{"id":298283,"date":"2023-09-08T14:29:12","date_gmt":"2023-09-08T19:29:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=298283"},"modified":"2023-09-08T13:10:33","modified_gmt":"2023-09-08T18:10:33","slug":"florida-supreme-court-tough-questions-oral-arguments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/florida-supreme-court-tough-questions-oral-arguments\/","title":{"rendered":"Florida Supreme Court asks tough questions during oral arguments in case about 15-week law"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

(Liberty Counsel<\/a>) The Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, et al., v. State of Florida, et al.<\/i>, regarding the 15-week abortion ban which prohibits all abortions after 15 weeks of gestation.<\/p>\n

On April 14, 2022, Governor Ron DeSantis signed\u00a0HB 5<\/a>, known as the \u201cReducing Fetal and Infant Mortality Act,\u201d to protect the lives of Florida\u2019s most vulnerable by prohibiting all abortions after 15 weeks of gestation. Florida Planned Parenthood affiliates and other independent abortionists sued the state on June 1, 2022. The complaint alleges that the 15-week ban violates a right to privacy within the Florida Constitution.<\/p>\n

Florida Solicitor General Henry Whitaker argued on behalf of the state and Whitney White, attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, argued on behalf of the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n

Regarding the ACLU\u2019s argument that the Florida privacy amendment should include abortion, Justice Jamie Grosshans addressed White, \u201cYour brief doesn\u2019t have very many supporting documents to show that was the understanding of any voter in the state in 1980 [that the privacy amendment included a right to abortion]. Abortion\u2019s always been a divisive issue. It was divisive in 1980. Why is there not more that emphasizes your view of what that term [right to privacy] meant at the time?\u201d<\/p>\n

Justice John Couriel added: \u201cThe plain text has an original public meaning\u2026if the original public meaning of that text included abortion you would expect to see positions from Planned Parenthood and National Right to Life debating each other about it in 1980 and yet we don\u2019t really see that. How do you explain that absence?\u201d<\/p>\n

White responded: \u201cThere could have been a general acceptance that\u00a0Roe<\/i>\u00a0was the law of the land at the time.\u201d<\/p>\n

Chief Justice Carlos Mu\u00f1iz stated: \u201cWe\u2019ve had in our country kind of a 50-year debate over this. There have been changes in scientific information\u2026 It doesn\u2019t seem like the people of Florida had an actual debate over [abortion] when this was adopted\u2026 When we\u2019re talking about something as fundamental as the possibility of protecting human life versus whatever the autonomy interest might be, how should our court sort of look at our role in overriding a legislative judgement on compelling interest? This is a fifty-year reflection by our society, by our state, and the people\u2019s elective representatives believe that there is a compelling interest in protecting human life. Why should we as a court not defer to that? We also have in the Florida Constitution \u2018all natural persons are equal before the law and have inalienable rights including the right to enjoy and defend life.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n