Arkansas Enacts Controversial Race-Selection Abortion Ban: The Story of SB591
Arkansas has officially enacted Act 973, formerly known as SB591, establishing the "Race Discrimination By Abortion Prohibition Act." The law explicitly prohibits abortions sought solely based on the race of the fetus. While framed as an anti-discrimination measure, the bill's journey through the Arkansas legislature was marked by procedural drama, and its potential real-world impact raises significant concerns, reflected in LegiEquity's analysis which flags a high 80% overall bias with high confidence, soaring to a 90% bias concerning race, particularly impacting Black/Hispanic communities.
A Tumultuous Path to Passage
The legislative saga of SB591 began on March 31st, 2025, when it was filed in the Senate. It was swiftly referred to the powerful Senate Committee on Public Health, Welfare and Labor (Power Score: 100.0). The committee recommended a "Do Pass" on April 7th, setting the stage for a floor vote.
However, the bill hit a major snag on April 8th. During its third reading in the Senate, SB591 failed to pass, receiving only 15 yea votes against 9 nays, with a significant 11 members not voting. This initial defeat suggested considerable opposition or uncertainty within the chamber.
The very same day, legislative maneuvering commenced. A motion was successfully carried to expunge the record of the failed vote, effectively wiping the slate clean and allowing the bill another chance.
The following day, April 9th, proved pivotal. Rules were suspended, allowing the bill to be placed back on second reading specifically for amendment. Senate Amendment S1 was introduced, debated, and adopted. While the specific text of the amendment isn't detailed here, its adoption immediately preceded a dramatic turnaround. After being engrossed with the amendment, rules were suspended again, and SB591 was brought for a third reading.
This time, the outcome was starkly different. The Senate passed the amended SB591 with a decisive 29 yea votes to 6 nays. The amendment and the preceding procedural actions clearly swayed enough votes for passage. The bill was then immediately transmitted to the House.
House Action and Finalization
Received by the House on April 10th, SB591 was referred to the equally influential House Committee on Public Health, Welfare and Labor (Power Score: 85.0). This committee returned a "Do Pass" recommendation on April 15th.
On April 16th, the House debated and passed SB591 with 63 yeas, 17 nays, and 20 not voting. The bill was returned to the Senate, reported as correctly enrolled, delivered to the Governor the same day, and officially became Act 973 on April 23rd, 2025.
Sponsors, Politics, and Bias Concerns
The bill was primarily sponsored by Senator Clint Penzo (R-SD-031) and Representative Karilyn Brown (R-HD-067). Their effectiveness scores (30.0 and 10.0 respectively) are relatively modest, suggesting that the bill's success likely relied heavily on party discipline and the influence of the key committees, rather than individual sponsor power. The lack of bipartisan support (hasBipartisanSupport: false) confirms this, indicating the voting likely followed strict party lines, a common feature in contentious social issue legislation.
The LegiEquity analysis underscores the potential for significant disparate impact. The 90% race bias score, with specific high flags for Black/Hispanic (90% BH) and Asian/Pacific Islander & Latinx communities (70% AP, 70% LX), is alarming. While the law claims to prevent race-based discrimination, critics argue such bans can paradoxically harm minority women. They may face increased scrutiny or suspicion when seeking reproductive healthcare, potentially creating barriers to accessing legal abortion services for any reason. Enforcement often raises questions about how a physician is supposed to determine the 'sole reason' for an abortion without intrusive questioning, potentially chilling access to care.
The 70% gender bias score (80% impacting Females) reflects the fundamental reality that abortion restrictions disproportionately affect women's bodily autonomy and healthcare access.
Historically, laws attempting to ban abortions based on specific reasons ('reason bans') have faced legal challenges across the United States. They often intersect with broader debates about reproductive rights, racial justice, and the extent to which the state can inquire into personal medical decisions. Arkansas' Act 973 now enters this complex legal and social landscape, carrying the weight of its dramatic legislative passage and the serious bias concerns highlighted by data analysis.
LegiEquity analyzes proposed legislation to determine its potential impact on various demographic groups. Our goal is to provide objective insights into how laws may affect different communities.
Related Articles
You might also be interested in these articles