Group Tells Pulaski County Court that the Right to Life Includes a Right to Abortion

An organization suing to overturn Arkansas’ pro-life laws in Pulaski County Circuit Court claims that prohibiting abortion violates the right to life.

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and since then Arkansas law has prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother. Last year the state legislature took excellent steps to strengthen and clarify Arkansas’ pro-life laws.

But in January, attorneys with a pro-abortion group filed a lawsuit in Pulaski County to strike down those good laws. Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin told media outlets at the time that the lawsuit on its face appears to have little legal merit. Family Council agrees with the attorney general.

The attorney general’s office has asked the court to dismiss the case. In response, attorneys representing the pro-abortion group filed a brief on Monday making the bizarre argument that Arkansas’ pro-life laws violate the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed under the Arkansas Constitution.

The brief says:

“Arkansans do not lose their fundamental constitutional rights to life, liberty, equality, and the pursuit of happiness simply because they are pregnant. . . .

“As particularly relevant for Patient Plaintiffs, protection of life and liberty ‘encompasses many personal freedoms including the right to enjoy domestic relations and the privileges of family and home.’

“Other state Supreme Courts interpreting similar inherent and inalienable language have concluded it protects pregnant people and that abortion bans violate those fundamental rights.”

There really are no words to describe the irony of arguing in court that the constitutional right to life means abortionists are free to kill unborn children.

It reminds me of something President Ronald Reagan wrote in 1985: “No longer can advocates of abortion deny reality: Abortion is not merely a matter between a woman and her doctor. For when they say that, surely they are forgetting the unborn child whose very life hangs in the balance.”

Arkansas has been named the most pro-life state in America for the past six years, and lawmakers have enacted excellent legislation protecting women and unborn children from abortion and supporting women with unplanned pregnancies.

Public opinion polling has shown time and again that most Arkansans are pro-life and oppose abortion on demand.

Arkansas’ pro-life laws reflect Arkansans’ pro-life views. These laws protect everyone’s right to life — including the unborn child’s.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states like Arkansas are free to enact laws restricting or prohibiting abortion. We are confident our courts ultimately will uphold Arkansas’ pro-life laws against this legal challenge.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

Guest Column: Why Gen Z “Nones” Are Reconsidering Religion

Gen Z is the least religious cohort in American history. 43% of this generation born roughly between 1996 and 2012 identify as religious “nones.” While there have been many reports since Charlie Kirk’s assassination indicating increased interest in religion and increased church attendance, according to statistician Ryan Burge, there is not yet statistical evidence of religious revival among young people.

There is, however, ample evidence that these Zoomers are looking for meaning and willing to reconsider religion. Specifically, though these trends may not be large enough to be captured in statistics, there seems to be a growing interest in more rigorous forms of faith.

In a recent article in Tablet magazine, Ani Wilcenski, a Zoomer herself, examined this phenomenon. While acknowledging that Gen Z is less religious than previous generations, Wilcenski, researched those bucking that trend, including converts to Islam, Jews who are becoming more observant, Latin Mass Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and others who are joining stricter, more traditional religious groups.

According to Wilcenski, Gen Z has been raised with the “illusion of infinite horizons,” and grew up “without sturdy institutions or fulfilling rites of passage.” As a result, for this generation, “[e]verything—career, identity, relationships—unfolds as a series of self-directed experiments,” something that has been labeled “liquid modernity.” Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman coined that phrase to describe the experience of life as unstable and non-permanent, without fixed distinctions, and no foundation for cultivating identity.

The experience of “liquid modernity” is why, according to Wilcenski, the ideological capture of Gen Z has been so comprehensive. For example, nearly one-quarter of the generation identify as LGBTQ, up nearly 20 points from previous generations. Ideology gives the illusion of a solid cause and offers a purpose for life where otherwise there is none.

Of course, that is the role religion traditionally played in Western culture. As Wilcenski noted, the draw of religion is that it provides a firm source of virtue and belonging, focus, and a sense of permanence. That’s what the Zoomers who are exploring more demanding forms of faith are most likely seeking.

As Wilcenski put it,

These faiths don’t adapt to the age—they expect the age to conform to them. Their rituals inconvenience, their authorities override preference, their truths don’t negotiate. And in a society allergic to absolutes, that refusal to dilute themselves holds a powerful magnetism.

As an example, Wilcenski quoted a 23-year-old woman who explained her decision to join a Carmelite monastery in Plough magazine: “I figured if I was going to do something crazy for our Lord I might as well go all in.” Like Wilcenski, the Plough article noted that young women who join strict religious orders are committing to something stable and permanent.

According to Wilcenski, when the Gen Zers turning to religion offer reasons why, they

sound more like escapes from modern chaos than declarations of faith…. [T]heir newfound religiosity is less about belief than about orienting life around something ultimate—something greater than the self.

That, of course, also leaves them vulnerable to religious falsehoods. Remember, Wilcenski not only researched conversions to Christianity but also to conservative forms of Judaism and Islam. The desire to escape “liquid modernity” says nothing about the genuineness of any faith that follows. The same motivation can explain the growing number of young men who are embracing political extremism, from Antifa to white nationalism.

It has long been the case that laxer forms of religion have declined while more demanding forms have grown or at least declined more slowly. The divide within this segment of Gen Z seems to be even more pronounced. This group will not be interested in churches that accommodate themselves to American culture. The seeker-sensitive model will not work. It probably never has.

The Church must be countercultural, unapologetic about even the weird things we believe, and unafraid to ask for serious commitment from people. It needs to explore the depths of the Gospel; it must explain life and its meaning, including hard truths about the human condition, rather than offer only shallow therapeutic or pragmatic applications. A church that does this will not only be able to counter destructive ideologies vying for all generations but will also be able to offer meaning and stability to a generation that is looking for both.

Copyright 2026 by the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Reprinted from BreakPoint.org with permission.

Federal Appeal Process Continues Over Arkansas’ Ten Commandments Law

Last week, U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks issued a final decision against the Ten Commandments in a group of Arkansas school districts, but higher federal courts are already weighing arguments from the case.

Last year the Arkansas Legislature passed Act 573 by Sen. Jim Dotson (R — Bentonville) and Rep. Alyssa Brown (R — Heber Springs). This good law requires privately-funded copies of the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools and other public buildings across the state. The measure received strong support in the Arkansas Legislature, and Governor Sanders signed it into law last April.

However, it did not take long for attorneys from the ACLU and a group of atheist organizations to sue to block Act 573. Last week, Judge Brooks in Fayetteville issued a final bad ruling against Act 573 in that lawsuit.

Fortunately, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin has intervened in the case, and his office has already appealed previous rulings Judge Brooks made against Act 573 last year.

Amicus briefs in support of Act 573 have already been filed at the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.

It’s also worth noting a federal appeals court sided with the State of Louisiana last month in a similar case over the Ten Commandments.

In 2024, Louisiana passed a law allowing Ten Commandments displays in public school classrooms, but the measure drew immediate legal challenges from groups like the ACLU — just like Arkansas’ Act 573 did.

Fortunately, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court was wrong to block Louisiana’s Ten Commandments law.

Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states are free to honor and recognize documents or symbols that are important to our nation’s history — like the Ten Commandments or the national motto.

The Ten Commandments are one of the earliest examples of the rule of law, and they have had a profound impact in shaping our society and our government.

In his motion for summary judgment in Arkansas’ Ten Commandments case, Attorney General Tim Griffin wrote:

The Ten Commandments “have been the most influential law code in history.” … And displays and depictions of the decalogue and of Moses throughout government buildings and property reflect the significance of the Ten Commandments to our Nation’s history and heritage. … Act 573 does not violate the Establishment Clause because it is consistent with historical practices and understandings and does not bear any of the hallmarks of religious establishment.

During her testimony in support of Act 573 last year, Rep. Alyssa Brown noted that the U.S. Supreme Court now uses a “longstanding history and tradition test” to decide if it is constitutional to display something like a copy of the Ten Commandments. Rep. Brown said, “The Ten Commandments without a doubt will pass this longstanding history and tradition test.”

We believe our federal courts ultimately will agree and uphold Act 573 as constitutional.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.