Since Roe v. Wade was overturned with the Supreme Court Dobbs decision, pro-life laws have been under attack with opponents who falsely claim the laws are too vague and confusing, especially regarding situations where the life of the mother is at risk. Although all U.S. abortion laws include exceptions for the mother's life, some states are amending their laws for clearer guidelines.
Arkansas is the latest to join this effort to fight back against pro-abortion misinformation, reaffirming its commitment to maternal health while maintaining abortion restrictions.
On March 20, 2025, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed HB 1610 into law, which amends the Arkansas Human Life Protection Act and the Arkansas Unborn Child Protection Act and clarifies how the laws define a “medical emergency” when it comes to abortion.
History of abortion in Arkansas
The Arkansas Human Life Protection Act was a trigger law, which was signed into law in 2019 but only went into effect once Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022. This law prohibits all abortions, except in the rare circumstance where an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother.
The Arkansas Unborn Child Protection Act passed in 2021, offers the same regulations and adds the provision for private right of action, allowing individuals to civilly sue anyone who assists in an abortion, significantly broadening the scope of enforcement beyond governmental action.
[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]
A look at the new law
HB 1610, now known as the law titled Act 387, is intended to ensure that there is no ambiguity in emergency situations, allowing medical professionals to act without fear of legal repercussions while prioritizing the health and safety of the mother as well as combating misinformation about Arkansas abortion regulations.
The bill received unanimous support in both the Arkansas Senate and the Arkansas House, with votes of 34-0 in the Senate and 96-0 in the House, and no votes against the bill from any party.
“Under current law in Arkansas, we prohibit abortion, except the life of the mother,” Rep. Robin Lundstrum (R-Elm Springs), one of the lead sponsors of the law, said, according to the Arkansas Times. “What we needed though, and what was not done, was a bill clarifying that doctors acting in good faith would not be prosecuted for saving the life of a pregnant mother.”
The bill (Act 387) states:
“‘Medical emergency’ means a condition in which, in reasonable medical judgment, complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman to such an extent that termination of a pregnancy 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.”
The Act then goes on to:
Define a medical emergency
The Act defines the scope of what constitutes a medical emergency. Specifically, it excludes conditions that are treatable without terminating a pregnancy and psychological conditions, such as a threat to the mother’s mental health or self-harm, aiming to protect unborn lives whenever possible. For example, it reads that the term “medical emergency” does not include the following:
- “Conditions for which treatment is available that can, in reasonable medical judgement, be expected to preserve or sustain the life of the pregnant woman without ending the pregnancy.”
- “A psychological or emotional condition.”
- “A medical diagnosis that is based on a claim made by the pregnant woman or based on a presumption that the pregnant woman will engage in conduct that could result in her death or that could cause substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.”
Clarify non-abortive actions
The Act clarifies that actions not intended to result in an abortion will not be treated as such if their purpose is to save the mother's life. This will allow medical attention to address ectopic pregnancies, treat cancer, or manage other medical conditions where the doctor must prioritize the health of the mother despite possible risks to the baby. The Act specifies it is “not a violation” “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.”
Re-emphasize reasonable medical judgment
The Act encourages medical professionals to use "reasonable medical judgment" in deciding when these actions are necessary. It goes on to state that this standard for reasonable medical judgement was set in 1999 under Karlin v. Foust and is no different for abortion than any other medical procedure to further ensure there’s no reason for confusion. “The reasonable medical judgement standard ‘is the same standard by which all ... medical decisions are judged under traditional theories of tort law,” the law explains.
Combating abortion misinformation
Arkansas’ law comes after South Dakota became the first state to pass similar pro-life medical education legislation last spring and hopefully, more states will follow suit.
Even before the Dobbs decision, doctors were required to adhere to various abortion limits and regulations. Still laws like Act 387 guide them further, ensuring that protocols are followed not only to save the life of the mother in these critical situations but also, where possible, the life of the unborn.
Critics from the pro-abortion lobby often argue that pro-life laws jeopardize women's lives, yet Act 387 demonstrates the opposite by clarifying these critical medical guidelines.
In addition to states passing medical education legislation, Heartbeat International, the largest network of pregnancy help organizations in the U.S. and globally, is also helping combat abortion misinformation.
Heartbeat International hosts the website PregnancyCenterTruth.com which provides facts about pregnancy centers in contrast to claims made by abortion supporters that they are fake clinics.
Tweet This: Heartbeat International hosts PregnancyCenterTruth.com, with facts about pregnancy centers in contrast to claims of abortion supporters.
The enactment of Arkansas' Act 387 and the efforts of organizations like Heartbeat International to educate the public reflect a growing trend toward more informed discussions around abortion. These developments offer hope to pro-life advocates that with continued legislative support and accurate information dissemination, the protection of both mothers and unborn children can be enhanced in the future.
Editor's note: Heartbeat International manages Pregnancy Help News.
