{"id":306560,"date":"2024-02-08T12:41:38","date_gmt":"2024-02-08T18:41:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=306560"},"modified":"2024-02-07T17:03:54","modified_gmt":"2024-02-07T23:03:54","slug":"florida-supreme-court-arguments-abortion-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/florida-supreme-court-arguments-abortion-amendment\/","title":{"rendered":"Oral arguments begin at Florida Supreme Court on abortion amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

(Liberty Counsel<\/a>) Today, the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether a proposed amendment should be put on Florida\u2019s November 2024 ballot that would offer voters the chance to codify unrestricted abortion as a right in the state constitution.<\/p>\n

The proposed amendment, \u201cAmendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion,\u201d would create a new section in the Florida Constitution \u201climiting government interference with abortion.\u201d The full text of the accompanying ballot summary states: \u201cNo law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient\u2019s health, as determined by the patient\u2019s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature\u2019s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.\u201d<\/p>\n

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver and Florida Senior Deputy Solicitor for the Attorney General Nathan Forrester argued before the court\u2019s seven justices asking them to reject the amendment because its language violates voter requirements by being \u201cbroad, misleading, and deceptive.\u201d In addition, the broad and undefined amendment language also violates the single subject rule.<\/p>\n

During the near hour-long session, Staver and Forrester made several key points on why the proposed amendment should be rejected. Staver stated it violates the Florida Constitution\u2019s single-subject requirement and would \u201csubstantially alter the government.\u201d He stressed that the \u201cNo law shall restrict\u201d language would completely deregulate abortion and disempower the three branches of government from any discretionary power to protect Florida citizens regarding abortion. Currently, the legislative branch is authorized to \u201cprohibit\u201d abortion through legislation; the executive branch is authorized to \u201cpenalize\u201d citizens who violate abortion laws; and the judicial branch is authorized to \u201cdelay\u201d or \u201crestrict\u201d any illegal or unconstitutional conduct. Lumping functional alterations to each branch of government in one amendment also violates the single-subject requirement.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn this case, the breadth of those four words, \u2018prohibit, penalize, delay, and restrict\u2019 with regards to abortion disables all three forms of government\u2026 and it is a total abolition of the functions of those branches of government.\u201d<\/p>\n

In addition, the argument to strike down the amendment included the idea that it is misleading and deceptive due to not defining key terms for the voter such as \u201chealth,\u201d \u201cviability,\u201d \u201cnecessary,\u201d and \u201chealth care provider.\u201d These vague and undefined terms could then authorize a wide range of professions with no medical training to determine if a baby is viable, and whether an abortion is \u201cnecessary\u201d for the patient\u2019s \u201chealth\u201d at all stages of pregnancy up to birth.<\/p>\n