Judge reverses decision, allows lawsuit against Arkansas pro-life law

A circuit court judge has reversed her decision to dismiss a lawsuit against Arkansas' pro-life law following a state Supreme Court's decision that affected her ruling.

Key Takeaways:

• An Arkansas circuit court judge has reversed a previous decision and is allowing a lawsuit against the state's pro-life law to move forward.

• Six women filed suit against the law for various reasons, but none actually required an induced abortion which intentionally kills the preborn child. Some simply didn't wish to be pregnant.

• Some argue that the state law is unclear, but in reality, the law allows induced abortions for medical emergencies, which means that a lack of knowledge about the state law or possible negligence may have contributed to the women's situations.

The Backstory:

Six women filed a lawsuit against Arkansas's pro-life law, claiming to have been harmed by it. The law, which protects most preborn children from abortion, took effect in June 2022 following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The women, along with an OB/GYN, asked the circuit court to deem the law unconstitutional and block its enforcement temporarily as the case proceeded.

On April 30, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Cara Connors dismissed the lawsuit based on a 2025 law, Act 975, which transferred jurisdiction over certain constitutional lawsuits out of circuit courts to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.

However, shortly before Connors dismissed the case, the state Supreme Court ruled Act 975 to be unconstitutional.

The Details:

In May, Connors reversed her ruling. The case against the state's pro-life law will now proceed.

“We are glad that we can now expeditiously move toward a hearing on our request to block the abortion bans while this lawsuit continues,” Amplify Legal, a pro-abortion group which is representing the women, said in a statement. “Our clients will testify to their horrific experiences under the abortion bans, and we look forward to demonstrating why the state’s remaining jurisdictional arguments are without merit.”

Jeff LeMaster, spokesperson for the office of Attorney General Tim Griffin, said the AG "will continue to vigorously defend the state's duly passed abortion laws."

Why It Matters:

The six women in the case had varying reasons for seeking abortions, but none of them needed to intentionally kill their preborn children. Induced abortion, which is regulated by many pro-life states, is the direct and intentional killing of a preborn child. However, some have stated that Arkansas' law lacks clarity on this point.

• Emily Waldorf suffered cervical insufficiency and preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) and needed an induced delivery of her child, not an induced abortion (intentional killing).

• Theresa Van was told at her 20-week ultrasound that her baby girl was measuring small and not moving much, and that there was no amniotic fluid. She then developed placenta previa, which would require a C-section and a hysterectomy, not an abortion. Her baby was stillborn.

• Chelsea Stovall learned at 19 weeks that her baby had a congenital diaphragmatic hernia, meaning the baby's stomach and bowels were in his/her chest cavity. She was told her baby was not likely to survive, but this does not necessitate an intentional killing.

• Allison Howland learned she was pregnant after a sexual assault. She did not need an induced abortion.

• Kishaya Holloway claims she simply did not want to have children.

• Leitaea Lowrimore suffered an ectopic pregnancy, and the doctor wrongly refused to treat her according to the proper standard of care. Treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is not an induced abortion.

None of these women needed an induced abortion. An induced abortion is the direct and intentional killing of preborn children. Arkansas law defines abortion as:

the act of using, prescribing, administering, procuring, or selling of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the purpose to terminate the pregnancy of a woman, with knowledge that the termination by any of those means will with reasonable likelihood cause the death of the unborn child.

This definition alone can be problematic because it implies that it would be illegal for a doctor to carry out any procedure — such as a preterm induced delivery — that would likely lead to the death of the baby. But, the law also states that an abortion is allowed for a medical emergency:

'Medical emergency' means a condition in which an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

And it also says:

It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section if a licensed physician provides medical treatment to a pregnant woman which results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death to the unborn child.

Waldorf and Lowrimore were denied the care they needed because the hospitals, whether the doctors or the risk assessment team, did not understand the difference between intentionally killing a preborn child and carrying out a medical procedure to save the mother's life.

Ghazaleh Moayedi, an abortionist in Texas, told ProPublica, "It’s been five years, and people are still like: ‘I don’t know what we can do.' That’s willful ignorance at this point.” Moayedi is correct.

Induced abortion in cases of prenatal diagnosis, as with Stovall and Van, is not necessary. It is an act of eugenics to kill a child because he or she is not deemed healthy.

Holloway and Howland did not need an abortion or medical care during their pregnancies. They simply didn't want to be pregnant.

The Bottom Line:

Pro-life laws do not stand in the way of women receiving standard medical care while pregnant. It is when hospitals misunderstand the law, fail to learn the law, or act negligently, that women suffer from these medical errors in judgment.