That was one of two rulings passed down by the Florida Supreme Court on Monday.
The state supremes overturned a decades-old ruling from a previous supreme court by deciding that privacy protections in the Florida constitution do not extend to abortion.
That ruling sets the stage for a six-week abortion ban passed by the state legislature last spring to go into effect May 1.
In 6-1 vote, Florida justices ruled that a lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and a handful of abortion providers did not demonstrate that a 15-week ban is unconstitutional.
It’s a huge pro-life win but also could be a temporary one. Planned Parenthood was successful with the court’s second ruling, a 4-3 decision that will allow an abortion ballot initiative to proceed.
Floridians will vote on abortion if the initiative’s backers secure enough signatures to certify the measure for the ballot.
“That abortion amendment, it’s actually even more extreme than allowing abortion up through 24 weeks,” Mat Staver, of Liberty Counsel, said on Washington Watch Tuesday.
The initiative as it’s written gives veto power over any present or future law to a “healthcare provider” if the provider determines abortion to be necessary for the health of the woman.
“So, who is a healthcare provider under this amendment? About 58 different categories, which includes non-medical personnel such as a 911 operator, a massage therapist, an orthotic shoe fitter, the assistant to the orthotic shoe fitter, a tattoo artist, and the list goes on and on,” Staver told show host Jody Hice.
“People with no medical training would be able to give medical opinions under this radical abortion amendment. Therefore, really no abortion would be prohibited through all nine months of pregnancy up to and including birth if this passes,” Staver said.
Two requirements for an initiative
Florida law requires that a ballot initiative be of one topic and be presented in clear and precise language in order to be certified.
In their dissent, three female justices argued that the initiative does not comply with the state law for language clarity.
“It must be very clear, so that when you read the ballot summary you know what you’re voting for when you say yes or no,” Staver said. The dissenting justices said “this is far from clear. It is confusing, it is intentionally vague. It does not apprise the voter of the impact,” Staver said.
Chief Justice Carlos G. Muiz, appointed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2019, agreed with the concerns of the dissenting justices but gave them little weight.
“He said they’re possibly hypothetical, we don’t know the impact,” Staver said. “That’s the problem. That’s why it should never go forward. You should know exactly what you’re voting on.”
Jennifer Carroll, a former Florida lieutenant governor, praised the court’s ruling on the initiative. A year ago, Carroll joined 10 former Republican elected officials in Florida in signing onto a brief with the Florida Supreme Court in support of the ballot initiative.
Carroll claims to oppose abortion but believes voters should decide the issue.
“The Florida Supreme Court affirmed what my colleagues and I believe too, which is that the amendment clearly meets the criteria to go to the people of Florida for a vote. This was the right decision, not for supporters, or opponents of the amendment, but for Floridians who believe in a government of, by and for the people, where the people can bring issues before the voters.
“Some of us who signed onto this brief are ideologically opposed to abortion. Others believe that government interference with these most private of medical decisions should be extremely limited. But we all believe that Floridians should be the ones to decide. This November, they will,” she said.
Next steps to oppose the initiative
Staver is thinking ahead. He says Muniz and the dissenting justices opened the door for different legal strategy to oppose the abortion initiative should the fight continue.
“The one silver lining is that between the number of justices that commented, the three dissenters and another, that chief justice in the majority, clearly opened the door to the idea that we could bring another challenge to have the court rule on the personhood of the child based upon the Florida constitution itself, so that’s certainly a door open for any future challenges if this passes,” Staver said.
