Arkansas

[Rick]

Comments on Arkansas Supreme Court's Smith v. Pavan Decision

 

Actually, this ruling by the Arkansas Supreme Court in Smith v. Pavan is a completely ignorant decision, as the names on any given birth certificate have nothing to do with biology, let alone "basic biological truths." Instead, a birth certificate is a legal document establishing legal responsibility and custody.

 

Adopting parents are routinely listed on the child's birth certificate, even when neither are the biological mother nor the biological father. Furthermore, the person listed as the father is simply the legal claimant (whether claimed by the mother, or self-proclaimed), even when physical absence or physical inability preclude the possibility, and is not ever subjected to DNA testing to "prove" it.

 

The lower court judge Fox, as well as Justice Danielson, both got it right.

 

The Arkansas Supreme Court even quoted this section from the Obergefell decision regarding some of the myriad benefits of marriage, but then ignored the entire passage, including the associated De Boer case which was, in fact, an adoption case:

 

"Indeed, while the States are in general free to vary the benefits they confer on all married couples, they have throughout our history made marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evidence; hospital access; medical decision making authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workers' compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visitation rules."

 

 

One of the harsher commentators at Joe.My.God, Joann Prinzivalli, had this to say in regard to the Smith v. Pavan decision:

 

Arkansas Supreme Court Confuses Legal Status with Biology

 

I think this could be a precedent for requiring ALL birth certificates to list the "actual biological parents as established by a battery of paternity tests" when a baby is born. Because of stark "biological" reasoning like this, in Arkansas one can now never again assume that the husband in a married heterosexual relationship is the biological father of any child produced by his wife.

 

The actual, factual, biological father of a child ostensibly produced in a married heterosexual relationship in Arkansas is possibly more likely to be the woman's pastor, brother, cousin, or some traveling salesman, than it would be her husband. So go ahead, judges, throw out the polite fiction of assuming that a child produced while a heterosexual couple is married to each other is "fathered" by the husband.

 

After all, based on their inability to reason their way out of a paper bag, the majority judges on the Arkansas State Supreme Court seem to be exhibiting the "biological truth" of the sort of feeble-mindedness long thought to be associated with generations of inbreeding, notwithstanding whatever polite fictions about paternity one might find on their birth certificates.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Arkansas Supreme Court to Hear Arguments over LGBT Protections

 

Little Rock - Arkansas' highest court will hear arguments next month in a legal battle over whether a city's ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity conflicts with a state law aimed at blocking local protections for gays and lesbians.

 

On Wednesday, 4 January 2017, the state Supreme Court announced that it will hold oral arguments on 2 February in the state's appeal of a Washington County judge's decision upholding Fayetteville's anti-discrimination ordinance. The judge last year ruled the ordinance does not run afoul of a state law barring cities and counties from prohibiting discrimination on a basis not contained in state law.

 

Arkansas Attorney-General Leslie Rutledge asked the court to strike the ordinance and uphold the state law preventing cities and counties from barring discrimination on a basis not contained in state law. Arkansas' civil rights law doesn't include sexual orientation or gender identity, but supporters of the ordinance have noted other parts of Arkansas law include protections for LGBT people.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Non-Discrimination Appeal Before Arkansas Supreme Court

 

In the appeal, State of Arkansas v. City of Fayetteville, the state's appeal of the lower court ruling upholding Fayetteville's non-discrimination ordinance, the Arkansas Supreme Court will hear oral argument in this case at 9 AM on 9 February 2017. Each side will have 20 minutes for argument.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

US Supreme Court Asked to Reverse Discriminatory Arkansas Birth Certificate Ruling

 

More than a year after the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide, a team of LGBT legal advocates is calling on justices to reaffirm that decision. In a 38-page petition, in Smith v. Pavan, filed today, 15 February 2017, legal advocates seek to overturn an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling against placing the names of both lesbian parents on a child's birth certificate.

 

In December 2016, the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld a state law requiring the Arkansas Department of Health to label a birth certificate with the "paternity of the person" when that person is born. That means for lesbian parents, the state will place the name of the birth mother, but not the spouse, on the birth certificates of their children.

 

The petition argues the Arkansas decision undermines the US Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which ruled states must grant married same-sex couples the same benefits under the law as they would opposite-sex couples. And as the petition further points out, the Obergefell decision explicitly identifies "birth and death certificates" as one of the "aspects of marital status" states must administer in equal manner to both same-sex and different-sex married couples.

 

The petition presents a singular question before the Supreme Court: Whether a state violates the 14th Amendment by denying married same-sex couples the same right afforded to married opposite-sex couples under state law to have the name of the birth mother's spouse entered as the second parent on their child's birth certificate.

 

The trio of legal groups who filed the petition for certiorari are the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Arkansas attorney Cheryl Maples, who represented the lesbian couples in the case before the Arkansas Supreme Court, and the DC-based law firm Ropes & Gray.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Arkansas: 'Bathroom Bill' Could Upend Legislative Session

 

Little Rock AR - Two years ago, a "religious objections" bill blasted by critics as anti-LGBTQ upended the final days of a legislative session that Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson had hoped would focus on tax cuts and health care reform. And now, a new plan by GOP lawmakers to push for a "bathroom bill" targeting transgender people means the Arkansas Legislature is about to dive into a reprise of that battle.

 

A one-sentence bill filed in early February offered little specifics, other than saying its purpose was to address "gender identity and bathroom privileges." A lawmaker co-sponsoring the measure said, once finalized, it'll require people to use public restrooms consistent with the gender on their birth certificates. If they were born a male, that's where they've got to use the bathroom," Republican Sen. Gary Stubblefield said.

 

The plan has spurred warnings from Hutchinson, as well as tourism and business groups, that such a measure isn't needed and could subject the state to the widespread backlash and the same type of boycotts North Carolina faced over its bathroom law. That measure prompted the NBA to move its All-Star Game out of Charlotte and the NCAA to pull seven championship events out of the state, while major companies abandoned or halted plans to expand in North Carolina. A similar measure considered in Texas is raising similar concerns of economic fallout, with the NFL warning the state could be passed over for future Super Bowl sites if it becomes law.

 

"We don't need that in Arkansas, and if there's a North Carolina-type bill, then I want the Legislature not to pass it," Hutchinson told reporters last week. The Little Rock Convention and Visitors Bureau warned the measure could threaten millions of dollars central Arkansas has seen in the recent past through meetings, tourism, and sporting events. "Should this bill pass and become law, central Arkansas's economic landscape will severely suffer; the adverse effects on convention and sports-related business will be substantial," said Gretchen Hall, the bureau's president and CEO.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Arkansas Supreme Court Strikes Down City Non-Discrimination Ordinance

 

On Thursday, 23 February 2017, in State of Arkansas v. City of Fayetteville, the state's appeal of a ruling upholding Fayetteville's non-discrimination ordinance in a case argued on 9 February 2017, the Arkansas Supreme Court struck down Fayetteville's ordinance banning discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

The justices reversed a lower court judge's decision that Fayetteville's anti-discrimination ordinance did not violate a 2015 state law prohibiting cities from enacting protections not covered by state law (given that other provisions within Arkansas state law covered them). Fayetteville, a liberal enclave in northwestern Arkansas, is one of several cities that approved local protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in response to the discriminatory 2015 law.

 

Arkansas' civil rights law doesn't cover sexual orientation or gender identity. In the unanimous ruling, the justices rejected the argument that Fayetteville and other cities with such ordinances have made, that such protections are covered elsewhere in state law.

 

The court ruled that these other laws, including an anti-bullying law, aren't related to anti-discrimination laws and don't create new protected classes. They noted that the 2015 law states its intent to have uniform anti-discrimination measures in the state.

 

"(Fayetteville's ordinance) violates the plain wording of Act 137 by extending discrimination laws in the city of Fayetteville to include two classifications not previously included under state law," the court said. "This necessarily creates a nonuniform nondiscrimination law and obligation in the city of Fayetteville that does not exist under state law."

 

The justices said they couldn't rule on the law's constitutionality since it wasn't addressed by the lower court and they sent the case back to the Washington County judge who upheld Fayetteville's ordinance.

 

Fayetteville City Attorney Kit Williams said he disagreed with the court's ruling and will now focus on challenging the law's constitutionality in the lower court.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Arkansas: Lawmaker Pulls His Anti-Trans 'Bathroom Bill'

 

Little Rock AR - On Thursday, 2 March 2017, an Arkansas lawmaker backed away from a broad "bathroom bill" targeting transgender people that had drawn opposition from the state's Republican governor, but said he will propose another measure giving schools legal protection over their restroom policies.

 

Republican Sen. Greg Standridge said he's withdrawing his one-sentence bill to address gender identity and bathroom privileges. A co-sponsor of the measure had said it was intended to require that people use public restrooms consistent with the gender on their birth certificate.

 

Standridge said the bill isn't needed after Trump revoked an Obama-era federal directive instructing public schools to let transgender students use bathrooms and locker rooms of their chosen gender.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Arkansas: Another "Bathroom" Bill Dead,-- For Now

 

On Wednesday, 29 March 2017, an Arkansas lawmaker dropped her proposal prohibiting individuals from using bathrooms in government buildings that do not match their gender at birth after the legislation had faced opposition from the state's Republican governor and from tourism groups.

 

GOP Sen. Linda Collins-Smith withdrew her proposal, which would have required every restroom or changing facility accessible by multiple people at the same time in a government building be designated for use by members of only one sex. The proposal had not advanced past a Senate committee, and lawmakers are entering the final days of this year's legislative session.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Arkansas: Appeal of Birth Certificate Issue to US Supreme Court

 

In the appeal of the Arkansas Supreme Court decision in Pavan v. Smith denying married same-sex couples the right to have both parents listed on their child's birth certificate, the Brief for the Respondent in Opposition (basically, the state of Arkansas' opposition to the notion of the Supreme Court taking up the couples' appeal on Writ of Certiorari), was filed on 14 April 2017.

 

The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether to grant certiorari to this case, although, in due course, it appears that they will have to do so in order for them to keep Arkansas in accord with the Obergefell decision.

 

As best as can be determined, only Indiana and Arkansas are still refusing to list both parents' names on a child's birth certificate, if that child were to be born to a married, same-sex couple.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Fayetteville, Arkansas Ordinance: LGBT Equality

 

The ACLU of Arkansas has moved to intervene in a lawsuit, Arkansas v. Fayetteville, aimed at preventing Fayetteville from extending civil rights protection to LGBT people.

 

Supporters of legalized discrimination on account of sexual orientation won an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling that the city of Fayetteville's local civil rights ordinance was barred by a state law aimed at preventing local protections for gay people. But that decision didn't reach the question of constitutionality of the state law. It was clearly aimed - if not expressed in specific terms - at protecting legal discrimination against gay people in housing, employment, and public services.

 

The ACLU wants to intervene in the state circuit court (county level) lawsuit on behalf of PFLAG of Fayetteville and Northwest Arkansas and three Fayetteville residents - Anthony Clark, Noah Meeks and Liz Petray. They argue that they receive protection from the local ordinance and seek a declaratory judgment that the state law is unconstitutional. They say the legislative attempt to nullify the ordinance violates their right to equal protection and leaves them vulnerable to discrimination. As a simple matter of fact, they are correct. As a matter of law? The current Arkansas Supreme Court has often demonstrated it mostly sees the law as whatever the legislature intended. And the legislature, make no mistake, intended to discriminate. In some courts, that has been viewed as unconstitutional.

 

 

Per ACLU Press Release:

 

On 25 April 2017, in Arkansas v. Fayetteville, the ACLU filed a motion to intervene in the case on behalf of three Fayetteville residents and PFLAG of Fayetteville/Northwest Arkansas, arguing that the Arkansas legislature's attempts to nullify Fayetteville's local non-discrimination ordinance violates their right to equal protection under the law and would leave them vulnerable to discrimination.

 

On February 24, 2015, in response to efforts by the City of Fayetteville to enact civil-rights protections for their LGBT citizens, the Arkansas State Legislature passed Act 137, which sought to nullify and prevent all municipal ordinances that prohibit discrimination on the basis of characteristics that are not protected by state law. In June 2015, the Fayetteville City Council approved a nondiscrimination ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, which voters subsequently approved. Earlier this year the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision and ruled that the Fayetteville ordinance was incompatible with Act 137. The case has now returned to the trial court, with only the City of Fayetteville's constitutional challenge to Act 137 remaining unresolved.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Appeal to SCOTUS of Arkansas Birth Certificate Ruling

 

In Pavan v. Smith, now in process of being appealed to SCOTUS, given the Arkansas Supreme Court decision denying married same-sex couples the right to have both parents listed on their child's birth certificate, the petition in support of granting certiorari is scheduled to be considered at the Supreme Court's conference of 18 May 2017.

 

The Reply Brief of the Petitioners was filed with SCOTUS on 1 May 2017.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

SCOTUS Order from 25 May 2017 Conference

 

Both cases of particular interest have been relisted for the 1 June conference. They are:

 

- Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the case wherein which a Colorado baker is appealing the decision that he violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act when he refused to bake a wedding cake.

 

- Pavan v. Smith, the appeal of the Arkansas Supreme Court decision denying married same-sex couples the right to have both parents listed on their child's birth certificate.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Supreme Court: Arkansas Birth Certificate Ruling Reversed

 

In the case, Pavan v. Smith, the appeal of the Arkansas Supreme Court decision denying married same-sex couples the right to have both parents listed on their child's birth certificate, the Supreme Court has reversed the Arkansas Supreme Court. Gorsuch, joined by Thomas and Alito, dissented.

 

From the Per Curiam Opinion:

"Arkansas law makes birth certificates about more than just genetics. As already discussed, when an opposite-sex couple conceives a child by way of anonymous sperm donation-just as the petitioners did here-state law requires the placement of the birth mother's husband on the child's birth certificate. And that is so even though (as the State concedes) the husband "is definitively not the biological father" in those circumstances. Arkansas has thus chosen to make its birth certificates more than a mere marker of biological relationships: The State uses those certificates to give married parents a form of legal recognition that is not available to unmarried parents. Having made that choice, Arkansas may not, consistent with Obergefell, deny married same-sex couples that recognition.

 

From Gorsush's dissent:

Summary reversal is usually reserved for cases where "the law is settled and stable, the facts are not in dispute, and the decision below is clearly in error." Respectfully, I don't believe this case meets that standard.

 

"To be sure, Obergefell addressed the question whether a State must recognize same-sex marriages. But nothing in Obergefell spoke (let alone clearly) to the question whether §20"“18"“401 of the Arkansas Code, or a state supreme court decision upholding it, must go. The statute in question establishes a set of rules designed to ensure that the biological parents of a child are listed on the child's birth certificate."

 

 

Per Gorsuch: "The statute in question establishes a set of rules designed to ensure that the biological parents of a child are listed on the child's birth certificate."

 

The Arkansas statute does no such thing. It clearly states that the birth mother's husband be listed on the birth certificate. The husband is not medically tested to prove that he is the actual biological father. Instead, he is presumed to be by virtue of their being a married couple.

 

Under the general rule of "Presumed Parentage," the standard used in Arkansas, it is merely presumed that the husband is the biological father. The problem here is that the statute in question remains gender-specific, a point which could easily be surmounted by substituting the word, "spouse," in place of "husband," something which the court has thus had to interpret, given that the state has not yet altered the statutory language. At no point does biology figure into the equation, other than for the birth mother.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Arkansas Supreme Court Orders Gender-Neutral Treatment of Parents on Birth Certificates

 

Today, 19 October 2017, as ordered by the US Supreme Court in Pavan v. Smith, a fractured Arkansas Supreme Court ordered that same-sex couples must be treated the same as opposite-sex couples in the issuance of birth certificates. But the court again resisted rewriting statutes to provide for equal treatment, as a lower Arkansas court had originally decided.

 

As directed by the US Supreme Court, the Arkansas Supreme Court acknowledged that the Arkansas state law was unconstitutional, that is, as the state law stated, that opposite-sex couples were presumed to be parents on a birth certificate, but that same-sex married couples were not given the same presumption.

 

The opinion, written by Justice Robin Wynne, said: "The birth-certificate law must be addressed, but we cannot simply affirm the (state) circuit court's previous order, which impermissibly rewrote the statutory scheme. An order rewriting a statute 'amounts to a judicial intrusion upon the legislative prerogative and violates the constitutional doctrine of separation of power.'"

 

"On remand, the (state) circuit court should award declaratory and injunctive relief as necessary to ensure that same-sex spouses are afforded the same right as opposite-sex spouses to be listed on a child's birth certificate in Arkansas, as required under Pavan v. Smith. Extending the benefit of the statutes at issue to same-sex spouses will implement the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States without an impermissible rewriting of the statutes."

 

Wynne was joined by Chief Justice John Dan Kemp, Rhonda Wood, and Shawn Womack. Womack wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he said he would have additionally required further hearings in (state) circuit court on how the law treats same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples differently in other respects so constitutionality could be considered.

 

Justices Karen Baker, Jo Hart, and Courtney Goodson dissented. They said they would not have remanded the case to (state) circuit court for a hearing, but would have simply vacated the Arkansas Supreme Court's own ruling in the case that was later voided by the US Supreme Court, and then declared the state statute void.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Arkansas: "Pavan v. Smith" Redux (Arkansas, You've Already Been Told)

 

Little Rock AR - On Friday, 8 December 2017, in a continuation of Pavan v. Smith back at the state level, an Arkansas judge has issued an injunction blocking the state from issuing any birth certificates whatsoever until officials are able to comply with a US Supreme Court ruling that the state's birth certificate law illegally favors heterosexual parents.

 

"This case has been pending for over two years and it has been more than six months since the United States Supreme Court ruled the Arkansas statutory scheme unconstitutional," Fox wrote in his order. "There are citizens and residents of the state of Arkansas whose constitutional rights are being violated on a daily basis."

 

In addition, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox has set aside his orders requiring the state and three same-sex couples to go into mediation on how to fix the state law to comply with the US Supreme Court's order. Earlier this week, Arkansas Attorney-General Leslie Rutledge had asked the Arkansas Supreme Court to stay or lift Fox's mediation order.

 

This latest round in Pavan v. Smith, that is, both the Injunction and the Order Setting Aside Mediation Orders, is effective immediately, 8 December 2017.

 

 

In the filing before the Arkansas Supreme Court, the state has claimed that it has complied with the Mediation Order, as ordered by the Arkansas Supreme Court, but despite the claim, continues to interpret Arkansas law in gender-specific terms. So, Judge Fox has halted the issuance of any/all Arkansas birth certificates until either:

 

1. The state can see fit to interpret Arkansas state law in gender-neutral terms, or:

2. State law is actually amended to become gender-neutral.

 

As best as one can determine, Arkansas AG Rutledge continues to take the hyper-literal position that in the wording of Arkansas state law, the word "husband" means that the named individual must possess a penis.

 

In the meantime, per the injunction, the state Department of Health said it would stop issuing and amending all birth certificates. Instead, it would take information from parents who request one for when the state can resume. Health Department Spokeswoman Meg Mirivel said the state issues roughly 400 to 500 new, amended, or replacement birth certificates per day.

 

 

Arkansas: Gov. Hutchinson Issues Executive Directive on Birth Certificate Issue

 

Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson has issued an executive directive to the Arkansas Department of Health requiring that it list the spouse of the woman who gives birth as a parent, the same for female spouses as for male spouses. This has allowed the Department to begin issuing birth certificates again (a process which had been halted, by court order, between 10 AM and noon).

 

 

When it comes to Arkansas AG Leslie Rutledge and the Director of the Arkansas Dept. of Health, Dr. Nathaniel Smith (the defendant in Pavan v. Smith), the obfuscation is an active part of their over-all retrograde agenda, the inane pretentiousness of which appears to have practically pushed Judge Tim Fox over the edge.

 

Governor Hutchinson's executive directive, although a dollar short and at least a day or two late, finally, is VERY clear as to what is to be expected, a point which tells me they knew what to do all along. Still, it is well worth the read:

https://twitter.com/JessiTurnure/status/939201560...

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Arkansas "Sex Favors" Judge Sentenced to Federal Prison

 

The Arkansas judge who traded sexual favors with male defendants for lighter sentences, or for the dismissal of their cases, is going to jail. O. Joseph Boeckmann, 72, a former state district judge for the First Judicial Circuit of Arkansas, has been sentenced to five years in federal prison and fined $50,000.

 

Boeckmann admitted to a seven-year fraud and bribery scheme in which he'd dismiss minor criminal cases for nude photos or sexual favors from his male defendants. He'd invite young males to complete community service at his home. Then he'd photograph them nude as they picked up trash. The ethics complaint against him said the pictures depicted "young men, many naked, who are in various poses inside the judge's home and outside his yard." His computer also had "numerous photos of naked young men bending over after an apparent paddling." He was also found guilty of bribing a witness in an attempt to obstruct an official investigation into the scheme.

 

Prosecutors had recommend three years in prison, but US District Judge Kristine Baker gave him five years for acting corruptly and obstructing justice while on the bench. Boeckmann, of Wynne AR, was a judge from 2009-15 in Cross County, northeast Arkansas, 60 miles west of Memphis. He resigned in May 2016 before his October 2016 indictment.

 

For the DOJ press release on this case, see:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-arkansas-st...

 

Note: US District Judge Kristine Baker is the same federal judge who ruled that the Arkansas ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick]

Arkansas Primary: Republican Primary Voters Flush Bathroom Bill Sponsor

On Tuesday, 22 May 2018, Arkansas State Senator Linda Collins-Smith went down to defeat in the Arkansas primary election. Republicans in the 19th Senate District chose challenger State Representative James Sturch (5,299 votes) over incumbent Collins-Smith (4,726 votes).

Collins-Smith was notorious for her sponsorship last year of "The Arkansas Physical Privacy and Safety Act," which would have required all citizens to use only public facilities which correspond with the gender on their birth certificates. The legislation, opposed by GOP Governor Asa Hutchinson, was ultimately sent to a Senate Committee to be studied indefinitely.

Senator Collins-Smith had crossed swords with the Governor on his Arkansas Works program to insure healthcare for all working Arkansans. She was a staunch advocate of "school choice" legislation which would drain funds from public schools, as well as extremist gun legislation which would permit the carrying of concealed weapons almost anywhere.

Linda can now return to running her Days Inn in Pocahontas AR full-time. She'll be too busy cleaning bathrooms to worry about who's using them.

Rick

 

[Rick]

Arkansas Issuing Gender-Neutral State IDs

Arkansas is issuing gender-neutral IDs to people, and very quietly, has been so since 2010. The most surprising piece of this story is that the policy isn’t new in the state.

"Our official policy is to allow a licensee to change their gender as requested, no questions asked, no documentation required," Mike Munns, Assistant Commissioner of Operations and Administration for the DMV at the time, wrote in an email. "Please see that this policy is followed." The policy was reportedly rolled out in December 2010, with no formal announcement, and thus, is also apparently not well known. However, DMV spokesperson Scott Hardin confirmed the policy’s history.

Previously, it was thought that Oregon was the first state to offer such gender options on IDs. Other states like California and Washington then soon followed suit. Most recently, New York City also adopted a similar change.

Rick

 

[Rick]

Arkansas Supreme Court Rules against City Ordinance Banning LGBT Discrimination

On 31 January 2019, in the case of Protect Fayetteville and State of Arkansas v. City of Fayetteville, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that the city can not enforce an ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, saying that it has already ruled that the measure violates a state law aimed at preventing local protections for LGBT people.

The Opinion, CV-17-849, on the appeal of the lower court order denying a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the ordinance, is here:
http://files.eqcf.org/cases/cv-17-849-opinion/

The Opinion, CV-17-873, on the appeal of discovery orders implicating issues of legislative and executive privilege, is here:
http://files.eqcf.org/cases/cv-17-873-opinion/

Both were reversed and dismissed. And to be clear, "Protect Fayetteville," is an anti-LGBT hate group, seeking free reign to discriminate.

Rick

 

[Rick]

Arkansas: Legislature Passes "Religious Refusals" Health Care Bill

The Arkansas legislature has passed a bill allowing health care providers or insurers to deny care that conflicts with their religious beliefs, and civil rights groups say it opens the door to widespread discrimination against LGBTQ people and others. Senate Bill 289, given final approval on Thursday, 18 March 2021, by the Senate, and earlier in the week by the House, is now with Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who has not said if he plans to sign or veto it, the Associated Press reports.

If he takes no action within five days from receiving the bill, it becomes law without his signature. If he vetoes it, a simple majority of legislators can override the veto. The measure would allow medical workers, institutions, and payers to opt out of providing care to which they object on the grounds of religion or conscience, except in emergency situations.

Arkansas Surgeon-General Greg Bledsoe, a Republican who is running for lieutenant governor, opposed a similar bill in 2017 but endorsed this one, the AP reports.
https://www.advocate.com/politics/2021/3/19/will-...

Rick

 

[Rick]

Arkansas Governor Signs Anti-Transgender Sports Bill Into Law

On Thursday, 25 March 2021, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed a bill into law that will bar transgender student athletes from competing under their gender identity. The measure, Senate Bill 354, was approved on Monday, 22 March, by the Arkansas House of Representatives and earlier by the state’s Senate.

The Arkansas law will apply to public elementary, secondary, and college teams as well as to private school teams that compete against the public institutions. It is set to take effect this summer. Hutchinson is the second governor to sign such a bill into law this year. Gov. Tate Reeves of Mississippi signed a similar bill recently, also due to take effect this summer.

Also on Thursday, 25 March 2021, West Virginia advanced an anti-trans sports bill. The House of Delegates approved the measure 78-20 and sent it on to the state’s Senate.
https://www.advocate.com/transgender/2021/3/25/ar...

 

Arkansas Will Allow Medical Workers to Legally Refuse Treating LGBTQ People

On 25 March 2021, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) announced that he has signed into law Senate Bill 289, which is erroneously entitled the “Medical Ethics and Diversity Act.” This means that Arkansas will now grant medical workers the “right” to refuse to provide healthcare or to medically assist someone because of the worker’s “religious, moral, or ethical” beliefs. That could open the door for LGBTQ people (as well as for all sorts of other individuals) to face denial from life-saving services from doctors, nurses, EMTs, and other healthcare providers.

The bill lists protected health care professionals as to include doctors and nurses and any “individual who furnishes or assists in the provision of a healthcare service,” including social workers and pharmacists. The bill even mentions employers who provide health care as part of their employees’ compensation – even they can ask that employees be denied a specific medical procedure, as long as they claim that their “conscience” requires them to do so.
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/03/arkansas-will...

 

 

Arkansas: A Third Anti-Transgender Bill Passes in the Legislature

Arkansas may soon be the first state to ban gender-affirming health care for minors. On Monday, 29 March 2021, the Arkansas Senate approved a bill banning said care for minors, one already passed by the House of Representatives, the "Arkansas Times" reports. Now the bill goes to Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) for his signature or veto. He has not said what his action will be, but he’s recently signed two other anti-LGBTQ bills into law.

House Bill 1570 would bar doctors and other health care workers from not only performing gender-confirmation surgeries on people under 18, but also from prescribing hormones or puberty-blocking drugs for them. Such surgeries are not usually performed on minors anyway, while hormones and puberty blockers have been shown to have a positive effect on young transgender individuals. The legislation would also ban referrals for such care and would allow private insurers to refuse to cover gender-affirming care for individuals of any age.
https://www.advocate.com/transgender/2021/3/29/ar...

Rick

 

[Rick]

Arkansas: Governor Vetoes Bill Banning Hormones for Transgender Youth

On Monday, 5 April 2021, a first-of-its-kind bill that would have banned doctors from offering hormones or puberty blockers to transgender teens and children was vetoed by Arkansas's Republican governor, Asa Hutchinson.

While numerous states have recently banned gender confirmation surgery on those under 18, surgeries almost never performed on minors, Arkansas's bill went even further and has the potential to cause much harm to transgender and gender-nonconforming youth. In addition to the proposed ban on hormones for trans youth, the legislation would also ban referrals for such care and would allow private insurers to refuse to cover gender-affirming care for people of any age.

Trans advocates in Arkansas are still concerned because the governor's veto could be overturned by a simple majority in the Republican-controlled legislature.
https://www.advocate.com/transgender/2021/4/05/bi...

 

Arkansas Legislature Overrides Veto on Bill Denying Gender-Affirming Health Care

On Tuesday, 6 April 2021, the Arkansas legislature overrode Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s veto of a bill denying gender-affirming health care to minors. The Arkansas House of Representatives voted 71-24 to override Hutchinson’s veto, while the Arkansas Senate voted 25-8 to do so, as well.

The action makes Arkansas the first state to approve such a law. American Civil Liberties Union officials said they were preparing a lawsuit “as we speak,” thus vowing a legal challenge to prevent HB 1570 from taking effect.
https://www.advocate.com/transgender/2021/4/06/ve...
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-statemen...

Rick

 

[Rick]

Arkansas: Gay Republican, Other Curiosities Running for US Senator

Michael Deel is hardly the only human curiosity running to be the next US Senator from Arkansas. The gay Republican says he will run against everything the party stands for in an attempt to “prevent these radical-right extremists from taking over” a party that they already fairly completely dominate.

The competition so far includes a former football player currently masquerading as the incumbent, a bigoted gun range owner who won’t allow Muslims on her property, and a gun-lovin’ pastor who thinks everyone has a right to own a tank. The competition will be insanely stiff.

“If elected, I will be the first openly gay Republican senator elected to office,” Deel told the "Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette." “Being gay and being a Republican, which is kind of a unicorn in this day and time, I felt like I could make a difference.”

The seat is currently held by Sen. John Boozman (R), a former Arkansas Razorbacks football player from Ft. Smith, a point that, from 2000 (for a House seat), ostensibly gave him enough name-recognition for "electibility" within the confines of that benighted state. Ever since, Boozman has racked up a sordid history of voting against LGBTQ civil rights, voting against women's rights, and voting against those of persons with disabilities.
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/05/gay-republica...

In the same 2022 election cycle, we would be remiss if we failed to point out that Huckleberry's daughter is apparently running for Governor. The current Governor of Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson, is term-limited, and can not run again.

 

Why the Arkansas Ban on Medical Care for Transgender Youth Is Unconstitutional

The legislative record provides ample evidence that the Arkansas legislature, in enacting HB 1570, has denied transgender youth access to medically necessary care because they are transgender. ... Transgender people have been referred to as an “abomination” and the desire of transgender youth to identify in accordance with their gender identity has been compared to the desire to identify as a cow. Gender-affirming treatments for transgender people—which are recognized as the standard of care by numerous major medical organizations—have been referred to as “snake oil” and “chemical mutilation” even as identical medical treatments for non-transgender minors continue to be allowed. Proponents have frequently quoted the Bible in defense of the bill, and have referred to it as “common sense” while ignoring evidence against it.

Medical opposition to HB 1570 was so widespread that the bill’s sponsor was forced to present testimony from a pediatric anesthesiologist with no experience with gender dysphoria. In addition to allowing unqualified witnesses to testify without time limitation in support of the bill, the relevant committees limited all witness testimony from critics to two minutes. As a result, the Arkansas Academy of Pediatrics, other professional healthcare providers, and transgender Arkansans and their family members were all cut off mid-sentence while attempting to give testimony against the bill.

All of this context is critical to understanding the purpose of HB 1570, and to the proper resolution of any constitutional challenge to the law. Under Equal Protection doctrine, any law must at least seek to serve legitimate government interests and be rationally related to those ends.

HB 1570 has all of the hallmarks of the type of legislation that courts have found invalid even on the lowest level of Equal Protection review. It targets a vulnerable and stigmatized group, the legislative debates demonstrated bias and misunderstanding; it was enacted despite overwhelming evidence demonstrating its factual premises were inaccurate; the purposes it is alleged to further are illogical given its actual reach; and the bill included irregularities and procedural bias in its enactment.

But importantly, there are good reasons to doubt that a federal court would apply this lowest level of review to HB 1570 at all. As an increasing number of federal courts have recognized, discrimination against the transgender community should trigger heightened scrutiny. As these courts have recognized, transgender people as a group have been subjected to a history of irrational discrimination and mistreatment of the kind that ordinarily triggers heightened scrutiny. And, anti-transgender discrimination is sex discrimination, as to which it is well established that intermediate scrutiny applies.
 https://www.theregreview.org/2021/05/04/eyer-why-...

Rick

 

Edited May 14, 2021 by Rick

[Rick]

ACLU Sues State of Arkansas in Federal Court for Banning Gender-Affirming Healthcare

Per ACLU:

We are suing the state of Arkansas for their unconstitutional ban on gender-affirming care. Four families and two doctors are a part of this lawsuit, the first of many we will file in response to anti-transgender laws passed this year.
https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/13972878776257208...

Per "Advocate:"

On Tuesday, 25 May 2021, on behalf of four trans young people and their families, as well as two doctors, the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit, Brandt v. Rutledge, in US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against the new Arkansas law banning gender-affirming health care for transgender minors.

Arkansas legislators overrode Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s veto last month to pass House Bill 1570 into law. It bars doctors from providing gender-affirming care to people under 18 or even referring them for such care. It also bans the use of state funds or insurance coverage for gender-affirming health care for trans minors and allows private insurers to refuse coverage for gender-affirming care for people of any age. It is scheduled to take effect on 28 July.

The families in the suit are Dylan Brandt and his mother, Joanna Brandt; Brooke Dennis and her parents, Amanda and Shayne Dennis; Sabrina Jennen and her parents, Lacey and Aaron Jennen; and Parker Saxton and his father, Donnie Saxton. Dr. Michelle Hutchison and Dr. Kathryn Stambough are also challenging the law on behalf of themselves and their patients. Their lawyers are from the national ACLU, the ACLU of Arkansas, and the law firms of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Gill Ragon Owen, and the Walas Law Firm. Additionally, the Dennis family may move out of state if the law takes effect.
https://www.advocate.com/transgender/2021/5/25/fa...

Rick

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Rick

[Rick]

Arkansas: Anti-Trans Health Care Prohibition Blocked by Federal Judge

Per ACLU:

On 21 July 2021, in "Brandt v. Rutledge," the federal court in Little Rock AR issued a statewide preliminary injunction blocking the law that would prohibit health care professionals from providing or even referring transgender young people for medically necessary health care.
https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/14178919888300482...

This law, banning hormone treatment and puberty blockers as well as gender-affirming surgeries, was set to go into effect from 28 July 2021. However, on 21 July 2021, a federal judge in the District court for the Eastern District of Arkansas has issued an injunction preventing the state’s ban on gender-affirming health care for minors from going into effect. Said lawsuit was filed by the ACLU on behalf of four transgender youth and their families, as well as for their two doctors. The decision does not strike down the law, but blocks it while the suit proceeds.
https://www.advocate.com/transgender/2021/7/21/ju...

This blatantly discriminatory measure was originally vetoed by Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, but his veto was then subsequently over-ridden by the Arkansas legislature, in a state where a simple majority (in both senses of the word) can over-ride such a veto.

Rick