Tag: Florida Supreme Court

Florida Supreme Court ruling could allow children to have three parents

[ad_1]

Credit: Shutterstock

A divided Florida Supreme Court ruling this week on assisted reproduction methods raises the prospect of children having three parents — or at least raises a new complication for couples seeking to have kids with outside help.

By a narrow 4-2 margin, the state’s high court on Wednesday concluded that under Florida statute a sperm donor did not automatically relinquish his parental rights because the artificial insemination was done at home instead of at a fertility clinic.

A majority of justices agreed to overturn two lower court decisions that had previously found that Angel Rivera had given up his parental rights when he agreed to provide his sperm to Ashley Brito and Jennifer Salas.

Brito used an at-home artificial insemination kit. According to court documents, Brito and Salas got married after confirming the pregnancy and began raising the child together. However, they separated a little more than a year later. Soon afterward, Rivera filed a petition seeking recognition as the child’s legal father.

The majority justices stressed that they were not concluding that Rivera is entitled to parental rights. Rather, the opinion focused on whether the governing state law, passed in 1993 and amended in 2020, applies to people who artificially inseminate outside a clinic setting.

Justice Jaime Grosshans, writing for the majority, said the law did not apply to Rivera.

“Taken together, it is clear that this section of newly enacted statutes, as well as the one amended statute, focused almost exclusively on providing a legal framework for gestational surrogacy issues and laboratory-based reproductive procedures — i.e. ART, [assistive reproductive technology],” Grosshans wrote.

Joining Grosshans in the decision were outgoing Justice Charles Canady as well as Justice Jorge Labarga and Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz.

Justice John Couriel, who wrote a dissenting opinion that Justices Meredith Sasso and Renatha Francis concurred with, said the majority “gets that job wrong” and that it was clear that Rivera was clearly a donor whose actions were covered by the law.

And Couriel argued that the court’s decision opens the door to circumstances not authorized by the Legislature.

“But now, the majority authorizes Rivera to become parent number three,” Couriel wrote. “This might be good or bad policy by the Court’s lights, but it is not our law.”

Couriel added, “The Court seems bashful about the full import of its reasoning, stopping one step short of what it knows will be an odd result indeed under Florida law: declaring Rivera a child’s third legal parent. And that is understandable. Whatever hoops Rivera and other donors in his position will have to jump through, so too will people who have relied on their donations as they await the courts’ sorting out of claims that the statute on its face resolves.”

Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.
Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Bluesky | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

Related Stories

DeSantis stayed quiet in the first days following the operation — even though Florida boasts the largest Venezuelan community in the nation

The ruling on assisted reproduction methods raises a new complication for couples seeking to have kids with outside help

The bill would allow doctors to issue certifications for up to 10 70-day supply limits of smokeable medical marijuana, rather than three.

Related

[ad_2]

Christine Sexton, Florida Phoenix
Source link

January 5, 2026
Miami judge under fire for text exchanges wants disciplinary charges dismissed

[ad_1]

Judge Bronwyn Miller of the Third District Court of Appeal

Courtesy Third District Court of Appeal

A Miami judge is asking to dismiss the formal disciplinary charges a state oversight panel brought against her after reviewing her text messages with Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle, arguing she did not attempt to “corrupt the process” but sought to “secure justice.”

Last month, the panel found probable cause to file formal charges against Judge Bronwyn Miller, a former prosecutor and current judge on Miami’s Third District Court of Appeal. The panel cited concerns over Miller’s texts with Fernandez Rundle, her former boss, and questioned Miller’s impartiality as a judge, saying the texts “appear to be coercive.”

READ MORE: State oversight panel finds Miami judge’s texts ‘appear to be coercive,’ questions her impartiality

In 69-page motion to dismiss filed on Wednesday, Miller’s attorney Warren Lindsey said Miller shouldn’t be disciplined because her texts with Fernandez Rundle were speech protected by the First Amendment. The texts, the attorney said, were also “unrelated to any matter that was pending before or ever likely to come before Judge Miller, bore no nexus to her official duties, and all involved an issue of great public concern.”

Lindsey argued in the filing that the issues raised in the texts were “of grave public importance,” and seeking to discipline Judge Miller for them is “inconsistent with fundamental constitutional considerations“ and “raises the spectre of the Orwellian state.”

The oversight panel’s investigation focused on Miller’s hundreds of text messages to Fernandez Rundle while Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Andrea Ricker Wolfson was presiding over hearings last year for the resentencing of Corey Smith. The reputed leader of Miami’s John Doe gang, Smith had been sentenced to death for murdering four people in Liberty City in the 1990s.

ID Photo Corey Smith Florida Department of Corrections

Prosecutors ultimately dropped the death penalty, and Smith was resentenced to 30 years in a plea deal in February after Wolfson removed two prosecutors from the case, citing misconduct. Smith’s defense attorneys accused prosecutors of coaching witnesses’ testimonies and speaking to a convicted murdered in a recorded jail call about a difficult witness.

Miller, who years earlier had been the prosecutor in Fernandez Rundle’s office that secured Smith’s convictions and death sentence, indicated in the text messages to Fernandez Rundle she was trying to protect her reputation, which she felt was tarnished during the proceedings.

The Miami Herald obtained Miller’s text messages with Fernandez Rundle and published them in an online article on Nov. 10, 2024. Three days later, on Nov. 13, Miller reported herself to the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, which investigates allegations of judicial misconduct.

The commission found probable cause that Miller had misstepped. “Your communications cast reasonable doubt on your capacity to act impartially as a judge, undermine your appearance of integrity and impartiality, demean the judicial office, interfere with your proper performance of judicial duties, may lead to your frequent disqualification, and appear to be coercive,” the commission said in its filing.

The state Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether Miller will be sanctioned. If the charges are upheld, she could face penalties ranging from a reprimand to being removed from the bench.

“Judge Miller did not attempt to overturn or overthrow justice or pervert or corrupt the process by undermining morals, allegiance, or faith. The opposite is true,” her attorney wrote in her response. “Her actions were moral, and she sought to ensure justice was served by fully cooperating in the proceedings. She was committed to exposing the false testimony and fabricated events asserted by Smith in furtherance of his motion.”

Lindsey didn’t respond to the Herald’s request for comment as of Friday afternoon.

In the filing, Lindsey said Miller sent the messages from her personal cellphone, intended the texts to be private and believed they were legally protected from being made public.

“Judge Miller privately communicated with the State Attorney in her role as the former prosecutor, a current witness, a threat victim, and a concerned constituent,” the document says. “Her unique knowledge was essential to preserving the integrity of the convictions…”

Convicted murderer and gang leader Corey Smith, center, thanks his attorney Craig Whisenhunt after he pleaded guilty to second degree murder on several charges in Courtroom 4-1 at the Richard E. Gerstein Justice Building in Miami, Florida, on Wednesday, February 5, 2025, as the State dropped the former first degree murder charges. Left to Right: Whisenhunt, Allison Miller, and Smith. Carl Juste cjuste@miamiherald.com

Miller, according to the filing, was “constitutionally authorized” to communicate with Fernandez Rundle about the case. She was also concerned about the danger posed by Smith’s potential release.

“Her recollection was pivotal in dismantling the fabricated allegations of past prosecutorial misconduct, and, as the JQC is aware, her cooperation resurrected her historic safety fears,” the document says. “Smith was unrestrained and seated mere feet away from her in the courtroom when she testified. Smith had demonstrated on more than one occasion that he was capable of eliminating adverse witnesses.”

Addressed panel’s allegations

In her response to the allegations, Miller denied attempting to influence Fernandez Rundle — and initiating the exchanges with the State Attorney. She said the commission “fail[ed] to account” for communications Rundle Fernandez initiated on the phone and in person.

“…Judge Miller did not assert physical, moral, or economic force or threats,” the filing says. “Expressing a view and participating in a free flow of information is not coercive…” READ MORE: Miami judge’s venomous texts come back to bite her in crumbling death penalty case

In her motion to dismiss, Miller said she didn’t disparage Wolfson. Rather, she expressed concern that Wolfson “prematurely developed an opinion on the merits” of the Smith case.

Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Andrea Wolfson is expected to rule on convicted killer Corey Smith’s claim that Miami-Dade prosecutors are too compromised to take part in his re-sentencing, by the end of the month. Jose A. Iglesias jiglesias@elnuevoherald.com

Miller also said she didn’t denigrate defense attorneys but merely pointed out that prosecutors are held to a heightened ethical standard. In one of the texts, Miller took aim at Michael Von Zamft — one of the prosecutors Wolfson ousted from the Smith case. Miller pointed out that Von Zamft is a former defense attorney.

“They play by different rules,” Miller wrote. “No defense attorney should be training [assistant state attorneys]. It should be someone who knows that prosecutors are held to higher ethics.”

Grethel Aguila

Miami Herald

Grethel covers courts and the criminal justice system for the Miami Herald. She graduated from the University of Florida (Go Gators!), speaks Spanish and Arabic and loves animals, traveling, basketball and good storytelling. Grethel also attends law school part time.

[ad_2]

Grethel Aguila

Source link

November 14, 2025
Guns in Florida: Open carry vs. concealed carry. What this sheriff says about both
[ad_1]
A decade after the Florida Supreme Court upheld the state’s ban on open carry in 2015, a state appeals court ruled Sept. 10 that it is unconstitutional.

In a significant decision, a three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal said the open-carry ban is incompatible with the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” It cited U.S. Supreme Court rulings on Second Amendment issues.

The change does not go into effect until Sept. 25, and legislative action will be needed to align state law with the decision. While the ruling technically applies only to the 32 north Florida counties of the 1st District, the Florida Sheriffs Association is advising the state’s 67 county sheriffs not to make any arrests for the open carrying of firearms.

Curious about what this means for you? See video of Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd discussing what this change means for Florida gun owners.

Watch the video of Florida Sheriff Grady Judd discussing open carry

What is ‘open carry?’

“Open carry” means you can publicly carry a legally owned firearm that is kept in plain sight or partially concealed, usually holstered.

In Florida, openly carrying a firearm is a second-degree misdemeanor with a $500 fine or a maximum of 60 days in jail.

However, Florida Statute 790.25 provides exemptions for:
- Law enforcement, corrections officers, game wardens, forest officials, military, and guards
- Members of firearms clubs while at gatherings or traveling to and from them
- People who manufacture firearms while they’re on the job
- Anyone “engaged in fishing, camping, or lawful hunting or going to or returning from a fishing, camping, or lawful hunting expedition”
- Someone carrying a firearm in a concealed manner may “briefly and openly display” it to someone else, but not in an angry or threatening manner.
What does ‘concealed carry’ mean?

“Concealed carry” means you can publicly carry a legally owned firearm that is hidden from view. Concealed carry is currently legal in all 50 states but some states, including Florida before the law was changed in 2023, require special training and a license before it is allowed.

“Permitless carry” or “constitutional carry” allows both, without permits, licensing or training.

Is open carry legal in Florida now? Can I start wearing my gun?

Depends on where you live.

Several county sheriffs and local police departments in Florida have announced they will not enforce the open carry ban following the decision, along with some police departments, and at least one state attorney said his office will not prosecute violations.

Legal challenges to the decision are possible, and the state attorney general could choose to appeal, but since Florida Attorney General Jim Uthmeier called the decision a win for the Second Amendment, that seems unlikely.

“As we’ve all witnessed over the last few days, our God-given right to self-defense is indispensable,” he posted on X.

Since Ray said that “reasonable regulation” would be preserved, even if open carry becomes the law of the state, restrictions would still exist in courtrooms, courtroom parking lots, meetings of the Florida Legislature, polling places, school and college events, professional athletic events, career centers, and college or university facilities.

Currently, private property owners may also ban firearms on their property.

This article originally appeared on The Daytona Beach News-Journal: Florida’s open carry ban lifted? Sheriff explains new change
[ad_2]

Source link
September 15, 2025
Florida Supreme Court sides with DeSantis over ‘anti-riot’ law cracking down on protesters

[ad_1]

click to enlarge

Rejecting arguments that the law is ambiguous, the Florida Supreme Court said Thursday that peaceful protesters are not threatened by a measure that Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Legislature passed in 2021 to crack down on violent demonstrations.

DeSantis championed the law after nationwide protests following the 2020 death of George Floyd, a Black man who was killed by a Minneapolis police officer. But civil-rights groups filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the measure, contending it could lead to peaceful protesters facing charges when demonstrations turn violent.

Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in 2021 issued a preliminary injunction against the law, describing it as unconstitutionally “vague and overbroad.”

The state appealed, but the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals took a somewhat-unusual step of requesting help from the Florida Supreme Court with what it called a “novel” issue — how to determine the meaning of the word “riot” in the law.

Thursday’s main opinion disputed Walker’s conclusion that the law was ambiguous. It also agreed with DeSantis and the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office, another defendant in the lawsuit, that a “peaceful protester, under the most natural reading of the statute, is no rioter.”

“At bottom, the question is whether that law applies to a person who is present at a violent protest, but neither engages in, nor intends to assist others in engaging in, violent and disorderly conduct. And the answer is: no, it does not,” said the 28-page main opinion, written by Justice John Couriel and joined by Chief Justice Carlos Muniz and Justices Charles Canady, Jamie Grosshans, Renatha Francis and Meredith Sasso.

The law says that a “person commits a riot if he or she willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons, acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct” that results in an injury to another person, property damage or “imminent danger” of injury or property damage.

Justice Jorge Labarga wrote a concurring opinion Thursday that agreed with the result of the main opinion — though he said he thought the law was ambiguous.

“For purposes of (the law), a narrow interpretation of ‘violent public disturbance’ is essential to ensure that prosecutions involving violations of the statute do not capture the peaceful, nonviolent exercise of First Amendment rights nor criminalize the mere presence at or lawful participation in an otherwise peaceful assembly or protest,” Labarga wrote.

The Supreme Court ruling will go to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will use it in determining whether to overturn Walker’s preliminary injunction. The challenge to the law was filed by groups such as the Dream Defenders and the Florida State Conference of the NAACP.

In his 90-page decision, Walker pointed to concerns about vagueness of the law, which includes felony penalties.

“Though plaintiffs claim that they and their members fear that it (the law) will be used against them based on the color of their skin or the messages that they express, its vagueness permits those in power to weaponize its enforcement against any group who wishes to express any message that the government disapproves of,” Walker wrote. “Thus, while there may be some Floridians who welcome the chilling effect that this law has on the plaintiffs in this case, depending on who is in power, next time it could be their ox being gored.”

In Thursday’s main opinion, however, Couriel reviewed the history of Florida’s anti-riot laws and analyzed the grammar of the 2021 measure. He wrote that to get a conviction, prosecutors “must prove a defendant acted with intent to assist others in violent and disorderly conduct. This reading of the statute accords with the historical understanding of riot as a crime of violence … and indeed, with common sense.”

While attorneys for the civil-rights groups have argued the law violates First Amendment rights, they also asked the Supreme Court to narrowly interpret it to ensure peaceful protesters would not be affected.

“Although (as the district court held) the statute’s plain text is most naturally read to encompass non-violent protected speech, it is also fairly possible to construe the text narrowly to maintain the pre-existing common-law definition and avoid encroaching upon constitutionally protected expression,” the groups’ attorneys wrote in a brief last year.

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

June 20, 2024
Florida Supreme Court hears arguments over secret phone recordings between arcade game legends

[ad_1]

click to enlarge

Florida Supreme Court justices heard arguments Wednesday involving two arcade-game champs — but the case isn’t focused on who’s the grandmaster of Pac-Man.

Justices are grappling instead with whether gamer David Race, who lives in Ohio, violated Florida law when he secretly recorded fellow gamer Billy Mitchell without the Broward County resident’s permission. Florida is one of 11 states that require all parties to consent to being recorded.

According to court documents, Mitchell, who holds highest-scoring records in Pac-Man and Donkey Kong games, learned of the 27 recorded phone calls when they were revealed as part of a California defamation lawsuit Mitchell filed against Twin Galaxies, a video-game social-media platform that supplies data to the Guinness Book of World Records. The lawsuit was settled in January.

Race, who also holds records in Pac-Man and other arcade games, has accused Mitchell of cheating, and chatter about scoring issues has circulated for years on social media.

In a 2021 lawsuit filed in Broward County circuit court, Mitchell accused Race of violating Florida’s “Security of Communications Act” by failing to obtain his permission before recording the calls through an app on Race’s phone.

A judge refused Race’s request to dismiss the case, but the 4th District Court of Appeal sided with the Ohio resident, finding that “it offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice to require him to appear in Florida to defend against a lawsuit for an alleged violation” of Florida law. Mitchell appealed to the Supreme Court.

Wednesday’s arguments made no mention of the grudge match between Race and Mitchell, who attended the court session clad in a trademark black suit with a stars-and-stripes tie.

Justices asked numerous questions about whether the “interception” of the phone calls occurred in Florida or in Ohio, where the recordings were made, and whether Race was aware of Mitchell’s location.

Attorney James Stepan, who represents Mitchell, pointed to previous cases that established “interceptions occur where the person is speaking.” Mitchell was in Florida for all of the calls, he added.

“Well, yes, but the operative complaint doesn’t allege that Mr. Race knew that,” Justice John Couriel said.

“It’s no secret my client was a Florida resident. He’s somewhat of a, dare I use the word, celebrity, in the video-gaming industry, and so is Mr. Race, or at least he’s trying to be,” Stepan said.

Justice Meredith Sasso pressed Stepan on the issue.

“Don’t you think we need something indicating that the person who’s recording the calls knows that the person is in Florida? I mean, I like the idea of us walking around the country with like this special bubble of protection because we’re Floridians, but I’m not sure that’s how the law works,” she said.

“That’s correct, but my client was in Florida and he is entitled to the protection of Florida law while he’s here,” Stepan responded.

Robert Schenck, a lawyer in Attorney General Ashley Moody’s office, argued that the case involves “the court’s power to vindicate an interest which this court said is one of the highest order in a free and civilized society.” Moody’s office entered a friend-of-the-court brief siding with Mitchell.

“Can you explain what the state’s response would be to what the limit is for the Legislature to regulate, sort of, behavior, actions, of people out of state that affect Florida citizens? I mean, is there a limit?” Justice Jamie Grosshans asked Schenck, an assistant solicitor general.

“When an individual either commits a tort in the state, we think that is sufficient, or they commit an intentional act that they know will cause an intentional harm in that state, and I think that that’s the limit on the state’s power. … There does need to be some kind of genuine, bona fide harm in the state,” Schenck said.

Justice Charles Canady told Race’s lawyer, James Toscano, that Floridians have a “reasonable expectation” that they’re not being recorded without their permission.

“When I get on the phone and I’m talking to somebody I assume, unless they’ve told me, they’re not recording me, not that I would care, but some people might,” Canady said. “You’ve got a right in Florida not to be recorded surreptitiously.”

“I absolutely agree, if that’s two Florida residents having the conversation. But Florida is one of only 11 states that has all-party consent. I mean, I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume …,” Toscano said.

“Well, but that doesn’t make us chopped liver,” Canady interrupted.

Chief Justice Carlos Muniz appeared to struggle with the issue of where the recording and alleged violation took place.

“It seems to me the whole case really hinges on whether we think the tort occurred in Florida or not in Florida,” Muniz said.

But Toscano said the question was problematic.

“It’s not really a tort. It’s a statutory violation,” he said.

Couriel weighed in.

“Let me take a shot at this,” he said. “The truth of the matter is that what is recorded, this voice communication is just as recorded in Florida as it is in Ohio. … To me there is no other point at which it makes sense to draw the line other than that first place where it is heard,” he said.

But Muniz appeared unconvinced.

“There’s this sort of like, how do we metaphysically view the conversation and where it’s happening and whatever, but it seems like the whole point of this area of the law is to focus on what the defendant is doing, and the defendant is making the decision to record,” Muniz told Stepan. “But in terms of what the defendant is aware of, it’s all happening in Ohio.”

Stepan conceded that the “physical act” of the recording took place outside of Florida.

“His phone was in Ohio, but the defendant, at least in this case, he knew my client was a Florida resident,” he 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]

Dara Kam, News Service of Florida

Source link

May 9, 2024
Something’s Smelly About DeSantis’s Weed Statement

[ad_1]

Facts and history seems to be short in the Florida Governor’s campaign against marijuana

For those who love exploring and have visited Hershey, Pennsylvania, you know it has a unique smell. Built to produce the famous candy bar, the area smells like chocolate. It is a factory town pumping out the order all day long. Few places in the country has issues with smells like Hersey. But if you listen to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, you would think over half the country has to deal certain odors.

DeSantis has called recreational cannabis a problem and lamented marijuana’s “stench”. This is in response to the state’s Supreme Court allowing recreational marijuana be put on the November ballot. It seems something’s smelly about DeSantis weed statement. He seems to not understand science or history. And with over 50% of the country population having access to legal marijuana, you think there might have been a bigger stink if his statement was correct.

RELATED: Looks Like Virginia Is The Newest Marijuana Nanny State

Now those over 40 can remember when it was legal to smoke inside, meaning in restaurants, groceries stores and other public spaces. You did get a whiff of stale tobacco. But smoking outside is now required by law. And while Florida is not in top 10 states which smoke, an estimated 2.2+ million of its citizens (not counting tourists) still light up. Yet, he has not made a comment of being near a beach or roaming the street of the state capital and smelling a

Near Tallahassee, where the Governor sits, he is near the Florida Panhandle. For generations, its economy was driven by paper mills. Living in this panhandle puts you near some of hte most beautiful beaches, but will also, in some areas, assult your sense of smell. RockTenn, one of the areas larger paper mills, produces some particularly odorous fragrances when they “cook” paper. A strong sulfuric smell occasionally wafts across the region, and though harmless, it’s certainly unmistakeable. An economic lifeline paper mills are a part of the fabric of North Florida. When the Foley Cellulose Mill in Perry closes, economist at the university of Florida predict havoc. It will cost Florida nearly 2,000 jobs and $9.9 million in state and local taxes. This is much less than the almost zero smell of gummies and vapes which will be part of the $1+ billion plus industry in the Sunshine State alone.

There are now 24 states (plus the District of Columbia) with legalized recreational marijuana as of February 2024. Some including California, New York and DC have high visitor counts, and yet no one complains of a long or even mid term cannabis odor over the city. Yes, like cigarettes, when you walk by someone smoking you can smell it, but as you pass, it goes away.

RELATED: Science Says Medical Marijuana Improves Quality Of Life

The Governor seems dismayed the Florida State Supreme Court advanced a proposed adult-use cannabis legalization initiative, by a 5-2 ruling, to the November 5, 2024, ballot. Florida voters again will be able to express their opinion.

[ad_2]

Anthony Washington

Source link

April 4, 2024
DeSantis Thwarted In Florida Marijuana Court Ruling

[ad_1]

Score one for the voters

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has been clear about his views on marijuana. He has called recreational cannabis a problem, lamented marijuana’s “stench” and grimly warned drugs are killing this country. After voters approved medical marijuana, he said it wasn’t enough and made them vote again where it passed by 71%. Despite his campaign receiving major funds from a few large players in the industry, his public state has been consistent. As Florida put together a ballot initiative to legalize recreational, DeSantis signaled his displeasure. Ashley Moody, the attorney general of Florida and ally of Gov. Ron DeSantis, asked the state Supreme Court to nix a proposed constitutional amendment which would legalize recreational cannabis.

RELATED: Looks Like Virginia Is The Newest Marijuana Nanny State

Today, in a 5-2 ruling, the Florida State Supreme Court advanced a proposed adult-use cannabis legalization initiative to the November 5, 2024, ballot. This delivers multi blows to the governor as it dismisses his and the state attorney general argument. Marijuana, along with another ballot initiative are on the ballot and it is sure to drive voters who may not vote in line with DeSantis’s goals. And it shows despite his posturing, his administration, including the courts, are not in lockstep.

“This is one of the most important cannabis legalization campaigns in recent years,” said Matthew Schweich, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project. “We have the opportunity to end the injustice of cannabis prohibition for over 22 million Americans.”

The ballot initiative, which is being spearheaded by Smart and Safe Florida, would legalize cannabis for adults 21 and over and allow legal sales through licensed businesses. In order to pass, the initiative must be approved by 60% of voters. Of the 24 states with an initiative process, Florida is the only state that requires 60% to pass an initiative.

RELATED: Science Says Medical Marijuana Improves Quality Of Life

If the ballot hits the 60% approval mark, the initiative would take effect six months after Election Day. The initiative would allow adults 21 and older to possess up to one ounce of cannabis flower and five grams of concentrate. Medical cannabis dispensaries would be permitted to sell cannabis to adults over the age of 21. The legislature would retain the ability to issue more licenses in the future.

Gov. Ron DeSantis appointed five of the seven justices. One justice said were “baffled” by the state’s argument about the language being misleading, and other justices were similarly skeptical of the state’s push against the amendment. This signals another blow the court ruling against the governor’s stated position.

RELATED: The Imagine Of Today’s Marijuana User Is Not What You Think

As of this time, neither the Governor or the State Attorney General have provided feedback.

[ad_2]

Terry Hacienda

Source link

April 1, 2024
Florida Supreme Court misses deadline for posting rulings on abortion, recreational cannabis amendments

[ad_1]

click to enlarge

Photo by Matt Keller Lehman

Suspense over the future of the proposed abortion-rights state constitutional amendment deepened Thursday when the Florida Supreme Court let the day pass without ruling on whether the measure can appear on the November ballot.

The same applies to a separate proposed amendment to allow adult use of cannabis. The rulings were highly anticipated on the day of the week when the court typically releases written opinions, but the court’s press office issued a notice at 11 a.m.: “There are no Florida Supreme Court opinions ready for release today, March 28, 2024.”

The Florida Constitution gives the court a deadline of April 1 to rule on whether any citizens’ initiative meet the requirements for that November’s ballot placement — Monday. The court will be closed on Friday in observance of Good Friday.

“We can expect an out of calendar opinion release,” Democratic House member Anna Eskamani of Orange County wrote on X — meaning all bets are off in terms of timing.

The text of the abortion amendment says: “Limiting government interference with abortion. — Except as provided in Article X, Section 22, 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.”

Floridians Protecting Freedom, organized following the Dodd v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022, collected close to 1 million petition signatures to place the initiative on the ballot.

The issue before the court is whether the measure’s ballot summary fairly describes what it would do without ambiguity or logrolling, meaning sweeping more than one constitutional change under one banner. The court heard oral arguments on Feb. 7.

The summary reads: “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. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.”

Republican Attorney General Ashley Moody and anti-abortion groups argued against allowing either amendment to go to the voters.

A group called Smart & Safe has spent more than $40 million on the cannabis initiative so far, with nearly all that funding coming from Trulieve, according to the Florida Division of Elections. Trulieve is one of the nation’s largest multi-state cannabis operators.

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]

Michael Moline, Florida Phoenix

Source link

March 29, 2024
If FL Supreme Court approves cannabis ballot language, will voters go for recreational weed or not? – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

[ad_1]

If FL Supreme Court approves cannabis ballot language, will voters go for recreational weed or not? – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

skip to Main Content

[ad_2]

AggregatedNews

Source link

March 28, 2024
Florida Court Ponders Cannabis Legalization – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

[ad_1]

Florida Court Ponders Cannabis Legalization – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

skip to Main Content

[ad_2]

AggregatedNews

Source link

November 9, 2023
The Inflated Risk of Vaccine-Induced Cardiac Arrest

[ad_1]

During this week’s Monday Night Football game, the 24-year-old Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin collapsed moments after making a routine defensive play. Hamlin seemed to have suffered a blow to his chest shortly before losing consciousness from cardiac arrest, and his condition is grave. The source of his illness remains unclear. A study of sudden cardiac events in U.S. athletes from 2014 to 2016 found that structural abnormalities of the heart muscle or arteries and faulty electric rhythms were the most common causes; traumatic chest injuries have also been linked to such incidents, in a rare condition called commotio cordis. Still, the availability of these hypotheses did not stop online activists from blaming Hamlin’s health crisis on vaccines.

Anti-vaccine influencers have been fomenting fear about a supposed rise in COVID-shot-induced athletic deaths for a while. Fact-checkers have repeatedly assessed these claims and found them to be without merit. Jonathan Drezner, a sports-medicine physician who studies sudden deaths in athletes, told media outlets last year that he was “not aware of any COVID-19 vaccine-related athletic death.” The National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research, which systematically tracks sports-related fatalities, identified 13 medical deaths during football-related activities in 2021 among players participating at all levels of competition, eight of which were caused by cardiac arrest. The same researchers had found 14 medical deaths two years earlier, 10 of which were heart-related. These incidents remain tragic and scarce.

The mRNA shots by Pfizer and Moderna are associated with a very small risk of heart inflammation, called myocarditis, which can lead to cardiac arrest. This risk is most pronounced in teenage boys receiving a second dose of the vaccine, but even in that scenario only about one in 10,000 recipients is affected. (Most professional athletes are in their 20s, not teens, so the risk to them is lower.) Myocarditis is a potentially fatal condition, but the version that occurs after vaccination is much less deadly than the heart inflammation induced by many viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. A recent analysis identified only a single death in 104 cases of vaccine-induced myocarditis. In comparison, for every 100 people who get myocarditis from a virus, about 11 will die.

Read: The selfishness of Novak Djokovic

The mere fact that mRNA shots can lead to heart problems has been exploited by conservative commentators and politicians to exaggerate the risks to young people. Last month, per a news release, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis promised to look into “sudden deaths of individuals that received the COVID-19 vaccine,” and called for a grand jury to investigate alleged wrongdoing by the vaccine manufacturers. His petition to the Florida Supreme Court justified the investigation by pointing out that “excess mortality from heart attacks rose significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially among individuals ages 25 to 44.” Yet the rise in youth heart attacks actually began in 2020, before vaccines were available. That’s because increased cardiac fatalities during the pandemic have mostly been due to the coronavirus itself. Heart-disease deaths in the United States have been observed to rise and fall in near lockstep with waves of COVID deaths, suggesting that most of these cases—97 percent, according to one estimate—are the result of undocumented SARS-CoV-2 infection.

DeSantis’s crusade against vaccines is backed by his surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, who is a staunch opponent of inoculating young people against COVID. (He has encouraged the use of ineffective therapies such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, though.) In October, Ladapo’s department produced an anonymous, non-peer-reviewed analysis suggesting that COVID shots were causing an increase in cardiac fatalities in young men. This report was modeled on a study by the U.K. government, which came to the opposite conclusion about vaccines but did find that COVID infection was associated with a sixfold increase in youth cardiac death. Given the lack of detail provided in the Florida study, it’s hard to know how to reconcile its contradictory result. This week, a group of University of Florida physicians and scientists released a report that strongly criticized the work’s methodology.

The COVID vaccines are among the most widely used medical interventions. More than 13 billion doses have been administered, at least 1 billion of which relied on mRNA technology. In analyzing this trove of real-world data, researchers have occasionally identified potential safety issues. A lack of perfect consistency across their studies is expected, and only confirms that the scientific dialogue about this new technology has been transparent. Scientists know that findings made outside a clinical trial are prone to spurious associations, so they examine how well each analysis has been performed and interpret it in the context of prior research.

Read: The core lesson of the COVID-19 heart debate

Vaccine skeptics prefer to cherry-pick supportive studies while ignoring others that contradict them. Ladapo, for example, has cited a Scandinavian report showing a potential increase in post-vaccine blood clots and heart attacks. Yet the study authors themselves cautioned readers against relying too heavily on their results, because the finding was observed in only some age groups and time periods but not others. Ladapo also failed to mention that similar studies out of the U.K., France, Scotland, and elsewhere had not found a meaningful increase in blood clots or heart attacks with mRNA shots.

A careful recitation of facts can take one only so far in combatting anti-vaccine claims. Activists use ambiguous anecdotes such as Hamlin’s cardiac arrest and the sudden death of the soccer journalist Grant Wahl during last month’s World Cup to make the alleged risks of the shots more visceral. Sports are much less dangerous than SARS-CoV-2, but when unexpected tragedies do occur, they lead to an outpouring of mourning and reflection. Collective trauma can easily give way to collective speculation, and partisans on all sides will be happy to tell us what really happened. Yet convenient scapegoats will not be enough to mend our grief.

[ad_2]

Benjamin Mazer

Source link

January 4, 2023