ARKANSAS --A law barring local governments from enacting and enforcing their own anti-discrimination laws became effective last week, strengthening the hand of people seeking to eliminate gay-rights statutes.
It's one of several hundred additional state laws now in force in Arkansas. Barring emergency clauses or other provisions, newly passed Arkansas laws take effect 90 days after the Arkansas Legislature adjourns.
This year's regular session formally adjourned April 22.
The other laws that became effective July 22 include measures barring re-homing of a foster child and restricting abortions. Others expand the places where people with proper permits can carry concealed handguns.
State Sen. Bart Hester, R-Cave Springs, sponsored Senate Bill 202 (now Act 137) to limit the ability of city and county governments to expand anti-bias protections.
The law states that "a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state shall not adopt or enforce an ordinance, resolution, rule, or policy that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law."
Gov. Asa Hutchinson allowed the measure to become law without signing it, saying he had concerns that it usurped the role of local governments.
Hester proposed the law after the Fayetteville City Council in August passed a short-lived ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identification or sexual orientation.
Neither the Arkansas Civil Rights Act nor the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 mentions sexual orientation or gender identity.
Fayetteville voters repealed the measure on Dec. 9. But Eureka Springs passed a measure of its own on Feb. 9 providing anti-discrimination protection for gay and transgender residents and visitors in areas of employment, housing and public accommodations. On May 12, Eureka Springs voters overwhelmingly voted to keep the ordinance on the books.
Hester said he expects most cities will refrain from passing similar laws, arguing any attempts to challenge the new state law would simply waste taxpayer dollars.
But Eureka Springs Alderman James Devito said that "this is going to have to be adjudicated to get a precise answer" as to whether the city's anti-discrimination ordinance complies with state law.
In April, the Little Rock Board of Directors approved an ordinance requiring Little Rock's employees and contractors to abide by an updated anti-bias clause that prohibits discrimination based on "race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or genetic information." In addition, city employees must agree not to discriminate for those reasons or because of someone's political affiliations when making hiring or firing decisions, selecting vendors or dealing with the public.
The board acted after Little Rock City Attorney Tom Carpenter wrote an opinion that Arkansas law already provides protections for the classes of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." He cited Arkansas Code Annotated 6-18-514, which regards bullying, and Arkansas Code Annotated 9-4-106, which involves domestic-abuse shelters.
The Pulaski County Quorum Court and Hot Springs' Board of Directors subsequently passed similar ordinances.
Jerry Cox, president of the Family Council, said he's trying to find a plaintiff in Little Rock to file a lawsuit challenging Little Rock's ordinance and to find legal assistance to file the lawsuit.
Last month, six of eight members on the Fayetteville City Council endorsed Fayetteville's latest anti-discrimination proposal, setting up a Sept. 8 special election. "I expect that we will be sued once the state law goes into effect," City Attorney Kit Williams has said, though he doesn't believe it conflicts with Act 137, citing Carpenter's opinion.
Rep. Bob Ballinger, R-Hindsville, who is a lawyer and is the House sponsor of what became Act 137, said he considers Eureka Springs' ordinance to be in "direct violation" of Act 137.
He said whether the Little Rock, Pulaski County and Hot Springs' ordinances fail to comply with Act 137 will depend on how they are implemented and "the facts of the situation."
Cox said Carpenter's analysis "is a huge stretch" and "a pretty weak argument."
But Little Rock City Manager Bruce Moore said city officials don't believe Little Rock's ordinance violates Act 137, citing the advice of Carpenter.
"We feel very strongly there is no conflict," he said.
Thus far, Moore said no one has refused to comply with the ordinance.
RE-HOMING
Act 1092, sponsored by Rep. David Meeks, R-Conway, makes the unauthorized "re-homing" of adopted children a felony.
A companion measure, Act 1018, sponsored by Rep. Greg Leding, D-Fayetteville, puts into law certain requirements for adoptive parents receiving state subsidies.
Those two bills were both filed in early March, shortly after a story by the Arkansas Times detailed the re-homing of two adopted daughters, ages 3 and 5, by Rep. Justin Harris, R-West Fork, to an employee at his day care center, Eric Cameron Francis.
Harris has said the two girls he and his wife adopted had been scarred by past abuse and were too difficult for them to raise, turning his life into a "nightmare" and a "living hell." Harris said he gave the girls to the Francis family because he feared that the state would accuse him of child abandonment if he tried to return them to state custody.
During a child-abandonment investigation, state officials uncovered evidence that Francis had raped the oldest girl. Late last year, he pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault and is now serving a 40-year prison sentence.
Under Act 1092, re-homing adopted children to people who are not close family members is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
Act 1018 tightens oversight on adoption subsidies provided by the state Department of Human Services as well as requires the department establish rules to ensure that adoptive parents can get agency support after the adoption.
ABORTION
Act 577, sponsored by Rep. Charlene Fite, R-Van Buren, put into Arkansas law regulations recommended by the federal Food and Drug Administration for the use of the drug mifepristone, also called RU-486.
The FDA recommends that specific doses of the drugs be administered, followed by specific dosage amounts of a second drug called misoprostol. The regulations also recommend that the patient return for three office visits to take the drug administered by a physician, as well as a follow-up visit to confirm the termination of the pregnancy.
It also requires a doctor to examine a woman to document the gestational age of the fetus and the intrauterine location of the pregnancy to determine whether it's an ectopic pregnancy -- occurring outside the uterus.
Act 996, by Sen. Gary Stubblefield, R-Branch, bars the disbursement of funds to certain entities that either perform abortions or are affiliates of a person or entity that performs abortions.
Act 1424, by Rep. Robin Lundstrum, R-Springdale, increases the waiting period between a doctor's consultation and the abortion from 24 hours to 48 hours and increases the amount of information about risks that abortion providers are required to give patients seeking the procedure.
It also would require providers to give patients the name of the doctor performing the abortion, a description of the procedure including a list of possible risks, the age of the fetus and a description of its anatomical and physiological characteristics at that age. The information must be provided at least 48 hours before the abortion can be performed.
Act 1014 by Julie Mayberry, R-East End, and Act 139, by Sen. Missy Irvin, R-Mountain View, outlaws so-called webcam abortions by requiring that a physician be in the room during a chemical abortion. They have been unavailable in Arkansas. The two measures are identical and require doctors to make "all reasonable efforts" to ensure the patient returns between 12 and 18 days after the procedure for a follow-up examination.
CONCEALED GUNS
Act 1259, sponsored by Sen. Linda Collins-Smith, R-Pocahontas, allows counties' elected officials and employees who have concealed-weapon permits to carry concealed handguns in county buildings, with the approval of their quorum courts.
Act 1175, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Wardlaw, D-Warren, allows a concealed carry licensee to carry concealed handguns into a polling place.
Act 993, sponsored by Meeks, allows a concealed carry licensee to carry a concealed handgun onto the premises of a K-12 private school or private kindergarten if the governing board or director has set rules and circumstances permitting that.
Act 1078, sponsored by Rep. Michelle Gray, R-Melbourne, allows for concealed carry permit holders to carry concealed handguns in their motor vehicles on certain public property, including a publicly owned and maintained parking lot.
It also allows permit holders to carry concealed handguns in their motor vehicles when in school parking lots and designated drop off zones.
General News on 07/29/2015