Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson [official website] signed HB 1032 [text; PDF] into law on Thursday banning the most common abortion procedure employed in the second trimester of pregnancy—dilation and evacuation. Proponents of the law, titled “The Arkansas Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act,” called the procedure “barbaric” and stated that it required “dismemberment” of the fetus, while opponents stated that the procedure is the safest method of terminating a pregnancy. Among other things the law provides for civil damages against any individual found in violation of this act. Furthermore, the act allows civil suits for injunctive relief to be filed by the pregnant woman herself, her spouse, her parents and her health care provider, but civil suits for damages may not be filed by the health care provider. The allowable statutory damages are three times the cost of “dismemberment abortion” and can be awarded for both physical and “psychological” damages. A violation of this law is also considered a “Class D” felony. This is now among the most restrictive abortion legislation enacted in the US, although Mississippi and Louisiana have enacted almost identical laws. However, this law does not restrict abortions performed using “any other method for any reason, including rape or incest.” According to the Arkansas health department, dilation and extraction was used in 683 of the 3,771 abortions performed in Arkansas in 2015. Opponents of the law have vowed to fight it [Reuters report], and Rita Sklar, an an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website], stated that, “[t]he law puts an undue burden on a woman’s constitutional right to obtain a second-trimester abortion, and I think the legislature knows it and doesn’t care.”

There has been a recent slew of state laws and suits dealing with abortion. US President Donald Trump has vowed to fight abortion rights [JURIST report]. In October a federal judge blocked a Mississippi law that disqualified [JURIST report] Medicaid benefits for non-therapeutic abortions. Also in October the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled [JURIST report] that a state law adding new licensing and inspection rules for facilities that perform abortions is unconstitutional. In September a federal judge issued a temporary injunction [JURIST report] against Arkansas’ suspension of Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood [advocacy website] after Hutchinson terminated [AP report] the Medicaid funding last year following national controversy ignited by video recordings of Planned Parenthood’s practices. In August a judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida [official website] permanently blocked [JURIST report] portions of a Florida law that would stop funding to Planned Parenthood. In July the ACLU and Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] against an Arizona law that would potentially prevent low-income women from obtaining healthcare from their provider of choice. Earlier the same month a federal judge placed an injunction [JURIST report] on an Indiana law that would have banned women from seeking abortion procedures when they are based on race, sex, or the potential for or actual diagnosis of a disability in the fetus. Recently the US Supreme Court ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-3 in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt [SCOTUSblog materials] that a Texas law HB2 [text] imposing certain requirements on abortion clinics and doctors creates an undue burden on access to abortion, and is therefore unconstitutional [JURIST report].