ReportWire

Tag: Florida abortion ban

  • Wrongful deaths for fetuses, pregnancy crisis center bills filed for 2026



    Credit: via Erin Grall for Florida/Facebook

    A pair of reproductive-related bills have been filed in the Florida Legislature in advance of the 2026 legislative session that starts Jan. 13.

    One proposal, filed by Vero Beach Republican Sen. Erin Grall, would let parents file wrongful-death lawsuits for the death of a fetus at any stage of development.

    As of this publication, Grall’s bill, SB 164 lacked a House companion.

    SB 164 would not allow civil suits to be brought against medical personnel providing assistive reproductive technology, or procedures that involve the handling of human eggs, sperm, and embryos to help achieve pregnancy.

    Neither could lawsuits be filed against a patient seeking reproductive assistance.

    Grall filed similar legislation last year but that bill faced opposition from powerful Sen. Kathleen Passidomo, the former Senate president and chair of the Rules Committee. Passidomo took issue with the bill’s definition of “unborn child” as a “member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

    The 2026 version of the bill uses the same definition of unborn child.

    The second proposal, HB 6001, was filed by Boca Raton House Democrat Kelly Skidmore. That bill would eliminate from statute the “Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program,” established in 2005 as an initiative of then-Gov. Jeb Bush with the Legislature agreeing to appropriate $2 million for its operations.

    In 2018, the Legislature codified the program into statute passing HB 41.

    Now the program is housed in the Department of Health and legislators have agreed in the current year state budget to allocate $29.5 million to help it operate.

    Skidmore argues that the program is no longer needed because of the state’s six-week abortion ban which, for the most part, bans terminations before many patients know they are pregnant.

    “When we live in a state that has a six-week ban, how many crisis pregnancies do you think there are that we still need to fund $29.5 million for these centers?” Skidmore asked. “What crisis pregnancies are they helping with? There aren’t any, because there are no options for pregnant women. So, this is just false. All of it is false and a misuse of taxpayer dollars.”

    HB 6001 doesn’t have a Senate companion because it is a “repealer bill.” Florida House Speaker Daniel Perez implemented a rule allowing representatives to file one repealer bill per session that does not count toward their seven-bill limit.

    Skidmore said she took advantage of the opportunity.

    “And what surprises me is that the emphasis on the new DOGE office has not raised this as a red flag of inappropriate spending of taxpayer dollars, particularly since there was a recent news story that the lawyer that represents many of these networks gave advice to not provide ultrasounds to pregnant women suspected of having an ectopic pregnancy because it was a high risk of being sued,” Skidmore said, referencing a Massachusetts lawsuit.

    Meanwhile, the most recent available data show that during state fiscal year 2022-23, 21,372 women were provided 132,395 counseling services and 18,238 pregnancy tests were provided by the centers.


    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

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


    The language is similar to oaths taken by lawyers, doctors, and public officials

    The legislation would reduce the minimum to buy a firearm in the state from 21 to 18 years of age





    Christine Sexton, Florida Phoenix
    Source link
  • Should abortion count as a local issue in county elections?

    Should abortion count as a local issue in county elections?

    click to enlarge

    Orange County commissioner for District 1 Nicole Wilson (left) and candidate for District 1 Austin Arthur (right)

    When Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law Florida’s 15-week abortion ban two years ago in Kissimmee, public records show his office invited a lengthy list of anti-abortion politicians and advocates to show up for the celebration — including a Winter Garden Republican who’s now running for a seat on the nonpartisan Orange County Commission.

    Austin Arthur, a candidate who’s running for the District 1 seat in west Orange, was specially invited by the Governor’s Office for the celebration, along with sitting Osceola County school board member Jon Arguello, a self-described “MAGA Patriot” who was identified on the invite list as a representative of Heritage Action for America (affiliated with the right-wing Heritage Foundation) and 40 Days for Life (an anti-abortion advocacy group).

    Arthur, a political newcomer challenging incumbent Orange County commissioner Nicole Wilson this year, conceded that he’s “invited to a lot of things,” but said he sees abortion as an issue outside of the county purview and denied having any sort of personal relationship with DeSantis.

    “I don’t have a particular relationship with the governor. I don’t think I’ve ever met the man,” Arthur told Orlando Weekly in an interview. “There’s nothing really there,” he said of the invite, “except for the fact that I’m doing everything I can to bridge the gap between Tallahassee and Orange County.”

    click to enlarge Public email records show Orange County Commission candidate Austin Arthur of Winter Garden was invited to the bill signing in 2022 for HB 5, banning abortion after 15 weeks.

    Public email records show Orange County Commission candidate Austin Arthur of Winter Garden was invited to the bill signing in 2022 for HB 5, banning abortion after 15 weeks.

    Arthur, a gym owner and marketing professional by trade, advanced to the General Election this upcoming November by a bare-bones margin, with Wilson beating him only by (literally) a few votes. His background, nonetheless, has stirred concern among some.

    Arthur, for instance, sits on the board of a religiously affiliated “pregnancy resource center” in Eustis, Florida called Life’s Choices Women’s Clinic. Such facilities, often mistaken for legitimate abortion clinics, aim to convince pregnant people not to get abortions. They offer free ultrasounds, STD testing and pregnancy tests, despite many (including Life’s Choices) lacking a state medical license.

    Arthur, a dad of three small children himself, does not publicly tout his affiliation with Life’s Choices, despite openly proclaiming his involvement with other community organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, Central Florida YMCA and a veterans’ suicide prevention group.

    As early as last year, Arthur began scooping up the support of local Republicans who have historically voted in favor of abortion bans, including state Rep. Carolina Amesty (who’s currently facing felony charges over alleged forgery) and state Sen. Dennis Baxley of Ocala, who has sought for years to ban most all abortions in Florida.

    Arthur declined to tell Orlando Weekly what his personal opinion on abortion is, or how he plans to vote on Florida’s pro-abortion rights measure, which will appear on the ballot this November as Amendment 4.

    Interjecting oneself into the issue of abortion as a local official, Arthur argued, is “unnecessarily dividing people” and “distracting from your actual job of what you should be doing as a commissioner.”

    Nicole Wilson, a registered Democrat and the incumbent in a district that very slimly leans Republican, was more open about her position.

    “I believe that reproductive rights are human rights and that individuals should be able to make decisions about family planning, contraception and abortion without government interference, coercion, or discrimination,” Wilson told Orlando Weekly.

    Protecting public health, safety and welfare, she argued, is a “fundamental role” of an elected county official.

    When abortion becomes a local issue

    Abortion likely isn’t the No. 1 issue that comes to mind in considering candidates for County Commission races — as opposed to, say, transportation or infrastructure — yet it’s not entirely outside the local purview.

    While abortion rights are more often framed as a federal or state issue, there are still a number of ways that the issue of abortion rights can show up in local government.

    Some key examples include so-called sanctuary city laws established for the “unborn,” giving taxpayer funds to anti-abortion organizations, and establishing zoning and land-use laws that similarly aim to restrict abortion access.

    Back in 1995, for example, Orlando’s sole private abortion clinic today, the Center of Orlando for Women, had to fight just to open.

    As Orlando Weekly reported a few years after the ordeal, the city of Orlando’s planning board had initially denied the clinic’s founder a permit for the clinic’s operation after an anti-abortion critic complained that he was violating local zoning laws. Planning board members sided with the protester and reportedly felt that the clinic’s presence would be “disruptive,” correctly predicting demonstrations by protesters opposed to abortion.

    Dr. John Pendergraft, a Black doctor who founded but no longer owns the clinic, ended up suing the city of Orlando over the zoning fight, and won. Other municipalities in recent years have similarly found creative ways to keep abortion clinics out of their communities, including through the creation of sanctuary city policies.

    Such laws essentially seek to create pro-life sanctuaries, scholars report, and have been adopted by local governments in a number of states, including Texas, Florida, North Carolina and others.

    Ironically, many of these cities and counties don’t even have abortion clinics within their local limits, yet still seek to outlaw or otherwise symbolically oppose them.

    An ordinance in Lubbock, Texas, for example, declares abortion an “act of murder” and outlaws the act of getting an abortion, providing one, or aiding and abetting someone in the termination of their pregnancy.

    Florida’s Santa Rosa County, near Pensacola, became the first county in the state to create a similar, if less aggressive, resolution through a 2020 ballot referendum approved by voters.

    That resolution essentially allowed the county to adopt a symbolic stance against abortion. Two years later, Santa Rosa commissioner James Calkins led an effort to try to outlaw abortion clinics in the county, which (like Lubbock) isn’t home to any abortion clinics. Calkins’ proposed ordinance, which he called “All Lives Matter,” failed to get enough support from his colleagues, however. They ultimately shot down the proposal, declaring it a moot point.

    A county commissioner in Lee County more recently launched an effort to have the county government formally denounce Florida’s Amendment 4, a proposed measure that seeks to write abortion rights into the state constitution and legalize abortion up to viability, or roughly 24 weeks of pregnancy. Currently, the limit is six weeks.

    The measure, spearheaded by the nonpartisan political committee Floridians Protecting Freedom, needs at least 60 percent of the vote this November in order to pass.

    On the flip side of local restrictive policies, there are also protective measures that local leaders can champion to support safe access to abortion care. One example that some state Democrats have unsuccessfully tried to establish statewide is buffer zone laws, which serve to help protect clinic patients and staff from harassment.

    Such laws create fixed areas around abortion clinics to help keep protesters away, reduce disruption, and increase safety for clinic patients and staff. A local law in Melbourne, later challenged in the courts, created a 36-foot buffer zone around a local abortion clinic there a few decades ago.

    A clinic doctor testified at the time that patients forced to confront protesters “manifested a higher level of anxiety and hypertension, causing those patients to need a higher level of sedation to undergo the surgical procedures, thereby increasing the risk associated with such procedures.”

    Additional floating buffer zones the city had created in the law for patients and the homes of staff were ultimately struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1994.

    Where local candidates stand on the abortion issue

    Orlando Weekly reached out to all six candidates on the ballot for Orange County Commission races this November over email to ask their positions on the issue. As of publication, three have responded.

    Wilson, the District 1 incumbent, plainly admitted she plans to vote in favor of Florida’s Amendment 4. “I don’t want Tallahassee politicians or Washington politicians making health care decisions for my daughters, my sisters, or me,” she said.

    Arthur, as previously mentioned, declined to share his personal views on abortion, but said that he wouldn’t support something like a ‘pro-life’ sanctuary city law. “I’m not in favor of that,” he said. “I’ve never made that part of my platform, because it’s not what I’m focused on.”

    Arthur was previously identified on a website for the Florida Christian Patriots, a local Christian Nationalist group, as a co-founder, but has in recent months sought to distance himself, after word spread of his affiliation. The group encourages locals to “stand up for truth, liberty and Biblical values.” Several other co-founders listed have donated to Arthur’s campaign, records show. (Nathan Cassidy, still listed as a co-founder of Florida Christian patriots, defeated Pete Crotty and Randy Ross in the Sept. 4 election to become Republican State Committeeman.)

    The only other candidate to get back to us ahead of publication was Linda Stewart, a term-limited Democrat in the state Senate who is campaigning for the Orange County Commission seat in District 3.

    Stewart, who has voted against abortion bans in the state Legislature (despite occasionally voting with Republicans on other issues), said she’s an active supporter of Amendment 4 and trusts women to make choices that make the most sense for them and their families.

    “They deserve the right to make personal private decision about their lives and future without the interference of government,” Stewart told Orlando Weekly in an email.

    Stewart’s opponent in the race, incumbent Mayra Uribe, did not return our multiple requests for comment over the last week on this specific issue, nor did either of the candidates running for the open District 5 seat, Steve Leary and Kelly Semrad.

    Arthur, eager to veer away from the issue of abortion, broadly chided his opponent Wilson for what he described as difficulty in securing her in engagement with communities in her district.

    He used that claim to point out a slew of endorsements he’s received from local leaders in Winter Garden, Ocoee and Windermere. “It was almost impossible to ever get her engaged in the community, and a lot of frustrations came out of that,” Arthur claimed, sharing that initially, he was trying to recruit someone else to run for her seat before hopping into the race himself.

    Wilson told Orlando Weekly, in response, that she’s held over 400 community meetings during her time in office, and often sees Arthur at these meetings, too.

    Where she doesn’t see him, she said, is in county land-use meetings — where, Arthur claims, she is allegedly favoring certain developers for county projects over others.

    “I’ve worked really hard in this office over the last three and a half years to move forward some more stringent guidelines in environmental protection,” Wilson said, admitting it’s possible those guidelines have removed some developers from consideration for projects.

    “I treat everyone, whether [it is] the mayor, or somebody who works at the Convention Center — I treat them equally,” she added.

    Wilson, an environmental lawyer by trade, said the primary pillar of her campaign back in 2020 and still today is environmental policy, hand-in-hand with sustainability and smart growth management.

    She said it’s concerning that Arthur, who’s leading in campaign fundraising more than 5 to 1, is “being largely funded by the people who I’ve sort of tried to make sure we’re doing their part right: the developers, the tourism industry,” said Wilson. “These are people I’ve had relationships with, but I’ve required, you know, conversations about how to do a better job of taking care of their own people and taking care of the environment.”

    Arthur has been endorsed by politically influential industry groups such as the Orlando Regional Realtors Association (whose state affiliate has lobbied in favor of laws threatening home rule) and the Central Florida Hotel & Lodging Association (a trade group that backed controversial changes to Florida’s child labor laws this year, as a pitch to increase the industry’s labor supply).

    Arthur, however, rebuked claims in an interview regarding his campaign finance record, arguing that a good portion of the over $275,000 he’s raised so far comes from retirees in the community who just happen to back him for office.

    Arthur himself donated $50 to DeSantis’ campaign for Governor in 2018, and donated $50 four years later to the campaign of State Attorney General Ashley Moody, an elected official who has neglected calls to beef up enforcement of Florida’s minimum wage, despite warnings from labor advocates of widespread wage theft in the state.

    Wilson, who’s donated to state politicians who support abortion rights, described Arthur as a “slick marketer.”

    “I wonder, without having an actual record of what he would do as a public servant, what his expectation is when he gets to the county,” she said. “I hope the public pays attention and they ask some questions. I hope that people continue to do their due diligence before they cast their ballot.”

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

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

    Source link

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

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

    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

    Dara Kam, News Service of Florida

    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

    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

    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

    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

    News Service of Florida

    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

    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

    Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida

    Source link

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

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

    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

    Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida

    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

    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

    Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida

    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

    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

    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

    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

    Michael Moline, Florida Phoenix

    Source link

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

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

    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

    Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida

    Source link

  • Florida Supreme Court likely to rule on abortion, recreational marijuana amendments Monday

    Florida Supreme Court likely to rule on abortion, recreational marijuana amendments Monday

    The wait likely will last through the weekend.

    The Florida Supreme Court appears poised Monday afternoon to issue rulings about whether proposed constitutional amendments that seek to ensure abortion rights and allow recreational marijuana will go on the November ballot.

    The court Thursday evening issued a statement that said it will release “out-of-calendar” opinions at 4 p.m. Monday. The court typically releases opinions each Thursday morning, with “out-of-calendar” opinions released other times.

    Justices had been widely expected to rule on the proposed constitutional amendments Thursday because they face a Monday deadline on the issues. But the court said in an email Thursday morning that there were “no Florida Supreme Court opinions ready for release today.” The court will be closed Friday for Good Friday.

    The Florida Democratic Party, which is trying to make abortion rights a major issue in the November elections, sent out a fund-raising email Thursday that noted the delay.

    “This is nerve wracking, folks,” the email said. “We are still waiting to hear a decision from the Florida Supreme Court that will determine whether or not abortion access will be on the ballot in November.”

    Political committees behind the two proposed amendments have submitted enough petition signatures to reach the ballot. But the Supreme Court plays a key role because it must decide whether the wording of initiatives’ ballot titles and summaries — the parts that voters see when they go to the polls — meet legal tests. Those tests include whether the wording is clear and whether it deals with only single subjects.

    While the political committees argue that both proposals should get Supreme Court approval, Attorney General Ashley Moody and other opponents contend that justices should block the measures from the ballot.

    The committee Floridians Protecting Freedom announced the abortion-rights initiative in May after the Republican-controlled Legislature and Gov. Ron DeSantis approved a law that could prevent abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. The six-week limit is contingent on the outcome of a legal battle about a 15-week abortion limit that DeSantis and lawmakers approved in 2022.

    The ballot summary of the proposal says, in part: “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.”

    Meanwhile, the recreational-marijuana initiative, sponsored by the Smart & Safe Florida political committee, comes after Florida voters in 2016 passed an initiative that broadly allowed medical marijuana.

    The proposed ballot summary, in part, says the measure would allow “adults 21 years or older to possess, purchase, or use marijuana products and marijuana accessories” for non-medical consumption.

    If the proposals reach the ballot, they would need approval from 60 percent of voters to pass.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

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

    Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida

    Source link