House Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee Part 3
Video
Transcript
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 5, 2026
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
0:00
This is to coordinate the delivery of care, and they are then to be held accountable for the quality and cost of the care provided. The bill's intent is to ensure that the governing body of an ACO is not dominated by corporate interests that have no legal or ethical obligation to put patient needs before profits. Since the physicians are expected to direct, coordinate, and ultimately be responsible for the care provided in an ACO, It is my belief that this bill best protects those receiving health care by allowing the board to be composed of one-third physicians, one-third health care professionals, and one-third open.
I'd be happy to take any questions. Committee, do you have any questions for Senator Dismang?
Representative Penartz, you're recognized. Good afternoon, Senator. Good afternoon. Who supports this bill? What organized organizations support
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:04
this bill? I'm not sure entirely. No, the bill was brought forward by the Medical Society.
In your discussions with the Medical Society, I assume, since they're having you run this bill or you're running it in their instance, any other associations in support of this bill? I can't speak
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:23
further than organizations. I don't have anything directly on paper that says that. Now, I know there are a lot of organizations that are not opposed to the bill that would be able to, you know, this bill
would have an effect on. Where does this concept of what we'll call ACOs, as used in the bill,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:44
where does that concept come from? I believe that concept has been around for quite a while, and I believe also in some of the recent discussions that we've had, But here in the state, I mean, it's part of what the governor is looking to, part of the mechanism, you know, for, I guess, the future of health care.
So this concept doesn't come from PPACA? Not directly. Now, it
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:08
is discussed in that bill. You know where in that bill it's discussed? I am.
Yes, I am. You know where in
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:22
the bill? Am I aware? Yeah, where in the bill
Speaker 17
2:27
is it discussed? I'm not. I'm sorry. I haven't read the 2,000-something pages. Yeah.
Well, I have read quite a bit of that act. Yes, ma'am. And there are only seven pages in that act, about seven pages that deal with ACOs. Okay. And there's some criteria laid down in that bill about what makes somebody an eligible ACO. and I was a little bit I was looking for that criteria in your bill and I wasn't
able to find it and so I guess I'm wondering where you got the criteria to lay down what is very sketchy in this bill about the organizational requirements I'm sorry I don't I don't believe it's sketchy I
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
3:11
mean I think the The intent of the bill is very clear, and that is to ensure that those that are providing care are the ones that are also directing care. And so as far as it being sketchy, I'm not sure that I follow that.
Now I don't believe that this bill should dictate everything that
Speaker 21
3:30
there is to be about an ACO, and I believe that a lot of that can
be dealt with through rules and regulations. Well, I don't either. I don't think you have
to have everything specified, but I do think there are some qualifying criteria which are not in this bill that must be in it, and therefore that's why I asked the question. Okay. MS. There is especially one primary criterion that talks about shared governance, and I
believe that your bill does not meet that criterion in terms of it appears to me that
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
4:09
You mean a conflict of interest?
Is that what you're addressing? Well, shared governance, and that means the consumer representation on it, it appears to me that two-thirds of your board of directors basically are controlled by either, in this case it could be all physicians. How would you respond to
Speaker 21
4:29
that? Yes, ma'am. Those direct and care. Absolutely.
Well, are consumers not part of that patient-doctor relationship? Well, there's a
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
4:36
one-third of this is left open, so consumers. Tell me
in your bill, Senator, where it actually indicates a consumer representation in this accountable care organization. MR. It's not
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
4:50
dictated that it has to be a consumer. It is left open altogether. I mean, I'm not sure you think a consumer that has no knowledge of health care or related costs should have a vote on a board
Speaker 27
5:04
that is in charge of delivering care to additional
Speaker 17
5:08
I was responding. I have no questions here. I was responding, ma'am. Is that appropriate? I get to ask the questions. Yes, ma'am. Okay.
Please proceed. No further questions for the senator.
Committee, any other questions? We – what's the pleasure of the committee? We have a motion do pass. We do have people signed up to speak for and against it, so, Senator Dismang, if you would step aside. Speaking against the bill, I believe it signed up is Bo Riles from the Arkansas Hospital Association.
Mr. Riles, if you would take your place at the end of the table and introduce yourself for the record. Looks like you've got another person with you if you'll have her
Speaker 31
5:54
introduce herself as well. Good afternoon. I'm Bo Riles with the Arkansas
Speaker 32
5:58
Hospital Association. And I'm Melissa White, also with the Arkansas Hospital Association. Two. One each.
Speaker 31
6:04
We are opposed to Senate Bill 807. and we feel it's premature to be trying to pass this piece of legislation. The federal government, I was going to say, hasn't even issued rules and regs
on what an accountable care organization is. But today they did issue 430-something pages of regulations on what an accountable care organization might be because this is a proposal from the federal government. There's a 60-day comment period. So I still think that this legislation is premature. It doesn't allow flexibility of an accountable care organization. It's mandating the board before we even know what one is. So I'll turn it over to Elisa White to make some additional testimony.
Speaker 32
6:50
The concept behind an accountable care organization is to create a team, a team atmosphere, a team of providers that are responsible for the overall quality of care provided to patients. Our concern about SB 807 is that it would restrict the participants on that team. It would not provide for representation of all of the members on the team. We haven't obviously had a chance to read the 400 pages that were issued today of proposed regulations,
but one of the key things in there is that an ACO has to have a mechanism for shared governance evidence that provides that all of the participants, all of the healthcare providers participating in it, have an appropriate proportional control over the ACO's decision-making process. And we think this does not provide for proportionate control over the decision-making process because it effectively puts any facilities that might be involved in providing patient care into
that one-third that's open, along with consumers, along with other folks who might be on the board, and just doesn't provide for decision-making that takes into consideration all of the perspectives. One of the beauties of an accountable care organization is that it is flexible, and it can vary with the needs of the providers and the needs of the particular market, and so So we don't want to see that flexibility go away.
We don't want anybody shut out of this process. We want doctors involved. We want facilities involved. We think that everybody should be part of the team of taking care of patients. Another thing, we also think that this bill probably conflicts with these proposed regulations Because the proposed regulations would require that at least 75% of the board of an ACO be controlled by ACO participants, and ACO participants would include hospitals, physicians, any other
facilities that are involved in the ACO, and that each of those participants would need to have proportional representation on the board. So we have real concerns about that, and we just feel like we don't want the flexibility to go away. We have a few federal regs that we'll have to deal with, and we would like for the state laws not to
Speaker 35
9:26
eliminate the flexibility that remains after we deal with these 400 pages. Thank you, Committee.
Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Ryle. We appreciate your
testimony. We have signed up to speak for the bill. David Roten with Medical Society. Sir, if you will take your seat at the end of the table and introduce yourself with the record. Thank you. David
Speaker 37
9:53
Roten with the Arkansas Medical Society. I know you guys are tired. You all have worked hard. You're ready to go home. You've got this afternoon, tonight and tomorrow, and you're done, and we're done. And then we can all go home and go back to our lives
and kiss our kids on the head. And I know you're ready to go, so I'm not going to make this long. This bill is really, real simple. It deals with the governance of an ACO, doesn't deal with anything else, doesn't deal with the 400-some-odd pages of regulations that came out today. The regulations that came out today said that 75% of the board has to be health care providers participating. We're only saying two-thirds of the board have to be health care providers. The other third can be hospitals.
It could be insurance companies for all we care. it can be consumers. Under this bill, 30% of the board could be consumers, if that's the way it's set up. They'll have to follow the federal regs. So to answer Representative Pernard's question, if it's a Medicare ACO, it's going to have to have a consumer on there, whether our bill says so or not. So that's taken care of. Now I want to get to the real issue here. I know that you all have gotten a lot of calls from your hospital administrators. And some of you that I've talked to are real
conflicted because your hospital administrator is telling you one thing and your local doctors are telling you another. Well, let me shed some light on it. Two days ago, our friends, and I say our friends with all sincerity because we have a long-standing friendly relationship with the Arkansas Hospital Association. But their email that went to their members two days ago had an error in it. An error that they recognize today was an error, but they've not corrected that error
with their members. And it's that error that has generated the phone calls to you all. And what that email said to the hospital administrators around the state was, under the Medical Society's bill, hospital representatives on the board won't have a vote. And if I was a hospital administrator i'd be mad too i'd be furious and say what do you mean we're going to be on the board but we can't have a vote the bill doesn't say that nowhere in the bill does it say that a
hospital representative everybody on the board's got a vote what what i mean i don't know what any other kind of board that wouldn't have a vote so you go back and you talk to your hospital administrator and say did y'all know that you did have a vote on the board you'll get a difference a different opinion from them, because I know a couple of people have already done that, and their hospital administrator went, oh, really? Well, that's different. So anyway, that's what I wanted to tell you today, and I hope you all will consider voting for this. Let Arkansas decide what our ACOs are going to look like, not somebody else. I don't know how
much more fair and flexible you can get one-third doctors, one-third other health care professionals, and one-third consumers and everybody else, including the hospitals. That's pretty fair if you ask me, and that's all we're asking for. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Roten. Anyone
else who wants to speak? Thanks for the promotion. Thank you, Ms. Roten. You're welcome. Anyone wants to speak against the bill? We have signed up to speak for the bill. Roger Smith.
Sir, if you will take your place at the end of the
Roger Smith
Unverified
13:27
table, introduce yourself for the record. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate that. My name is Roger Smith. I represent a group of physicians in Northwest Arkansas known as MANA, that's Medical Associates of North Arkansas, as well as the Breast Center of North Arkansas. And we support the bill primarily because we want to be sure that the people that are responsible for directing the health care, the people that have to direct the course
of care for the patient have at least a fair place at the table in this process. The doctors are concerned that those that seem to be opposed to the bill are primarily the larger interests, the hospitals, the insurance companies. The doctor-patient relationship is critical here, and as we go forward with whatever happens with health care nationally, we want to do everything we can to assure that in the long run, that doctor-patient relationship is in place to try to direct how healthcare is delivered.
I don't think any of you would argue that you want your physician involved because your relationship with that physician is always very, very personal. So we certainly support the bill. We think it is a fair approach to make sure at least, at the very least, that physicians or other professionals, other licensed people, could be nurses, would have a place in this process with at least a third of that board makeup coming from the physician group and the other licensed professionals and thank you very much for your time and thank you for all your hard work this session thank you
sir we appreciate it Center dismaying are you ready to close for your bill this
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
15:14
bill is fairly simple even though we may want to look through it look at it through a very complex lens, but that's not the case. I mean, what we're doing here is ensuring that we put patients before profits. And also, I mean, there's been some question of we should just fall in line with federal
government. No, I mean, in the end, I want in Arkansas us putting patients before profits. I want that doctor-patient relationship to take precedence and take priority over any profit motive that may be had by a hospital or an insurance company. Now, this bill does not say they cannot have a vote, and it does not say that they cannot have influence, but we're saying that the majority of the people on that board that are directing care need to be worried about directing care, actual care, and providing help and providing relief for the patients.
So with that, I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank
you, Senator Dismain. Committee, the question before you today, then, is the passage of Senate Bill 807. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. No. Senator Dismayne, you failed your bill. All right, we're ready to take up Senate Bill 843. Senator Rappert, if you will, take your place
at the end of the table and present your bill.
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
16:47
Senator Riper, you're recognized. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to present this bill to you, and I think you've already recognized me, so I'll get right to the bill at this late hour. I appreciate the attendance by those of you on the committee. I know it's a late hour. Senate Bill 843, of course, we've passed through the Senate Public Health Committee and off the Senate floor,
is an act to create the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act. And this act, simply as it is amended, which was an agreed-to amendment in the Senate Public Health Committee, has solely to do with informed consent in the state of Arkansas. We already have under Arkansas law, which, excuse me, Arkansas law requires that 24 hours prior to an abortion, a physician should provide a woman with information about the risks of abortion, the risks of continued pregnancy, and the probable gestational age of her unborn child.
Further, state-prepared materials must be made available to her, including pictures or drawings of the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at two weeks' gestational increments and a list of private and public agencies providing counseling and alternatives to abortion. What this bill simply does is add to that informed consent provision that if the physician that is attending to the woman that is presented for an abortion that he would check for a fetal
heartbeat. And if a fetal heartbeat is detected, the woman would be informed of that in writing as is required in some of the other provisions, and it would keep the 24-hour time frame in which that woman would have to make a decision to proceed or not to proceed with an abortion. In terms of why the fetal heartbeat is actually significant. Less than 5% of all natural pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage after the detection of fetal cardiac activity. And over 90% of
in vitro pregnancies survive the first trimester if cardiac activity is detected in the gestational sac. Fetal heartbeat, therefore, has become a key medical predictor that an unborn human individual will reach viability and living birth. Cardiac activity begins at a biologically identifiable moment in time, normally when the fetal heart is formed in the gestational sac. The provisions of the bill that are significant for you that are actionable is the fact that the person authorized
to perform abortions under Arkansas law shall not perform an abortion on a pregnant woman before that person tests the pregnant woman to determine whether whether the fetus the pregnant woman is carrying possesses a detectable heartbeat. That person, then authorized to perform the abortion under Arkansas law, shall perform a detection of a heartbeat of an unborn human individual according to standard medical practice. Rules adopted under this subdivision, of course, would authorize the State Board of Health to adopt rules to govern this situation and, furthermore, specify that a test for
for a fetal heartbeat is not required in the case of a medical emergency. This has nothing to do with the right of the woman to proceed with an abortion or not. It is simply allowing that woman to consider under the circumstances that there is a heartbeat of a living fetus in her womb. I'd be glad to take questions. Representative Wilkins, you're recognized.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
20:39
Senator Rupert, if I understand this
right, that's really all this is about, is informing that lady that the people does have a heartbeat, it don't stop anybody from getting a divorce, does it? From an abortion?
Speaker 52
20:57
An abortion. I'm sorry. The day's been long. I
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
21:00
am sorry. It really don't stop anybody from getting it. We'd be glad to consider another bill at
Speaker 46
21:08
another time. But that's exactly correct.
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
21:12
And from my perspective, when you're dealing with this issue, it's tough enough. But to make sure, we've heard testimony down the other end of the chamber here, testimony where people have had remorse. And we just simply want them to make sure that they understand that they have a living fetus in their womb. when they make that decision. If that's the decision they make, it is perfectly their legal decision to do so. And we just want to make sure that we do what we can.
We're here to make laws. We're here to pass policy. We just want to make sure that our informed consent law provides a very simple, rational information for them to consider, and that is, is there a heartbeat? Thank you.
Thank you for bringing this bill. Thank you, Representative Wilkins. Thank you, sir. A few people signed up to speak for and against the bill, so we'll take
Speaker 49
22:06
those. And then I'll be allowed to close
later, Mr. Chair. Sir, unless there's a motion for immediate consideration, you would be allowed to close, but I can't control that at this point.
Speaker 49
22:15
All right. Well, I appreciate the opportunity to
do so. Yes, sir. Signed up to speak against the bill is Lori Williams. three and three hello
Lori Williams
Unverified
22:32
my name is Lori Williams I'm a women's health care nurse practitioner here in Little Rock I practice with Little Rock family planning
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
22:42
I want to correct a few things first that Senator Rappert brought up the 2001 Women's Right to Know Act is an informed consent law that requires the
patient be given information about abortion including the risks of abortion and the risk of carrying a pregnancy at least the day prior to the appointment They also are offered information including the state-provided booklet and how to access that over the Internet. But all of this information can be provided over the phone to the patient. The state-provided booklet also includes information about when the fetal heart develops and when the fetal heart starts to pump blood according to weeks of gestation. So this information is presented to the woman at least the day prior to her appointment.
However, this bill would require a woman to actually come to the clinic, see the physician, and have a test done, which is not specified what that test would be, but to have a test done to test for the fetal heartbeat and then be told in person by a physician at least 24 hours prior to. This would significantly increase the burden to some women to have to travel two separate days to obtain their abortion, especially since we are currently the only licensed abortion facility in the state of Arkansas.
We see patients from many areas of the state that travel a very long way to see us. This would place a significant burden on them to have to travel, come to the clinic, two separate days, 24 hours apart. The patient is already offered all of this information in a different form. This would also require that information about the viability of a pregnancy or the percentage that it would be carried to term be offered to a woman. However, sometimes this would not apply to women.
Even a woman who were to be seen to have a significant abnormality with her pregnancy, such as anencephaly, where there is no brain present in the fetus, would still have to have this test, be told there is a heartbeat, and be told of the likelihood of her pregnancy carried to term. Patients with other severe fetal abnormalities would not be exempt from this law. when their pregnancy may not be carried to term. They've already had significant ultrasounds by their doctor, careful consideration of their options, and still be forced to, again, go through one more hurdle to in-person,
have another ultrasound, be told of the heartbeat, sign off on that information, and still wait and delay to have their abortion. Based on all this information, I would ask that you consider voting against this bill. It would create a significant burden on Arkansas women trying to obtain
their reproductive care. Thank you, ma'am. We appreciate your testimony. We have signed up to speak for the bill. Mary Kathleen Waldner.
Ms. Waldner, if you would, take your place at the end of the table.
Speaker 65
25:45
Identify yourself for the record. Mary Kathleen Waldner, it's my privilege to testify on behalf of the heartbeat bill. Everyone has a story, mine's a simple one. The choices we make in life have consequences. Over 35 years ago, one of my roommates asked me to take her to get an abortion.
She had had a relationship with her cousin over a short period of time and became pregnant. I didn't ask questions. I didn't want to lose her friendship. We drove to a tall skyscraper building and went up to the 10th floor. There was a big TV screen in one corner playing cartoons. I watched Jenny sign her name, turn to me, give me a faint smile.
I left her. There was no counseling, nothing. She told me later that had there been a window in that room, she would have jumped out. That's about the only thing she said to me. For two weeks, she laid in a fetal position on her couch. I tried to help her as best I could after I came home from work every day.
One day when I came home, she said she didn't want to see me again. She hated the sight of me and pleased when I moved out. So I did. In the many years since I've tried to better educate myself over the subject of abortion, I wish I had before, but some things in life can't be changed. All you can do is live in regret, go on, do the best you can, and do better.
I went to a documentary called The Silent Scream, and I recommend it to everyone in this room to go see. Don't watch it on an empty stomach. I never knew there were so many ways to abort babies. I passed out halfway through, I went out, I splashed water in my face and went back in and watched the rest of it, I forced myself to. I figured that's the least I could do.
Seeing baby parts in trash cans changed my thinking. Ms. Wilder,
I hate to interrupt you, but would you speak on the on the bill, please? We're talking about informed consent on the bill. And if you would do that, the hour is late, so I would appreciate you
Speaker 65
28:32
doing that. Thank you. I did get a nurse's certificate. I went to training. And now I've trained to be a woman's advocate at Life Choices in Conway, where we offer many options for women.
It's a great place. we all have regrets I wish I had known I had been educated to inform Jenny of her options the heartbeat bill does that once girls see their baby on an ultrasound and see that beating heart let me live, let me live it changes them. It changed me when when I saw my babies on an ultrasound.
Norman McCorvey has changed the infamous woman from Roe versus Wade. She's also had regrets. She's become a firm life advocate. Every life is precious. It's a treasure is a gift. We have a friend struggling right now with bone marrow transplant. He has leukemia. Every day he's struggling for life. Life is precious. We all want to live
as long as we can. We hold each one of us an amazing power to change the lives around us. The heartbeat bill, as I repeat, offers women the most important thing that they They can possess information to make wise choices for their lives and empower them. And I don't think there's anything more important than giving you all the information you can
possibly have before you make such an important decision in your life and not live 35-plus years in regret like
Speaker 67
30:37
I have for the choices I made. Thank you. Thank
you, Mrs. Wildner. We appreciate your testimony. We have next assigned to speak against the bill is Bettina Brownstein. Ms. Brownstein, if you will, take a seat at the end of the table and introduce yourself
Speaker 28
31:01
for the record, please. Thank you. I'm Bettina Brownstein. I'm an attorney who does reproductive rights litigation. Ms. Brownstein, if you would hold just a moment. Representative Lovell, what
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
31:11
is your... I move we limit debate to five minutes on each side. We
have a motion to limit debate, five minutes on each side. If you'll hold us to a minute, Ms. Brownstein, we'll take care of this. All in favor of limiting debate, five minutes on each side. Indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. All right, so we're going to be limiting debate, five minutes on each side. Thank you, Ms. Brownstein.
You may proceed. Thank you. I want to point
Speaker 68
31:35
out some problems with the bill that I believe, if passed, will lead to a challenge in the courts. It is not merely an informed consent bill. It requires women to come in personally and have to have a fetal heartbeat test. That's not an option for women under this bill. Also, it requires women to have to be informed about the fetal heartbeat if one is discovered. There's not an option in this bill for women not to listen, not to hear that, or not to go in for this extra visit.
But there's currently a court case in Oklahoma that has similar provisions. That case has been pending for more than a year, and there's a preliminary injunction preventing this bill, that Oklahoma law, from being in effect for that reason. It's an invasion of a woman's privacy, especially under the Arkansas Constitution, which has very stricter than federal privacy provisions to have to hear something that she might not
want to hear and have to undergo this test. For that reason, also there's no exception for rape or incest, and for that, because it would be considered an undue burden under Planned Parenthood B. Casey, I want to advise you that it's, in my opinion, definitely unconstitutional. Thank you. MS. Thank you, Ms. Brownstein. We appreciate your
testimony. Ms. Brownstein, do you – would you take a question? MS.
Chair
Unverified
33:08
Sure. MS. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized.
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
33:13
MR. Ms. Brownstein, we – I feel like we're a dog chasing its tail here. We go around and around each time. MS. Right. MR. unconstitutional is that correct my
Speaker 68
33:25
educated opinion yes it's an opinion but it's an opinion based on the case law that and said a trained professional it's that opinion but yes at the end of the day it's an opinion but it's a good
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
33:39
one thank you well I think that's in the eye of the beholder thank you thank
you Next we have to speak for the bill Rose Mims Ms. Mims if you're here take your place at the end of the table I don't believe Ms. Mims is in the room Alright and so then we have next to speak for the bill Representative Andy Mayberry Ms. Brown would you like to close?
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
34:16
How much time do you need to close? Madam Chair, I believe that Senator Raper would like to have two minutes to close, so if you could notify me. We will do that. Thank you. I'm going to keep this, obviously, very short. You've all heard my story before. You know how I
feel about all of this. I would like to remind you that this is extremely similar to what we already have in law with the 2005 Pain Capable Information Act. It's not preventing anybody from having an abortion at all. it is simply providing knowledge. Knowledge is power. What we have seen with that 2005 Act,
I think everybody here, whether you believe that government should be able to restrict abortion or not, I think everybody here can agree that we would like to see fewer abortions in situations. And with that 2005 Act, we saw when in four years of data, 800 and some odd people informed of the pain-capable information, and only 200 and some odd of those actually followed through with the abortion. Once they had that information, this is simply providing information that your baby
has a heartbeat. And we would hope that with that, that there may be some decisions that are done differently. Absolutely. Can it save some lives? Yes, it can. But it's not forcing anything upon anyone. It is simply providing information. Again, why would we ever question withholding information to someone when a life is at stake and something so very serious? We tell people about all kinds of hazards regarding all sorts of health procedures. Why wouldn't we tell them
when your baby has a heartbeat? With that, I will turn it over. I don't
know if there's anyone else Yes, sir, there is. Thank you, Representative Mayberry. To speak against
the bill, we have Rita Sklar. Ms. Sklar, if you will take your place at the end of the
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
36:15
table. Introduce yourself for the record. Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. I want to repeat that we are not talking about withholding information. There is information that is given through informed consent over the phone. We feel that this is the same.
Ms. Sklar, could I ask you to take your sticker off? I think you probably forgot
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
36:34
that. Yes, I did. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. So the information can be given over the phone. This is about asking the woman to come in a day before. That is a tremendous difference legally and practically. You can get the same information that you get with all the other information the state has decided that women need. To ask them to come in is another legal hurdle and makes it a different case legally.
And it would be challenged if passed. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Sklar. We appreciate that. Representative Malone, did you have a question? No. Okay, thank you. Senator Rayford, are you ready to close for your bill, sir?
Speaker 46
37:24
You have three minutes. Thank you very much. Before I get into the closing comments, I would like
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
37:29
to make statements regarding a couple things that were stated earlier.
The idea that this place is a travel burden upon an individual seeking abortion is actually not germane. The Little Rock Family Planning Clinic does not have a monopoly upon abortion clinics in the state of Arkansas. It may be the only surgical abortion clinic, but I believe a bill that was passed out of this committee by Representative Butch Wilkins deals with the licensing of clinics that administer pills or chemical abortions. And so that actually is not germane. Also, the testimony that was given by the woman earlier, the idea, she mentions that rape and incest has nothing to do with this bill.
Rape and incest is not excluded. I think she's speaking on another bill. This has nothing to do with the choice to get an abortion or not. This is simply only dealing with informed consent. So I please plead with the members of the committee to make sure and exclude that from your mind as you make a decision on this bill. In terms of where I stand on this, also, it's important for you to note informed consent. States are not completely powerless in the face of abortion. The Supreme Court has expressed a willingness to uphold common defense, excuse me, common sense defensible measures to limit or regulate abortion
and in fact has upheld a variety of measures ranging from waiting periods and also informed consent requirements. They also have upheld bans on the use of state resources to facilitate abortion, and I could go on and on and on. The Heartbeat Protection Act simply attempts to follow the path laid out by many cases that we already have in law and on the books, namely to enhance a woman's right to know what abortion entails prior to giving her consent.
There is not another decision that I can think of in my time, in my life, that has the gravity of whether or not you keep a life or you get rid of a life. In this state, if I went into cardiac arrest at this table tonight, I imagine that each of my colleagues here at this table would do anything that they could to try and save my life. An ambulance would pull up to the front of this Capitol, they would haul me out on a gurney, they would use CPR, and they
would try to save the life of Jason Rapert. I think there's been too many lives lost in this nation, 53 million since Roe v. Wade in 1973. The weight of this decision, the remorse that this would have upon an individual. I'm not saying they can't get an abortion, but please give a young lady or a young woman the opportunity to be told that there is a living, beating heart in her womb before she makes that decision.
And if she does make that decision, so be it. Members, you have in your hands the opportunity to vote. I just need 11 of you to vote for this bill. Representative Graebert, you're
out of time. Thank you. I'm closed for my bill. Thank you, sir. Committee, the question before the committee is Senate Bill 843. We have a motion do pass. I thought we'd already done that, but thank you, Representative Mayberry. We have a motion do pass on Senate Bill
843. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. No. Senator Rayford, you have failed your bill. I do not see two hands. I see two hands now, so we'll
Speaker 91
41:19
do a roll call. Representative Allen. Representative Allen. Representative Gaskell.
Representative Gaskell. Representative Lovell, Representative King, Representative Hall, Representative Hyde, Representative Representative Panards? No. Representative Wagner? Representative Wagner? Representative Word?
No. Representative Lee? Yes. Representative Smith? Yes. Representative Wilkins? Yes. Representative Perry? Perry, Representative Malone, Representative Letting, Representative Wardlaw, Representative
Wardlaw, Representative Lampkin, Representative Lampkin, Representative Mayberry, Vice Chairman Chairman Woods? Yes. Chairman Tylem. Senator Rayford, you failed your bill.
Members of the committee, we are going to take up Senate Bill 801, Senator Malone. I mean, excuse me, 901, Senator Malone, are you in the room?
He has been here all evening. With someone – step out in the hall and see if Senator Malone is out there, please. There he is. Senator Malone, you're welcome to take your place at the end of the table. I do know you recognize the lateness of the hour, so if you would just proceed briefly with your bill, I'd appreciate it. Yes,
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
43:31
ma'am. I think in deference to both sides on this issue, I'm going to pull this and put it in
interim study, and the parties over here will have a chance in the next year and a half to deal with these issues and the Public Health Committee can have an opportunity to get more educated on
the system. MS. Without objection, committee, we'll allow Senator Malone to pull this bill down and refer it to interim study. Thank you. MS. Committee, our work is done. We appreciate you very much.
Agenda
SB807
Call to Order
SB843
SB901
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Representative Linda S. Tyler Chair
Unverified
Representative Tracy Pennartz Chair
Unverified
Speaker 17
Speaker 21
Speaker 27
Speaker 31
Speaker 32
Speaker 35
Speaker 37
Roger Smith
Unverified
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 52
Speaker 46
Speaker 49
Lori Williams
Unverified
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
Speaker 65
Speaker 67
Speaker 28
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
Speaker 68
Chair
Unverified
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
Speaker 91
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified