[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6598044,"mediaKeyId","3103311-45484207c748db94ae65c7a98563ad6c","parentId",3103311,"title","Committee clears several bills including nonconsensual image expansion, judgment renewal and manufactured‑home writ change","audioSeconds",316,"startMs",928000,"endMs",1244000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3103311-45484207c748db94ae65c7a98563ad6c&start=928&end=1244","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3103311-45484207c748db94ae65c7a98563ad6c/thumbnail_928000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6598044/Arkansas/Committee-clears-several-bills-including-nonconsensual-image-expansion-judgment-renewal-and-manufacturedhome-writ-change","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6598044-73196fe2c2fa87bbedc42d254b0a0913/orig.mp4?Expires=1771195703&Signature=A-M6lPt90XmhtBSZR~DJCYvz~rr0J0mHT8PlF4u1ZXtQMRj0Mk0CwSd5BpYPhYG4hXKqqym1onUFW57hiSpyMaS2vrZLgxNdDnX4B6pRR0K5nwwMM6mryo23iKMTTP327cxrPbxy57ewLl3-23PCNmNMUo5n65pF3dLuzgaoST7JHWVqMBNcgzr6s7BgHO9Xs3F3Gqm6fMEvfS9A7utCZRfhd~PlPqAaxEQSYfLJULljfkjZGLE5gn7AXxn4KYzwyT037aXoVeH0pZLraj-kfaP7vYMhWii-h4nctNTmcPuz2xy8-YYrR88hrj8mutEX8KbEtvgyfOC7PqE-Xr5M8A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - SENATE","date","2025-04-14T00:00:00Z","article","The Senate Judiciary Committee took a series of largely uncontested actions and passed several bills by voice vote during the session.

Senate Bill 644 — manufactured homes and writs of possession

Senator Matt McKee identified the bill and JD Harper of the Harpreetown Manufactured Housing Association explained the amendment’s practical intent. The bill clarifies how a writ of possession applies to manufactured homes by allowing a manufactured home that is subject to a writ of possession to remain on the property for 30 days so the owner may arrange removal rather than require immediate removal and storage in a public warehouse. Harper summarized the issue: moving a manufactured home “add[s] thousands of dollars of cost” because of disconnected utilities, skirting, anchoring and the lack of public warehouse space for homes.

Committee action: Senator McKee moved for a due‑pass recommendation; Senator Gilmore seconded. The committee approved the motion by voice vote and announced “motion carried.”

House Bill 19‑67 — nonconsensual intimate images (Representative Carolyn Brown)

Representative Carolyn Brown, District 67, presented an amendment to Arkansas Code 5‑26‑314 (as cited by the sponsor) that expands the criminal scope for distributing intimate images without consent. Brown said the current statute requires the offender be a current or former dating partner; the amendment removes that relationship requirement and broadens the definition of intent to include distribution “with the purpose to cause physical, mental, economic, or reputational harm or in exchange for something of value,” elevating those cases to felony charges while retaining misdemeanor penalties where intent to harm is not present.

Committee action: Representative Brown asked for a due pass and moved for immediate consideration; the committee took a voice vote on immediate consideration and then voted to pass the bill. The committee recorded the motion as carried and congratulated Representative Brown on passage.

House Bill 19‑59 — judgment renewal modernization (Representative Matt Brown)

Representative Matt Brown, District 55, described HB 19‑59 as a civil‑procedure modernization intended to simplify the 10‑year judgment renewal process (removing the longer scire facias procedure) by allowing the filing of a notice with service on the defendant and permitting the defendant to object. Brown said other states have moved to this simpler approach.

Committee action: The committee heard no opposition and voted to give the bill a due pass by voice vote.

House Bill 19‑84 — driver’s‑license mark for level‑3/4 sex offenders (Senator Brianne Davis)

Senator Brianne Davis presented HB 19‑84, which would allow a designation or symbol on a driver’s license to indicate level‑3 or level‑4 registered sexual offenders to help law‑enforcement identification. Committee members asked whether law‑enforcement systems already flag registrations when an officer runs a plate; testimony from Robert Combs (who identified himself as a registered level‑3 offender) said agencies already receive that information automatically, and he said a visible marker on a license would be humiliating and counterproductive.

Committee action: After public testimony the committee moved to pass the bill by voice vote.

Other quick actions

The committee also took up House Bill 19‑75 and other short agenda items; those received motions to pass and were carried by voice vote with minimal discussion.

Votes at a glance (committee record)

- SB 644 — motion for due pass (mover: Senator McKee; second: Senator Gilmore); outcome: passed by voice vote.
- HB 19‑67 — immediate consideration then motion to pass (sponsor: Representative Carolyn Brown); outcome: passed by voice vote.
- HB 19‑59 — motion to pass (sponsor: Representative Matt Brown); outcome: passed by voice vote.
- HB 19‑84 — motion to pass (sponsor: Senator Brianne Davis); outcome: passed by voice vote.
- HB 19‑75 — motion to pass (mover recorded in committee discussion); outcome: passed by voice vote.

Ending

Committee leaders took the motions by voice vote and announced each motion carried. Most of these bills moved with little debate and will proceed to the Senate calendar for further consideration.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - SENATE - Apr 14, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate Judiciary Committee passed several bills by voice vote, including clarifications for manufactured‑home writs, an expansion of nonconsensual image distribution law, simplification of judgment renewal procedure, and a driver's‑license mark for high‑risk registrants.","taxTitle","JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - SENATE, Senate, Committees, Legislative, Arkansas","taxId",21188,"location","Arkansas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6598048,"Senate committee approves amendment allowing civil suits over minors' gender-affirming interventions",4108,4445000,8553000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3103311-45484207c748db94ae65c7a98563ad6c&start=4445&end=8553","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3103311-45484207c748db94ae65c7a98563ad6c/thumbnail_4445000.jpg","/articles/6598048/Arkansas/Senate-committee-approves-amendment-allowing-civil-suits-over-minors-gender-affirming-interventions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6598048-fccee88f32c87e35082994e1d0038426/orig.mp4?Expires=1771195703&Signature=TUu6zIzy5SFACp7JHpi~XTk6T-MRXDny7dhCE9n5b-akaUE2t~NFctnjbQJKVg-4~cHrklxY4Ym6OQhhvBuOi7p2brG3r9bH8XsZbjF4g0R4t8xBzzFxf6DJYLamFGK~mLxYFIrrwGKhIRklpj24RmW-IzCydrCLdULtZCETWS1-PZd1PDCrHJgpEH173QCgYlJ1L58kcXDljPHctxeQjtyNbRevv4s0Ah1QmjyaIXaeemtZwd5llTCv6HeazhIQKYfGwDE-EFzMONrYi4ozkc-QDoMOeEgyHsl9h8f5onOc3rL4Jr82TuF6u6HQDJkWPKlStnxm~waiuGo1Cmm8EQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Mary Bentley, District 54, closed debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee on House Bill 19‑16 and the committee voted to pass the measure. The bill would amend Act 274 (2023) to allow a minor or the minor’s parent to bring a civil claim for injury “including without limitation any physical, psychological, emotional, or physiological injury” caused by a “gender transition procedure, gender affirming intervention, or related treatment,” and extends the statute of limitations to allow suit up to 15 years after the child turns 18.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Mary Bentley, said the amendment is intended to restore what she called earlier approaches to care and to provide legal remedies for children who, in her view, have been harmed by gender-affirming medical or behavioral interventions. “I want us to return to what works for Arkansas,” Bentley said in closing.

Supporters of the bill and many committee members described the measure as a survivor-protection and malpractice remedy; opponents — including multiple licensed clinicians and medical professionals testifying during the hearing — warned that its language is vague, would expose broad categories of mental‑health practice to litigation, and could further reduce access to treatment in a state with widely reported shortages of behavioral‑health providers.

Why this matters: the bill changes the legal exposure of clinicians and alters the remedies available to minors alleged to have been harmed by gender‑related care, and it would expand the class of defendants beyond physicians to some behavioral‑health providers depending on how courts interpret the statutory language.

Key provisions and disputed points

- Statute of limitations: HB 19‑16 allows a civil claim up to 15 years after a child reaches 18, mirroring the sponsor’s description that it extends the period for bringing suit following a minor’s treatment.

- Definition language: the bill defines “gender affirming intervention” to include “an intervention to support a patient’s identification with a gender opposite of his or her biological ***, including puberty blockers and cross‑*** hormone therapy.” Witnesses repeatedly said the statutory language is broad and leaves unclear what ordinary therapeutic activities (listening, reflective questioning, use of different names or pronouns) would count as a prohibited or actionable “intervention.”

- Standard of liability: committee questioning focused on whether claims under the prior 2023 law and this amendment require proof of professional negligence or impose liability even when care met professional standards. Representative Bentley repeatedly said the amendment is intended to provide a civil remedy for severe, lasting harms; committee members pressed whether the bill creates strict‑liability exposure for clinicians. Bentley answered that harms would be measured by the judge or jury and that she expected proof would be required at trial.

Testimony and concerns from clinicians and medical professionals

Dozens of mental‑health and medical professionals spoke during the hearing. Licensed counselors and psychologists testified they do not prescribe puberty blockers or hormones in Arkansas but said the bill’s current language would nonetheless create considerable uncertainty for therapists about routine therapeutic practices. Josh Garrett, a licensed professional counselor, said the bill’s undefined use of the word “intervention” could make ordinary therapy “intervention” and subject clinicians to suits and ethical dilemmas.

Reverend Gary Cheater, an ordained United Methodist minister and licensed professional counselor who has served on the Arkansas Board of Examiners in Counseling, testified that counselors cannot prescribe medication and that striking lines 27–31 (the definition passage referencing medical interventions) would make the bill more coherent for therapy practice.

Tisha Dean, a clinical psychologist, said the bill would increase liability costs for clinicians and worsen workforce shortages. Lindsey Thomas, a clinical psychologist, and Kirsten Sowell, a licensed clinical social worker, told the committee the bill would deter clinicians from treating minors and urged the committee to oppose or substantially revise the language. Nurse Nikki Boke and other medical witnesses argued that gender‑affirming care is multidisciplinary and that clinical standards emphasize individualized, cautious care; they warned legislative restrictions will not reduce needs but will reduce access.

Questions from committee members

Committee members, including Senator Tucker and others, asked specific questions about whether ordinary therapeutic acts — asking a client’s preferred name or pronoun, reflective listening, documentation of a client’s stated identity — would qualify as an actionable “gender affirming intervention.” Clinicians answered they feared those acts could be construed as interventions under the bill as written.

Other committee discussion addressed the medical literature cited by the sponsor. Representative Bentley asserted statistics and studies supportive of her position; clinicians and other witnesses said the literature is more complex and that the bill’s policy conclusions did not follow from the evidence presented at the hearing.

Final action

After public testimony and the sponsor’s brief closing, the committee took an immediate vote. The chair called for the motion to pass; Senators Johnson and McKee were recorded as the motion’s backers in committee discussion, and the committee announced the motion carried by voice vote. Representative Bentley was told after the vote that her bill had passed the committee.

What the bill does not resolve

The statute does not define limits on which providers are covered or whether out‑of‑state practitioners treating Arkansas minors remotely would be subject to suit; the committee heard that counselors in Arkansas cannot prescribe medications, but the bill text does not explicitly exclude counselors from liability. Witnesses repeatedly asked for clearer, narrower definitions and safe‑harbor language to protect routine therapeutic practices and to clarify the standard of proof and remedies.

Next steps

The committee passed HB 19‑16 and the measure will next proceed according to the Senate calendar for further consideration.

Ending

The hearing lasted through the committee’s scheduled return to session; the chair closed testimony, the sponsor offered brief remarks and asked for “a good vote,” and the committee approved the bill by voice vote. The substantial record of testimony indicates likely follow‑on debate as the bill moves through subsequent stages.","The Senate Judiciary Committee passed House Bill 19‑16, an amendment to Act 274 (2023) that allows minors or their parents to sue for damages arising from gender-affirming interventions; testimony from dozens of mental‑health and medical professionals produced sharp disagreement over definitions, scope, and clinical practice.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee clears several bills including nonconsensual image expansion, judgment renewal and manufactured‑home writ change

Senate committee approves amendment allowing civil suits over minors' gender-affirming interventions