl blocked a Tennessee abortion facility entrance in March of 2021.

    Iddoni also has been charged with violating the FACE Act in a separate federal case at an abortion facility in Washington, D.C.

    If convicted in federal court, they face up to 11 years in prison and fines of up to $250,000. The federal case against them is currently set to go to trial next year.

    Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has reversed Roe v. Wade, abortion is prohibited in Arkansas except to save the life of the mother, and Little Rock Family Planning Services is shut down.

    It is unclear at this point what bearing those facts might have on these cases.