A clause in the Arkansas law allows a woman’s spouse, parent or guardian, or health care provider to sue an abortion provider for civil damages or injunctive relief that could stop the abortion. And because Act 45 does not provide any exceptions for cases of rape or incest, the clause could allow the fetus’s father to sue an abortion provider even in cases of spousal rape or incest.

Asked whether the clause would allow a father to sue in cases of spousal rape or incest, Mayberry told The Daily Beast that the “bill wouldn’t affect a woman seeking an abortion by any other method” than dilation and evacuation, and that the bill prohibited the father from winning monetary damages in the event of rape or incest. The bill would not, however, prevent the father from seeking injunctive relief to stop an abortion under these circumstances.

“We’ve tried to account for all the worst case scenarios,” Mayberry said, adding that the injunctive relief clause “doesn’t have a whole lot of teeth,” as it would block an abortion provider from performing a procedure already barred under the legislation.

Abortion rights activists say the clause gives a woman’s family control over her health decisions.
“There is zero part of me that understands why a rapist or someone who got someone pregnant against their will, maybe incest, would have any right in that decision,” Karen Musick, co-founder of Arkansas Abortion Support Network, told The Daily Beast. “I cannot wrap my brain around the fact that there would be anyone who thinks otherwise.”

“What that’s getting at, really, is the autonomy and decision-making ability of a woman,” McQuade said. “The law itself is a major overstep into the doctor-patient relationship… This is taking it one step further to say that women are incapable of making these decisions on their own and on their own behalf.”

As a result of Republicans’ supermajority in the Arkansas Assembly, the legislation moved from draft to law in less than two months. Filed Dec. 5, read in the Arkansas House for the first time on Jan. 9, and signed into law on Jan. 26, the bill sped through the state’s legislature with few revisions. One of the few dissenting voices came from Will Bond, a Democratic state senator from Little Rock.


“There is an injunctive relief section in the bill that, in my reading of it, would seem to allow litigation among family members,” Bond told The Daily Beast. “If one spouse sought injunctive relief to prevent a certain procedure, or possibly other family members have the possibility for injunctive relief, that was a concern of mine.”

The clause was one of a number of issues Bond had with the bill, including what he described as the legislation’s lack of exceptions for all but the most serious health issues.

“There is an exception for women’s health in the bill, but it required irreparable harm [to the point of] permanent disability of a woman,” Bond said. “The way it was drafted, I had concerns that the women’s health exception is way too narrow, and there’s no exception for rape and incest.”

Reproductive rights experts say the ban on dilation and evacuations is virtually as effective as banning abortions after the first trimester.
Realistically, under the new legislation, “the only option that anyone in Arkansas would have would be to leave the state,” Musick said.

A small percentage of second-trimester abortions occur via medically induced labor, but this less common method is more time-consuming, requires a hospital stay, and often involves more complications.

“How it used to happen decades in the past was that a woman was induced to deliver,” McQuade said. “We do not want to get to that point. That it is not as safe for the patient.” She added that Planned Parenthood would review its options but might refer patients out of state.

And for women seeking an abortion in Arkansas, time is already against them. A 2015 Arkansas law requires a 48-hour waiting period between an in-person abortion consultation and the procedure. In Arkansas, which only has one dilation and evacuation abortion-providing clinic, the law often forces people to take days off work to travel to the clinic, attend the initial meeting, wait 48 hours, and finally obtain a procedure.

“Normally it’s going to be a week later,” after a woman schedules around her work, travel, and family commitments, Musick said. “Every week that goes past in an abortion makes the procedure more expensive and it makes it riskier. The earlier an abortion is performed, the safer it is.”

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 9:26pm:



About time.

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 9:30pm:


Raven is pro-choice but a father should get a say.

If the father truely cares and wants her to have the baby but she does not, then it should be explaind to he will be solely responsible for the care of this child.

Unfortunately you will probably find that their objections will disappear.

About time.

Setanta wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 10:47pm:



It's not an equal situation. Biology dictates the terms.

The consequence of having sex if you are a woman is that you may become pregnant. You have 2 choices.

The consequence of having sex is you are a man is that you may becomee a father. You also have 2 choices.

But there are laws that are immutable. A woman bears the physical burden and the man is liable for a financial burden.

These are just the rules.

I'm all in favour of a pre-coital 'abortion' for the man. that is he signs a legal statement saying he is unwilling to support a child and if thee woman agrees, sx can take place.

After conception, it's too late.

Setanta wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:01pm:



No. I know nothing of the sort. The primary impact is on the woman. Even should she choose an abortion, that is a medical procedure with risks involved.

You can't force a woman to bear a child. It's absolutely inhumane.

Men can choose if they want to be a part of the child's life or not. Unless a woman puts the child up for adoption (in itself, incredibly hard) she has no choice.

Women wear the brunt of it. A man may only be asked to provide maintenance. Aside from that, he gets off scott free.

Nature dictates the terms. It i not an equal playing field.

mothra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 9:30pm:


I am not supporting this law but I have always had an issue with their own bodies argument. In the vast majority of cases the woman was actively involved in the process creating life which results in a second life sharing space for a time with the woman. The is a second body that should have some rights to be considered as well and yes the fathers wishes should also hold some sway.

This law definitely goes much too far.