Arkansas bill targeting those who knowingly contribute to social transitioning of minors pulled for changes
LITTLE ROCK, Ark – An Arkansas bill targeting those who contribute to the social transitioning of minors was pulled so legislators could make changes.
The Vulnerable Youth Protection Act, sponsored by Rep. Mary Bentley (R-Perryville), aims to allow for civil action for people who knowingly contribute to the social transitioning or gender reassignment surgery of a minor.
Supporters of the bill like Rebecca Smith say social transitioning poses a risk for children and adolescents in Arkansas.
'Members of the committee this is not about politics it is about protecting children, preserving families, and ensuring that every child grows up supported and loved not alienated or confused,' Smith said.
Federal judge blocks Arkansas gender-affirming care ban in first for nation
Those against the legislation like Evelyn Rios Stafford are worried about the scope of the bill.
'It opens the door to frivolous lawsuits, and it creates confusion I think from the public about what is protected by the First Amendment and what isn't,' Stafford said.
The debate mainly surrounded the definition of social transitioning.
The bill currently defines social transitioning as any act by which a minor adopts or espouses a gender identity that differs from the minor's biological gender as determined by the sex organs, chromosomes, and endogenous profiles of the minor, including without limitation changes in clothing, pronouns, hairstyle, and name.
There were also concerns about conflict with the First Amendment.
Justin Brascher with the Attorney General's Office told the committee the way the bill stands, they didn't feel like they could defend it in court.
'Our concern there is when you are criminalizing or in this case proving a civil cause of action for certain forms of speech that has to pass a very very high constitutional bar and we have to be able to defend that in court and we think, as this bill currently is, we can't defend that,' Brascher said.
Sanders signs Arkansas trans care malpractice bill into law
Bentley withdrew the bill, telling the committee she would work with the attorney general's office to amend it.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Another unanimous win for religious freedom at the Supreme Court
Is religious freedom a wedge issue? The unanimous agreement between all the justices in a decision just issued by the U.S. Supreme Court suggests the answer is no. The Court's example provides an important corrective to the framing of some commentators and advocacy groups. The facts of this case initially seem unreal — the state of Wisconsin determined that the Catholic Charities Bureau was not 'religious enough' to qualify for a tax exemption available to religious organizations in the state. Piling on, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed because Catholic Charities did not proselytize or exclude non-Catholics from its services. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has now corrected that decision and ruled unanimously that the state cannot prefer one religion over another on the grounds of the church's teachings. The Court's opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She points out, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.' The state had denied the exemption to Catholic Charities simply because the group did not follow the practice of some other churches, which proselytize while providing social services and serve only fellow members. Since doing either of these things would violate the beliefs of the organization, it was treated differently from other religious organizations solely because of this belief. Justice Sotomayor's opinion summarizes the legal standard: 'When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny.' The Court rightly concludes that Wisconsin had no compelling reason that would justify this disparate treatment. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the Court's opinion and wrote separately to note another problem with the Wisconsin court's opinion. The Court treated Catholic Charities as separate from the local Catholic Diocese. This is contrary to the 'religious perspective' of the church, which is owed deference by the state. Ignoring the church's beliefs violated the First Amendment guarantee 'to religious institutions [of] broad autonomy to conduct their internal affairs and govern themselves.' Religion and claims for religious freedom are sometimes characterized as divisive issues. When a presidential commission on religious freedom was recently created, some commentators charged that this would undermine the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court's decision demonstrates that religious freedom issues need not be divisive. The clear constitutional protection of the right of people of faith to live and of religious organizations to operate consistent with their beliefs is right there in the text of the First Amendment. This is a threshold principle that no government can ignore without endangering the most basic liberties of its citizens. This is especially true given the fact that verbal expressions of personal faith have defined modern protections for freedom of speech, and gatherings of members of organized religion form the foundations for protections of freedom of association. State and federal lawmakers should ensure that their actions are consistent with this guarantee. Additionally, reporters, commentators, politicians and advocacy groups should take note that protecting religious freedom is typically a consensus issue for the U.S. Supreme Court, whose role is to ensure that the First Amendment guarantee is protected in legal disputes. In the 12 religious freedom cases decided since 2015, four have been unanimous and four more have garnered only one or two dissenting votes. There are, obviously, some cases where the justices don't reach consensus, but these cases should not cause us to lose sight of the strong support religious freedom claims typically receive. The Court's support for religious freedom is a bright spot in our current political climate. It demonstrates the wisdom of the Framers of the Bill of Rights in including specific religious exercise protections and vindicates one of the nation's highest aspirations: that people of faith should be free to act on their beliefs without interference or discrimination.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sharing an elected Louisiana leader's personal info could soon result in fines, jail time
A legislative proposal originally intended to provide an additional layer of security to judges and prosecutors who deal with violent criminals has been altered to shield a broad range of personal information about state elected officials in Louisiana. (Wes Muller/Louisiana Illuminator) A legislative proposal originally intended to provide an additional layer of security to judges and prosecutors who deal with violent criminals has been altered to shield a broad range of personal information about state elected officials in Louisiana. Free speech and good government advocates are concerned officials could use the law, which will take effect unless the governor vetoes the proposal, to silence critics, punish journalists and keep unfavorable information out of the public's hands. Last week, the legislature gave final approval to House Bill 681 by Rep. Marcus Bryant, D-New Iberia, after Sen. Caleb Kleinpeter, R-Port Allen, added last-minute amendments to include statewide elected officials, members of the Public Service Commission and state lawmakers under an existing state law that shields their personal information from being made public. The amended version of the bill passed the Senate on a 36-0 vote and the House on an 89-0 vote. The law prevents the elected officials' home addresses, phone numbers, personal email addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, federal tax identification numbers, bank account numbers, credit and debit card numbers, license plate numbers from being published in government records or on a public website. Also protected under the law are marital records and birthdates. An official's church, the school or daycare their child attends and the employment location of their spouse, children or dependents would also be shielded. 'It's incredibly concerning and broad … in a way I cannot describe because I don't yet know how bad it's going to be,' said attorney Scott Sternberg, who works on First Amendment cases, adding that such prosecutions would likely be unconstitutional. If Gov. Jeff Landry allows the proposal to become law, the newly included elected officials could request their personal information be removed from public records. It could also be used to force someone to remove an online post with personal information about the elected officials. For example, the law could be wielded against somebody who raises concerns about conflicts of interest pertaining to the employment of an elected official's spouse or child. If that person does not comply, they can be sued and face misdemeanor charges that carry up to 90 days in prison, a $1,000 fine or both. The bill could allow the sealing of marital records to prevent the public from learning of allegations of abuse in a divorce proceeding. 'In Louisiana's constitution … we have decided the people are entitled to certain information, because … the people have learned to check up on the government every now and then,' Sternberg said. 'Whenever an exception [to public records law] passes … it limits the public's right to access,' Sternberg added. Broadening the scope of the bill without public debate troubles good governance advocates. 'Slipping such a significant public records exemption into a bill with little acknowledgment and no debate raises questions about what people are trying to hide and undermines transparency,' said Steven Procopio, president of Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana. Lawmakers and other individuals involved in Bryant's legislation have not been willing to say how the last-minute amendments got into the bill. 'These bills are not mine. I'm just bringing them,' Bryant said in an interview, referring questions to Zach Daniels, executive director of the Louisiana District Attorneys Association, who declined to comment for this report. Insurance Commissioner Tim Temple said he asked to have statewide elected officials added to the bill but not state lawmakers or Public Service Commission members. Temple said billboards bearing his home address have been put up around the state, prompting his request. Senate President Cameron Henry, R-Metairie, said he did not ask for the amendments but supports them. Public Service Commissioner Davante Lewis, D-Baton Rouge, posted on social media he had 'no clue' how PSC members were added, adding he did not support the legislation. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ep. 010: Pat Harrigan
(WGHP) — Politicians from coast to coast like to claim they're 'fighting for you,' but few know fighting quite like Pat Harrigan does. Harrigan is the freshman congressman representing North Carolina's 10th district, and, as a Green Beret, he saw combat overseas and knows not only what that's like but the cost of it all. It was what he considers the U.S.'s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan that inspired him to run for Congress, and Harrigan has strong opinions not just about what's happening in Ukraine but the long fight we're engaged in with China and, more importantly, how that fight can be won. On the lighter side, Harrigan reveals how he and his wife, Rocky, named their two daughters. Hosted by , is a weekly look at what's going on in the world of politics and how it all affects you. Watch the full episode in the video player above. You can also watch Swing State on or stream it on the on Roku, AppleTV and Fire TV. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
