Arkansas Supreme Court Continues Weighing Arguments in Lawsuit Over Proposed Abortion Amendment
The Arkansas Supreme Court continues to weigh arguments over whether or not a proposal to write abortion into the state constitution may be eligible for the ballot this year.
On Friday, attorneys for Arkansans for Limited Government and the Secretary of State’s Office both filed briefs with the court as part of a lawsuit over the measure.
The Arkansas Abortion Amendment would change the constitution to prevent the State of Arkansas from restricting abortion during the first five months of pregnancy — which is more extreme than Roe v. Wade — and would allow thousands of elective abortions on healthy women and unborn children every year.
The amendment does not contain any medical licensing or health and safety standards for abortion, and it does not require abortions to be performed by a physician or in a licensed medical facility.
It automatically nullifies all state laws that conflict with the amendment, jeopardizing basic abortion regulations — like parental-consent and informed-consent requirements.
The measure also contains various exceptions that would permit abortion through all nine months of pregnancy in many cases.
Last month, Arkansans for Limited Government submitted petition signatures to place the Arkansas Abortion Amendment on the ballot. Bringing the amendment up for a vote would require at least 90,704 valid signatures from registered voters.
However, Secretary of State John Thurston disqualified every petition filed to place the abortion measure on the ballot, because the sponsors failed to provide affidavits that state law requires concerning paid petition canvassers.
By law, ballot initiative sponsors must file a statement confirming that each paid canvassers was given a copy of the state’s initiative and referenda handbook as well as an explanation of relevant state laws before he or she solicited petition signatures. The sponsors backing the abortion measure failed to file this specific documentation when they submitted the petitions for the abortion amendment. That prompted the Secretary of State to reject all of the petitions.
Arkansans for Limited Government filed a lawsuit claiming Secretary of State Thurston unlawfully rejected its petitions. Both sides have submitted arguments in court since then. Officials with the Arkansas Secretary of State also have provided testimony to the court confirming their office counted 87,675 abortion amendment signatures collected by volunteers. That is 3,029 fewer than necessary to qualify for the ballot.
In addition to the briefs submitted last Friday, the Arkansas Supreme Court has asked the Secretary of State and Arkansans for Limited Government to file additional briefs with the court this week — meaning this case may not be decided until at least mid-August.
Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.
Screentime in Schools: Guest Column
More local and state governments, from both sides of the political aisle, are acknowledging the harmful effects of cellphones in schools and adopting policies to limit their use.
Last year, Florida passed a law to ban the use of cellphones in classrooms. In April, Governor Eric Holcomb of Indiana signed a bill to prohibit students from using cellphones except for learning purposes and in cases of emergencies. In June, the Los Angeles school board adopted a ban that will take effect at the beginning of next year. Some school districts have issued similar policies, and many others are at least having the debate.
These policies are long overdue. Smartphones are not only distracting, but they also affect brain development. According to one long-term study published in January 2023, adolescents who check their phones regularly for notifications experience change in “how their brains respond to the world around them.” Among other things, they tend to be hypersensitive to peers’ reactions and engage in compulsive social media activity.
In 2018, Jean Twenge noted that teens who spend more time behind screens are at a higher risk for depression. Since 2012, the year when most Americans became smartphone owners, teens’ mental health has been in decline. One study found that, after just seven minutes of scrolling on Instagram, young women showed decreased body satisfaction and negative emotional state.
To be clear, this is not just a matter of content. As Jonathan Haidt argued:
Content moderation is to some extent a red herring, a distraction from larger issues. Yes, it must be done and done better, but even if these platforms could someday remove 95% of harmful content, the platforms will still be harmful to kids.
Social media companies have long known about these harms, but they have failed to offer much help to minors or their parents. As mother of five and CEO of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation Dawn Hawkins noted, “The parental controls do not work. They’ve designed these platforms without parents in mind.” For example, 32 steps are required on Apple devices to set up parental controls.
The ubiquity of smartphones, social media, and the internet has created, in Haidt’s words, a collective action problem for our children. That’s a situation in which many people would benefit from a particular course of action, but if only one person or small group of people chooses that course of action, it will not be beneficial, but costly. The result? Without collective action, no individual is likely to take any action.
In recent years, groups of Christians, including families, have joined together to take the “Postman Pledge,” a year-long commitment to raise kids without phones and in community with one another. While good and creative, these grassroots efforts have limits—especially for those who can’t afford to homeschool their kids or send them to private schools that share their convictions.
The move by states to help parents protect their kids at school is helpful for just these families. To be sure, state regulation is never a replacement for good parenting or good community. Even in school districts where smartphones are restricted, parents must help their teens use social media and smartphones wisely, in ways that limit their harmful effects. Parents and concerned community members must come together to figure out what is best for these students.
What is clear is that these policies are providing a much needed aid for American families who would otherwise be powerless against the titans of big tech. Let’s hope more states follow suit.
This Breakpoint was co-authored by Jared Hayden. If you’re a fan of Breakpoint, leave a review on your favorite podcast app. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org.
Copyright 2024 by the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Reprinted from BreakPoint.org with permission.