Christine Jordan Sexton
A Florida circuit court Judge is giving state economists up to 15 days to come up with a new description for the abortion access amendment that will be on the November ballot.
When voters go to the polls they will see a financial impact statement alongside the citizen initiative that, if approved, would guarantee access to abortion up to the point of viability. The amendment would supersede Florida’s current six-week abortion ban.
The group that is sponsoring the amendment — Floridians Protecting Freedom — challenged the wording of the impact statement that had been previously drawn up by members of an impact conference.
That statement was worked on and released months prior to the Florida Supreme Court decision that triggered the current six-week ban. It also mentioned a previous 15-week ban that is no longer in effect and how additional litigation was possible. In the end, economists said that because of several outcomes, they could not determine if the measure would have any impact on state or local revenues.
Judge John C. Cooper, however, concluded on Wednesday that the statement was “inaccurate, ambiguous, misleading, unclear and confusing” and should be redone before it goes on the ballot.
Cooper made it clear he was not directing the impact conference — which is made up of staff from the Legislature and the Governor’s Office and the Office of Economic and Demographic Research — about exactly what to say. But Cooper said the statement needed to reflect the current status of abortion laws in Florida.
Cooper added that he thought it was “speculative” to suggest that an amendment would trigger additional lawsuits or that legislators would pass something in response.
“The parameters should be on what the law is now,” Cooper told lawyers from the bench.
The ruling by Cooper followed a hearing that lasted several hours. Much of the hearing was not centered on the wording of the impact statement but whether or not Cooper had jurisdiction to hear the case and whether local election supervisors should be part of the litigation. Cooper agreed to dismiss the counts of the lawsuit that were directed at Election Supervisors.
Lawyers representing the Florida Department of State did not argue over the wording of the impact statement, but did question whether the case could be considered by Cooper.
The 15-day timeline for economists to redo the financial impact statement will start once a written order is issued. That will likely occur on Monday, Cooper said. It’s not clear if the state will appeal the decision.
Attorney Margaret Good, representing Floridians Protecting Freedom in the lawsuit, issued the following statement in response to today’s hearing:
“Judge Cooper found the Financial Impact Statement to be ‘inaccurate, ambiguous, misleading, unclear, and confusing.’ We agree, which is why we brought this lawsuit: since abortion is now banned at 6 weeks, it presents outdated information about the legality of abortion, it discusses litigation which is no longer relevant and it speculates about future litigation, which is misleading,” Good said.
Astonishingly, the defendants themselves — including the FIEC — did not dispute this finding. We are satisfied with today’s decision to require the revision of the Financial Impact Statement. Floridians Protecting Freedom worked hard to ensure the amendment language is clear, concise and accurate. We want the state to hold themselves to those same standards. Because it becomes part of the ballot, voters have the right to be provided an accurate financial impact statement.”
Attorney Daniel Tilley of ACLU Florida added: “Because the Florida Supreme Court has ruled on the 15-week ban, and the 6-week ban is now in effect, the state’s financial impact statement is no longer accurate. This November, Florida voters need to see updated language on their ballot that does not hide the fact that politicians have already made it nearly impossible to obtain an abortion in Florida. We’re happy the court agrees.”
7 comments
Anormous
June 6, 2024 at 2:21 am
Make $170 per hour. its very hard to find jobs nowadays. In this situation, you have access to a wealth of resources to help you with your working abilities. Be motivated to promote Thousands of works such as copy paste things through job boards and career tr-50 websites on internet
Just Take A Look At This>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> join.payathome.com
Annie Mal
June 6, 2024 at 3:45 am
Abortion is the deliberate murder of the most vulnerable and helpless among us for the sake of the will of a minority. To run a tape on it is utter animal brutality.
FloridaPatriot
June 6, 2024 at 8:06 am
Then don’t have one. That is YOUR right. But you DO NOT have the right to dictate what others do with their body.
Annie Mal
June 6, 2024 at 9:43 am
“Their body” gets up and walks away, and it is the body of another person, a person that is more than the mother and more than the father, a person who is a human being in their own right, that lies bleeding and dead in the garbage, while clodish sophists like you suck your thumbs over vaporous rights. Dead babies have no rights, do they? “Don’t have one,” you say. Well, if you don’t want to be a mother keep your damn knees together.
Dont Say FLA
June 7, 2024 at 8:52 am
When a tick gets its teeth in you, do you leave it there till it’s fully engorged and drops off you all fat and happy?
JD
June 7, 2024 at 9:04 am
The latest polls show the amendment passing with 69%—sounds like a majority, not exactly a ‘minority’ whim, right? But hey, who’s counting? It’s so much more dramatic to play the lone defender of morality against the savage masses.
And sure, because calling a medical procedure ‘murder’ is the pinnacle of moral clarity. Next, we’ll be prosecuting people for removing their appendix—those poor, defenseless organs.
Dont Say FLA
June 7, 2024 at 8:50 am
Hope they don’t “forget” for a third time to draw up new fiscal impact for forced births.
Now that they’re suddenly (pretending to be) interested in how laws impact people, maybe they’ll “remember” to study the impact of forced births.
Third time’s a charm, so they say, and a ballot initiative that discloses an economic impact of the initiative passing but not the initiative of it failing despite the status quo itself being new, now THAT is confusing and clearly open to appeal and a re-vote if the initiative fails.
Where is Assley to complain about the confusion of omitting the economic impact of the 6 week ban when the 6 week ban, as the alternative to constitutionally protected abortion, is new and unknown?
The impact of constitutional protection for abortion is actually very well known. It was the economy from 1973 until Trump’s SCOTUS overturned Roe. The mystery is the economic impact of the 6 week ban. Assley? Assley? ASSLEY?!??!
Comments are closed.