A.G.’s Office Files Brief Defending Pro-Life Laws in Federal Court

Abortion, , ,

Last week Attorney General Leslie Rutledge’s office filed a formal brief defending four of Arkansas’ pro-life laws before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The laws are:

  • Act 45, which prohibits certain abortion procedures—such as D&E abortion procedures—in which an unborn baby is dismembered.
  • Act 733, which prohibits abortions performed due to the baby’s sex. It contains a provision requiring the doctor to request the pregnant woman’s medical records pertaining to her pregnancy history before performing the abortion.
  • Act 1018, which expanded state laws requiring reporting of abortions performed on girls under the age of 17.
  • Act 603, which prohibits biomedical and behavioral research on aborted fetal remains and helps ensure aborted babies will be properly buried or cremated.
  • Act 383, which clarifies that abortion clinics will be inspected at least annually; that the inspections will be unannounced; and that any clinic that fails inspection will have its license to perform abortions suspended immediately.

U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker blocked all four laws last summer. The A.G.’s office is asking the Eighth Circuit to reverse her order and reinstate these good laws.

Given some of the recent, pro-life victories in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, a good ruling in this case seems likely.

READ MORE

Reports Show AR Nursing Homes High in Medication Errors

Tort Reform,

Yesterday the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette highlighted reports showing Arkansas’ nursing homes rank higher in medication errors than those in surrounding states.

Data from the federal government indicates significant medication errors are discovered on average in one of every five of the state’s nursing homes — with other errors possibly going undiscovered.

The article focused on Ms. Linda Cooper, who died suddenly in a Conway nursing home after a nurse mistakenly gave her another resident’s high-dose narcotics.

The Cooper family subsequently sued the facility and settled out of court. The newspaper writes,

The Cooper family’s lawsuit is the type that would be hampered by the passage of a constitutional amendment on tort reform that’s set to go before Arkansas voters on next year’s November ballot. The measure would cap punitive and noneconomic damages, as well as limit attorney’s contingency fees to one-third of the net amount awarded their client.

Tort reform has long been championed by the nursing home industry, and its staunchest opposition has come from plaintiffs’ attorneys.

A similar measure was to appear on the 2016 ballot until the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that the ballot title contained unclear terms.

In support of that measure, Reliance Health Care in 2016 gave $173,140 to Health Care Access for Arkansans, a ballot question committee formed to advocate for the tort reform amendment’s passage.

The Arkansas Health Care Association, which receives monthly dues from nursing homes in the state, contributed $585,677 to the tort reform effort.

The proposed constitutional amendment the newspaper mentions is SJR 8. The Arkansas Legislature decided to refer SJR 8 to voters last spring.

Under current law, a jury hearing a personal-injury lawsuit reviews evidence, examines the facts, and awards damages to the injured party based on what they determine is appropriate. Some people believe juries award victims too much money, so SJR 8 restricts how much juries can award.

SJR 8 limits attorney’s fees in personal-injury lawsuits and lets the Arkansas Legislature cap noneconomic damages at half a million dollars for an injury or death. Under current law, there are no limits; juries award damages on a case-by-case basis.

SJR 8 also lets lawmakers make rules about evidence that can be used in personal-injury lawsuits.

We have written in the past about the unintended consequences of measures like SJR 8. 

Family Council has never opposed responsible lawsuit reforms. As far back as 2003, we did not oppose general malpractice reform measures passed by the legislature. That same year, however, we did oppose a proposal that could have given an unfair advantage to nursing homes over good care for residents.

Some nursing home owners simply don’t want to spend the money necessary to provide quality care. They cut staff, reduce services, compromise care, and let people suffer. Most families have a story about a loved one who was neglected or mistreated in a nursing home. The fear of a lawsuit may be all that keeps some nursing homes in line. SJR 8 removes that threat. If that goes away, our elderly nursing home residents will suffer even more.

You can read more about this story here.

READ MORE

Article Laments Shortage of Abortion Doctors in Arkansas and Elsewhere

Abortion, , ,

This week Think Progress published an article lamenting the shortage of abortion doctors in Arkansas, Kansas, and elsewhere.

The article claims the stigma associated with abortion coupled with the lack of training at medical schools like UAMS is contributing to a decline in doctors who will perform abortions, saying,

The shortage of physicians who perform abortion is particularly acute in the midwest and south. Similar to Kansas, for example, there are about four full-time abortion doctors in Oklahoma. In neighboring Missouri, there are three abortion doctors. Just south of that in Arkansas, where over 1.5 million females live, there are three physicians who perform abortions. Only one performs surgical abortions and the other two perform medication abortions, where women take two drugs to terminate a pregnancy up to 10 weeks.

There are two key points the article fails to adequately consider:

  1. Abortion causes the death of an unborn child. That isn’t a political statement. It is a scientific fact. Abortion is not simply another medical procedure. It ends a human life, and that is the reason so many doctors choose not to perform abortions.
  2. Given that abortion rates are plummeting and that Arkansans generally oppose abortion, it makes sense that the number of doctors performing abortions would decline as well.

The article also misses the mark when describing the circumstances in Arkansas and our state’s pro-life policies.

For example, the article describes the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences as a medical school where abortion is taboo.

However, just 4 years ago Dr. Curtis Lowery, chairman of the OB/GYN Department at UAMS, testified against a pro-life bill Family Council supported during a legislative committee meeting.

And contrary to the article’s claims, in 1997 the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled UAMS could perform abortions, provided state tax dollars were not used to pay for the abortion procedure. Family Council was among the plaintiffs in that lawsuit against UAMS.

The article also says the Arkansas Legislature “has passed the most restrictive abortion policy in the country in recent years.” The article doesn’t say what the “most restrictive policy” is, but here are some of the things Arkansas’ newest pro-life laws do:

  1. Protect babies who survive an abortion;
  2. Prevent Medicaid funds from going to Planned Parenthood;
  3. Ensure women are given adequate information about abortion, including its risks and alternatives;
  4. Require abortion doctors to give women at least 48 hours to review this information before deciding to have an abortion;
  5. Ensure an abortion is not performed on a minor without the consent of a parent or guardian — except in certain circumstances;
  6. Ensure abortion drugs are administered according to FDA protocols
  7. Require abortion clinics to contract with a doctor who has admitting privileges at a local hospital, in case of emergency;
  8. Prohibit abortions performed based on the unborn baby’s sex;
  9. Require doctors to request some of a woman’s medical records before performing an abortion;
  10. Prevent the sale of organs or tissue harvested from unborn babies;
  11. Require abortion clinics to be inspected at least annually, and ensure a clinic that fails inspection does not perform abortions;
  12. Prohibit some abortion procedures in which the unborn baby is dismembered;
  13. Prevent the state from awarding grants to abortion providers;

Does anyone really think a doctor ought to be able to perform an abortion without explaining the procedure to the woman first?

Shouldn’t a woman be given adequate time to consider her options before having an abortion?

And isn’t it reasonable to say abortion clinics ought to be able to pass inspection before doing abortions?

Life News probably said it best:

Abortion is wrong, immoral and reprehensible to all but the most ardent abortion supporters. Even to many who call themselves pro-choice, abortion is something to be avoided. A few doctors like those profiled by Think Progress may be willing to end unborn babies lives, but most realize the truth that the medical profession is about caring, not killing.

Photo Credit: By Rafael Alcarde Palomares (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.

READ MORE