Abortion-rights groups gathered over one million state-certified signatures in order to put an amendment on the ballot and protect women’s rights, according to supporters of this proposal.
But state Attorney General Ashley Moody contends the language could be used to restrict abortions. She contends the Supreme Court must determine whether the ballot summary and text are accurate.
Legal Issues
Florida’s Supreme Court is considering whether or not to place a proposed constitutional amendment on November’s ballot, which would prohibit abortion after a physician has determined the fetus is viable, meaning it can survive outside its mother’s body. Supporters argue this measure will ensure access for women who wish to forgo surgery as well as enable lawmakers to enact laws regarding this topic; opponents such as state Attorney General Ashley Moody argue it would result in “total abolition of all regulation of abortion”.
Justices grilled lawyers representing both sides, some being skeptical of Moody’s contention that ballot language might mislead voters. Chief Justice Carlos Muniz wondered if its wording adequately explained viability or whether any federal statute might conflict with state regulations on viability issues.
Lawyers representing Floridians Protecting Freedom and a liberal law professor argued that terms like viability are easily understood within an abortion context and won’t mislead voters. Furthermore, they suggested the Supreme Court exercise caution before blocking citizens initiatives to ensure proper balance among legislative, executive and judicial branches of government.
Oral Arguments
Wednesday, Florida state court judges heard arguments for a proposed ballot initiative that could drastically change abortion law in Florida. If passed, this measure would protect women’s right to abortion until viability, typically 24 weeks post conception, effectively overturning Florida’s current 15-week abortion ban and blocking an even tighter six-week limit enacted last year by lawmakers but which has yet to take effect due to legal challenges.
Judge Sackmann asked questions of both lawyers involved. He probed Courtney Brewer, representing Floridians Protecting Freedom initiative sponsor group Floridians Protecting Freedom on whether the language of ballot summary and amendment was confusing or misleading; Brewer replied that confusion cannot be seen as an issue here.
Justices Carlos Muniz and Charles Canady appeared doubtful that a ballot measure could pass muster with constitutional and statutory requirements for ballot measures that must cover one topic in an unambiguous way. This case is one of two high-profile abortion fights currently before Florida Supreme Court justices who were appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis – mostly Republican appointees – which appear before it.
Recommendation
Nathan Forrester of Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody made an ardent case that the summary for Amendment 30 should not appear on the ballot due to its “materially misleading” definition of viability. Citing multiple sources defining it as whether or not pregnancy will continue through birth and whether the fetus can survive outside its mother’s womb – requiring physicians to make nuanced determinations according to various factors.
At a nearly one-hour hearing, justices appeared to challenge this assertion, though they opted not to take sides on the measure. Some justices such as Jamie Grosshans and Meredith Sasso asked amendment sponsor Courtney Brewer what exactly viability meant in this context.
Final Decision
Attorneys representing both pro-choice and anti-abortion groups argued before the Florida Supreme Court on Wednesday regarding whether to place a proposed abortion amendment on the ballot. If successful, this amendment would nullify state laws that “prohibit, penalize, or restrict” access to abortion until fetal viability (currently around 24 weeks) occurs – thus nullifying both a 15-week ban approved by lawmakers last year and another six-week ban that are set to go into effect shortly.
Justices were unconvinced of Moody’s office’s argument. Chief Justice Carlos Muniz raised a concern that this language may be used to block laws which might harm women, yet Muniz felt the language contained within Moody’s ballot summary did not adequately disclose such potentialities.
Attorney Courtney Brewer of Floridians Protecting Freedom group that led a petition drive for placing this measure on the ballot believes voters can easily understand its meaning. She noted how decades-old precedent is followed here while only one subject matter is focused on.
- Friday Intraday Trading Sees Nvidia’s stock Market Cap Momentarily Cross $2 Trillion
- Trump’s January 6 Civil Cases Proceed While Criminal Case Is Halted
- Trump Delivers Speech at the Columbia Black Conservative Federation Gala
- Trump Declares Strong Support for IVF Following Alabama Supreme Court Decision
- Schumer in Ukraine Declares US Backing During House Aid Standoff
