The Arkansas Senate has approved a measure titled the Medical Ethics and Diversity Act. The measure which was introduced by Sen. Kim Hammer passed in a near-sweeping vote of 27-6 by the majority-Republican Senate.

If the Medical Ethics and Diversity Act passes the house and is signed by the governor, it would allow medical providers including doctors and hospitals to refuse treatment to certain individuals on the grounds it may violate their moral or religious beliefs. The essence of the bill is “To protect all medical practitioners, health care institutions, and health care payers from discrimination, punishment, or retaliation as a result of any instance of conscientious medical objection.”

The bill also stipulates that any objections that medical providers or institutions raise can only be done so in elective or non-emergency treatment plans. This way, patients ostensibly have ample time to find another medical provider. The measure goes on to explain that medical practitioners would be allowed to file civil suits if they are forced to provide services that go against their conscience.

Religious entities would also have the right to make decisions regarding staffing, employment, contracting, and admitting privileges that align with the entity’s religious and moral beliefs. Hammer highlights that this bill would not allow medical providers to deny medical services to an individual based on their race.

Senator Hammer modeled the bill after laws that exist in Mississippi and Illinois. Hammer explains, "What this bill does is it provides a remedy that those medical providers who have a conscientious objection to be put in a situation that they prefer not to, that it provides them a means to defend themselves."

Medical Ethics and Diversity Act Draws Criticism

The act has drawn an ample amount of criticism, particularly from the LGBTQ community. Eric Reece of Human Rights Watch shares that the measure “is a blatantly discriminatory attempt to strip LGBTQ people of basic rights.” Reece adds that “Health care should be available to all who need it, not withheld by providers because of hate and fear.”

Reece argues that the passage of the bill would limit medical access for members of the LGBTQ community considerably. For example, a pharmacist would be able to deny fertility drugs to a gay or lesbian couple, and doctors could potentially decline offering services like hormone therapy to transgender individuals because it goes against their conscience.

Democrats including Senator Clarke Tucker have voiced their opposition to the measure as well. Tucker emphasizes that the bill allows medical providers to seemingly deny anyone for any reason unless it was an emergency. The bill could open up the possibility that medical providers would deny services for a swath of reasons because of the vagueness of the bill. The term “conscience” is defined in the measure as including anything religious, moral, philosophical, or ethical. Tucker explains that this definition covers everything under the sun.

A similar bill was introduced in 2017 and 2019 but was ultimately shut down by the state's Governor Asa Hutchinson. Hutchinson has not shown any indication of whether or not he supports the new measure, but he has stated, “I will review this bill as it is considered by the legislature, but I do believe it is addressing an important concern by the public and medical community.”