ReportWire

Tag: abortion rights

  • Florida Supreme Court OKs ‘impact statement’ on costs of abortion amendment

    Florida Supreme Court OKs ‘impact statement’ on costs of abortion amendment

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Photo by Matt Keller Lehman

    The Yes on 4 rally and March at Lake Eola Park

    In a defeat for supporters of a proposal aimed at enshrining abortion rights in the state Constitution, the Florida Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for a revised “financial impact statement” to appear on the November ballot.

    Financial impact statements, which usually draw little attention, provide estimated effects of proposed constitutional amendments on government revenues and the state budget. But the revised statement for the abortion amendment has drawn controversy because Floridians Protecting Freedom, a political committee backing the proposed amendment, contends it is politicized and misleading.

    The committee filed a lawsuit alleging that House Speaker Kathleen Passidomo, R-Naples, and House Speaker Paul Renner, R-Palm Coast, lacked the power to direct a panel of economists, known as the Financial Impact Estimating Conference, to revise the statement. The legislative leaders made the move amid legal wrangling after a circuit judge’s decision that an initial statement needed to be rewritten.

    But Wednesday’s 6-1 ruling authored by Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz, rejected the committee’s arguments.

    Representatives of Floridians Protecting Freedom “actively participated in the estimating conference process that they now challenge, without questioning or objecting to the conference’s authority to issue a revised financial impact statement on its own initiative. For that basic reason, the petitioners waived or forfeited any reasonable claim to extraordinary relief from this court,” the chief justice wrote in the opinion joined by Justices Charles Canady, John Couriel, Jamie Grosshans and Meredith Sasso. Justice Renatha Francis agreed and wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Jorge Labarga dissented.

    Backers of the proposed amendment, which will appear on the ballot as Amendment 4, said Wednesday the revised statement is “deceptive and designed to “deliberately confuse voters.”

    “Despite today’s decision, a ‘yes’ on Amendment 4 still means getting politicians out of our exam rooms so that women are free to make their own health care decisions with their doctors,” Lauren Brenzel, director of the political committee, said in a statement.

    The Financial Impact Estimating Conference released an initial statement about the proposed amendment in November 2023. But legal wrangling about the statement began after an April 1 Supreme Court decision that broke with decades of judicial precedent and allowed a 2023 law to take effect that prevented abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.

    Floridians Protecting Freedom filed a lawsuit on April 5 arguing that the November financial-impact statement needed to be revised because it was outdated after the Supreme Court ruling. Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper agreed in June and ordered the Financial Impact Estimating Conference to draft a new version.

    Amid a state appeal of Cooper’s ruling, Passidomo and Renner directed the conference to meet. The conference held three meetings in July before issuing the revised version, with the controversial changes driven by economists representing Gov. Ron DeSantis and the state House.

    Supporters of the amendment “never questioned” the panel’s authority to “voluntarily adopt” a revised statement, Muniz wrote Wednesday.

    “Instead, they actively participated in every step of the revision process without objection. They offered oral and written presentations at each of the estimating conference’s three July meetings, thoroughly and forcefully advocating their position on what the revised financial impact statement should say,” he added.

    The ruling denied a request that the court order another impact statement “without expressing any views on the substantive legality of the revised statement itself.”

    But Labarga, one of two justices on the seven-member court who was not appointed by DeSantis, said the court should decide “the legitimate questions” raised in the lawsuit about whether the legislative leaders had the authority to order a revised statement.

    “As the majority describes, this case involves an extremely fluid procedural history … It is not an overstatement to say that the circumstances of this case are quite convoluted,” Labarga wrote, noting the timeline leading up to Wednesday’s decision. “All of these circumstances led to a legal quagmire, one that does not lend itself to today’s outcome. This case, involving unique facts, untested legal issues, and a time-sensitive matter of statewide importance, calls for more.”

    The revised statement that will appear on the ballot says, in part, that there is “uncertainty about whether the amendment will require the state to subsidize abortions with public funds. Litigation to resolve those and other uncertainties will result in additional costs to the state government and state courts that will negatively impact the state budget. An increase in abortions may negatively affect the growth of state and local revenues over time. Because the fiscal impact of increased abortions on state and local revenues and costs cannot be estimated with precision, the total impact of the proposed amendment is indeterminate.”

    Critics of Amendment 4, including DeSantis, contend that it would do away with the state’s abortion restrictions except a previous amendment that required parental notification before minors can receive abortions. DeSantis’ chief of staff, James Uthmeier, is heading two political committees gathering millions of dollars to fight the abortion measure and another proposed constitutional amendment that would allow adults to use recreational marijuana.

    Lawyers for the American Civil Liberty Union of Florida called Wednesday’s ruling a “direct affront to the rights of Florida voters, who deserve accurate and lawful information” when deciding on constitutional amendments.

    “The politicization of these financial impact statements erodes public trust in our institutions and threatens the integrity of every future ballot measure. The implications of this decision are dire — the court has effectively granted the state unchecked authority to manipulate voter information without any meaningful oversight, setting the stage for future abuses of power where state officials can sidestep the courts and the law with impunity,” Michelle Morton, staff attorney for the ACLU of Florida, said in a statement.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    Dara Kam, News Service of Florida

    Source link

  • Abortion Will Be on the Ballot in November in Arizona and Montana

    Abortion Will Be on the Ballot in November in Arizona and Montana

    [ad_1]

    In the post-Roe environment, this is not good news for Republicans. Abortion will be on the ballot in both swing state Arizona and Montana, where Democratic Senator Jon Tester needs all of the help he can get to win his close race.

    The Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a challenge by anti-abortion activists to the Arizona Abortion Access Act, aka Proposition 139. It had amassed “a record-breaking number of signatures to qualify for the November ballot, and just under 578,000 were confirmed to be valid last week — far exceeding the 383,923 requirement for a proposal that amends the Arizona Constitution.”

    Anti-abortion activists (who misleadingly refer to themselves as “Right to Life” when this doesn’t apply to women’s or girl’s lives) argued that voters hadn’t been told that this would invalidate existing abortion laws including the current 15-week gestational ban, as if that wasn’t the point, but the judge ruled the Act “perfectly accurate.”

    Indeed, if this passes, it sets the anti-abortion activists back. “The act guarantees access to an abortion up to the point of fetal viability, generally regarded as being around 24 weeks, and includes exceptions beyond that timeframe if a health care provider deems the procedure is necessary to preserve a woman’s life, physical or mental health. It also prohibits any state law from denying, interfering or restricting a woman’s right to obtain an abortion unless the state has a compelling interest in doing so that is rooted in evidence-based decision-making and doesn’t infringe on a woman’s autonomy.”

    In other words, abortion is healthcare and healthcare is best decided by professionals and individuals.

    In Montana, abortion will also be on the ballot in November. The state Secretary of State’s office certified on Tuesday that the issue will be on the ballot. Montana voters will have the opportunity to enshrine their right to medical freedom in the state constitution.

    “Montana’s measure seeks to enshrine a 1999 Montana Supreme Court ruling that said the constitutional right to privacy protects the right to a pre-viability abortion by a provider of the patient’s choice as Republican lawmakers have tried to overturn the ruling, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 and left the abortion issue up to the states,” the AP reported late Tuesday evening.

    The abortion measure might help boost Democratic Senator Jon Tester, who was polling behind his Republican opponent Tim Sheehy until the most recent week of polling.

    This makes eight states in which abortion will be on the ballot in November. Additionally, the AP noted Nebraska as having a measure pending and New York having a “protective” measure barring discrimination regarding reproductive healthcare on the ballot, but it doesn’t specifically mention abortion.

    So far, each time the issue of medical freedom has been brought before voters, it has won — including in red states like Ohio and Kentucky. A lot of work goes into not only getting signatures for these measures, but then fighting in court against anti-abortion activists who seek to overturn the will of the voters and impose their own beliefs on the populace at large at every turn.

    Medical freedom is an individual human right, and someone else’s religious beliefs should have no bearing on how your doctor can treat you no matter what the presenting healthcare issue is.

    Abortion will now be on the ballot in Arizona, Montana, South Dakota, Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, Maryland and Florida.

    Sarah Jones
    Latest posts by Sarah Jones (see all)

    [ad_2]

    Sarah Jones

    Source link

  • DeSantis appoints ‘pro-life’ radiologist to the Florida Board of Medicine

    DeSantis appoints ‘pro-life’ radiologist to the Florida Board of Medicine

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    photo via the Governor’s Office

    As abortion rights advocates in Florida step up their campaign for a November ballot measure that would strengthen abortion rights in Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis once again on Friday showed residents exactly which side he’s on.

    Gov. DeSantis, who launched his own political committee this year in part to help defeat the abortion rights ballot measure, appointed to the Florida Board of Medicine on Friday Steven Christie, a local radiologist, attorney and author of a book titled Speaking for the Unborn: 30-Second Pro-Life Rebuttals to Pro-Life Arguments.

    The Florida Board of Medicine is a 15-member board of Governor appointees established to “ensure that every physician practicing in this state meets minimum requirements for safe practice,” according to its website. Twelve of the members must be licensed physicians in good standing, while the other three must be state residents who have never been licensed as a healthcare practitioner. All appointments are subject to approval by the Florida Senate, which is dominated by Republican lawmakers who approved the state’s six-week abortion ban before it was signed into law.

    Christie, the local radiologist newly appointed by DeSantis, is also scheduled as a featured speaker at the upcoming “Culture of Life Conference” being presented by the Catholic Charities of Central Florida in October. The CCCF is a ministry of the Diocese of Orlando that, according to state campaign finance records, has donated at least $50,000 to a political committee created to advocate against Florida’s abortion rights measure, which will appear on the ballot this fall as Amendment 4.

    If approved by more than 60 percent of Florida voters, the measure would add to the Florida Constitution that “no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” Viability is generally interpreted by medical practitioners as roughly 24 weeks of gestation, or pregnancy.

    The political committee funded in part by Catholic Charities, dubbed Florida Voters Against Extremism, is one of four political committees that have been created in an effort to defeat Amendment 4, which is being led by a political committee bankrolled by liberal organizations that support abortion access, including reproductive healthcare provider Planned Parenthood, the Tides Foundation (a progressive nonprofit), the American Civil Liberties Union and wealthy philanthropists, as well as an extensive list of individual donors who have contributed anywhere from $5 to $25.

    Catholic Charities is a faith-based nonprofit organization that, granted, does more than explicitly oppose abortion rights and offer “post-abortive healing.” The nonprofit also runs community-based housing, health and social assistance programs that are often funded in part by state or local government money.

    Some of the local chapters in the state, including chapters in St. Petersburg, Boynton Beach and Palm Beach, also run state-funded anti-abortion programs that aim to convince pregnant people not to seek out abortion services, luring pregnant people into their “clinics” with free pregnancy tests, sonograms or free items for babies like diapers.

    The Florida Pregnancy Care Network, a state-funded “alternatives to abortion” program, gave Catholic Charities-run programs a total of $410,000 in 2022, according to the nonprofit’s latest tax filing. Altogether, the state allocates millions of taxpayer dollars to such programs each year. Many don’t even have medical professionals on staff. Most, if not all, do not have a state medical license, meaning they are not bound by HIPAA privacy laws. 

    Dr. Steven Christie specializes in oncology and body imaging, according to Catholic Charities, and claims to be “pro-science.” “There is overwhelming scientific consensus that life begins at conception,” Dr. Christie wrote, in a blog post for the St. Paul Center, a faith-based nonprofit research and educational institute, even though the concept of “life at conception” is largely viewed as a philosophical or religious concept rather than one based in scientific fact.

    “The court said that when life begins is up to whoever is running your state — whether they are wrong or not, or you agree with them or not,” Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California-Davis, told NPR after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

    Christie was appointed to the board Friday along with Dr. “J” Matthew Knight, a dermatologist and founder of the Knight Dermatology Institute; Dr. Scot Ackerman, medical director of the Ackerman Cancer; and Dr. Hector Vila, the managing partner and anesthesiologist at Pediatric Dental Anesthesia Associates.

    Vila formerly served on the Board of Medicine under former Gov. Rick Scott’s administration, and was reappointed by DeSantis to the board in 2019. Ahead of his reappointment that year, Vila argued in support of a restrictive abortion-related law in an appeals court case between the state and a Gainesville abortion clinic. The latter challenged the state over a law that requires patients obtaining an abortion procedure to schedule two separate appointments with an abortion provider that includes a minimum 24-hour waiting period between appointments.

    Vila argued at the same that a less-than-24-hour waiting period between appointments for an abortion procedure “would fall below the acceptable medical standard of care.” Critics of the law have described it as unnecessarily restrictive and a barrier to care, especially as the state further limits abortion access.

    The Florida Board of Medicine has been criticized in the recent past for advancing rules on prohibiting gender-affirming care for transgender youth, which state lawmakers and DeSantis later codified into law before a federal judge struck the ban down as unconstitutional. In 2022, the board and DeSantis faced criticism after DeSantis was caught appointing two new members to the board who support conversion therapy for trans and gender-nonconforming children and oppose gender-affirming care.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    McKenna Schueler

    Source link

  • A Race Against Time: The Hidden Cruelty of Ohio’s 24-Hour Waiting Period Abortion Rule

    A Race Against Time: The Hidden Cruelty of Ohio’s 24-Hour Waiting Period Abortion Rule

    [ad_1]

    Madeline Fening

    A nurse holds a sign in support of abortion access at a Planned Parenthood rally in Downtown Cincinnati on May 15, 2022.

    While staring at the ceiling of an Ohio emergency room, Ellen Groh realized she’d experienced this pain four years before.

    In February 2020, at nearly 18 weeks pregnant, she experienced a miscarriage.

    “I was feeling great and then all of a sudden I had to poop,” Groh says over a Zoom call. Some identifying details, like her legal last name, have been changed to protect her identity. “And so I ran to the bathroom, and I didn’t poop. I delivered into the toilet. My 18-week fetus, pregnancy… I’m going to call them pregnancies, I think. I don’t really know what to call them.”

    Weeks before, this pregnancy came as a surprise to Groh and her then-boyfriend, now husband. Nervously embracing the prospect of parenthood, everything was new to the young couple, including the symptoms of labor that had started three days before she ended up delivering in her toilet. Despite both Groh and her husband working in the medical field, they felt lost at that moment.

    “We kind of froze,” she says. “We’re like, ‘What the hell do we do?’”

    Groh told her husband to call their doctor, who instructed her to go to the hospital right away. There, she delivered her placenta, received antibiotics and started to navigate ricocheting feelings.

    “It’s all different emotions, like relief, guilt, obviously sadness,” she says. “But like, we were okay. Cried a lot.”

    Fast forward to October of 2023. Groh and her husband found out they were pregnant for the second time. Still a surprise, but a welcome one. They were excited to be parents.

    “I want to say it was planned, because it was kind of like, if it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen,” she says. “Who’s ever ready?”

    Like her first pregnancy, Groh’s developing embryo was healthy, but she and her husband took extra precautions to try and prevent another miscarriage, like genetic testing. Everything from her anatomy scan in February 2024 looked great.

    Less than 10 days later at 20 weeks gestation, Groh and her husband were having sex – which is widely considered safe for pregnant individuals – when she began bleeding.

    “I just kept bleeding and I was like, ‘Well, this is not normal,’” Groh says. “I had one big cramp and I was like, wow, that’s weird.”

    Groh’s doctor told her to go right to the hospital. She thought they’d be coming home that same day.

    “We didn’t even pack any bags,” she says. “It’s like, alright, we’ll be back soon.”

    Groh’s cervix was nearly four centimeters dilated with telescoping membranes, meaning it was likely her body would try to deliver the pregnancy. Doctors presented the idea of cerclage, which is where doctors stitch a patient’s cervix shut to stave off labor, but Groh was told she may be too far dilated.

    “After you’re dilated a certain amount, it becomes a risk of rupturing the membranes, and then [you’re at risk of] infection,” Groh says.

    Next came the subject of viability – a conversation Groh knew was coming.

    Fetal viability, which is the gestational age at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, is generally considered to be around 23 to 24 weeks with intensive medical care. Pregnancies delivered between 21 and 22 weeks rarely survive, with only 3% of babies surviving four hours after delivery, according to the National Institutes of Health.

    “At this point […] I don’t think anybody has told me specifically that I’m miscarrying yet because, like, they’re trying, you know? We’re trying to get hope,” Groh says. “But I just want the facts. Give me the facts because I understand what’s happening with my body. With the limited medical knowledge that I have of this area, I can understand.”

    Groh made it clear to her care team that she is a pediatric nurse. She knows the size of the tubes that can be used to keep a premature baby alive, and that a baby delivered at 20 weeks is too small for even the smallest tools needed to give them hope. She’s also intimately aware of what life would look like if she were to deliver a baby that’s not ready to enter the world – if her pregnancy would survive at all.

    “There are substantial effects that this pregnancy, that this child could have down the road. Because I see this daily at work,” she says. “At this point, with the knowledge that I have and my history, in my brain, I think I know what’s gonna happen.”

    Contractions were ramping up and becoming increasingly painful. Doctors confirmed Groh’s instincts from her experience in 2020: this wasn’t labor, this was a miscarriage. The pregnancy’s chances of survival were extremely low and the threat of infection and complications were rising, putting her own health at risk. Her care team grew with more specialists, more doctors who presented her with options, of which she knew there was only one. She decided to call it.

    “It was almost like, kind of relieving,” she says. “I have all these thoughts in my brain, but now we’re going down a solid path. This is the path that we’re going down.”

    The path included a handful of options for ending Groh’s physical and emotional suffering, but only two stuck out in the moment and in her memory: delivering the miscarried fetus naturally or getting a dilation and evacuation, known as a D&E.

    “At the end of the day, this is what I wanted. I wanted a D&E,” Groh says. “I wanted to be done having contractions because I knew this fetus, or this pregnancy, was not going to survive. I had already been through it once, so I knew that this is what this fetus is going to look like.”

    In addition to being used in miscarriage cases like Groh’s, a D&E is a method of abortion care used by doctors. Often referred to as a surgical abortion, the procedure uses suction and medical tools to empty the uterus. Some patients may also use misoprostol to remove a miscarriage during early pregnancy loss. Misoprostol is one pill from the often two-step medication abortion method, which is available to patients who are less than 11 weeks along in their pregnancy.

    Patients who want or need to terminate a pregnancy can do so with a D&E until 21 weeks and six days gestation – that’s when Ohio law prohibits abortions of any kind moving forward, unless the patient’s life is at risk.

    In Groh’s case, there was no way to know how long it would take to deliver her miscarried fetus naturally. All they knew was she was bleeding and the pregnancy was still giving off tones that indicate cardiac activity, and that matters. Doctors could have proceeded with the D&E if Groh’s fetus was no longer giving off heart tones, but Ohio law requires that doctors and their patients wait at least 24 hours before starting an abortion if fetal or embryonic cardiac activity is detected. The medical community generally considers cardiac activity to begin in utero around six weeks gestation, which is usually before most patients know they are pregnant. The concept of being able to hear a true fetal heartbeat at six weeks is also contested by some physicians.

    According to Dr. Nisha Verma, an OB/GYN from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, cardiac valves don’t even exist at six weeks of gestation.

    “The flickering that we’re seeing on the ultrasound that early in the development of the pregnancy is actually electrical activity, and the sound that you ‘hear’ is actually manufactured by the ultrasound machine,” Verma told NPR for a story about “heartbeat bills.”

    Anatomy of the 24-hour rule

    Identifying the presence of fetal heart tones is part of Ohio’s mandatory “informed consent” requirement for abortion patients, and it’s wrapped up in the 24-hour rule under that same umbrella.

    The Ohio Legislature first imposed a mandatory information requirement for abortion in a law that took effect in 1992. Originally, that law allowed the information to be conveyed 24 hours before the abortion, “verbally or by other non-written means of communication” – meaning it did not require an initial in-person visit to the clinic. The information could be given by phone or even fax. This law was challenged in state court in Preterm Cleveland v. Voinovich, but the 10th District Court of Appeals upheld it as constitutional, and the Ohio Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

    Then, in 1998, the legislature amended the law to require that the communication must occur in person.

    Ever since, a physician must give the patient written confirmation that a cardiac activity is present and provide the patient with information about the statistical probability of carrying that pregnancy to term. The patient must sign and acknowledge receipt of this information, fulfilling the state’s informed consent requirement for abortion care.

    Ohio is one of 33 states that requires such counseling before an abortion is performed; one of 29 states that details what information abortion providers must give these patients; one of 28 states that requires patients to wait a specific amount of time for their abortion after counseling; and one of just 16 states that requires this counseling take place in person, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

    After jumping through the hoops of a consultation appointment and putting pen to paper, that’s when the clock starts. And while the waiting period rule may only span 24 hours, abortion providers report there are domino effects that can last weeks.

    Why abortion providers oppose the 24-hour rule

    Vanessa Hinsdale is the administrative director of surgery for Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio. She says the 24-hour waiting period clogs the entire scheduling system, impacting all patients.

    “With the waiting periods for us because of the volume of patients that we see, it takes right now about 20 days to get in just for your first appointment,” Hinsdale says. “That clock is ticking and, say they really want a medication abortion, you know, they get in and they’re nine weeks and it’s 10 weeks in a day – it is literally 70 days, so if you come back after that 24-hour period and you are 71 days, we can’t. Without a waiting period, they would have more of a choice.”

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in June of 2022 created a cascading effect on abortion rights across the nation. States that once had abortion access quickly enacted “trigger bans” that drastically scaled back abortion access, sometimes outlawing it altogether. Ohio’s own “heartbeat bill” was enacted after the fall of Roe, effectively banning abortions after six weeks, but the ban was put on pause four months later when a Hamilton County judge granted a motion for preliminary injunction. In November of 2023, Ohio voters passed a citizen-led state constitutional amendment to enshrine the right to reproductive freedom, protecting abortion access. Issue 1 passed with wide margins – 56.8% of the vote. Ohio was the first red state to restore abortion rights after the Supreme Court returned the decision to the states.

    Because Ohio abortion law currently allows patients to access an abortion up until 21 weeks and six days gestation, Ohio has become the only option for many out-of-state patients seeking an abortion. These patients are commonly coming from states with total abortion bans, like Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia. But even states that have enacted and maintained narrow abortion windows, like Florida and South Carolina, are seeing citizens flee to Ohio for care. Hinsdale says Ohio’s waiting period law is making it difficult to meet the needs of both in-state and out-of-state patients.

    “I will tell you, because of the 24-hour period and the amount of distance that patients are traveling here, we see around 51% of our patients are not in the state of Ohio,” Hinsdale says. “They’re coming from Lexington, Louisville, Tennessee, Indiana, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana.”

    Ohio currently has nine abortion clinics in operation, including six surgical centers and three medication-only clinics. Depending on a patient’s location and gestational timeline, even in-state patients may need to travel hours and stay overnight to meet the 24-hour waiting period requirements. For out-of-state patients, this further extends the time spent away from work, family and loved ones, many of whom may not know their loved one is seeking an abortion.

    “Not everybody has that comfort level, that ability, those people,” Hinsdale says.

    There is no medical rationale for the 24-hour waiting period, says Hinsdale – it’s simply a matter of the state requiring the patient to have time to think about their decision. In Preterm Cleveland v. Voinovich, the case that upheld the 24-hour waiting period rule, Judge Petree wrote in his partial concurrence (he disagreed with others on the three-judge panel on providing patients with state-mandated information) that a 24-hour waiting period “would foster reflection” in patients.

    “Clearly a waiting period, with ample provision for emergency situations, would foster reflection about important medical decisions,” the ruling reads. “Though we are unaware of similar waiting periods for other types of medical procedures, this is not fatal. No doubt there are many situations where medical providers perform questionable and perhaps unnecessary surgeries, such as hysterectomies, where a waiting period might serve to quell unthinking acceptance of a doctor’s conclusion. This is not too far afield of the common insurance company practice of requiring second opinions before invasive procedures are undertaken.”

    But Hinsdale says sterilization procedures, like hysterectomies, aren’t held to the same standard as abortion care for “reflection” about your decision.

    “If you are getting a vasectomy and you’re using certain types of insurance, or any kind of sterilization, there is a waiting period, and that is a very small subset of the population,” Hinsdale says. “There is nothing else that’s comparative to being like, you have to jump all through these hoops and wait and do all these things in order to have basic healthcare.”

    The 24-hour waiting period law is different for those who are experiencing a medical emergency and want or need an abortion as a result, but doctors are often dealing with extremely narrow definitions about what constitutes “life of the mother” exceptions. Even if a patient is pregnant for less than 21 weeks and six days – the cut-off time for an elective abortion in Ohio – it’s against the law for a doctor to provide an abortion within the 24-hour waiting period window when there’s fetal cardiac activity. That is, unless the patient is at risk of losing their life or a major bodily function. In Ohio, a doctor who is found to have violated that 24-hour rule can be charged with a misdemeanor and potentially lose their license. Since the fall of Roe, there have been highly publicized cases of doctors, including in Ohio, who are declining to perform abortions for medically-emergent patients for fear of breaking the law.

    “If you make standard medical care a crime when folks in all kinds of difficult medical situations present, especially in emergency situations, we are always going to see some type of delay,” Caitlin Gustafson, an OB-GYN in Idaho, told Politico in April. “Because it’s criminalized care, physicians are going to naturally hesitate.”

    Whether a doctor will take on that risk on behalf of a patient experiencing a medical emergency can vary from hospital to hospital – sometimes transfers have to happen.

    “You do have a section of patients that have a pregnancy that might have been a very desired, very sought after, sometimes a fertility-based pregnancy and that there might be parts of the pregnancy that are not sustainable but are not risk of life to the mother,” Hinsdale says. “If a patient doesn’t want to [deliver the pregnancy], they want to be able to just have a procedure, they either have to, in some cases, follow the 24-hour law or they have to go out of state to where there’s not a waiting period. It’s just more undue stress on a very stressful situation.”

    A sign from an abortion rally - Photo: Mary LeBus

    Photo: Mary LeBus

    A sign from an abortion rally

    The clock starts for Groh

    In Groh’s case, the start of her 24-hour waiting period on that February evening was when she started to feel less like a stoic pediatric nurse and more like a scared patient.

    “I was terrified – oh my god, I’m going to start crying,” Groh says, pausing the interview for a moment. “Jesus Christ, I haven’t cried like this in a while.”

    Her body was still bleeding. The unknown was catching up to her anxieties, and she still had 24 hours to go.

    “I was bleeding and nobody knew if there was an abruption,” she says. “I was like, I’m gonna bleed out, and nobody’s gonna be able to do anything.”

    Groh signed her informed consent form around 9 p.m. that night, meaning doctors had to wait until 9 p.m. the following day to begin her D&E. Her care team promised to monitor her heavily over the 24 hours, tracking her bleeding, the fetal heart tones. She wasn’t sure if they would be able to move up the D&E time if the fetus’ cardiac activity stopped, but she was in too much pain to think about specifics at this point.

    “[I had to] sit here in this agony of these contractions that are terrible,” she says. “I’ve never felt pain like this before.”

    Doctors gave Groh an epidural to help with her painful contractions. She declined one at first, feeling strange about getting care that resembled what was supposed to be a happy experience for fully-developed pregnancies.

    “I’m like, I’m miscarrying a baby, I’m not truly in childbirth,” she says. “I’m like, I don’t need an epidural. Like, I will look weak if I get an epidural, basically. But no, I got one, and that thing was life-changing.”

    Groh’s anxieties dulled slightly with her pain. Her husband, mom and cousin made sure she wouldn’t be alone for a second of her 24-hour waiting period. Under the hum of hospital fluorescents and steady beeps, Groh and her family tried to make the hardest 24 hours of her life feel somewhat normal.

    “I was trying not to think about it,” she says. “We are very sarcastic people in my family, and we joke a lot with each other about things. It was kind of just like, we’re just getting through this. We’re here and we’re getting through it. We’re gonna joke about stuff, we’re going to cry about stuff, we’re gonna do it all. We just have to get through these freaking 24 hours.”

    Snacking on vending machine sustenance in a line of chairs in front of Groh, her husband joked that he felt like they were at the movies, with Groh as the leading lady. She laughs at the comment still, thankful she had her family there to wait with her as the clock ticked.

    “I have these people here to support me, which other people do not,” she says, tearing up again at the thought. “I could not imagine being told that I have to wait 24 hours and not having anybody with me. So this is why I’m doing this [interview], because it’s jacked up that there are people out there that have to do this by themselves.”

    To Groh’s surprise and dismay, she felt the sudden urge to push around 3 a.m., just six hours into her 24-hour mandatory waiting period. Her husband hurried to call for the nurse, but her pregnancy arrived first. It was breathing.

    “It’s obviously traumatic,” Groh says. “I deliver a breathing, 20-week pregnancy, taking breaths, but still not viable. This is not the road I wanted to go down. I wanted the D&E so that I did not have to deliver, see this pregnancy breathing, knowing that it’s going to die. That was probably one of the hardest things, because I chose to have a D&E, but because of [the 24-hour rule], I did not make it to that time. I had to go down the path that I did not choose.”

    Reflecting on those moments makes Groh sad, but really she’s angry. She knows there are patients out there who are forced to navigate the same experience alone, patients who aren’t mentally equipped the same way she was thanks to her own medical training.

    “That’s why I’m angry,” she says. “I think of, once again, all the people who don’t have the support system that I have, and […] there are people that suffer from mental health issues, I think we all do in some sort of aspect, but there are people that can’t handle it.”

    The memory of delivering a dying pregnancy, the baby she was looking forward to meeting later under radically different circumstances, has cemented itself indelibly in Groh’s mind. The memory of her miscarriage at home now coupled with another fatal birth in the hospital. It was never supposed to be this way.

    “It was traumatic the first time, and now I’m doing it a second time. It’s even more traumatic,” she says. “I could have had a D&E. I could have been asleep, like I wanted to be. I could have not had a recollection of delivery.”

    Her choices whittled down by fate and the state, Groh used what little election she had left to do something that she still can’t explain to this day – she chose to hold her dying baby. Asked why, after everything she went through, she held her arms out.

    Groh pauses.

    “I don’t know. I have no idea. Because, I mean, it’s your baby,” Groh says. “I didn’t have to hold the pregnancy. That was also my choice.”

    Taking the 24-hour rule to court

    In April of 2024, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Ohio and Planned Parenthood Federation of America filed a lawsuit on behalf of Ohio abortion providers to challenge Ohio’s laws that force abortion patients to wait 24 hours to begin abortion care.

    According to the ACLU, the laws violate a part of the Issue 1 constitutional amendment that prohibits the state from “burdening, prohibiting, penalizing and interfering with access to abortion, and discriminating against abortion patients and providers.”

    “These laws violate Ohio’s constitutional right to reproductive freedom passed on November 7, 2023,” reads a press release from the ACLU. “The challenged abortion restrictions unnecessarily require the overwhelming majority of patients to make two trips to a health center and, in practice, often force patients to wait much longer than 24 hours to receive an abortion. This delays – and in some cases, completely prevents – patients from receiving an abortion.”

    “The singling out of abortion for differential and unfavorable treatment perpetuates the discriminatory view that patients do not think carefully about their decisions and do not understand the nature of the procedure,” adds Bethany Lewis, executive director of Cleveland’s Preterm abortion clinic. “This is a patronizing stereotype that has no place in our laws.”

    Jessie Hill is the lead attorney with the ACLU taking on the state’s 24-hour rule. She says their lawsuit goes after more aspects of the informed consent process for abortions in Ohio, but the 24-hour waiting requirement is the focus of this case.

    “The Reproductive Freedom Amendment that Ohioans adopted in November has much stronger and clearer language that makes it clear the state cannot restrict reproductive decisions, including abortion, unless they are doing so to advance patient health and in accordance with medical standards,” Hill says. “That is clearly not what this [24-hour waiting period] law does. And that’s really the linchpin of our case.”

    The lawsuit is set to go to trial in April 2025, but the ACLU has a hearing scheduled for their motion on a preliminary injunction to stop the 24-hour rule on Aug. 16 in a Franklin County Common Pleas court. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, filed an opposition to this request, saying in court documents that it’s the state’s duty to “respect the will of the people” who passed Issue 1, but that it’s also the state’s duty to defend “statutory provisions that the amendment does not invalidate against meritless attack.”

    What makes the lawsuit “meritless” to Yost is that the newly-passed constitutional amendment keeps the state from burdening, penalizing, prohibiting, interfering with or discriminating against patients seeking an abortion or those assisting with an abortion. To Yost, clinics themselves are not protected by this amendment, so a lawsuit filed by those representing clinics can’t legitimately argue that the 24-hour rule is impeding on patients’ individual rights.

    Yost goes on to address the argument made by the plaintiff that laws creating delays in care, like the domino effect of a mandatory waiting period, are not even the state’s business.

    “But the fact that patients often wait longer than 24 hours is not because of the law, but rather is attributable to several factors outside of the state’s control,” Yost’s filing stated.

    Ohio Republican Governor Mike DeWine, who opposed the passage of Issue 1, told WSYX that the 24-hour requirement should stay in place.

    “Those guardrails are still in effect. They worked well before. So I don’t see any reason to change them,” DeWine told reporters in May.

    Former Dayton mayor and Democratic candidate for Ohio Governor Nan Whaley, who was named the newest CEO for Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio in June, said the law has not “worked well” like DeWine believes.

    “The 24-hour waiting period is a real challenge for people coming from long distances that, unfortunately, have to come in from long distances to access abortion care,” Whaley says. “We’re becoming a safe-haven state – and we see this in the Cincinnati clinic, particularly – the rule is holding up the ability for us to serve more patients.”

    Asked if she thinks the 24-hour rule “worked well” for her, as DeWine would suggest, she scoffed.

    “Not at all, no. I feel like it discredited my knowledge, my decision making abilities,” Groh says. “It comes down to the fact that this was my choice. Your choice would have been totally different, which is fine, your choice is your choice. But I want to make the choices that are best for me and for my family. So that’s at the end of the day what it boils down to, and I want to make them when I want to make them.”

    A version of this article originally appeared in City Beat.

    [ad_2]

    Madeline Fening

    Source link

  • Nearly 30% of Florida women don’t know what the state’s abortion restrictions are, says survey

    Nearly 30% of Florida women don’t know what the state’s abortion restrictions are, says survey

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Photo by Matt Keller Lehman

    The Yes on 4 rally and March at Lake Eola Park

    Florida’s six-week abortion ban went into effect three months ago, but 29% of women remain unsure about the legality of abortion in the state, according to a new survey from KFF, a health policy research and news organization.

    Knowledge about Florida’s abortion restrictions is critical because voters will decide in November whether they want to protect access to the procedure up to viability (considered to be around 24 weeks). Women with lower incomes and those who identify as “pro-life” are less informed about abortion laws, according to a KFF survey of 512 Florida women between the ages of 18 and 49.

    KFF surveyed the women from May 13 to June 18, and the six-week abortion ban went into effect on May 1.

    The findings don’t surprise Lynda Bell, president of Florida Right to Life, who hopes to turn voters against Amendment 4. The abortion-rights proposal needs 60% voter approval to protect access to the procedure through the state Constitution. She recognizes that people might not be as plugged into the changes in legislation if they’re concentrating on making ends meet.

    A lot of work to do

    “This just shows me that we have a lot more work to do,” Bell said in a phone interview with Florida Phoenix. “Our educational aspect of Florida Right to Life, we are constantly trying to push out the news and expand our database, so that we can get to more and more people. We in the pro-life community, all the pro-life organizations, we need to continue working, and pushing, and telling women the truth about what’s happening in the state of Florida.”

    As PACs stack cash on both sides of the abortion-rights amendment, the Florida Access Network is struggling to help people seek abortions inside and outside of Florida. The organization provides financial assistance including transportation, lodging, food, and other expenses.

    FAN has a monthly cap of around $15,000 to help people pay for abortions, but just a week into August has already distributed $11,000, said Ginnely Carrasco, FAN’s director for client services, in a phone interview with the Phoenix.

    Lack of education extends to women’s knowledge of abortion resources. One third of Florida women don’t know where to get an abortion or where to find information about it, according to the survey. The rate of uncertainty was higher (45%) for Hispanic women.

    “I can vouch for that, because this was me. Having had mine back in 2008, I didn’t know that [FAN] existed,” Carrasco said.

    Finding clinics online that perform abortions has become increasingly difficult since Carrasco had her abortion, she said, citing the rise of “crisis pregnancy centers,” which offer pregnancy medical services but not abortions.

    “So many CPCs, like crisis pregnancy centers, have popped up since then that it has made it that much more difficult for clients to be able to discern and differentiate between a real clinic and one of these crisis pregnancy centers that purposely mislead people,” she said.

    For both FAN and Florida Right to Life, social media outreach and community engagement play an important role in educating people. Bell said she’s visited churches and Republican clubs in cities such as Miami and Jacksonville to move voters against Amendment 4.

    click to enlarge This graph illustrates Florida women’s support for abortion access compared to responses from reproductive-age women across the country - Image courtesy of KFF

    Image courtesy of KFF

    This graph illustrates Florida women’s support for abortion access compared to responses from reproductive-age women across the country

    The majority of Florida women support abortion access

    Despite the gaps in knowledge, 72% of women surveyed responded that they think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Even 51% of Republican women said abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

    In Florida, someone can get an abortion up to 15 weeks if the pregnancy is a result of rape, incest, or human trafficking. However, the person seeking the abortion needs to provide documentation that they were victims of those crimes, such as police reports. Abortions can only happen beyond 15 weeks if the fetus has a fatal abnormality, to save the life of the pregnant person, or if the pregnancy could impair a major bodily function.

    However, even with patients meet these exceptions, doctors might be reluctant to provide abortion services.

    Abortion bans without exceptions are not popular with women in Florida. Among those who said they were pro-life, only 24% said abortion should be illegal in all cases.

    Bell said the data from the KFF survey showing women support access to abortion concerned her a lot.

    “If you take that same group of people and you say, ‘Do you believe in abortion to through birth?’ If you were to rephrase that question, ‘Do you believe that we should be able to be aborted in the seventh, eighth, and ninth month?’ You’re going to have a flip on that because we’ve seen that,” she said.

    “If you were to flip that question, ‘Do you believe that there should be taxpayer funding of abortion?’ That would flip. ‘Do you think that parents should not be able to consent for their children’s minor abortions?’ That would also flip towards our way.”

    Late abortion rare

    Abortions beyond 21 weeks of gestation accounted for 0.4% of total abortions in the state in 2021, according to the latest available data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Florida covers abortions through Medicaid in cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest, as required under federal law. But opponents of Amendment 4 claim its passage would lead to legal challenges demanding Medicaid coverage for abortions; such a case is pending in Michigan.

    Additionally, the language of the amendment that seeks to limit government interference with abortion makes an exception for the statute that requires notification of the abortion to a minor’s parent or guardian, although Florida now requires notification and consent unless a judge deems the minor mature enough to decide for themselves.

    The survey and a recent poll from the University of North Florida showing that 69% of Floridians support Amendment 4 has made Carrasco optimistic about the outcome in November. However, another poll from Florida Atlantic University released on Wednesday shows Amendment 4 with 56% support, falling short of the 60% threshold.

    “I feel like our generation is not going to let this happen, especially without a fight,” Carrasco said.

    Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Diane Rado for questions: [email protected]. Follow Florida Phoenix on Facebook and Twitter.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    Jackie Llanos, Florida Phoenix

    Source link

  • Trump expects Florida’s abortion amendment to pass, but won’t say how he’ll vote

    Trump expects Florida’s abortion amendment to pass, but won’t say how he’ll vote

    [ad_1]

    Former President Donald Trump expects Florida voters to back a November ballot proposal that would put abortion rights in the state Constitution, but he didn’t say how he will vote.

    Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, said Thursday he’ll hold a future news conference to announce his position on what will appear on the ballot as Amendment 4.

    “Florida does have a vote coming up on that, and I think probably the vote will go in a little more liberal way than people thought,” Trump said during a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach.

    The U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 overturned the decades-old Roe v. Wade decision that ensured abortion access. The proposed Florida constitutional amendment would need support of 60 percent of voters to pass.

    A poll released last week by the University of North Florida’s Public Opinion Research Lab found 69 percent of likely voters favored the amendment.

    The Floridians Protecting Freedom political committee started the ballot initiative last year after the Republican-controlled Legislature and Gov. Ron DeSantis approved a law that prevents women from having abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.

    DeSantis and other state Republican leaders oppose the proposed constitutional amendment, which is backed by Democratic leaders.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    News Service of Florida

    Source link

  • Ohio Among States Spending Millions on Anti-Abortion Centers Since Dobbs, Study Finds

    Ohio Among States Spending Millions on Anti-Abortion Centers Since Dobbs, Study Finds

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

    Supporters of reproductive rights protested outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 26, 2024, as justices heard oral arguments over access to mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion.

    New data studying state funding for anti-abortion centers showed Ohio provided more than $22 million to groups in the state since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision overturned national abortion rights.

    Since 2013, the state has fed more than $35.5 million to anti-abortion funding, according to Equity Forward’s newest study of state-by-state funding for centers who are also called “crisis pregnancy centers,” and are often religiously affiliated facilities that provide services like ultrasounds and pregnancy tests, but have also reportedly provided outdated or debunked information about pregnancy.

    The organization looked at 23 states allocating public dollars to anti-abortion centers since 1995, the year they say had “the first verifiable instance of funding,” and up to July 23 of this year.

    “AACs use public dollars to fund tactics and programs that not only aim to delay, deceive and discourage those in search of abortion care but also act as an unnecessary barrier to pregnant people looking for other medical care and support services,” the report stated.

    In 22 states, the analysis found that more than $489 million has been allocated to anti-abortion centers since Dobbs was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022.

    Ohio has sent $35,583,939 to facilities in the state, with that total including public funding going to “Alternative to Abortion programs,” funding from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, and “other miscellaneous sources,” the study stated. Specifically, $17.8 million from the TANF program went to centers since 2013, according to Equity Forward. The study reported a total of nearly $200 million in TANF funds used for anti-abortion centers in nine states.

    TANF is a program designed to “help low-income families with children achieve economic self-sufficiency,” according to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, though states have discretion when it comes to using the federal funding, along with the state contribution to the fund.

    As part of Gov. Mike DeWine’s Office of Faith-Based Community Initiatives received $13.5 million for fiscal year 2024 in TANF Block Grant earmarks as part of the most recent state operating budget and funds grants through TANF. According to the office’s website, the purposes of TANF include preventing or reducing “the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies,” encouraging the “formation and maintenance of two-parent families” and ending the “dependence of parents in need on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work and marriage.

    The state also has a Parenting and Pregnancy Program through the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, for which $14 million was set aside in the last budget, $7 million per fiscal year, according to the Legislative Service Commission’s breakdown of the state budget.

    Organizations that receive money through the PPP must “promote childbirth, rather than abortion, through counseling and other services, including parenting and adoption support,” according to the state. Those entities are expressly banned from being “involved in or associated with any abortion activities, including providing abortion counseling or referrals to abortion clinics, performing abortion-related medical procedures, or engaging in pro-abortion advertising.”

    The state is still funding entities in this way despite a ballot initiative that constitutionalized reproductive rights including abortion last year, with the approval of 57% of voters. A spokesperson for DeWine has been asked multiple times if language would be changing within the PPP to reflect the language of the amendment, but he has yet to give a response.

    Ohio legislation in the last year seeks to further the support of anti-abortion groups, through possible tax credits, as another Republican bill seeks to keep state funds from benefitting abortion-related services.

    It’s not clear whether those bills will succeed during this General Assembly, which ends in December, but they could be reintroduced next year even if they fail to see a vote or passage.

    Originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal. Republished here with permission.

    [ad_2]

    Susan Tebben, The Ohio Capital Journal

    Source link

  • Fight over Florida’s abortion amendment statement heads to the Supreme Court

    Fight over Florida’s abortion amendment statement heads to the Supreme Court

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Photo by Matt Keller Lehman

    The Yes on 4 rally and March at Lake Eola Park

    A political committee leading efforts to pass a constitutional amendment on abortion rights has asked the Florida Supreme Court to invalidate a revised “financial impact statement” that would appear on the November ballot with the initiative.

    The Floridians Protecting Freedom committee on Wednesday filed a petition contending that House Speaker Paul Renner, R-Palm Coast, and Senate President Kathleen Passidomo, R-Naples, did not have the authority to direct a panel to revise the statement after a circuit judge rejected an earlier version.

    Financial impact statements provide estimated effects of proposed constitutional amendments on government revenues and the state budget. A panel known as the Financial Impact Estimating Conference issued a revised statement July 15, but Floridians Protecting Freedom contends the statement is politicized and inaccurate.

    The petition filed at the Supreme Court said the statement could have only been revised after a court order, not because of direction from state leaders.

    “The state’s lack of authority to unilaterally revise a financial impact statement does make good sense,” Floridians Protecting Freedom attorneys wrote. “Consider the chaos caused by the alternative: The state could change financial impact statements on a whim, at any time, for any reason — providing sponsors, litigants, and the public little or no time to digest the statements or to challenge them before they are irrevocably placed on the ballot.”

    The Financial Impact Estimating Conference released an initial statement for the proposed amendment in November 2023. But on April 1, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that allowed a six-week abortion limit to take effect.

    Floridians Protecting Freedom filed a lawsuit on April 5 arguing that the November financial-impact statement needed to be revised because it was outdated after the Supreme Court ruling. Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper agreed and ordered the Financial Impact Estimating Conference to draft a new version.

    State lawyers appealed, arguing that Cooper did not have legal authority to issue such an order. Amid the appeal, Renner and Passidomo directed the Financial Impact Estimating Conference to revamp the statement.

    The revised statement led the 1st District Court of Appeal on Monday to dismiss the pending legal case, saying it was moot.

    “The result is that, absent this (Supreme) Court’s intervention, the state intends to place a Financial Impact Statement on the ballot that is plainly misleading in contravention (of a Supreme Court precedent and a section of state law) and the circuit court order,” Wednesday’s petition said. “But here’s the thing. This (Supreme) Court need not — and should not — sanction this unlawful outcome, for one very simple reason: The state never had the power to reconvene the conference and revise the statement outside the parameters established by the circuit court.”

    The proposed constitutional amendment will appear on the ballot as Amendment 4. It says, in part, that no “law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.”

    Gov. Ron DeSantis and other state Republican leaders are fighting the proposed amendment. Representatives of DeSantis and the House spearheaded controversial revisions in the financial impact statement.

    In part, the revised statement says there is “uncertainty about whether the amendment will require the state to subsidize abortions with public funds. Litigation to resolve those and other uncertainties will result in additional costs to the state government and state courts that will negatively impact the state budget. An increase in abortions may negatively affect the growth of state and local revenues over time. Because the fiscal impact of increased abortions on state and local revenues and costs cannot be estimated with precision, the total impact of the proposed amendment is indeterminate.”

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida

    Source link

  • Man protesting outside Orlando abortion clinic arrested for spitting on patient escort

    Man protesting outside Orlando abortion clinic arrested for spitting on patient escort

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    photo via Stand With Abortion Now

    A man is arrested outside an abortion clinic in Orlando for spitting on a volunteer clinic escort. (May 11, 2024)

    A middle-aged man from Melbourne will head to court next month after spitting on a pro-choice volunteer outside of an Orlando abortion clinic in May. The man, Reynaldo Sepulveda, was arrested by an Orlando Police Department officer on May 11, and charged with one count of battery, a first-degree misdemeanor, according to an arrest affidavit.

    Video footage provided to Orlando Weekly by Winnie, a volunteer with the patient escort group Stand With Abortion Now, shows Winnie filming a small group of anti-abortion protesters as they sit in a circle outside the clinic. Viewers can hear Winnie share her observations about the group when — mid-sentence — Sepulveda turns around in his chair, spots Winnie, and spits water over his shoulder on her.

    “Did you just just spit on me?” Winnie asks in the video, filmed outside the Center of Orlando for Women, a clinic where anti-abortion activists gather nearly every day. “You know I have that on film, right?”

    Stand With Abortion Now, a grassroots group that first emerged after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion in 2022, aims to help patients by safely escorting them in and out of the abortion clinic, while shielding them (sometimes literally) from anti-abortion activists that line the property.

    Unlike some escort groups, SWAN has a reputation for taking a confrontational approach to patient escort practices, which can sometimes involve taunting or otherwise ridiculing anti-abortion activists on video.

    According to arresting officer Andre Holzendorf, Sepulveda claimed he did not see Winnie (who requested that Orlando Weekly  withhold her full name due to safety concerns) as he was turning around to spit. “Sepulveda advised they [his group] were just upset and wanted to be left alone,” Holzendorf wrote in the affidavit.

    After viewing video footage provided by Winnie, however, Holzendorf concluded through his investigation of the incident that Sepulveda’s act was intentional.

    Although no firearm was used during this altercation, video footage also shows that during his arrest, police discovered that Sepulveda was armed, with a small gun attached to his ankle underneath one of his pant legs. The gun is not mentioned in the arrest affidavit.

    click to enlarge An Orlando police officer finds a gun attached to the ankle of a man arrested outside of an abortion clinic in Orlando for spitting on a volunteer patient escort. May 11, 2024. - Stand With Abortion Now

    Stand With Abortion Now

    An Orlando police officer finds a gun attached to the ankle of a man arrested outside of an abortion clinic in Orlando for spitting on a volunteer patient escort. May 11, 2024.

    The Center of Orlando for Women, formerly licensed as the Orlando Women’s Center, is a private abortion clinic located south of downtown Orlando that is frequently targeted by activists who are vehemently opposed to abortion.

    One professional anti-abortion activist, John Barros,  stood outside the clinic to “counsel” patients and passerby nearly every weekday for 20 years. Barros recently passed away from cancer in February — but others who looked up to Barros have continued his legacy of “counseling” patients from a sidewalk in front of the clinic. Some also set up lawn chairs on a private driveway that the clinic shares with an anti-abortion doctor who practices medicine next door and gives them permission to do so.

    To help protect staff, the clinic hires off-duty police officers (which isn’t cheap) several days a week to keep an eye on the clinic from outside, as some protesters become aggressive or use megaphones (which is illegal) to broadcast their messages to patients and clinic staff minding their own business inside.

    Under city law, it is unlawful to use a mechanical loud speaker or other sound amplification device outdoors on public or private property without a city-issued permit, but off-duty officers aren’t always there to catch violations. Even without amplifiers, an Orlando Weekly reporter has also witnessed protesters shouting in the direction of the building, or attempting to approach patients as they walk toward or out of the clinic’s doors.

    One young man, facing the clinic from a sidewalk just weeks before Sepulveda’s arrest, was witnessed by Orlando Weekly hollering into a bullhorn. “They delight in the death of the innocent!” he yelled, describing the clinic as “Hell.”

    The date was May 1, the day Florida’s six-week abortion ban fully took effect. No off-duty officer was present at the time. Another man, who only identified himself to Orlando Weekly that day as TJ, described the clinic as “a place of death.” He and other anti-abortion advocates who station themselves outside of the clinic characterize what they do as an attempt to help people who are lost.

    On the day of Sepulveda’s arrest, less than two weeks later, Anne Marchetti — another anti-abortion activist who visits the clinic on weekends — unsuccessfully attempted to get officers’ attention with her own plea.

    “Officers, there are innocent persons being murdered inside,” Marchetti can be heard and seen saying in video footage, as multiple OPD officers speak to Sepulveda about his alleged crime.

    Marchetti, a veteran in the anti-abortion space, has been known to use her own body-worn camera or her phone to record video of patients as they walk in and out of the clinic, as an Orlando Weekly reporter herself has witnessed.

    “This is the genocide of our time,” Marchetti told Orlando Weekly last April, adding that she she would “not stand” with any Republican politician — including Donald Trump — “unless they stand as an abolitionist of abortion.”

    click to enlarge Anne Marchetti (right) attempts to film a patient walking toward an Orlando abortion clinic. April 2023. - photo by McKenna Schueler

    photo by McKenna Schueler

    Anne Marchetti (right) attempts to film a patient walking toward an Orlando abortion clinic. April 2023.

    The federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, passed 30 years ago, “prohibits threats of force, obstruction and property damage intended to interfere with reproductive health care services,” according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Still, pro-choice advocates have argued it doesn’t do enough to adequately protect clinics and staff, although the anti-abortion movement is still trying to get rid of it anyway.

    According to an annual survey by the National Abortion Federation, a professional association that represents abortion providers, obstructions at U.S. abortion clinics increased more than sixfold from 45 in 2021 to 287 in 2022, while reports of stalking, burglary and arson at clinics has also notably increased. While the report notes a decrease in trespassing, assault and battery during this period, the organization shares this was “likely” due to the closure of dozens of clinics that year, following the enactment of strict abortion bans.

    Winnie, the volunteer whom Sepulveda spit on, told Orlando Weekly over text that she believes the alleged battery was “indicative of the [political] right’s propensity for violence because they are unable to see the humanity in others that they’ve deemed to be beneath them.”

    click to enlarge Winnie (second from the right) stands outside of the Center of Orlando for Women with fellow clinic escorts. - Courtesy of Stand With Abortion Now

    Courtesy of Stand With Abortion Now

    Winnie (second from the right) stands outside of the Center of Orlando for Women with fellow clinic escorts.

    She believes her identity as a woman was one of several factors that motivated him to spit on her.

    “He wanted to teach me a lesson in power,” she wrote, “that he has it, and I don’t.”

    Records show Sepulveda was booked into Orange County Jail shortly after his arrest. There, he was booed by members of SWAN, who were at the jail that day to support two people who had been arrested at a nearby pro-Palestine protest.

    Sepulveda was quickly bailed out on a $1,000 cash bond, and does not have any arrest record in his home county of Brevard, beyond three traffic infractions that are more than two decades old.  He faces a pre-trial hearing on August 2, 2024 and has entered a plea of not guilty. In Florida, a first-degree misdemeanor for simple battery is punishable by up to one year in jail or 12 months probation, if convicted, plus a fine of up to $1,000.

    Sepulveda’s defense attorney, Robert Anthony O’Donnell of the O’Donnell Christopher law firm in Hialeah, did not respond to Orlando Weekly‘s request for a statement on behalf of his client ahead of publication.

    Florida has become a tumultuous political battleground on the issue of abortion, as abortion rights advocates now place their hope in a November ballot measure that would enshrine abortion rights into the state constitution, if approved by more than 60 percent of Florida voters. Clinics locally and across the state face a risk of closure, if it’s not approved.

    The measure, set to appear on the ballot as Amendment 4, is opposed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and other anti-abortion conservatives like Florida House Speakers Paul Renner, whose political action committee recently contributed $1 million to an opposition campaign.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    McKenna Schueler

    Source link

  • Florida panel’s revised abortion amendment ‘statement’ draws accusation of bias

    Florida panel’s revised abortion amendment ‘statement’ draws accusation of bias

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Photo by Matt Keller Lehman

    The Yes on 4 rally and March at Lake Eola Park

    A state panel late Monday finished revising a “financial impact statement” that will appear on the November ballot with a proposed constitutional amendment on abortion rights — with amendment supporters accusing the panel of a “dirty trick to mislead voters.”

    Financial impact statements provide estimated effects of proposed constitutional amendments on government revenues and the state budget. They usually receive little attention, but the abortion measure spurred contentious debate and divided the panel.

    Representatives of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office and the Florida House pushed to include information in the statement about issues such as the possibility that passage of the amendment could lead to Medicaid-funded abortions and spur a wide range of costly lawsuits. Those are issues that amendment opponents have cited as they fight the proposal.

    Ultimately, with the help of the panel’s representative from the Florida Senate, DeSantis’ office and the House got information they sought into the statement.

    In part, the statement says there is “uncertainty about whether the amendment will require the state to subsidize abortions with public funds. Litigation to resolve those and other uncertainties will result in additional costs to the state government and state courts that will negatively impact the state budget. An increase in abortions may negatively affect the growth of state and local revenues over time. Because the fiscal impact of increased abortions on state and local revenues and costs cannot be estimated with precision, the total impact of the proposed amendment is indeterminate.”

    Chris Spencer, DeSantis’ representative on the panel, known as the Financial Impact Estimating Conference, said “protracted” lawsuits about abortion issues would be inevitable if the amendment passes. That could include lawsuits about whether Medicaid should pay for abortions and which health-care providers would be able to perform abortions, he said.

    Panel member Amy Baker, coordinator of the Legislature’s Office of Economic & Demographic Research, agreed that passage of the amendment would lead to lawsuits. But Baker, the panel’s lone dissenter, objected to including issues such as the possibility of litigation leading to Medicaid-funded abortions.

    “I would, personally, feel more comfortable if we just did it clean and crisp,” Baker said. “We’re not making a political statement here. We are not trying to frighten people. There will be litigation costs.”

    But Spencer, who is DeSantis’ former budget director, pushed back against the suggestion that including the information was political. DeSantis and other state Republican leaders oppose the proposed constitutional amendment.

    “I don’t think it’s a political statement,” said Spencer, who was recently appointed as executive director of the State Board of Administration. “I don’t think it’s anything other than we know litigation is going to occur.”

    The proposed amendment, which will appear on the November ballot as Amendment 4, says, in part, that no “law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” Abortion-rights supporters began the initiative effort after DeSantis and the GOP-controlled Legislature in spring 2023 approved a bill to prevent abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.

    The Financial Impact Estimating Conference released an initial statement for the abortion proposal in November 2023. But on April 1, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling that allowed a six-week abortion limit to take effect. Though the limit was approved in 2023, it was hung up in court for nearly a year.

    Floridians Protecting Freedom, a political committee leading efforts to pass the amendment, filed a lawsuit in April arguing that the November financial-impact statement needed to be revised because it was outdated after the Supreme Court ruling. Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper agreed with the committee, but the state appealed to the 1st District Court of Appeal, where the case is pending.

    Amid the case, Senate President Kathleen Passidomo, R-Naples, and House Speaker Paul Renner, R-Palm Coast, directed the Financial Impact Estimating Conference to begin meeting again to revise the statement. The panel met three times, with Monday’s meeting lasting into the night.

    Floridians Protecting Freedom and its “Yes on 4” campaign issued a news release late Monday that described the revised statement as reading “like an ad written by Amendment 4 opponents — highly-politicized and unlawfully inaccurate to mislead voters on Amendment 4.”

    “What should have been an easy administrative fix on outdated (financial impact statement) language has become a dirty trick to mislead voters.” Lauren Brenzel, campaigns director for Yes on 4, said in a prepared statement.

    But Sara Johnson of the anti-amendment group Vote No on 4, told the panel during Monday’s meeting that it should provide information about such issues as potential lawsuit costs.

    “It’s important for Florida voters to know that what you see is not what you will get,” Johnson said. “What we will get is costly litigation for years to come that will result in policies we have not yet seen and therefore cannot yet analyze.”

    — News Service Assignment Manager Tom Urban contributed to this report.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida

    Source link

  • Florida group leading abortion rights measure raises another $509k in one week

    Florida group leading abortion rights measure raises another $509k in one week

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Photo by Matt Keller Lehman

    The Yes on 4 rally and March at Lake Eola Park

    A ballot initiative aimed at enshrining abortion rights in the Florida Constitution drew another $509,328 in contributions during a week-long period at the end of June and in early July, a new finance report shows.

    The Floridians Protecting Freedom political committee, which is leading efforts to pass the proposed constitutional amendment in November, had raised an overall total of $38.78 million as of July 5.

    The $509,328 was raised from June 29 to July 5, and included a $250,000 contribution from Planned Parenthood and a $100,000 contribution from the Movement Voter Project, a political committee known for donating to Democratic-aligned political groups. More than 1,000 contributions were recorded during this period, and more than 90 percent were small-dollar contributions of $100 or less. Records show the committee had spent about $22.89 million as of July 5, including $160,375 during the recent week-long period.

    Floridians Protecting Freedom, an alliance of local, state, and national groups in support of abortion rights, began the constitutional-amendment drive after the state Legislature and Gov. Ron DeSantis approved a law in 2023 to prevent women from having abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. The law officially went into effect May 1, leaving abortion clinics in a precarious situation and at risk for closure.

    The proposal will appear as Amendment 4 on the November ballot in Florida, and, if passed, would extend Florida’s limit on abortions from  the current six weeks up to fetal viability, or roughly 24 to 28 weeks of pregnancy. The proposal says, in part, that no “law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” 

    It would need approval from at least 60 percent of voters to pass and has drawn opposition from DeSantis and other state Republican leaders.

    An opposition campaign, dubbed “Vote No on 4,” has also been launched to dissuade support for the proposal. Records show its political committee, dubbed Florida Voters Against Extremism, is primarily funded by Catholic dioceses. The committee has also received one $75,000 donation from Floridians for Conservative Values, a political committee associated with Republican State Sen. Clay Yarborough, and a $10,000 donation from a political committee associated with Republican State Sen. Erin Grall, who sponsored the Florida bill (SB 300) establishing a six-week abortion ban.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    News Service of Florida and McKenna Schueler

    Source link

  • Florida has seen reduced number of abortions since six-week ban, report says

    Florida has seen reduced number of abortions since six-week ban, report says

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Photo by Matt Keller Lehman

    With a law taking effect May 1 that prevents abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, a new report gives an initial picture of the reduced number of abortions being performed in Florida.

    The report, posted online by the state Agency for Health Care Administration, is dated July 1 and said 36,221 abortions had been performed in Florida in 2024. That was up from a total of 32,081 abortions included in a monthly report dated June 3.

    That 4,140-abortion increase was far lower than increases reported in previous months. For example, the June 3 report represented a 9,672-abortion increase over the total of 22,409 abortions included in a May 1 report.

    Similarly, the May 1 total reflected a 7,674-abortion increase over the total of 14,735 abortions included in an April 1 report. And the April 1 report reflected a 6,277-abortion increase over the total of 8,458 abortions included in a March 2 report.

    It’s unclear whether the July 1 total fully reflects the effects of the six-week abortion limit because of lags in reporting. Abortion clinics are required to submit reports to the Agency for Health Care Administration within 30 days after the end of each month.

    Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Republican-controlled Legislature approved the six-week abortion limit in 2023 after passing a 15-week limit in 2022. The state Supreme Court on April 1 rejected a constitutional challenge by abortion-rights supporters to the 15-week limit.

    That ruling also had the effect of allowing the six-week limit to take effect May 1.

    Meanwhile, the Supreme Court also allowed a proposed abortion-rights constitutional amendment to go on the November ballot, setting up perhaps the state’s biggest political fight of 2024. Abortion-rights supporters have turned to ballot initiatives in Florida and other states after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 struck down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision and left abortion issues to be decided in states.

    The proposed Florida amendment says, in part, that no “law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” It would need approval from 60 percent of voters to pass.

    A state panel Monday will discuss a contentions “financial impact statement” that will appear on the ballot with the proposed constitutional amendment. Such statements estimate how proposed amendments could affect state and local budgets.

    Background material prepared for the meeting cited state data that said 39.8 percent of abortions in 2023 came during the first six weeks of “gestation.” It said the state uses a definition “calculated from the first day of the pregnant woman’s last menstrual period.”

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida

    Source link

  • Vice president holds College Park abortion rights rally with all the trappings of a campaign event – WTOP News

    Vice president holds College Park abortion rights rally with all the trappings of a campaign event – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    At the Monday campaign event doubling as an abortion rights rally, supporters held hundreds of “Biden-Harris” or “reproductive freedom” signs.

    This article was republished with permission from WTOP’s news partners at Maryland Matters. Sign up for Maryland Matters’ free email subscription today.

    COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND – JUNE 24: U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris delivers remarks on reproductive rights at Ritchie Coliseum on the campus of the University of Maryland on June 24, 2024 in College Park, Maryland. Harris is speaking on the two year anniversary of the Dobbs decision, the Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and struck down federal abortion protections. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)(Getty Images/Kevin Dietsch)

    Vice President Kamala Harris (D)  stood in Ritchie Coliseum at the University of Maryland, College Park underneath a blue banner that said “Trust WOMEN” in large white text.

    Just underneath, in significantly smaller text, was a disclaimer: “Paid for by Biden for President.”

    At the Monday campaign event doubling as an abortion rights rally, supporters held hundreds of “Biden-Harris” or “reproductive freedom” signs. In the upcoming general election, Democrats insist their candidates, not Republicans, will ensure that Marylanders and voters across the United States have access to abortion care.

    Harris wasted little time, telling the enthusiastic crowd that a second presidency for Republican Donald Trump would pose a threat to reproductive rights across the country. The rally came on the second anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, which had guaranteed abortion access as a constitutional right for nearly 50 years.

    “Today, our daughters know fewer rights than their grandmothers. This is a health care crisis. And we all know who is to blame: Donald Trump,” Harris said.

    “He proudly takes credit for overturning Roe,” she said, noting that Trump appointed three justices who were key to reversing Roe. “My fellow Americans, in a court of law, that would be called an admission, and some would say a confession…. In the case of stealing reproductive freedom away from the women of America, Donald Trump is guilty.”

    The event also effectively functioned as a rally for Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks (D) in her run against former Gov. Larry Hogan (R) to represent Maryland in the U.S. Senate.

    Harris gave a shout out to her “dear friend” Alsobrooks, whose Senate candidacy the vice president endorsed earlier this month.

    If successful, Alsobrooks would be the first Black woman to represent Maryland in the U.S. Senate, a glass ceiling that would echo Harris’s historic election as the first woman, the first Black American, and the first South Asian American to serve as vice president.

    The question of abortion is expected to have an outsized role in the campaign for Maryland’s Senate seat, which has become an unexpectedly tough race in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly 2-to-1.

    “Today is more than just an anniversary. It’s proof that we should never take for granted our liberties,” Alsobrooks said. “It is the confirmation that we must be vigilant in fighting for and protecting, with everything we have, our rights.”

    Alsobrooks took some jabs at her opponent, saying that Republicans hope Hogan is the key to securing a conservative majority in Congress.

    “They believe that Larry Hogan is the best opportunity that the Republicans have to get the 51st vote,” in the Senate, she said. “In fact, Donald Trump endorsed him because the two of them share something in common … they share the goal of handing the over the Senate to the Republican Party.”

    Trump has said in recent days that he believes the question of abortion restrictions should be left up to the states, a key part of the Dobbs decision. And Hogan, who has long said he is personally pro-life, has insisted that as senator he would defend Roe-style abortion protections.

    He reiterated that in a statement posted Monday on his campaign website in recognition of the second anniversary of Dobbs, saying that he would work in the Sentate “to codify Roe v. Wade, as the law of the land.”

    “A woman’s health care decisions are her own. Whether it be the decision to start a family with the help of IVF, or exercise her reproductive rights, nothing and no one—especially partisan politics—should come between a woman and her doctor,” according to the written statement.

    U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who spoke at Monday’s rally, went to bat for Alsobrooks and said that she would be the best choice to protect abortion access in the U.S. Senate. He ridiculed Hogan’s recent promises to support Roe-style abortion protections.

    “Her opponent Larry Hogan is undergoing some election year conversion like none I’ve ever seen,” Van Hollen said. “This guy now goes around saying that he’s quote, ‘pro-choice.’ The problem is he has a record that tells us the exact opposite.”

    Democrats, including Alsobrooks, have criticized Hogan’s claims on abortion rights, pointing to his previous actions as Maryland governor.

    Hogan vetoed a measure in 2022 that would have expanded abortion access in the state. When the legislature overrode his veto, Hogan withheld state funding to train nonphysicians to perform abortions, funding that Gov. Wes Moore (D) released on his first day in office in 2023.

    “So now we see Larry Hogan bobbing and weaving. Zigging and zagging. Flipping and flopping,” Van Hollen said. “And as we watch this, we know one thing’s for sure: Marylanders just cannot trust Larry Hogan with this one.”

    Hogan’s campaign — which released a video Monday criticizing Alsobrooks’ record on crime as county executive — pushed back on the characterization that he has “flipped” on supporting Roe v. Wade.

    “Governor Hogan protected choice in Maryland for eight years as Governor, funding access to abortion in the budget every year and being the first governor in America to provide over-the-counter birth control paid for by Medicaid,” according to an email from the campaign. “In the Senate, Governor Hogan will work to reinstate Roe v. Wade as the law of the land.”

    Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: editor@marylandmatters.org. Follow Maryland Matters on Facebook and X.

    [ad_2]

    Kate Corliss

    Source link

  • Georgia Democrats warn of additional abortion rights threats under second Trump term

    Georgia Democrats warn of additional abortion rights threats under second Trump term

    [ad_1]

    On the second anniversary of the Dobbs decision, former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, and IVF advocate Latorya Beasley joined Georgia State Representative Shea Roberts, Dr. Shawana Moore plus television host Padma Lakshmi to discuss the ramifications of a potential abortion ban in a second term under Donald J. Trump.

    As Thursday’s presidential debate quickly approaches here in Atlanta, Democrats along various political spectrums are centering their pushes for President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris around abortion rights.

    During her remarks, former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms discussed the effects of Georgia’s ban on abortions after six weeks. She says there are young women that are refusing to go to college in Georgia because they no longer have bodily autonomy. 

    [ad_2]

    Itoro N. Umontuen

    Source link

  • Committee working to enshrine abortion into Florida Constitution raises nearly $20 million

    Committee working to enshrine abortion into Florida Constitution raises nearly $20 million

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Photo by Matt Keller Lehman

    The Yes on 4 rally and March at Lake Eola Park

    A political committee leading efforts to pass a proposed constitutional amendment about abortion rights raised $8.05 million during the first two weeks of June and has collected nearly $20 million since the Florida Supreme Court said the initiative could go on the November ballot.

    The Floridians Protecting Freedom committee had about $15.1 million in cash on hand as of June 14, according to a finance report posted Friday on the state Division of Elections website.

    The Florida Supreme Court on April 1 approved the wording of the proposed amendment, clearing the way for it to go on the ballot. From April 1 through May 31, the committee raised nearly $11.8 million in cash.

    From June 1 through June 14, it raised $8.05 million, the new report shows. The proposed amendment, which has drawn opposition from Gov. Ron DeSantis and other state Republican leaders, seeks to enshrine abortion rights in the Constitution.

    It says, in part, that no “law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.”

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    News Service of Florida

    Source link

  • New anti-abortion pregnancy center opens in Kissimmee

    New anti-abortion pregnancy center opens in Kissimmee

    [ad_1]

    Choices Friends/Instagram

    A new anti-abortion pregnancy center opens in Kissimmee.

    As people with an unwanted pregnancy in Florida face ever greater barriers to abortion care, a new “clinic” for pregnant people that aims to persuade people not to seek abortion care has opened up in Kissimmee.

    Choices Women’s Clinic, located at 213 E. Oak St. in Kissimmee, is the third location in a chain of facilities operated by Choices Women’s Clinic, a local nonprofit founded and operated by anti-abortion Christians.

    These facilities lure in people with few resources by offering free pregnancy tests, free ultrasounds, and information about your options as a pregnant person. Critics call them “fake abortion clinics.”

    While Choices Women’s Clinic explicitly mentions “abortion” on its main website, and claims to be “all about offering you choices,” a second website the nonprofit maintains specifically for donors reveals their overarching mission: to “CHANGE abortion in Orlando. Until there are ZERO.”

    The new center just south of Orlando is located about a half-mile from the city’s only licensed abortion clinic, a Planned Parenthood health center. This isn’t a coincidence.

    Locating anti-abortion facilities near actual abortion clinics is an intentional tactic that is commonly used by anti-abortion activists to confuse and misguide pregnant people who are searching for safe and legitimate abortion services.

    Choices Women’s Clinic, in a recent email newsletter, admitted that they see patients who come to them believing their facilities are legitimate abortion clinics. This includes a person they identify only as “Amy.”

    “‘Amy’ thought we were an abortion clinic and was not happy when she realized she could not get her abortion,” reads the newsletter, emailed out on May 28, 2024.

    “She did not want an ultrasound to prove how far along she was and left angry and feeling the panic of needing to have an abortion before 6 weeks,” the newsletter continues. “Amy returned 45 minutes later and asked for an ultrasound because, after making calls, she realized she could not get into the abortion clinics.

    “She is now undecided, and we are praying for a breakthrough.”

    Screenshot of a May 2024 email newsletter sent by Choices Women's Clinic executive director Vicky Matthews. - Google Mail

    Google Mail

    Screenshot of a May 2024 email newsletter sent by Choices Women’s Clinic executive director Vicky Matthews.

    As of May 1, 2024, abortion is banned in Florida after six weeks of pregnancy, with few and questionable exceptions. Previously, under a law approved in 2022, Florida had a 15-week abortion limit, with no exceptions for rape or incest.

    After the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade in the summer of 2022, many states moved to either restrict or ban abortion procedures entirely. From Florida, the closest state to get an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy is now either North Carolina or Virginia.

    Another person that visited Choices Women’s Clinic, whom they describe in their newsletter as “Emily,” came to the nonprofit for abortion pills, according to their newsletter. “She said she didn’t care if she experienced medical complications with abortion because her life is hard, and she needs to work to send funds to her family in another country,” the newsletter reads.

    Abortion, even prior to the fall of Roe v. Wade, can be expensive without insurance coverage. Medicaid won’t cover the cost of getting an abortion, and abortions can easily exceed $500 if paying out of pocket. Birthing a child in Florida without health insurance, too, can set you back tens of thousands of dollars.

    Emily refused to allow staff to perform an ultrasound on her, according to the newsletter, but allowed them to hug her. The newsletter notes that Emily “just melted in our arms.”

    Choices Women’s Clinic, and its executive director Vicky Matthews, have declined to comment when reached by Orlando Weekly in the past.

    According to the nonprofit’s website, Choices Women’s Clinic saw nearly 3,000 “patients” last year, and received 3,732 calls related to abortion. Just over 400 pregnant people in 2023, their website notes, “chose life.”

    As Orlando Weekly reported last summer, this is the third pregnancy center location owned by Choices Women’s Clinic, which was first founded as “True Life Choice” in 1983. The chain, which reported $2.67 million in contributions and grants in its most recent tax filing, has two other locations, one located near downtown Orlando and another near the University of Central Florida.

    “There’s a Planned Parenthood there [near the university], so that’s where we went,” shared Vicky Matthews, executive director of Choices Women’s Clinic, in an interview with an anti-abortion website in 2021.

    Amy Weintraub, the reproductive rights program director for Progress Florida, told Orlando Weekly she believes it’s “very clear that they’re targeting college students,” based on where they decided to locate their facilities.

    A webpage specifically set up for updates on the new Kissimmee center also explicitly mentions the city’s racial and ethnic makeup, noting a majority of the population is Hispanic and according to their calculations, Hispanic people are the second-largest demographic seeking abortion — demonstrating a racial targeting strategy.

    “They do that because they know that racialized groups tend to be the most uninsured, lower-income groups, and they know that people are looking for resources when they are pregnant,” Aurelie Colon Larrauri, a reproductive justice activist and policy advisor for the Southern Poverty Law Center, told Orlando Weekly last year.

    These anti-abortion pregnancy centers, also known as crisis pregnancy centers, are largely unregulated, with little oversight. State records show Choices Women’s Clinic locations are not state-licensed medical facilities, and therefore cannot legally be held to privacy provisions under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

    Unlike some other anti-abortion CPCs, where there are no licensed medical professionals on staff, Choices Women’s Clinic does have a medical director on staff (who tried to run for state office in 2020), as well as two registered nurses, three sonographers, and other nursing staff, according to their website.

    However, Orlando Weekly could not verify the license of at least one named RN on staff, which is searchable through the Florida Department of Health’s online portal. All sonographers listed on the site were verifiable through the American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonography.

    Many of these facilities, often operated by religious nonprofits, are taxpayer-funded through an “alternatives to abortion” program set up by former Gov. Jeb Bush.

    Florida Gov. DeSantis signed into law a bill last year that increased the amount of taxpayer funds that will go to such facilities more than fivefold, from $4.45 million in 2022 to $25 million in 2023. A review of the state budget approved by DeSantis this week shows this program, dubbed the “Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program,” will receive $29.5 million over the next year.

    According to Weintraub, those funds will be restricted to certain activities, including marketing materials and a new website the state will be building, in part to promote these anti-abortion facilities, under a new law approved by the Republican-dominated state Legislature earlier this year.

    “It’s clear that this is state-funded misinformation,” said Weintraub.

    Choices Women’s Clinic does not receive funding through this state program, according to tax filings reviewed by Orlando Weekly. Their most recent 990 tax form, filed last August, reports no government grants or contributions.

    These anti-abortion pregnancy centers, also known as crisis pregnancy centers, are largely unregulated, with little oversight.

    tweet this

    Democratic State Rep. Kelly Skidmore filed legislation (HB 343) during the 2024 legislative session that would have required greater oversight of the crisis pregnancy centers that do receive state funds. Democratic Sen. Lauren Book filed identical legislation (SB 256) in the state Senate.

    Neither bill was given even a single hearing. Florida’s state Legislature has a Republican supermajority, with most committees chaired by Republicans who have decision-making authority on which bills are heard or voted on and which are not.

    Choices Women’s Clinic is just one of over 160 anti-abortion pregnancy centers in the Central Florida region, and comes highly recommended by the motley crew of anti-abortion activists who regularly protest outside the Center of Orlando for Women, an actual abortion clinic south of downtown Orlando.

    They don’t call themselves “protesters,” and several have bristled at the term in conversations with Orlando Weekly. The Instagram page for Choices Women’s Clinic recently mourned the passing of one of these anti-abortion activists, John Barros, who previously told Orlando Weekly he had spent nearly every weekday “counseling” people outside of the Orlando abortion clinic for 20 years.

    “John’s compassionate spirit led thousands of women and men to our clinic, offering them hope and support in their times of crisis,” an Instagram post reads. “His legacy as a faithful servant will forever live in the hearts of those he has impacted.”

    click to enlarge A volunteer clinic escort (left) mocks the daily "yell" of anti-abortion "sidewalk counselor" John Barros (right) outside an Orlando abortion clinic. - photo courtesy Stand With Abortion Now (SWAN)

    photo courtesy Stand With Abortion Now (SWAN)

    A volunteer clinic escort (left) mocks the daily “yell” of anti-abortion “sidewalk counselor” John Barros (right) outside an Orlando abortion clinic.

    Expose Fake Clinics, affiliated with Abortion Access Front, has identified at least 168 crisis pregnancy centers in Florida, and over a dozen in the Central Florida region alone.

    According to Expose Fake Clinics, there are at least three pregnancy centers already operating in Kissimmee: Beyond Pregnancy Care Center, Osceola Pregnancy Center, and JMJ Pregnancy Center. There are others in Orlando and surrounding areas.

    Abortion resources for Floridians

    For legal questions, or questions regarding Florida’s abortion laws, visit reprolegalhelpline.org.

    You can find information on PlanCPills.org for how to access abortion medication.

    You can find a state portal with real, licensed abortion clinics in Florida here.

    For financial assistance and logistical help, organizations like the National Network of Abortion Funds, the Florida Access Network and Tampa Bay Abortion Fund have resources to help people with few resources pay for abortion services and travel out of state, as needed, to safely and legally terminate their pregnancy.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    McKenna Schueler

    Source link

  • Florida issues emergency rules for medical treatment amid new abortion ban

    Florida issues emergency rules for medical treatment amid new abortion ban

    [ad_1]

    With a law now in effect preventing abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, Florida health-care regulators Thursday released emergency rules related to treating medical conditions that pose dangers to the lives of pregnant women or unborn children.

    The state Agency for Health Care Administration published two rules that apply to hospitals and abortion clinics. The rules came a day after the six-week law took effect, significantly restricting abortion access in the state.

    Regulators focused on certain medical conditions that might occur after six weeks of pregnancy and “can present an immediate danger to the health, safety and welfare of women and unborn children in hospitals and abortion clinics,” according to the rules.

    Those conditions are “premature rupture of membranes,” commonly known as a pregnant woman’s water breaking prematurely; situations when prematurely ruptured membranes cause doctors to induce births and babies die; ectopic pregnancies; and treatment of what are known as trophoblastic tumors.

    The rules involve record-keeping and reporting about the treatments. One of the rules requires hospitals to have written policies and procedures about maintaining records related to treating the conditions. It also includes directives about what must be included in policies.

    As an example, the rule said that, under the hospital policies, when a woman is diagnosed with premature rupture of membranes, “the patient shall be admitted for observation unless the treating physician determines that another course of action is more medically appropriate under the circumstances to ensure the health of the mother and the unborn baby.” If doctors choose another course of action, they would have to document the reasons.

    Also, both rules say that it “does not constitute an abortion” if doctors try to induce live births and babies die because of prematurely ruptured membranes. Similarly, treatment of ectopic pregnancies and trophoblastic tumors will not be considered abortions. The hospital rule would require doctors to document such treatments in patients’ medical records.

    An ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg grows outside the main cavity of a woman’s uterus. “The fertilized egg can’t survive, and the growing tissue may cause life-threatening bleeding, if left untreated,” information on the Mayo Clinic’s website said.

    Trophoblastic tumors “form during abnormal pregnancies,” with some tumors malignant but the majority benign, according to information on the Cleveland Clinic website. What is known as gestational trophoblastic disease is rare, the website said.

    Florida lawmakers and Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2023 approved the six-week abortion limit. But it did not take effect until Wednesday, a month after the Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a 15-week limit passed in 2022. The Supreme Court ruling also allowed the six-week law to move forward.

    The law includes limited exceptions for when abortions can be performed after six weeks. For instance, it would allow abortions if two physicians “certify in writing that, in reasonable medical judgment, the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life or avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman other than a psychological condition.”

    But the law’s opponents have contended that the exceptions are impractical and that the six-week limit will threaten the health of women who might have a variety of medical conditions but are unable to obtain abortions.

    The rules published Thursday in the Florida Administrative Register pushed back against opponents, citing “disinformation.”

    “The Agency (for Health Care Administration) finds there is an immediate danger to the health, safety, and welfare of pregnant women and babies due to a deeply dishonest scare campaign and disinformation being perpetuated by the media, the Biden Administration, and advocacy groups to misrepresent the Heartbeat Protection Act (the six-week law) and the state’s efforts to protect life, moms, and families,” the rules said.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida

    Source link

  • During Tampa visit, Biden pins Florida’s six-week abortion ban on Trump

    During Tampa visit, Biden pins Florida’s six-week abortion ban on Trump

    [ad_1]

    Photo by Mitch Perry

    President Joe Biden at the Dale Mabry campus of Hillsborough Community College in Tampa on April 23, 2024

    President Joe Biden came to Tampa on Tuesday to speak about abortion rights, eight days before the state of Florida will enact a rigid ban on most abortions in the state after six weeks of pregnancy — though his main topic was former President Donald Trump.

    “Let’s be real clear, there’s one person responsible for this nightmare, and he acknowledges and brags about it — Donald Trump,” Biden said to boos from the crowd who gathered in a gymnasium on the Dale Mabry campus of Hillsborough Community College. “Well, now Trump says the law is ‘working the way that it’s supposed to.’”

    Biden continued the verbal assault on the former president and mocked Trump during one part of his speech.

    “He described the Dobbs decision as a miracle,” Biden said of Trump. “Maybe it comes from that Bible he’s trying to sell.”

    In fact, “Next week one of the nation’s most extreme anti-abortion law is going to take effect here in Florida,” Biden said. “It criminalizes reproductive healthcare before a woman even knows that they are pregnant,” he added, saying it will impact millions of women in the state.

    Biden then discussed the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court Dobbs decision which overturned the 1973 ruling legalizing a women’s federal right to abortion, and directly placed the blame for that major policy change to Trump, his likely opponent in a rematch of the 2020 election this November.

    Biden mentioned that abortion rights measures have been successful in both blue and red states across the country the past two years since Roe was overturned, and he predicted that Florida will do the same when it votes on its abortion rights measure this fall.

    “This November, you can add Florida to that list,” Biden said to loud cheers. “Are you ready to do that? You’ve gotta show up to vote.”

    “Don’t mess with the women of America!” Biden then declared to the loudest cheers of the afternoon.

    He repeatedly said in his brief speech (it lasted about 13 minutes) that the voters will hold Trump accountable for the U.S. Supreme Court justices who overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade court case.

    Biden also promised that if he was re-elected, he and Vice President Kamala Harris would make Roe v. Wade “the law of the land again.” However, such a law would need to get 60 votes in the U.S. Senate.

    The president’s visit to Florida is the first time he has come to the Sunshine State — formerly a swing state — this year, but the state has moved into red territory in recent years. Biden lost to Trump by 3.3 percentage points in 2020, and recent polls show the gap has increased between the two presumptive major party nominees this year.

    Trump leads Biden by 8 percentage points, according to a Florida Atlantic University Political Communication and Public Opinion Research Lab survey released last week. Trump leads Biden by 11 points in an Emerson College Polling survey released on April 11, and Trump leads Biden by 6 percentage points in an WMNF/St. Pete Polls survey released last month.

    Former Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn, a Democrat, says he believes that the issue of reproductive rights is so important that he believes some Republican voters would cross over and vote for Democratic candidates in November in Florida.

    “I think an attack on women’s rights by a presidential candidate will move significant numbers of women to the Democratic column,” he says. “That may be a one-time occurrence, but I think that in this particular case, what they have done is so egregious and so offensive to many women, that it’s enough to move them in this election, at this time, to vote for Joe Biden.”

    Florida Republicans disagree.

    “Floridians top issues are immigration, the economy and inflation, in all three areas Joe Biden has failed,” said Republican Party of Florida Chair Evan Power. “Instead of coming to talk to Floridians about manufactured issues, he should get to work solving the real issues that he has failed to lead on. We also welcome him to learn from the successes that has made Florida a beacon of freedom for the rest of the country.”

    “Any day that Joe Biden visits Florida is a great day for Florida Republicans,” said U.S. GOP Sen. Rick Scott in a statement. “Floridians are abandoning Joe Biden and the Democrats in droves because their disastrous policies are destroying our country.”

    Both Republicans noted the considerable lead that the GOP has over Democrats in registered voters, which now is at more than 892,000 as of March 31, according to Florida Division of Elections records.

    Biden took one shot at Scott in the speech, noting how former Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is likely to face Scott in November.

    “Debbie’s running against Rick Scott,” Biden said. “He wants to sunset Social Security. I think the voters are going to sunset Rick Scott.”

    Retired University of South Florida political science professor Susan MacManus says what Florida Democrats really need from the national Democratic Party and its associated political action committees is money to support down-the-ballot candidates.

    “Florida Democrats have made it clear that they need money, and part of the reason that they say they lost so badly in 2022 was that the money from the national Democratic deep pockets and coffers dried up and they weren’t able to do any kind of grassroots work,” she told the Phoenix on Monday.

    “What I’ve been saying is the winnable needs to include money to help Dems get back on their feet by winning some state legislative and congressional races, and him coming here is step number one to proving that it’s winnable, if he’s going to take his time and come here, but step two is follow up which is okay, we’re going to get some money into Florida and try to help the party because short of that, it’s just words,” MacManus added.

    Meanwhile Tuesday, there were organized protests regarding the president’s policies regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict, but they were positioned well outside of the footprint where Biden was speaking.

    According to a press pool report, on the way from the airport to the campus, there were people holding signs saying “Kennedy 2024” and another group holding a pro-Trump sign and one that said, “Biden Bad.”

    Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    Michael Moline, Florida Phoenix

    Source link

  • Roe v. Wade Fast Facts | CNN

    Roe v. Wade Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the US Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade.

    1971 – The case is filed by Norma McCorvey, known in court documents as Jane Roe, against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, who enforced a Texas law that prohibited abortion, except to save a woman’s life.

    January 22, 1973 – The US Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, affirms the legality of a woman’s right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth amendment to the Constitution. The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman the right to an abortion during the entirety of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters.

    The ruling affected laws in 46 states.

    Full-text opinions by the justices can be viewed here.

    1971 – The Supreme Court agrees to hear the case filed by Roe against Wade, who was enforcing the Texas abortion law that had been declared unconstitutional in an earlier federal district court case. Wade was ignoring the legal ruling and both sides appealed.

    December 13, 1971 – The case is argued before the US Supreme Court.

    October 11, 1972 – The case is reargued before the US Supreme Court.

    January 22, 1973 – The US Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, affirms the legality of a woman’s right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.

    June 17, 2003 – McCorvey (Roe) files a motion with the federal district court in Dallas to have the case overturned and asks the court to consider new evidence that abortion hurts women. Included are 1,000 affidavits from women who say they regret their abortions.

    September 14, 2004 – A three-judge panel of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans dismisses McCorvey’s motion to have the case overturned, according to the Court’s clerk.

    May 2, 2022 – In a stunning breach of Supreme Court confidentiality and secrecy, Politico has obtained what it calls a draft of a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that would overturn Roe v. Wade’s holding of a federal constitutional right to an abortion. The opinion in the case is not expected to be published until late June. The court confirms the authenticity of the document on May 3, but stresses it is not the final decision.

    June 24, 2022 – The Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade with a 6-3 decision, holding that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion. 

    Norma McCorvey – Texas resident who sought to obtain an abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant mother’s life. McCorvey was pregnant when she became the lead plaintiff in the case. She gave up the baby for adoption.

    McCorvey has since come forward and spoken against abortion. In 1997, McCorvey started Roe No More, an anti-abortion outreach organization that was dissolved in 2008. McCorvey died on February 18, 2017. In the 2020 documentary “AKA Jane Roe,” prior to her death in 2017, McCorvey told the film’s director that she hadn’t changed her mind about abortion but became an anti-abortion activist because she was being paid.

    Henry Wade – district attorney of Dallas County from 1951 to 1987. McCorvey sued him because he enforced a law that prohibited abortion, except to save a woman’s life. He died on March 1, 2001.

    Sarah Weddington – Lawyer for McCorvey.

    Linda Coffee – Lawyer for McCorvey.

    Jay Floyd – Argued the case for Texas the first time.

    Robert C. Flowers – Reargued the case for Texas.

    Majority: Harry A. Blackmun (for The Court), William J. Brennan, Lewis F. Powell Jr., Thurgood Marshall

    Concurring: Warren Burger, William Orville Douglas, Potter Stewart

    Dissenting: William H. Rehnquist, Byron White

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Florida’s upcoming abortion ballot measure might not end legal issues

    Florida’s upcoming abortion ballot measure might not end legal issues

    [ad_1]

    If Florida voters approve a November ballot measure that would enshrine abortion rights in the state Constitution, it likely would not end legal battles about the issue.

    At least that’s how three Florida Supreme Court justices see it.

    The three justices, who dissented last week from allowing the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot, wrote opinions warning about legal fights that will result if the measure passes. They contended, in part, that wording in the proposal about issues such as “health” and “healthcare provider” are vague.

    Justice Jamie Grosshans, in a dissent joined by Justice Meredith Sasso, wrote that a ballot summary of the proposal “misleads by omission and fails to convey the breadth of what the amendment actually accomplishes — to enshrine broad, undefined terms in our Constitution that will lead to decades of litigation.”

    Similarly, Justice Renatha Francis pointed to what she described as “vague and undefined terms” in the ballot title and likened the situation to the decades of legal battling that occurred before and after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade abortion-rights decision in 1973.

    “Just as it played out on the federal stage for over 50 years, the issue of abortion — far from the people settling the matter — will continue to be decided by each iteration of this (Florida Supreme) Court,” Francis wrote.

    The court, in a 4-3 decision on April 1, approved allowing the proposed amendment to go before voters. Justices are not supposed to evaluate the merits of proposed amendments but look at whether the wording of ballot titles and summaries — the wording that voters see when they go to the polls — meets legal tests for clarity and single subjects.

    The majority opinion said the proposed abortion measure met the tests.

    “That the proposed amendment’s principal goal and chief purpose is to limit government interference with abortion is plainly stated in terms that clearly and unambiguously reflect the text of the proposed amendment,” the opinion, shared by Chief Justice Carlos Muniz and Justices Charles Canady, Jorge Labarga and John Couriel, said. “And the broad sweep of this proposed amendment is obvious in the language of the summary. Denying this requires a flight from reality. We acknowledge that the text of the amendment — like any legal text — presents interpretive questions, but we neither endorse nor reject any litigant’s assertions about how the proposed amendment might be interpreted in the future and our decision today takes no position on the scope of legislative discretion that would remain if the proposed amendment were to become law.”

    The political committee Floridians Protecting Freedom launched the amendment drive last May, after Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Republican-controlled Legislature approved a measure to prevent abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. In a separate ruling last week, the Supreme Court said a privacy clause in the state Constitution does not protect abortion rights — effectively allowing the six-week limit to take effect May 1.

    The abortion issue will lead to a massive political fight in the coming months, with the proposed amendment needing support from 60 percent of voters to pass.

    In part, the amendment says, “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.”

    While the court’s majority said the wording met legal tests, other constitutional amendments have ended up in litigation after getting voter approval.

    For example, voters in 2018 passed a constitutional amendment that required restoring voting rights of felons “upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation.” The Legislature and DeSantis in 2019 approved a law to carry out the amendment and required felons to complete all financial terms of their sentences —- including paying fines, fees, costs and restitution —- to be eligible to vote.

    That interpretation blocked many felons from getting their rights restored and led to litigation. The 2019 law remains in place.

    DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody and Republican legislative leaders have criticized the proposed abortion-rights amendment. The three dissenting justices last week focused, in part, on terms such as “health,” “healthcare provider” and “viability.”

    “‘Health’ and ‘healthcare provider’ have obviously broad and undefined boundaries which are seemingly unlimited without the benefit of a technical, legal analysis,” Sasso wrote in a footnote in a dissent joined by Grosshans and Francis.

    But another issue that could emerge is the potential interplay between the abortion-rights amendment and another long-existing part of the Constitution that says, “All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness.”

    During oral arguments in February on the abortion-rights proposal, Muniz raised questions about the existing part of the Constitution and “rights of the unborn.”

    A footnote in last week’s majority opinion also cited the issue and partially quoted an argument raised in Grosshans’ dissent.

    “It is also suggested that the voters should be informed that the proposed amendment ‘could, and likely would, impact how personhood is defined for purposes of Article I, Section 2 of our Constitution,’” the footnote said, referring to the part of the Constitution about natural persons. “The constitutional status of a preborn child under existing Article I, Section 2 presents complex and unsettled questions.”

    The group Public Rights Project, which filed a brief at the Supreme Court in support of the abortion-rights amendment, issued a statement last week raising concerns about the court’s reference to personhood. The group said the decision “to allow abortion on the ballot is a win for abortion rights, democracy, and for Floridians being able to express their wills at the polls come November.”

    “But references to potential fetal personhood rights in the Florida Supreme Court’s decision signal the seven justices’ openness to overriding the will of voters in a future legal challenge brought by anti-choice groups,” Jill Habig, the group’s founder and president, said in a prepared statement. “This legal strategy is playing out in Florida and other states where the right has captured the courts through judicial gerrymandering and other means.”

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida

    Source link