House Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee Part 1
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (10)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB2056
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “climber representative climber are you here house bill 2056 is there anybody”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB213
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…ou? Go ahead and present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 213, it's simply a consumer bill, opens up some other opportuni…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB249
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “I'm going to attempt to run Senate Bill 249 again. If you'll give me that indulgence, I'll be at the en…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB525
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB525”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB702
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB702”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB835
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…ill that I should have had Representative Hall run. This is Senate Bill 835. It deals with the disposal and storage of household hazard…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB839
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…mittee. Senator Irvin, I believe we'll be hearing you next. Senate Bill 839.”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1172
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1172”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB845
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB845”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB901
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB901”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
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
We've somehow, we're waiting on a gavel, but we will go ahead and get started. We have a full agenda. The chair sees a quorum and calls the meeting to order. Thank you all very much for being here this morning.
We have a full agenda ahead of us, and this is our last day of meetings for House Public Health, so we appreciate having the opportunity to be here. This is kind of the plan without objection. We'll go through the concurrence in Senate amendments first. We'll have a little bit of opportunity for some non-controversial bills to make sure we get a chance to get those out. And then we'll go through the agenda in order. So I'd like
to ask Representative Hall for House Bill 1172, concurrence in Senate amendment.
thank you madam chairman this is agreed upon a minute from the Senate I'd appreciate a good
vote we have a motion to pass anyone the audience we should speak against the amendment anyone the audience wishes speak for the amendment all in favor the amendment indicate by saying aye all opposed no representative hall you passed your bill thank you madam chairman committee representative
climber representative climber are you here house bill 2056 is there anybody
here who would be able to run that Senate amendment for representative climber representative hall I'm not certain what it
is You know, Madam Chairman, if the
Speaker 13
2:18
Senate sends it down, it has to be a good amendment.
Speaker 15
2:25
Isn't that right, Senator? I'd appreciate a
good vote on Representative Clemmer's amendment. It was checked out very well down to the Senate. They approved it. It's not a bad bill. It helps, and I'd appreciate a good vote. All right, committee, any questions
on the amendment? Have you looked at it? It's amendment to House Bill 2056.
Let's take a look at it anyway. motion to motion to prove the amendment we have a motion to approve the amendment to concur in the amendment anyone wishing to speak against the motion anyone wishing to speak for the motion If not, then the question before the committee is the concurrence and amendment to House
Bill 2056. All in favor say aye. All opposed,
no. Representative Klemmer owes you a favor. Thank you, Madam Chairman of
the committee. I'm sure Representative Klemmer just was inadvertently detained. Thank you. Now, we'll
take a little opportunity for non-controversial bills. Anyone in the room who believes their bill is non-controversial, Representative Allen, I saw Senator Burnett's hand up first. I really did. He had his hand up back there, and then I'll get to you next.
How's that? All right. Thank you. Senator Burnett, just a little bit of a primer on the rules here. On non-controversial, if you've got a couple of questions, it's probably not non-controversial. So
if you would, you're recognized to present
Speaker 21
4:19
your bill. All right. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the committee. This is another good government bill that I should have had Representative Hall run. This is Senate Bill 835. It deals with the disposal and storage of household hazardous waste.
It defines basically household waste and makes several other definitions about storage of waste. Primarily, your local waste management districts handle this. Typically, what they do is they contract with companies that provide the storage and disposal. The problem that has arisen, and Rogers was a last example,
a company was hired to dispose of hazardous household waste, went bankrupt, and the state had to come in to the tune of half a million dollars. So this is a good government bill. It requires that companies that engage in this type of activity are required to show financial responsibility to provide insurance, and it allows ADEQ to ensure that the Rogers situation doesn't occur again
because they can monitor the financial ability of the companies that are engaged in that type of business. I'd be happy to answer that basically outlines the bill. It's several pages long, but if you have any specific questions, I'll try to ask them, but don't ask more than two.
Representative Perry, you're recognized. Thank you,
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
6:09
Madam Chair. Dr. Burnett, does this require the company to have a post-closure bond? Yes.
Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Wagner. Motion at the proper time. Any other questions? Representative Wagner, what's your motion? We have a motion do pass on Senate Bill 835. Anyone in the audience wishing to speak against it? For it? If not, then the question before the committee is passage of Senate Bill 835. All in favor say aye. All opposed, no.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, committee. You're welcome. Representative Allen, what bill are you presenting? Senator Key is here. Senator Key, you're welcome to take your place at the end of the table and introduce yourself. Well,
Speaker 31
7:08
you don't really need any introduction, do you? Go ahead and present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 213, it's simply a consumer bill, opens up some other opportunities for couples seeking in vitro fertilization services.
When this issue was brought to me by a constituent, they had successfully had a child by in vitro fertilization. And at the time, they were not happy with the options they found in Arkansas. They found a center in, I believe it was in Dallas. that they were happy with, and their insurance company at the time had no trouble covering those procedures. Well, in the years after that, they wanted to have a second child.
They had switched insurance companies, and when they went to get the approvals, the insurance company, the new one, said, we don't cover that because the law says we don't have to. Well, and what they were hanging their hat on was the current code where it says that a medical facility licensed or certified by the Department of Health, and naturally a facility in Texas or Oklahoma or wherever is not going to be licensed by the Arkansas Health Department. So we simply added a phrase here in line 23 that would say, or another state health department.
To open this up, it's still subject to the same type of restrictions and requirements for in-network, out-of-network coverage. We don't change any of that. Insurance companies are still free to do that. And, Madam Chair, that's a brief explanation of the bill. I did get some information from the health department as I was researching this. And back in December when I'd asked them about it, they had identified one licensed ambulatory surgery center by the name of Little Rock Fertility Center
that they actually had licensed. It was on their list. There may be other facilities that do this, but Health Department only identified this one. So we feel like this will give us greater options for those couples seeking this type of service. Representative Allen, you're recognized Thank you, Senator
Keith I sat at the end
of the table earlier this week in an attempt to explain the bill and I want to thank you for explaining the bill better than what I did I want to thank you for helping me out with this
Motion at the appropriate time Yes, sir Representative Smith, you're
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
9:39
recognized Representative Allen beat me to the gun, Madam Chair
Thank you Committee, any other questions? Representative Allen, you're recognized Motion do pass. We have a motion do pass. Anyone in the audience wishing to speak against the motion? Anyone in the audience wishing to speak for the motion? If not, then the question before the committee is Senate Bill 213. All in favor indicate by saying aye.
All opposed, no. Senator Key, you passed your bill. Thank
you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. Senator Sample, do you consider yours to be non-controversial? This is Senate Bill 525
and I'm hoping in his presentation he'll convince us it's non-controversial I'm going to do my
darndest Alright Members, a couple of years ago we had some real problems with cosmetology board they had they had made some very bad decisions but they had just about worked out everything and then we moved them over to the health department which you know it might have
seemed like it was a good fit then but it really wasn't and now we have worked with the two-year colleges give them great equal representation on the board that board controls the cosmetologist and and their county I hate to use this term but they're counting artistic group and so they need to have a board that really understands what they do and that's what we're asking for is to take
and let them go back to a free-standing board they're supported by their own fees and and dues and everything and so it's a cash agency it's not costing the taxpayers any money and we would just like to take and give them one more chance we've explained to them that if anything if they mess up this time they'll never see the light of day and they've agreed to it and I think with with the two-year colleges working with the licensed cosmetologist that
Speaker 53
12:11
we will see some positive results out of this move I'll take questions thank you
representative Hall you're recognized thank you ma'am I have a question I'd like a motion at
the proper time if it's allowed representing samples would you concur that the when we made that mistake last time in in combining dissolving the board and putting in with the health department was almost as similar is when we put the Health Department in the Department of Human Services. They were both kind of like a screw-up. Do you agree?
Well, in my humble opinion, yes, sir, I would. Thank you. Thank you. Now, what's your motion?
Speaker 58
12:55
Representative Smith. He can't ask for it. I can't ask
for it. Senator Sample, I think I get to do that. Representative Smith, you're recognized. Thank you,
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
13:06
Madam Chair. And I worked closely with Senator Sample in the last session. We talked about this as well. And if it's allowable, I'd like a motion at the proper time. We
already have a motion in queue.
So Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank you,
Madam Chair. Senator Sample, I actually had a, if
I recall correctly, I had a constituent call me regarding this bill two or three weeks ago, and she had some concern that she is a cosmetologist, and she had some concern that some of the folks that she works with, actually, they did not want to be moved back out from the Department of Health, and I'll be honest,
this is outside of my realm of expertise, and I didn't fully understand the reasoning behind it, but are you aware of any opposition to, like I said, she and her
Speaker 66
14:13
colleagues apparently were opposed to it. Representative
Speaker 57
14:19
Mayberry, there are 30,000 cosmetologists. And like I mentioned before, most of them are counterintuitive.
And so I would sit here and tell you that more than likely out of that 30,000, some of them are going to oppose it. You know, my wife and I have a good relationship, but she and I sometimes have disagreements on issues. And so I hope that answers your question. Just remember, Senator
Sample, you are on video here. I hope she's
Representative Hall, you're recognized for a motion. I have a motion due pass. We have a motion due pass on Senate Bill
525. Anyone wishing to speak against the bill, for the bill? If not, then the question before the committee is the passage of Senate Bill 525. All in favor indicate by saying aye. All opposed, no. Senator Sample, you have passed your bill. Thank you, committee.
I'm going to attempt to run Senate Bill 249 again. If you'll give me that indulgence, I'll be at the end of the table. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee.
Last week I tried to run this. It's Senate Bill 249. It's a code revision bill to Title 20 of the Arkansas Code concerning public health and welfare, and I obviously wasn't very well prepared, for which I apologize. The question that this committee had was the majority vote of those members present shall be required for any action of the task force, and you asked me what that task force was. It's the Anthony Hobbs Task Force regarding defibrillators. So this entire bill is cleanup language and bringing it up to currency.
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
16:32
Thank you, Madam Chair. Are there any questions from the committee at this time? I see we do have a motion here. Are there any questions from the committee? Is there anyone here in the audience to speak for the bill, against the bill? Allen you're recognized for your motion motion do parents we have a motion do pass all in favor say aye those opposed eyes have it congratulations madam chair your bill is passed
If you follow the agenda, Representative Letting, I believe, is going to be running Senate Bill 702. Representative Letting, you're
recognized, and if you will, have your guest introduce introduce himself for the record, please, and then you may proceed.
Speaker 84
17:54
Thank you, Madam Chair. Hi. I'm Brett Hopkins with the Office of Chief
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
18:03
Counsel at the Department of Human Services. Members of the Committee, this is a bill by Senator Jim Luker. Essentially what we're trying to do here is just consolidate some code that's spread out over several sections. The Department of Human Services holds hundreds of administrative hearings each year. Many of these hearings concern eligibility for benefits or maltreatment determinations, claiming an individual as a perpetrator of abuse or neglect. And currently, the authority to subpoena witnesses and evidence to these administrative hearings
is, like I said, spread out over several sections of the code. It can be difficult to find. There are some holes also in this code. So what we're just trying to do here is consolidate DHS's subpoena authority and give the administrative law judges comprehensive authority not only to issue subpoenas but also to protect parties from
abuse of discovery processes. With that,
we'll take questions. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. In practical application, how does this change what you are currently doing?
Can you give me an example of what you are currently doing and how it will be done if this were to pass?
Speaker 84
19:04
It doesn't change a thing. It just puts all those various code provisions in one place and makes it easier and more convenient for folks who use our hearings process to learn what they need to do. No changes whatsoever. That's right. Committee, any other questions?
What's the pleasure of the committee? Representative Letting, do you have a motion?
Do pass. We have a motion do pass on Senate Bill 702. Anyone in the audience wishing to speak against the bill? Anyone in the audience wishing to speak for the bill? If not, then the question before the committee is Senate Bill 702. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Representative Letting, you have passed your bill. Thank you, committee. Senator Irvin, I believe we'll be hearing you next. Senate Bill 839.
Senator Irvin, welcome to public health again. and if you will have your guest introduce himself
Speaker 97
20:18
for the record, please. David Roten with
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
20:24
the Arkansas Medical Society. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 839 is a bill that does exactly what the title says it does. It is an act to protect patients by ensuring that the prior authorization procedures do not intrude on the physician-patient relationship or put cost savings ahead of optimal patient care.
This is an act just to protect patients, to make the prior authorization procedure simple and patient and doctor friendly, and to bring some uniformity to the system. It provides for the physicians to identify themselves on the phone when they're speaking with another physician and reviewing the case. I've worked with this bill all the way up until, well, we have until 5 o'clock this morning. We have worked with Blue Cross Blue Shield. Mr. Mike Anderson has been stellar in his service with me.
The insurance department, John Morris, Jay Bradford, Jack Critcher with the Municipal League, Don Zimmerman, Chris Bradley with the Municipal League, Higher Ed. I have worked with UnitedHealthcare, QualChoice. I've worked with everybody. I think everybody knows me now very well and intimately after working with this bill. And I want to just say it was a long procedure, but I think we came to a great result.
And I've learned a ton, and I've met a lot of people. But at the end of the day, this is about making sure that patients are taken care of so that physicians that are treating them know who they're talking to on the phone. And if there's a question or a problem that arises, they have somebody that's a point of contact that they can
just get best care for their patient. Sorry, Senator Irwin, I was distracted. Committee, any questions?
I do have one question, Senator Irwin. And I appreciate this bill, by the way, having had lots of instances to work with prior approval and that sort of thing with insurance. Do you expect the costs to go up, drug costs or any other costs to go up as a
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
22:40
result of that? No, ma'am, I don't. The bill is very simple, and it's boiled down to where what we're just asking is for an identification process. The problem that has arised, and this is draft legislation from the American Medical Association
and there are other states that are trying to do this, is when you're contracting this out to a third party for prior authorization, your insurance company might contract that out. That if there's something that comes up, they know who they're talking to on the other end of the phone. I think our patients get the best care when you have a physician speaking with another physician, and they can identify what state they're in, where they're licensed, and there's a point of contact. So if the patient, if the physician, the attending physician, goes back to the room and identifies that there might be something else that they need to call
that person, that's what we're trying to do. It really provides good customer service for your patient. And so, no, I don't believe that just the identification of the physician that they're speaking to on the phone is going to raise any costs. I really don't. And, you know, the clinical criteria is provided if there is clinical criteria. So in a fast way so that they can kind of have, It's just really about communication. This bill is about communication, making sure that we have good, clear communication for patients' protection.
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
24:00
Representative Wagner, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is a good concept. Identification, just
saying who you are on the phone, though, do you think that's pretty valid? I mean, anyone could say they were someone. You know, we have a law
Speaker 109
24:21
on the books in Arkansas now that requires third-party utilization review companies to have a license, and there are certain requirements they have to meet for those to have the license.
So a lot of that's addressed in legislation like that. It would be, in my opinion, it would be very risky for an insurance company or someone else to falsely identify themselves. Now, the provision in this bill, I think, that really helps on that is if the patient's physician is on the phone and the person on the other end of the phone identifies themselves as Dr. Smith.
And, you know, what happens is that Dr. Smith may be in New York City doing prior authorization, but they've got to tell them what states they're licensed in. And so if there was any question, the physician, the physician staff could very easily track that down and find out if, indeed, there is a Dr. Smith working for surplus lines prior authorization program and is licensed in this state. They contact the licensing board in that state very quickly and find out.
If that was ever a concern, then, of course, I think the next step would be to report that company to the Attorney General of the state of Arkansas for false claims and all the other things that you could
Speaker 97
25:46
file a complaint against. But that has not been a problem, I don't think. What has been the problem? One
Speaker 109
25:53
of the problems has been that doctors get these people on the phone and they don't want to say who they are. And you don't know where they're licensed. And we've got, I think, Senator Irvin's got a personal experience, quite frankly,
where her husband, who is a family physician in rural Arkansas, was on the phone trying to get prior authorization, and the person didn't want to say who they were. And that's kind of what we're trying to do. You know, identify yourself. Let us know who we're talking to. Let us know where you're licensed. So if we think you're doing something wrong, if we think that the data that you're basing your decision on does not meet quality medical care, But we turn you over to the state licensing board, and the licensing board can pull that doctor in, either here
Speaker 97
26:36
or in Chicago or wherever, and find out what's going on and get to the bottom of it.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
26:41
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Penartz, you're
recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. Just a question on this. I've had some experience with prior authorizations in my professional life. Could you, on page 4, help me here, you talk about line 36 where the patient's health care
shall have access to a clear and convenient process to request an override or denial, and you do that by mentioning some of the things in the written denial that they have to do, what is it now that doesn't provide that access to a convenient, clear and convenient process.
Speaker 109
27:52
Representative Bernard, usually that information is available somewhere, it's just not always readily available to the physician trying to get the override. And this basically, if I understand it correctly, would make it a little bit easier for that physician or other healthcare provider to know what that process is. Let us know up front what it is when we're trying to get the approval so if there's a problem we don't have to dig through you know we don't
Speaker 97
28:17
have to go online to the insurance companies website and dig through pages and pages of document to
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
28:22
find out what the appeal process is okay page 5 lines 6 through 8 where it talks about requested health care services shall be deemed pre-auth if they fail to comply. So this applies equally to what,
regardless of whether it's a government insurance program or a private insurance program, right?
Like United or if it's our government health plan. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Okay,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
29:09
well, thank you very much. May I also say, when the physician's treating the
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
29:15
patient in the room and they do a physical examination of the patient and they find that there's an abnormality or a deformity of a lumbar spine and they need to – and there's a recommendation by the radiologist that we
need to have further testing or further studies done. Then that doctor leaves the room, gets on the phone if there's a denial for what's being requested, and they get on the phone and they speak to another person on the other end of the phone. And that physician might be in Chicago or Illinois or California or wherever, whoever's handling the prior authorization. They're outside of the room while their patient's in the room, and they're trying to get their patient scheduled for whatever is needed, for whatever is needed for the prior authorization.
So now what they're doing is they're spending time on the phone lobbying for their patient to get the care that they need for their patient. So if there was a quicker response time so that they
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
30:15
could actually schedule that patient while they're in their clinic, then
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
30:21
that's what we're trying to avoid. We're trying to create a hassle-free environment. I understand that, Senator. You know, but these procedures apply to only services covered by the health benefit plan.
Speaker 121
30:33
Is that correct? MS. Yeah. DR. Okay. MS. Yeah, any health benefit
it is, right? MS. Right. Okay. Thank you very much. one of Representative Penartz's questions, you asked the question, Representative Penartz, about did it include government plans?
And I see on page two, line three, where it excludes Medicaid. Does it include Medicare plans?
No. No. So, I mean, those are government
Speaker 109
31:12
plans, are they not? Representative Tyler, the Medicare plans are governed by federal law, and there's not Not much we can do here. We'd love to make them comply as well. Some of the Medicare Advantage plans are partially regulated by the State Insurance Commissioner, for example, but by and large, all of the deal
things with Medicare are federal law. But this does exclude Medicaid insurance?
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
31:38
Yes, yes it does. It does, because of what we're trying to do with
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
31:45
Medicaid and with Arkansas Foundation for Medical Care. Their system that they have right now provides what is necessary for us to move forward with getting that patient care. They do an amazing job with the providers out in the field. Thank you. Committee, any other questions? Well, Representative Hyde
had said he wanted to do the motion, but he's not here.
So, Representative Penarts, you're recognized. Motion do pass. We have a motion do pass on Senate Bill 839. Anyone in the audience wishing to speak against the bill, for the bill? If not, then the question before the committee is the passage of Senate Bill 839. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Senator Irvin, you have passed your bill. Thank you. And,
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
32:36
again, I just want to say thank you to every single person that I've worked with on this bill. Thank you so much.
Senator Rayford, are you in the room? There you are. If you will, take your place at the end of the table for Senate Bill 845. Thank
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
33:12
you, Madam Chair. Senator Rayford, you may proceed. Thank you very much. Appreciate the committee for being here this morning. I want to present to you today Senate Bill 845. This bill is an act to create the Abortion Patients Enhanced Safety Act. I will point out a couple of things in the bill that are very important for you to note.
So in Arkansas right now, we have one surgical abortion center in the state that is currently operating. That does not mean that it will be the only surgical abortion clinic operating in our state at any time in the future. And so this bill is about trying to raise the standard to make sure that that clinic is operating at the best possible standards available for a clinic that performs procedures such as it does, and also have those standards in place if there is another clinic that comes
to Arkansas and decides to get into the same line of work. Currently, in Arkansas, according to the abortion clinic standards, specifically stated from the standards, it says the rules and regs have been prepared for the purpose of establishing criteria for minimum standards, licensure, operation, and maintenance of abortion facilities. Currently, they do not rise to the level of what is termed an ambulatory surgery center, which many of you will, that term should ring a bell.
Senator Key just invoked that very language for an in vitro fertilization clinic when he spoke here just a few moments ago and stated that we only had one in vitro clinic that rose to that same level. And I believe you passed a bill that was in relation to the very same issue as an ambulatory surgery center. In these centers, of course, without going into everything there, the bottom line that you should be considering is that when you go into one of these clinics,
it's much like going into any other type of outpatient facility, except for the fact that they are not licensed and have the same standard as some of those outpatient facilities. I would submit to you that there are some oral surgery centers that actually have to meet higher standards right now than the Surgical Abortion Clinic here in Little Rock, Arkansas, which, by the way, performed over 4,000 surgical abortions in 2009. On page 2, line 10 of this bill, the reason this is important
is that many times people that show and present themselves to these clinics do not have an existing relationship with the clinic. They present there, and their contact with the personnel and the staff at that clinic may only be one day, one 24-hour period, but in many cases for the surgical procedures, you will have maybe a two-day period that you're in contact with anyone there. And many times, since abortion is an invasive surgical procedure that can lead to numerous and serious medical complications, you need to consider what could occur here according to the data.
Potential complications for first trimester abortions range from anywhere from bleeding, hemorrhage, infection, uterine perforation, blood clots, cervical tears, incomplete abortion, retained tissue, failure to actually terminate the pregnancy, free fluid in the abdomen, acute abdomen, missed ectopic pregnancies, cardiac arrest, sepsis, respiratory arrest, and reactions to anesthesia, fertility problems, emotional problems, and even death.
Now, I want to point out to you that in testimony in the Senate Public Health Committee, there was actually a defense put up to this bill stating that there was no anesthesia actually used in the Little Rock Family Planning Clinic. And actually, if you were to browse their website today, you would see that on the information under first trimester, it says clearly that abortion is performed under local anesthesia. We offer nitrous oxide for relaxation and pain relief, and intravenous conscience sedation, sleep, is optionally available at a modest extra cost.
When I also was browsing the information on the website, I ran across information under the second trimester abortions page that they have. It says that if you get ill, if you're having a problem, it bolds these letters and says, do not go to a hospital before calling us. It goes on to say the following morning you will return to the clinic and while under IV sedation, the laminaria are removed and the abortion is completed. And so it's very clear to me that even by their own words, they are using anesthesia in that clinic.
In terms of the high risk, you've heard of the complications. High risk, the risk of hemorrhage in particular is greater, and the resultant complications may require a hysterectomy, other reparative surgery, or a blood transfusion. The bill has many citations for you to take a look, and I believe that Arkansas should meet the standard that was given to us in the Roe v. Wade decision, which says, And this is on page 2, line 32. It says, Moreover, as stated in Roe v. Wade,
the state of Arkansas has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that ensure maximum safety for the patient. That's the essence of what this bill is to me and to those of us that are supportive of the bill, is that we have occurring over 4,000 procedures in that one year alone, very invasive medical, surgical procedures, and they are not held to the same standard as other 24-hour outpatient ambulatory centers.
The state of Missouri representative has actually put this law in place in the state of Missouri to bring a higher standard there. This is not a pro-choice. This is not a pro-life bill at all. This is simply a public health law. I believe this committee has already passed out another bill that deals with licensure of abortion clinics. This specifically deals with the only clinic in the state of Arkansas that has surgical abortions in the clinic. And so with that, I'd be glad to take questions.
Thank you, Senator Rayford. Representative Wagner, you're
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
39:49
recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Raper, we – I mean, Senator, excuse me,
thank you for that correction. Senator, what I'm concerned with, and I'm wondering about this, the Department of Health, the Medical Society, it seems that they have varying rules and regulations, or with the
The Medical Society, they, of course, are examining their doctors and trying to be sure they are following certain guidelines. Can, even in your bill, you mention on page three, excuse me, page four, the Department of Health shall establish policies and
procedures. That's correct. They already have some, is that
Speaker 132
40:40
correct? They do not have any guidelines for an ambulatory surgery center that
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
40:46
applies to surgical abortion clinics.
Actually, I have the rules and regs that are currently in place for abortion clinics now. And as I just read to you, their standard is this. The entity, I will paraphrase, is the standards for licensure operation maintenance of abortion facilities. By necessity, they are of a regulatory nature, but they are considered to be practical, minimum design and operational standards for their facility type. These standards are not static and are subject to periodic revisions.
It's expected abortion facilities will exceed these minimum requirements and will not be dependent upon future revisions as a necessary prerequisite for improved services. So what happened here in the current law is it's minimum. Have you
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
41:39
tried to work with that group to get rules and regs changed rather than having to go through a law? DHS actually
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
41:49
spoke the other day in committee on this bill.
They had no problem at that time of being able to go forward with the direction that's given. The legislature, it's our duty to set laws and to set in motion what would later become rules and regs in many cases, and this is
Speaker 132
42:06
what this is setting out to do simply. They don't feel that
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
42:10
they have the authority to go ahead and work on their rules and regulations as they are now, as our laws are now. If
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
42:18
they do, ma'am, they've not chosen to do so. And so this bill has been accepted as a good starting point to allow us to raise the standard.
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
42:26
And, you know, it's... Madam Chair, may I follow up with one more question? The other thing I wanted to ask you about, we passed a
law just the other day that had to do with Representative Wilkins'
law. If you look on page 3, line 32, I think in that particular bill he had 10 or more first
trimester abortions, and you're changing this to
five, are you wanting to conflict with that law, or? Actually, ma'am,
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
43:07
he's dealing with non-surgical abortion clinics. This is a surgical abortion clinic. Thank you for that explanation. Yes, yes, and that is a very good point. There is a difference. We're not asking for those non-surgical that are just passing out information or they're using medication. That is not addressed at all in this bill, very specifically.
Speaker 138
43:32
We just want to make sure they're covered
if they have an invasive
procedure. Senator Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Raybert, let me see if I understand this correctly. This is essentially a dangerous situation that we've had for a number of years that has not been addressed, and your bill would address that and help with health concerns for
Speaker 146
44:00
a wide range. Is that correct?
That is correct. In fact, Representative Mayberry, I went even further, and this may address
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
44:09
the other representative's question, too. The Department of Health provided for me copies of their review of the Little Rock Family Planning Clinic since 1994. There were multiple citations in there that there were medications that had expired where they had some of the utensils that should have been kept in a sanitary condition had been left out. There were syringes where they had drawn medication.
These were classified narcotic medication, and they were laying out, and so they had been cited multiple times for those sorts of things. There were citations even in there that they did not have proper records to show that the The nurses that were helping in the facility had their TB tests proper. Certain small things that were there. And so as you begin to look at that, that made me feel like that if a woman goes in there, if a 19-year-old girl goes in there for treatment, we want to make sure that that girl's life is in the best hands possible.
And in this day and time when we have many outpatient clinics, many outpatient surgery centers, I feel like that this particular clinic that is doing such an invasive procedure, if they choose to have an abortion in Arkansas, we have the ability to make sure that's the safest situation possible for that individual. And so that's why I think it's a good public health bill, and it raises the standard. You know we've passed laws here for dogs, hogs, and monkeys this session, and I believe that this is one time where we actually could pass a law for human beings
that would raise that standard. And maybe the House hadn't passed it, but the Senate had to deal with the monkey bill. So I think that in light of this, that this is an opportunity for us to actually do something that
would be good for human beings. Senator Rupert, I want to follow up on Representative Mayberry's question. Did you also get information from the Department of Health on the ambulatory surgical centers and
compare the incidence of problems with the abortion clinics with the ambulatory surgical centers? Actually,
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
46:14
there's no reference point to compare because there is no abortion clinics that are given that standard,
and there is only one clinic currently now in the state. So ambulatory surgery centers are actually a much higher standard, and I can go through
some things. I understand, but you stated that
the clinic that we have in place today actually has some issues in complying with the rules and regs that we have in place today. My question to you is, have you looked at the ambulatory surgical centers to see how well, whether or not we have ambulatory surgical centers who also have issues from time to time
in complying with the rules and regulations that the Department of Health has put
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
46:54
in place? The expansion of that would have me looking at literally dozens and dozens and dozens of different clinics around the state. I understand, but those are the rules
that you're suggesting that we put in place for the abortion clinic, right? Well, actually, I feel
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
47:08
a little bit like that I'm beginning to get apples and oranges. What we're talking about is a standard. We don't want them to compare to the worst of anything out there.
Speaker 147
47:17
We all are wanting them to compare to a standard set by the Department of Human Services.
Yes, sir. I'm just trying to determine if that standard makes a difference in care. And that's where it's important. We have Representative Wardlaw. You're recognized. Thank
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
47:31
you, Madam Chair. Senator Rayford, thank you for bringing this bill to us. I just wonder, do you have any kind of stats that shows us how many complications that happened in 2009 with those 4,000 abortions that happened at that clinic? I
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
47:44
was not given that information, and I think you get into a point when you're dealing with individual cases. I did not dig into those to the level to find.
I didn't want to deal with the names, et cetera. We have a lot of regulations to protect identity. I just simply ask if there was any report, and they just gave me overall assessments. They did not get into anything. I have been advised that there's times that the ambulance has been called to that clinic, but I have nothing that I could present to you because that would be getting into
a level of detail that I don't have access to. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. I have
one other question, if I may follow up. I understand that the abortion clinics are subject to FOI, and the ambulatory surgical clinics are not subject to FOI.
So if we change the rules and regulations to make their rules and regs are the ambulatory surgical clinic, then I would assume the abortion clinic would no longer be subject to FOI. Is that right? That's a legal question. If that's
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
48:44
confirmed, I'll accept your statement. But I can tell you that I'm here today about the health of the people that are using these clinics. That's what's important to me is that when somebody goes in there, I feel like if we have the ability to make sure that they have a safe environment,
that's something I definitely want to provide
for them. Thank you. Representative Wilkins, you're
recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Rayford, you keep referring to multiple surgical clinics. Will they
do this in the state of Arkansas? Is that right? No, there's
Speaker 159
49:20
just one. Is that UAMS? No, sir. Little Rock Family Planning Services. I wasn't aware of that. Thank you. Representative Wagner, you're recognized.
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
49:34
Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator, what groups are for or against this bill, the ones that you're
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
49:44
contacted by multiple people around the state that support the bill. The most recognizable, probably, that you would find, of course, is the Family Council is supportive of the bill. I believe it is United,
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
49:58
Arkansans United for Life. What about with agencies like the Department of
Health, Medical Society, any of those groups that have to do with the actual work?
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
50:10
Actually, let me put it to you this way. None of those people have contacted me to say they're opposing the bill. And at committee when we were in the Senate, DHS did testify to make sure there was clarification on some of the things that we've already discussed. They took no position one way or another on
whether they were for or against the bill. Senator Rayford, do you really mean DHS or
Speaker 167
50:34
do you mean Department of Health? I apologize.
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
50:37
Department of Health. I misspoke to you. Representative Wagner. Thank
you. I'm still concerned about whether this could possibly be done through rules and regulations rather than us having to do a law.
Is there anyone here, perhaps, with the Department of Health, who could help us with that? I think I
Speaker 37
50:55
saw Mr. Breck here. Representative, I was going to ask, wasn't
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
51:00
the bill that was just passed by Representative Wilkins a bill to do the very sort of thing that I'm presenting to you today? You said it was different.
Senator Riper, we're going to ask you to speak on your bill, and we've asked Mr. Breck to come to the end of the table and to answer questions from the committee, please.
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
51:20
Thank you. I appreciate your coming to the table.
Mr. Brick, if you will, identify yourself for
Robert Breck
Unverified
51:27
the record, please. Thank you, Madam Sheriff. My name is
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
51:32
Robert Brick with the Department of Health. My question is, since the Department of Health deals with a variety of the things that we're discussing here, Would that be within their realm to have rules and regulations that would take care of what we're doing today or discussing here today? Or would you have to have another law, as the Senator has mentioned, in order to base your rules and regs on?
Robert Breck
Unverified
52:02
No, the Board of Health already has authority to adopt rules pertaining to abortion facilities. They've done so. They went through an extensive review and revision in 1999. To the best of my knowledge, we've never been approached about trying or having any problems with them or needing to revise
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
52:27
1999, would you say they might be open to reviewing those rules and regulations,
which would perhaps be important to let that happen before we go to more laws concerning
Robert Breck
Unverified
52:42
it? Absolutely. If there were our concerns, actually any concerned citizen can petition for a rule change, but also the board definitely has the authority to amend its rules from time to time, but there hasn't been any perceived problems with those rules, and they haven't been revised
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
53:04
since 1999. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative King, you're recognized. Madam, my
first motion is do pass. My second motion is immediate consideration. All right, we'll take them one at a time. We have a motion do pass on Senate
Bill 845. Thank you. Let me confer with Mike.
Representative, hang on just a minute, Representative King. Representative King, we have your motion due pass on Senate Bill 845. And we do have your motion for immediate consideration. We do have a number of people signed up for and against. I just want you to be aware of that. You're aware of that? Will we do the first motion first? No, we'll do immediate consideration first. Is that your motion for immediate consideration? I mean, we've taken your motion. We've taken your motion for due pass. The next step would be to have people speak for and against.
No, a motion to do pass is debatable, sir. A motion for immediate consideration is non-debatable. So all I'm saying is we've taken your motion to do pass, and now you've made a motion for immediate consideration, and I just wanted you to be aware we had people signed up to speak for and against. But that's all right. I'll take that motion if that's your motion. We have a motion for immediate consideration. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
All opposed, no. All right, then the question before the committee is the passage of Senate Bill 845. We have a motion do pass. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. No. Senator Rappert, you have failed your bill. I only see one hand. Senator Rappert, you have failed your bill. We'll be moving on to Senator Malone's bill, Senate Bill 901. Oh, I'm sorry. I did not see your second hand. We'll do a roll call.
Speaker 182
55:59
roll call. Representative Allen. Representative Gaskell, Representative Lovell, Representative King, Representative Hall, Representative Representative Hyde, Representative Penartz, Representative Wagner, Representative Word,
Speaker 187
56:37
Representative Lee, Representative Smith, Representative Wilkins, Representative Representative Perry. Representative Malone. Representative Letting. Representative Wardlaw. Representative Lampkin.
Did she say that? Yes. Representative Mayberry. Vice Chair Woods? Yes. Chair Tyler? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Senator Raypert, you have failed your bill. What was the vote, madam? It was 10 to 9.
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
57:41
Did we get a chance to close for the bill
and process in the future? Not when there's a motion for immediate consideration, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Malone, I think we're ready for your
bill, Senate Bill 901, Committee. Thank you, members. There was a drafting
error that I see these folks at the side here.
We have failed to remove both sections that required insurance, so we're going to pass out an amendment that will strike the other part of the bill that requires insurance. Committee,
that amendment is being handed out to you. While it's
being handed out, could we take action on the amendment, please? We have a motion to do pass from Representative Wardlaw on the amendment to Senate Bill 901. All in favor indicate by saying aye. All opposed,
no. I'll attempt to be brief and then answer any questions.
The bill came as a result of my doing some amount of reading and research and being concerned about the risk of non-human primates that they transmit diseases that have no cure. In this world we live in, with terrorism as it is, I am concerned that someone may or could infect one of these animals and bring them into Arkansas.
The folks over here to my right are owners of monkeys, and they are passionate about how they take care of them and want to keep their animals. I respect that, and I visited with a good number of them, and the original bill has been amended quite heavily. Number one, anybody in Arkansas that now owns a non-human primate may get registered
and will be able to keep their animal. If in their lifetime they decide that they no longer are able or want to take care of it, and I'm going to use the word monkey because I understand that I don't believe there's any chimpanzees that are pets in Arkansas, but anyway, there's a way in the bill that they can transfer their pet, their monkey, to another person in Arkansas that has a registration.
We've taken out the requirement that they have to have insurance. They thought it would be very difficult to find a company that would write the insurance, and they didn't know how much it would cost. We are concerned. Their testimony will be that there is no concern. My concern would be that these monkeys could do great harm to a human. Now, they will admit that there's some, but it's been very rare.
I happen to own horses and cows and cats and dogs, and every once in a while they act like animals. And my horse that I think loves me, every once in a while I'll pin his ears back if he gets scared, and I'll try to get out of his way. But in any event, I think this bill is the right thing to do to protect the public health. We will be able to have strict rules about any non-human primate that comes across our
border, and we don't have that now. So there are some safeguards in here for public health, there are safeguards in here for the people that already own them, that they can continue. And I think it's a good compromise, and I would ask for a good vote. I'll answer any
questions. Representative Gaskell, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
1:02:00
Chair. Personally, are we going to be friends after I ask this question? Yes, sir.
Okay. You know, that crew that put me up to this had to find somebody that just really didn't give a damn and I'm one of those so if I get this certificate and is everything legal can I spank my monkey do we
have any other questions thank you madam chair Wilkins you're recognized Senator Malone sir we have you know we have several wild animals are allowed to be pets in Arkansas now
You know, the raccoon, I think someone can
own up to six of them, and they carry a lot of diseases. You know, the Game Fish for Years has recommended that they not be kept as pets, but they are all over
Arkansas. And so, you know, I have never heard, and they may be out there, but I've never heard of a problem with monkeys, and I've got e-mails from several vets that say the same thing. But we do allow a lot, I mean, we allow just a lot of animals in Arkansas to be kept as pets,
a lot of wild animals, without regulations other than the number of them. What's
Speaker 203
1:03:25
your question? Don't you agree? I think I
do. And if you had a bill that prohibited folks from having raccoons as pets, and they carried diseases, that there was no cure, I suspect I'd vote for it. But let me respond to the question this way.
The reason I think we need to pass this bill is public health. It's not about whether someone has a pet or doesn't have a pet. And I don't deny that they take good care of them. And they're going to get to keep them. So we're not doing away with any rights that people have, as far as we've allowed that to happen. A lot of states are banning completely. This bill is really, I think, a good compromise in the middle. They can carry Ebola. Now, how many of you have seen that?
But I've agreed to their amendment because they, and I believe them, these in Arkansas have been tested, and they're not going to be exposed, and they're not likely for a terrorist to get a hold of and bring it into our state. So all these people that have been emailing you, if they have monkeys, all they've got to do is register them, and I don't think you're going to hear them object to that. They may not like it that it's the sheriff's office, but that keeps it local, somebody that knows them, and our job is to protect the public health, and that's what this bill
is about. Representative Wilkins, do you have a follow-up? I do, Madam Chair. Thank you. Senator Malone is just not taken care of by customs now as they come
into the country. I know I had an opportunity to work for them one time, and they tried to send me to New York City, and I just didn't think I'd fit there. But are they not regulated to some degree by customs as they come into the country as far as health?
Well, number one, if you'd taken that job in New York, I wouldn't have to be
answering your questions today. Number two, not to disparage your former employer, but yes, But
how many believe that Customs is doing a good job? How many train boxcar loads of things that are sitting in the ports that never get looked
at? So yeah, I just think Arkansas needs to look out for Arkansas and have a system developed through the Department of Health that will set criteria. before somebody brings one in from Texas that causes mayhem or death it'd be a simple thing to do for us to have those that criteria set and we don't have that today. Representative Mayberry you're recognized.
Thank you madam chair. Senator Marlon one of the emails that I recall receiving was from someone who had
indicated that she had a monkey that was a I guess like a service animal that I I think she was disabled, and instead of having a trained dog, that her monkey was her assistant, so to speak. If something were to happen and that monkey were to die, would she be able to replace, with your bill, would she be able to replace that animal with another monkey as her service animal? If someone in the state
now has a monkey, and I suspect if you look over your shoulder, well, I'm serious.
I mean, I appreciate the seriousness of this conversation. I mean, I've taken a lot of kidding about it. But these folks would certainly
step forward, and they can transfer to another person that has a registration. Well, I mean, I'm certainly no monkey expert. But I would think that that would have to be a specifically trained animal in order to service her needs. And I don't know if their animals are, but I wouldn't think there's a great number of those.
Mr. Mayberry, you know, as you decide how you're going to vote, I would suggest that, you know, if you have to weigh the benefit to all Arkansas citizens or that particular case, I think there's lots of animals. I don't know what that – I do not know what the monkey does that the woman is talking about, but I know most Americans will have a dog that's trained to
help, but I can't speak to that. Sorry. Thank you, Senator.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:08:16
Representative Penartz, you're recognized. MS. Regardless of what's been said to this point, this is a serious subject. Would you not agree, Senator Malone? MR. Yes, ma'am. MS. It's serious to me in the sense that I've received emails from persons similar to Representative Mayberry where their particular primate is a handicapped or a person who has disabilities uses that animal, as do people who are blind use dogs as guide dogs, for simple
things because of the primates' ability to use their hands in a similar manner as we do. So my question to you is, as I was reading the bill, I didn't see anything in the bill, and please correct me, sir, if I'm wrong, that would disallow an individual to purchase or have a service animal of that nature, a primate, in their home even after the passage of this act. Is that true? MR. Well, I think that's correct.
Let me just make a commitment to the ones of you that have talked to that person. We're going to be back here in about nine months, and we can put that exception or clarified in special language in the fiscal session. Secondly, the effects of this bill don't go in and it doesn't go into effect until sometime
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:09:45
in 2013. MS. I think August of
2013. MR. And so if that individual, you know, a lot of these things, if people don't
register, then they're not bound by it because they've got until that time to register. So all the people that have animals in Arkansas, the way we tried to draft it was not to have have a negative impact on anyone in Arkansas
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:10:13
that presently has a monkey. MS. So if this were to pass, then, in the interim, there could be rules and regs that address this issue of service primates. MR.
That's right, and that's another way to do it. Thank you
for bringing that up. MS. Thank you, sir. I
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:10:35
appreciate your responses. MS. Representative Smith, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator, I've got about three questions here. How many non-human primates do you estimate we might have in our great state of Arkansas? Do you know? No, sir. Okay. I'm sorry. I can go back and check my
Speaker 205
1:10:48
e-mail. I think I've got an e-mail from every one of
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:10:52
them. That would be a good indicator. It would, and I concur with that.
One minute is thinking of heading over here, so I've had enough, though. The second question, if I could, do you have any knowledge of
any cases that human health has been jeopardized through non-healthy primates' ownerships in this state? Do you have any
record of that? Well, I've got some articles I've read. Someone in Connecticut, there was a report that some individual, that the monkey slashed
his face and he had to have reconstructive surgery. But no, I can't tell you there's been 37 or 47 or
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:11:35
5. But you're mostly concerned not with their reaction to human stimuli, but mostly from their ability to carry
like diseases that humans might be made aware of or actually could be communicable diseases? Is that what you're
trying to drive at? That was my primary reason I agreed to take this bill, yes. But there's collateral reasons that it's also a good bill.
Yes, sir. I mean, if we know that, as I said about raccoons, I mean, that could be a subject you guys discussed in the coming years. If anybody live in the country... We've got a lot of them out of where I live. One last question. I don't think I've
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:12:20
seen one that I want to be my pet. No, sir, they're pretty mean. Now, in this bill, if I read it correctly, there's some costs here for the individual owner, but don't you agree that the cost that you've implied in this piece of legislation
would be offset by the ownership to make them satisfied that they've got a legal non-human a primate in their home? Yeah, I
hope so. And we had it at $250 per animal when we started, and they came in and successfully lobbied me that that was a little bit out of bounds. And so we rolled it to $200 for the first animal, and I think $20, $25 for this? Oh, just $10? $10. $10 for the second, you know, the second, third, fourth, fifth. And they agreed that that would be reasonable. And that will be just, hopefully, enough money to provide for the registration and the authority
to go out once a year to make sure that they were complying with what the regulations are.
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:13:10
We both share a lot of common interest, and I know that pet ownership does actually incur costs for the human that wishes to have those, but that's the satisfaction we have of being able to live in a great state like Arkansas. And I thank you for bringing this
bill to us. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Lovell,
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
1:13:30
you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that we limit debate to 15 minutes per side.
I'm trying to think about that one just a little bit, Representative Lovell, in terms
of whether can we limit debate until we have a motion, and I don't think we can. I think we have to have a motion first. Representative Hall. Make a motion due pass. All right, we have a motion due pass. And, Representative Lovell, I'll now recognize your motion. Limit debate on 15
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
1:14:05
minutes on either side. Is that what you said?
We have a substitute motion, 10 minutes on either side.
We'll deal with the substitute motion. All in favor of limiting debate, 10 minutes on either side. Indicate by saying aye. All opposed, no. will be limiting debate, 10 minutes on either side. And Mr. Price has stepped out to, and Vice Chair Woods is going to take care of keeping time. Pardon me? He has an app for that. All right, we do have some people who have signed up to speak against the bill and some who have signed up to speak for the bill.
I'll remind the audience that 10 minutes on either side means just that. And Senator Malone, we'll make sure if you're interested in keeping time available for you to close. Dr. Ken Shattuck, if you will take your place at the end of the table, you are recognized to – he's speaking against the bill.
Dr. Shattuck, welcome to public health. If you will
Speaker 219
1:15:26
introduce yourself for the record. Yes, I'm Dr. Ken Shaddix. I'm a practicing veterinarian in Conway. I have practiced there for 30 years, but for about 25 years I have been treating and providing medical care for captive-raised primates. I've been to a number of seminars concerning these animals' health.
And I've also presented some symposium at the University of Missouri Veterinary College. So I have a little bit of knowledge. I'm not a board-certified specialist, but I have many years of experience with these little guys. And I would say that in about a typical year, I'm probably going to see about somewhere over 100 to 150 of these animals, not all of them from Arkansas. Many of them come in from other states because the kind of service I provide isn't readily available in many areas.
There's only a few veterinarians that will work on these little guys. And when they do come in, they are already regulated. They have to have an interstate health certificate from the state of origin where they come from. That's a veterinary-assigned document. There's an Arkansas entry permit and a permit from the Game and Fish Service as well, certifying these animals are disease-free. And I agree that there probably should be some sort of registration and everything,
but my concern is the bill is very, very broad-reaching. I mean, just saying primates covers a whole lot of different species, all the way from these little bitty marmosets that are just a few ounces, sort of like a squirrel, I guess all the way up to gorillas or chimpanzees, although those are very uncommon. I'm not aware of any of those in Arkansas. Most of them are in the neighborhood of 5 to 20 pounds, the ones that these folks are talking about.
I don't believe they present any more danger to the public health than your dog or your cat. They can be infected with human diseases, measles, mumps, tetanus, tuberculosis. We commonly test these animals and certify them disease-free from these, or we vaccinate them against these things. He's talking about the exotic diseases, the Ebola, and hepatitis is mentioned specifically in the bill as well.
Ebola is actually a human virus. It comes from the Congo region of Africa. And, well, these animals, primates have been specifically federally prohibited from being imported into the United States while captured. In other words, come from the wild since 1975. All the ones that are here now have been bred in captivity in personal homes, research facilities, something like that. So it would be very unlikely they would be able to come in.
Now, could someone bring one from the Congo here and sneak it across the border? I suppose it could. You know, I just don't know how you're going to control that. You know, they can bite you. I've worked on hundreds of them, and I've not personally been injured by any of them. And I don't know of any owners or other people associated with these animals that have become infected or diseased from the animal.
and I can't say that for my dog and cat patients. Now, this is not an economic deal for me, per se. It's a very small part of my practice, but I'm just concerned if we're so restrictive and so broad-reaching on these bills that you may actually cause some people to fear the regulations, not comply, or not get medical care for their pets. You know, the best thing to do is have them registered and certified as opposed to restricted.
Let's see. I did have a couple of points on a couple of these questions. I think I've covered most of them, but I
guess that's it. Thank you, Dr. Shaddix. We appreciate your testimony. Now we have, I believe, lined up to speak for the bill, Dr. George Pat Bradley. sir if you will take
your seat at the end of the table Dr. Bradley
if you will introduce yourself for the record
Speaker 224
1:20:16
then you may proceed I'm Dr. George Pat Badley I'm the Arkansas State Veteran I work for Arkansas Livestock Poultry which I mean I work for y'all I have the regulations for the entry of non-human primates into Arkansas and we require a health certificate and a permit and on my own that's not actually in the regulation
but I require a yearly TB test But for all the diseases that is possible for these animals to carry that are zoonotic diseases, which human beings could catch, my regulations are woefully shortcoming. So I came to speak for this bill because I believe that there should be some type of way
Once the animal, the primate, gets into the state of Arkansas, they're lost. I know of no registry of these animals, no way of tracking them, no way of knowing where they're at. My colleague that spoke before me was certainly right. there isn't very many veterinarians that take care of these animals because I refused in
the 35 years that I was in practice to treat primates because I knew two things about them. They carried diseases that I could catch and that they bite veterinarians. They may have not bitten the veterinarian that was here before, but I would not allow a primate in my office, and not because I don't love animals. That's not the reason why. I was not qualified to work on them, and I was afraid of them.
so. But the regulations in the state of Arkansas for primates are woefully short, and I can assure you of that, because as far as I know, I've got the only regulation just about that there is besides what the game and fish has. Thank you, and thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, sir. Dr. Bradley, did you want to take any questions? Yes, I will. All right.
Representative Wilkins, you're recognized. Dr. Bradley, thank you for being here today, and we certainly enjoyed your testimony. But in getting a primate into this country, if it was a health concern and if it was a terrorist act, wouldn't it be much safer for bringing them across the southern border than – you know, we've got a wide open border down there. where I
fear, than bring it through customs?
Speaker 224
1:23:32
Well, I believe so. I mean, I certainly wouldn't, if I wanted to bring in money illegally, I wouldn't bring it through New York
Speaker 229
1:23:43
City. And I wouldn't be there to inspect it. Thank you,
sir. I think we've ascertained that pretty well. Speaking against the bill is Carlene Elder. Certainly.
Ms. Ann Newman, you are recognized to come to the end of the table. Ms. Newman, if you will, state your
Ann Newman
Unverified
1:24:13
name for the record. My name is Ann Newman, and I'm the president of the Simian Society of America, established in 1957 for the care of primates in captivity. Thank you for allowing me to speak today, Madam Chairman and committee members. Anytime we take the rights away from an individual, we must give it very serious consideration. It should not be rushed, and we feel this bill has been rushed.
We appreciate Senator Malone's working with us on this bill. However, the bill as written is still flawed. This is a very small group of people that have proven to be very responsible owners. The record demonstrates by not having any issues, which would make the removal of rights even more grave. The concern is zoonotic disease transmission. However, there has never been transmission of disease from a pet non-human primate to a human that has been reported by the CDC in this country.
There have not even been imports as pets since 1975. Bills are usually made to fix a problem. Where is the irresponsibility? Where is the problem? I could talk all day about how wonderful it is to have a monkey as a pet, but I could also spend all day telling you why you shouldn't have one. We do discourage casual acquisition of nonhuman primates as pets. There are regulations and services already in place in Arkansas. You received this earlier this week in your packages, regulations, services, and facts pertaining to Arkansas.
A ban would not prevent a terrorist act. It would be much easier to take a rodent and infect it with something and bring it in than a monkey. A monkey would be noticed. Have we not earned the respect of fair regulations rather than taking our rights away with a ban? Bans have proven not to work. works and protects citizens far greater than a ban.
It would be sad to think future generations of Arkansans would never have the freedom to experience one of the greatest joys that those of us here have ever known. I would appreciate your opposition on this bill. And two, I might add, on the service monkey, there was a bill this spring nationwide that monkeys will not be recognized as service animals, though there are those that use them
and they do provide for them. So entering that into a bill would not help those people. Thank you. Thank you,
ma'am, for your testimony. Speaking for the bill is Susan Altrui. Ms. Altrui, if you will, take your place at the end of the table and
Susan Altrui
Unverified
1:27:09
introduce yourself for the record. Madam Chairman and committee members, my name is Susan Altrui, and I am here today on behalf of the Little Rock Zoo. I'm testifying in favor of Senate Bill 901 representing the zoo as the state's only accredited zoological facility in the state
and as one of the largest tourist attractions. The zoo is committed to providing excellent care to the 700 animals in our facility, as well as promoting the ethical treatment of animals. With me today are several of our staff members at the zoo, including primate caregivers who work every single day with these animals. Our staff represents more than 121 years of combined experience working with primates, and they stand in unison with me today in favor of this bill and in opposition of the private ownership of primates. There are several considerations. You've heard the public health considerations. The only
thing that I will add is that the CDC is in favor and has a national policy in favor of banning the private ownership of primates and says that it may constitute an emerging disease threat in the United States in the very near future. In addition to this, we've heard a lot about service monkeys, and I'd like to address that as well, because when a monkey is given to an organization to be trained as a service animal, not every monkey is appropriate for that. And so what ends up happening is that those that are not able to bee service monkeys are then tried to be given to zoos, to other private handlers,
and to other organizations as wildlife organizations that just simply cannot take these animals. It creates a very serious problem. The ban of the private ownership of primates is also supported by the American Veterinarian Association, the Association of Zoos and Aquarians, the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, and the State Territorial Pedemologists. In addition to this, a lot of the diseases that we don't regularly see in the state are not here because we've taken action ahead of time, which is why I think we should take action now to prevent something happening in the future.
But I'd like to also add that another reason why we're concerned about the private ownership of primates is for ethical reasons as well. To be made into a pet, a baby primate is taken away from its mother hours, even days after it is born. This causes tremendous psychological trauma for the mother and for the baby primate, and is just simply not ethical to do. In addition to that, there are long-term care issues. When properly cared for, primates can live to be into their fifties and can outlive their owners. And what might happen is what could be similarly happened to one of our keepers, which is when
a law enforcement individual came to the Little Rock Zoo asking us to ID the body of a monkey. One of our keepers responded to that request and ID'd the body. Apparently, an individual had killed himself, but before killing himself, killed his pet primate. So this is happening here in this state. In addition, there is a public safety concern as well, because non-human primates that become emotionally bonded to their owners can become jealous and attack visiting family, friends, neighbors, human. Recently, you might have heard of a woman in Connecticut whose eyes, mouth, ears, scalp were torn off by a pet chimpanzee. However,
However, even the smallest of primates, such as a capuchin, can inflict a tremendous amount of harm. And finally, the zoo connection, which is that tired of dealing with the array of problems caused by pet primate ownership, most owners end up wanting to get rid of their pet. Lacking infant appeal, adult non-human primates are difficult to place. They may be transferred from inadequate to bad or to worse homes, bought by an animal dealer or sent to an animal auction, shot or euthanized. animal sanctuaries are at capacity, as are zoos. And I do have a letter from Turpentine
Creek in northwest Arkansas also in support of this bill. And this is from the president of Turpentine Creek, Tanya Smith, who says that they get regular requests from people who have owned pet primates wanting to place their primate at the facility. Unfortunately, they do not have the room for that pet primate. So for several of these reasons, I do stand in opposition of the ownership of pet primates and also in favor of Senate Bill 901. And we do ask for your passage of this bill.
Ms. Alturi, will you take questions? Absolutely.
Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank you. As you were talking, something just
kind of went through my head there. If I understand, we don't bring in monkeys from other countries now. All the monkeys that are here are... It is a very
Susan Altrui
Unverified
1:31:25
rare occasion, but it does happen. But for the most part, we don't. Is that correct? I can't
clarify that and make that statement. I think that's the testimony we heard before. Well, if all the monkeys that we have, or the bulk of them, are monkeys that are already in the United States,
and if we ban private ownership of those monkeys, then where do those monkeys go? That's an excellent question, which is why we actually supported and fought
Susan Altrui
Unverified
1:31:53
for the amendment to this bill so that those that already own them can keep them. Because you are correct, it will create a larger situation if we don't allow the people that already own them to keep them. What we are trying to prevent is the future ownership of the pet
primates. But they're still in other states.
They're still in the United States. And obviously they're not out in the woods. You know, they are somewhere. They're either in a zoo or they're with private individuals or something. And if other states were to follow our lead in banning these, if they're all banned everywhere, where do they go? Nineteen states have already
Susan Altrui
Unverified
1:32:35
banned this. You are correct. However, there have been exceptions in grandfather clauses for those that are already owned to stay in the care and the companionship of those primates.
It's also why the bill allows for the transferring of a license. So if someone owned one, someone who already owned one, could still own that primate, which is allowed for in this. So those individuals could do that. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Altrui, thank you. I know Senator Malone wants about a minute to close. I think we've got about 30 seconds left. Senator Malone, you're recognized to close for your bill.
Senator Malone, I'm sorry. What I didn't realize, though, is that we have some minutes left on the against side. So we'll reserve that, and we'll go on to our against list. Ms. Elder, do you want to speak now? All right. If you will, take your place at the
end of the table. Introduce yourself for the record.
Speaker 243
1:33:44
Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm Carlene Elder.
mother, I do share my life with 12 monkeys. We started over 18 years ago when we heard of a monkey that needed a home. My kids asked if we could get it. We did research. We took it in. I don't believe in pulling babies from their mothers like it was stated. Ours all been under circumstances that an owner had died, we took the monkey in, so it wasn't
shot like it was noted back there. I'm sorry, I'm a little nervous here. One of the problems with the bill that is written right now is if a cage mate dies, we're virtually sentencing the other one to remaining a life of solitude. And this has been known to cause the monkey to grieve their self to death as they are very social animals. And we would like the
opportunity to replace the cage mate. Some of these monkeys do live to be 20 to 50 years. So if one dies 15 years out, then they're going to spend another 40 years by their self. That's just devastating. About transferring ownership, there are some here that have a concern that it can only go to someone that's already registered.
They have family members that are devoted to their primates and would like the opportunity in the event of their death or that they can't care for it any longer to transfer it to another family member. My grandson, who is 13, has never known life without a monkey. I have a 16-year-old capuchin that he loves and she loves him. And we've told him that when he graduates from college and I am no longer able to take
care of the monkey, that if he lives in a legal area, he would be allowed to take her. But according to the bill the way it is now, he would not be allowed to care for her the rest of her life. Hopefully he's going to live 50 years, so she probably will outlive me. So I'm trying to be a responsible owner and make provisions for her to be cared for. We also have 10 acres, and I have it set up that I have a younger friend in Missouri who has three capuchins,
that in the event that we can no longer take care of them, she is to move down to our 10 acres and take care of the rest of our 12 monkeys that
are still living. Ms. Elder, thank you very much for your testimony, but we are out of time. I know it's intimidating to come before this table, so I appreciate you. Senator Malone,
you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be brief because I've got 30 seconds. We heard about rights.
Well, it's like I have the right to swing my fist, But when it gets to your nose, my right stops and your rights take over. All these folks that have testified, you're seeing the gold standard of these people, the ones I've met. This is about public safety, public health, and not everyone is going to operate the same as some of these. And the other thing I want us to be reminded, we didn't deal with terrorist activities and have screenings and do all the things we've done until after 9-11. Let's not wait until we have a 9-11 and some catastrophe and then try to deal with it.
We hear about how these animals come into America. I've got another second. I wanted a Kangol dog. They're from Turkey, and they're not allowed to be in America. But I found a place in Texas that sold them. How'd you get them? Well, we dyed them black, and we got them through customs. They turned out to be as bad as they were supposed to
be. I bought them, but I gave them back to the people. said these dogs are not suit to be pets. So I'd ask for a good
vote. Thank you. Senator Malone thank you very much. Committee you've heard the testimony. We have a motion
do pass. The question before the committee as amended. The question before the committee is the passage of Senate Bill 901 as amended. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed no. No. Senator Malone you have passed your bill. We have a
roll call. Mr. Price, if you will, please call the roll. Representative Allen.
Speaker 187
1:38:40
Representative Allen. Representative Gaskell. Representative Lovell. Representative King. Representative King. Representative Hall. Representative Hyde, Representative Penards, Representative Wagner, Representative Word,
Representative Lee, Representative Smith, Representative Wilkins, Representative Perry, Representative Malone, Representative Ledding, Representative Wardlaw, Representative Lampkin,
Speaker 248
1:39:59
Representative Mayberry, Vice Chair Woods. They can't. They can't. Chair
Senator Malone, you failed your bill. Ladies and gentlemen, we are scheduled to be in session at 11 o'clock. We have a number of items still on our agenda, and it will be called at the notice of the chair.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1172
HB2056
SB835
SB213
SB525
SB249
SB702
SB839
SB845
SB901
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Linda S. Tyler Chair
Unverified
Representative Clark Hall Chair
Unverified
Senator Percy Malone Chair
Unverified
Speaker 13
Speaker 15
Speaker 21
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Speaker 20
Speaker 31
Representative Fred Allen Chair
Unverified
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
Speaker 53
Speaker 58
Representative Andy Mayberry Chair
Unverified
Speaker 66
Speaker 57
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
Speaker 84
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
Speaker 97
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
Speaker 109
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 121
Speaker 122
Senator Jason Rapert
Unverified
Speaker 132
Speaker 138
Speaker 146
Speaker 147
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Representative Butch Wilkins Chair
Unverified
Speaker 159
Speaker 162
Speaker 167
Speaker 37
Robert Breck
Unverified
Speaker 176
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
Speaker 169
Speaker 182
Speaker 187
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
Speaker 203
Speaker 205
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
Speaker 219
Speaker 224
Speaker 229
Ann Newman
Unverified
Susan Altrui
Unverified
Speaker 243
Speaker 248
Speaker 61