provision of Amendment 68 to the effect that "[t]he policy of this state is to protect the life of every unborn child from conception until birth . . ." merely expresses the public policy of the state, but does not itself provide any means by which the policy is to be effectuated and therefore cannot be considered self-executing
How later courts described this case
- provision of Amendment 68 to the effect that "[t]he policy of this state is to protect the life of every unborn child from conception until birth . . ." merely expresses the public policy of the state, but does not itself provide any means by which the policy is to be effectuated and therefore cannot be considered self-executing
- observing that rules of constitutional construction track those of statutory construction
- rules of constitutional construction track those of statutory construction
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
David Newbern, Justice, dissenting. With some temerity, recognizing that consistency is sometimes said to be the hobgoblin of small minds, I suggest we should remember what we did two months ago. In The Unborn Child Amendment Comm. v. Ward, 318 Ark. 165 , 883 S.W.2d 817 (1994), we postponed interpretation of Amendment 68 because a United States District Court had declared it “void,” sort of, and that decision was on appeal. As was noted in the dissenting opinion, the state court injunction we were asked to review was not necessarily inconsistent with that of the federal court.
Today we barge ahead and interpret Amendment 68 because “neither party filed a motion for stay.” Are we saying the federal court decision has somehow lost its vitality because the parties in last month’s case asked us for a stay but the ones now before us have not? We should have answered the questions asked about Amendment 68 last month. Having declined to do so then, however, we should decline to do so now.
I respectfully dissent.