Cutting Though the Confusion on Arkansas’ Abortion Laws

Abortion, , ,

Yesterday the Huffington Post published a column regarding pro-life laws passed by the Arkansas Legislature earlier this year.

The article contains some confusion about the laws and what they do. We want to set the record straight.

First, the article’s title claims Arkansas’ new pro-life laws will require women to get permission from men before they can have an abortion. This is not true.

This title seems to be based on a debunked argument a few people tried to use against Rep. Andy Mayberry’s (R-Hensley) bill to ban dismemberment abortions earlier this year.

At the time, some abortion advocates tried to argue the bill would let the father of the unborn child sue to stop the mother from getting an abortion. This argument began popping up on websites and in emails back in February, but it was quickly debunked by people who took the time to read and understand the bill. The Huffington Post is simply recycling incorrect information.

The article also refers to H.B. 1566 by Rep. Kim Hammer (R-Benton) as a “personhood law” and says the law will force a woman to tell the father of the unborn baby she plans to have an abortion.

H.B. 1566 was not a “personhood law.” Nothing in the law says that an unborn baby is a person. And H.B. 1566 does not require women to tell anyone they plan to have an abortion, either.

Instead, H.B. 1566 does two things.

First, it prohibits research on aborted fetal remains; this will help prevent companies from buying or selling organs harvested from aborted babies.

Second, H.B. 1566 says aborted babies will be disposed of according to the Arkansas Final Disposition Rights Act of 2009. This will ensure aborted babies are respectfully buried or cremated. In the past, Arkansas law has allowed the bodies of aborted babies to be incinerated as medical waste.

H.B. 1566 does not stop a woman from having an abortion; instead it helps stop companies from buying or selling aborted baby parts, and it ensures aborted babies are treated respectfully.

The article also implies H.B. 1566 would force a woman who has been raped to consult with her attacker before she can have an abortion or bury or cremate the aborted baby. Again, this simply is not true.

H.B. 1566 doesn’t require a woman to get consent from anyone before having an abortion, and Arkansas law does not recognize the parental rights of rapists. That is something the Arkansas Legislature has worked hard to address in the past.

Unfortunately, we are seeing a lot of misinformation being shared online thanks to social media and shoddy journalism.

My advice is simple: If you want to understand Arkansas’ five pro-life laws the ACLU is challenging in court, read them for yourself. You can find links to all five of them below.

Act 603 regarding the remains of aborted babies: http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2017/2017R/Acts/Act603.pdf

Act 45 regarding dismemberment abortion: http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2017/2017R/Acts/Act45.pdf

Act 733 regarding sex-selection abortion: http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2017/2017R/Acts/Act733.pdf

Act 1018 regarding reporting of abortions on underage girls: http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2017/2017R/Acts/Act1018.pdf

Act 383 regarding the licensing and inspection of abortion clinics: http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2017/2017R/Acts/Act383.pdf

READ MORE

Assisted Suicide Claims 111 Lives in California in First 6 Months

Life, , , ,

According to a report recently released by the State of California, 111 people ended their lives in the first six months of the state’s new “end of life option act.”

California legalized assisted-suicide last year, and it now lets physicians prescribe life-ending drugs to ill patients. So far, on average it seems 4 – 5 people every week are choosing to take their own lives as a result.

You may recall that researchers in Canada–where assisted-suicide is legal–recently found that people inquired about assisted-suicide not because of excruciating pain, but because they are dissatisfied with their lives in the wake of their illness.

As one researcher put it, “Their quality of life is not what they want. They are mostly educated and affluent — people who are used to being successful and in control of their lives, and it’s how they want their death to be.”

A study conducted in Oregon in 1999 concluded, “the decision to request and use a prescription for lethal medications . . . was associated with views on autonomy and control, not with fear of intractable pain or concern about financial loss.”

The report from California corroborates some of these findings. Of the 111 people who took their own lives through California’s assisted-suicide law, most had a college degree or higher. Much like in Canada, these are people who appear to be “educated and affluent.”

Being pro-life means believing human life is sacred from conception until natural death, and it means opposing the taking of human life without just cause.

While the term “pro-life” is often applied to work related to abortion, opposition to suicide and euthanasia falls under the purview of pro-life work as well.

Just like abortion, assisted-suicide fails to acknowledge that God is the creator and giver of life. Human life is sacred, and no sickness gives us an excuse to end someone’s life prematurely–including our own.

Simply put: Physician-assisted suicide violates human dignity and the sanctity of human life.

READ MORE

Charlie Gard’s Death Sentence

Life,

You may be aware of the plight of little Charlie Gard, a terminally-ill baby in the UK who is likely to be taken off life support by his hospital thanks to court orders–despite the fact his parents have raised more than $1.5 million to pay for experimental treatment for Charlie in the U.S.

John Stonestreet at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview writes,

[D]octors at Britain’s Great Ormond Street Hospital have decided that Charlie’s condition is hopeless, and that he should be left to die. Britain’s High Court agreed, and the European Court of Human rights refused to intervene after Charlie’s parents appealed. The doctors now have the legal go-ahead to take Charlie off life support. . . .

Those are the facts as I understand them. But now here’s why this case is so important, both for the sake of Charlie and his family, and for our civilization.

First, the government should have no role in dictating when and where a baby should die, and whether his parents can seek additional treatment options. The decision by the British High Court is an appalling overreach, and it sets a very dangerous precedent. In worldview terms, the government is well beyond its sphere of sovereignty, gobbling up authority that rightfully belongs to the family and to the church.

Second Peter clarifies that the civil authorities are ordained by God to reward good and punish evil. Great Ormond Street Hospital and the British and international courts have determined it’s time for little Charlie to die, regardless of how many people around the world want to help him by paying for transportation and additional treatment. They won’t even allow him to die at home. They’ve effectively asserted ownership over this little boy and his life. This is unambiguously wrong.

You can read Stonestreet’s entire commentary here or listen to it below.

[audio:http://breakpoint.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/070617_BP.mp3|titles=Charlie Gard’s Death Sentence]

Photo Credit: By Brian Turner (Flickr: My Trusty Gavel) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.

READ MORE