Advocates for a pro-choice amendment on Florida’s November ballot vow to fight a state committee’s decision to add politically motivated economic projections to the measure voters will consider at the polls.
Lauren Brenzel
“Our campaign worked hard to ensure that the language of our initiative met constitutional standards and the state should meet those same standards for clarity and accuracy so voters are not misled. Any financial impact statement should be lawfully accurate, unambiguous, straightforward, clear and transparent,” said Lauren Brenzel, director of the Yes on 4 campaign.
Amendment 4, approved by the Florida Supreme Court in April, would undo the state’s six-week abortion ban. It 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.”
But the Florida Financial Impact Estimating Conference approved a statement July 15 to accompany the measure to alert voters about costs associated with its passage, which requires a 60% or greater margin of victory. Critics say the statement is politically motivated and riddled with hypotheticals.
The statement claims passage of the amendment “would result in significantly more abortions and fewer live births per year in Florida. The increase in abortions could be even greater if the amendment invalidates laws requiring parental consent before minors undergo abortions and those ensuring only licensed physicians perform abortions.”
The statement also speculates that Florida may be forced to subsidize abortions and pay possible legal costs related to abortion: “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.”
The conference was established as a nonpartisan group responsible for estimating the financial consequences of constitutional amendments and for crafting statements to supplement ballot initiatives. But for Amendment 4, members appointed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and House Speaker Paul Renner forced adoption of a statement projecting and magnifying costs, the Florida Phoenix reported.
Amy Baker, who has chaired the group since 2004, “said the panel traditionally has not factored the uncertain outcome of hypothetical litigation into financial impact statements. Baker said multiple times that the panel was straying from neutrality but was outvoted 3-1 on numerous choices the group made, with Azhar Khan, staff director of the Senate Committee on Finance and Tax, filling out the majority,” the nonprofit news organization reported.
Yes on 4 issued a statement condemning the language, describing it as “deceptive and politically motivated” and intended to deprive voters of “accurate information to make the best decisions when voting this November.”
“They’re trying to cause confusion and hide the real issue.”
Brenzel added: “They’re trying to cause confusion and hide the real issue: Amendment 4 is about ending Florida’s extreme abortion ban which outlaws abortion before many women even realize they are pregnant.”
Christian anti-abortion groups also have based their opposition to Amendment 4 on speculation that its passage will subsequently abolish all laws and regulations related to the medical procedure.
“The ballot initiative is so vague, and so broad that it would eliminate any and all restrictions on abortion up to birth. Not even health and safety regulations will survive if this extreme abortion initiative is passed,” the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel declared after the state high court approved the initiative.
The date of the ruling was one of mixed emotions for abortion opponents who also saw the court uphold Florida’s 2022 15-week abortion ban and cleared the way for implementation of the state’s current prohibition of abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.
“After 35 years, we won a huge victory yesterday. Florida will no longer be an abortion destination. But all that hard work could be erased in November if this extreme abortion initiative is passed. Planned Parenthood will spend tens and tens of millions of dollars to deceive the people,” Liberty Counsel added.
The financial analysis statement, meanwhile, recently dodged a legal challenge by Floridians Protecting Freedom, sponsors of the amendment and the Yes on 4 campaign. Its suit sought to strike down an earlier version of the notice for being clearly anti-abortion. In June, Second Judicial Circuit Judge John Cooper ordered a redrafting of the statement, leading the state to appeal. The conference subsequently revised the statement before the Florida First District Court of Appeals could hear the case, resulting in its July 22 dismissal of the suit.
“After the (conference) issued the revised financial impact statement, we directed the parties to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as moot. … Here, the order on review is based on a financial impact statement that is no longer operative. No judicial determination or action remains for the circuit court based on the complaint before it,” the ruling stated.
But the court left the door open for further litigation against the statement as currently worded: “To the extent that appellees may wish to raise new claims about the revised financial impact statement, they may do so in a separate proceeding.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida promised to act on that invitation.
Natasha Sutherland
“Despite this setback, we remain steadfast in our commitment to fight for the rights of all voters,” the ACLU said. “We will continue to challenge any attempts to mislead and confuse the public and will work tirelessly to ensure that the truth prevails. Our democracy depends on transparency and accuracy, and we will not rest until these principles are upheld. As part of this commitment, we are taking our case to the Florida Supreme Court to ensure that justice is served and the rights of all voters are protected.”
The appellate court failed Floridians by not resolving the issue brought in the challenge, the civil rights organization added. “We are deeply disappointed by the court’s refusal to answer whether the state has the power to put any statement, no matter how deceptive, on the ballot, with no recourse in the courts. Allowing the state to continue to act as if it has this right undermines the democratic process and the right of voters to make informed decisions based on accurate information.”
Natasha Sutherland, communications director with Yes on 4, said Florida voters need accurate information at the polls in order to make well-informed decisions for themselves, their families and communities.
“Florida voters have two clear choices this November — to maintain the current extreme ban on abortions or vote Yes on Amendment 4 to limit government interference with abortion,” she said. “We know Florida’s abortion ban is unpopular and harming families, and our campaign will be laser focused on ensuring that voters know that the power is in their hands to change that.”
Related articles:
Florida high court gives hope to both sides in abortion debate
GOP abortion laws are wildly out of step with many evangelicals’ convictions | Analysis by David Bumgardner