Gabrielle Russon
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Florida chapter is filing a lawsuit within days to challenge a state-run website opposing Amendment 4.
The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) website reads, “Florida is protecting life. Don’t let the fearmongers lie to you.” It lists reasons why Floridians should reject Amendment 4, which seeks to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution.
“This website is filled with demonstrably false statements and so we’re challenging the misuse of taxpayer dollars to lie to voters about this amendment,” ACLU attorney Michelle Morton said during a press conference. “That’s not what the government is supposed to do.”
A Palm Beach attorney is also suing over the public health agency’s website.
The abortion rights initiative’s leaders also called Gov. Ron DeSantis’ attacks on the validity of its petition campaign a distraction to the real issue: fighting Florida’s six-week abortion ban.
“What couldn’t be more clear is extreme politicians are desperate to stop Amendment 4’s momentum,” said ACLU spokesperson Keisha Mulfort. “They know Floridians are against Florida’s cruel and extreme abortion ban, and yet they’re pulling every trick in their playbook.”
On Feb. 1, the state verified the nearly 1 million petitions collected in a grassroots effort to put abortion rights on the ballot following the end of Roe v. Wade, campaign organizers said.
Seven months later, DeSantis accused the campaign of having petitions collected on behalf of dead people and signatures that didn’t match voter registration.
Mulfort said they take any allegations of wrongdoing seriously, but she said DeSantis’ claims are politically motivated, as they come less than two months before the Nov. 5 General Election.
“We have operated with full transparency and integrity,” Mulfort said. “Understanding the significance of this ballot initiative, we hired a firm that has successfully managed several petition drives in Florida, including the 2016 medical marijuana amendment and the 2018 amendment restoring voting rights to Floridians with felony convictions. We also paid local election officials more than $1 million to ensure that they thoroughly reviewed and verified these signatures.”
The battle over reproductive freedom is intensifying and becoming a high-profile issue getting national coverage. It got a mention during this week’s presidential debate.
As representatives for the Amendment 4 campaign spoke with media Wednesday, a group of pro-life doctors and a state official attacked the initiative at a press conference in Orlando.
AHCA Secretary Jason Weida directed people to the state website that is the focus of ACLU’s forthcoming lawsuit.
“As the agency then is tasked with enforcing Florida’s abortion laws, I wanted to set the record straight to make sure that when people are thinking about these issues, they’re thinking about them clearly in facts and not with misinformation and lies,” Weida said.
Alongside him was Angeli Akey from Florida Physicians Against Amendment 4, who made her case against the initiative.
“If it passes, it would permanently cement abortion for any reason into our state’s constitution and supersede all existing state abortion related health and safety laws and regulations,” Akey said. “This amendment is bad for Florida. It’s bad for women, children and families.”
Akey practices in Gainesville and is Catholic. The Catholic Church is helping fund opposition to fight Amendment 4 and urges church members to vote it down.
One of the biggest concerns for physicians opposing Amendment 4 is that it is written too broadly. The ballot question says, “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.”
“It may seem that the language might only allow abortions until viability, the truth is, there are broad exceptions for the undefined term patient’s health that allows abortions for practically any reason,” Akey said Wednesday. “It does not define what could be cited as reasons for an abortion, which means really anything could be cited as a reason for an abortion, even a head cold or an ankle sprain. The language is vague and entirely misleading.”
But Morton, the ACLU attorney, argued that Amendment 4 uses the medical term “viability,” which is defined in state law. Viability, the period when an unborn child can survive outside the womb, is considered to be about 24 weeks.
“The amendment is clear that if an abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s health, the government can’t stop that from happening,” Morton said.
Republicans and Akey charge that Amendment 4 eliminates parental consent for a minor to get an abortion and deregulates abortion, meaning individuals other than doctors would be allowed to perform the medical procedure.
“This would essentially give a free pass to human traffickers, who could simply bring girls into an abortion clinic and force them to undergo these dangerous procedures, robbing that child of the parental protection,” Akey said.
Amendment 4 leaders say that claim is false. The initiative does not impact parental consent, Yes on 4 spokeswoman Lauren Brenzel said.
The ballot question states, “This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.”
State officials expect Amendment 4 to be litigated over if voters pass it with at least 60% support.
As far as deregulating the health care industry, Brenzel responded by saying, “We don’t want people who aren’t doctors trying to provide medical guidance. That’s the entire point of this initiative. … We’re talking about ending an extreme ban that’s putting women in medically dangerous situations, and we’re guiding the people of Florida to trust doctors over politicians with no medical degrees to tell them what medical care looks like.”
During the presidential debate, former President Donald Trump attacked Democrats over claims they support women getting abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy. Vice President Kamala Harris said it was insulting to assert that a woman would choose to abort her unborn child that far along without a valid medical reason. Brenzel did the same.
“We’re talking about women who have medically necessary abortions that are being denied, who are forced to give birth to children who die within their arms,” Brenzel said. “I would dare anyone who makes these kind of claims against women to sit down with somebody who has had to have an abortion later in pregnancy and tell her that what she did was elective. “
Amendment 4 launched an ad campaign this week calling Florida’s six-week abortion ban “extreme … with no real exceptions” for rape. The new ad also says many women don’t realize they are pregnant until after six weeks.
Republicans and Florida Physicians Against Amendment 4 said the ads were misleading, and dispute that Florida has what reproductive rights activists describe as a near total abortion ban.
“A Walgreens pregnancy test is 99 cents, and it is positive several days before a missed period, so it’s positive at around 3.5 weeks. So there is ample room for women to have elective abortions for any reason through the first six weeks of pregnancy,” said Grazie Pozo Christie, a radiologist from Miami who is a Senior Fellow for The Catholic Association.
“My objections to Amendment 4 are primarily as a physician because there is no reason to subject Floridian women and girls to a deregulated abortion regime when abortion is perfectly legal in Florida.”
Florida’s law allows exceptions up to 15 weeks of pregnancy for rape, incest and human trafficking victims if they provide proof of the crimes against them with a police report, restraining order or medical report. Two physicians can also say in writing that an abortion is necessary to save a pregnant woman’s life, another exemption written into state law.
11 comments
ParochialBoy
September 12, 2024 at 9:42 am
Ahhhh, The Catholic Church, the moral compass of child rapes, children shamed into suicide, hush money, lawsuits, lavish lifestyles, devastated lives and hypocrisy, those fine folks, should remain silent.
But here’s something to think about, how could 2 Supreme Court Justices, come from the same Catholic High School? Corruption is how that happens. Opus Dei cultists.
Sheeza Pagan
September 12, 2024 at 10:59 am
Those who encourage abortion are barbarians who celebrate waste and death. Their poisonous and violent self-interest leaves a wreckage of humanity and lifts up evil to be worshiped as a pagan goddess. There is no more garish and sure sign of the debasing of democracy than the fact that democracy cannot protect the most helpless of us all from the brutal and deadly power of the aborters.
JD
September 12, 2024 at 11:03 am
Ah yes, the “barbarians” who, in reality, are advocating for reproductive rights and bodily autonomy—clearly out to destroy society by letting women make decisions about their own lives. How chaotic! It’s almost as if the majority of Americans support *some* access to abortion. But sure, let’s pretend it’s a “pagan cult” instead of people focused on reducing the need for abortion through contraception and healthcare.
Funny how “protecting the helpless” ends the moment a child is born, with minimal support for maternal care, childcare, or education. And when help is offered, it’s often with religious strings attached—because nothing says compassion like turning aid into a sermon or forcing beliefs on vulnerable people.
Sheeza Pagan
September 12, 2024 at 11:27 am
Death-mongers always have excuses for their warfare on life. Whether it is Putin in Ukraine or the aborters in America, they are always coldly logical in pleasing themselves in their heinous pursuits. Those who have power, whether the Nazis or the aborters, will always use it to suit themselves, and twist logic and debase intellect, to flaunt their excuses.
JD
September 12, 2024 at 1:12 pm
Ah, the classic “comparing abortion rights to Nazis and Putin” move—because who doesn’t love a good historical conflation to stir the pot? Let’s be clear: equating the personal decision to end a pregnancy with mass murderers and dictators who wage war is not just a stretch—it’s a full-blown Olympic-level leap. Last time I checked, advocating for bodily autonomy and reproductive healthcare wasn’t about invading countries or, you know, committing genocide.
It’s also a bit ironic to claim “cold logic” when the argument itself is built on over-the-top emotional rhetoric rather than facts. Abortions, for the record, are legal medical procedures performed with the goal of allowing women control over their bodies and futures—not a “heinous pursuit.” And while we’re here, let’s not forget that countries with legal access to abortion actually see *lower* maternal mortality rates and better health outcomes overall. Hardly the dystopia you’re describing.
But sure, go ahead and lump people fighting for reproductive rights in with Nazis and Putin. It’s always easier to twist history and hyperventilate about “death-mongers” when the facts don’t quite suit your narrative.
Sheeza Pagan
September 12, 2024 at 6:04 pm
Abortions, for the record, result in the deaths of millions of the most vulnerable of us all. Every one of the dead was a human being. You appear comfortable with these facts. Do you deny that the child in the womb is the most vulnerable? Do you deny that the child, Black or White, Male or Female, dies because of the action of another against it, which is killing? Abortion, therefore, is the killing of the most vulnerable. Since you advocate for abortion, and since abortion is the killing of the most vulnerable, isn’t it fair to conclude that you favor the killing of the most vulnerable? How is that different from the Nazi horror? How is it different from Putin in the Ukraine?
JD
September 12, 2024 at 7:43 pm
Wow, where to even start with this dramatic leap in logic? First off, comparing people who support reproductive rights to Nazis or Putin is not only wildly offensive, but it also shows a staggering lack of understanding about history, power, and basic human rights. Let’s break it down.
Yes, abortion ends a pregnancy, but the decision to have an abortion is often a complex one made with consideration for the mother’s physical, emotional, and financial well-being—things that apparently don’t matter in your world. To claim that everyone who supports abortion is advocating for some kind of mass slaughter of “the most vulnerable” completely ignores the reality that women who seek abortions are often in vulnerable positions themselves, navigating difficult circumstances you conveniently brush aside.
The idea that abortion is equivalent to genocide or war is not only disingenuous, it’s insulting to the people who have actually suffered through such atrocities. The key difference, which you seem to willfully ignore, is *choice*—a woman making a decision about her body versus state-sponsored mass murder and violence. Trying to conflate those two is not just a bad faith argument; it’s intellectually dishonest.
Maybe instead of tossing around inflammatory comparisons, we could focus on things that actually reduce the need for abortion, like comprehensive sex education, access to contraception, and healthcare. But of course, that would require a conversation grounded in reality, not in hyperbolic rhetoric designed to shame and scare people.
Sheeza Pagan
September 13, 2024 at 9:25 am
We confront the modern world where morals and ethics are a matter of convenience and no one is safe from the rage of the blindly powerful. I see it in your own words:
“…often a complex one”. There is nothing complex about the powerful destroying the helpless. Whether willfully or carelessly, they’ve done it by the millions throughout the history of mechanized death.
“the mother’s physical, emotional, and financial well-being”. No one expects a woman to sacrifice her life for the sake of her child–although I have known women who have happily risked their lives for their babies with incomparable nobility and courage, humanity at its best, further defining the moral sewer of the modern aborters. As far as her emotional health, all that does is further show the ignobility of those who would kill the helpless. There is no difference in substance at all between the concentration camp and the abortion office. Both are places of fear and hate–the most heinous of emotions unleashed upon the most innocent of victims. As far as the mother’s “financial well-being,” reducing this to the level of dollars and cents leads to the logical conclusion that we should pay females to stay pregnant. As repugnant as that notion may be, if that is what we must do it is the far superior alternative.
“*choice*—a woman making a decision about her body versus state-sponsored mass murder and violence”. I say it is the same: organized, legally-sanctioned murder on a mass scale. There were more than one million deaths by abortion in this country last year, one million times that a life was snuffed with the knowledge and consent of the political, bureaucratic and administrative powers of this country, This is not matter of a few panicked teenagers, untutored of any morality, standing in agony on the side of a bridge. Abortion is an industry and it has been for half a century. Those who advocate for it are manufacturers of death, regardless of their pseudo-piety about offering alternatives.
There are many reasons why the future of our country rests on a having a coherent and compassionate society, but let’s be clear: there is nothing compassionate about abortion. It is cold, calculated, raging violence and all of us need to face it directly.
Sheeza Pagan
September 13, 2024 at 10:03 am
Since last night I have tried five times to post a reply, but every time the Team Schorsch censorship robots have prevented it. I will be surprised if this reply makes it past them. But if it does I will take the opportunity to say that you merely talked around my arguments, you haven’t addressed them, and you have piled illogic upon illogic.
Here is a fact for you to consider: in America, very generally, one out of every four pregnancies ends in abortion. There is no category of life in America where the rate of death is so high as among the babies in the womb. To claim that is either an accident or the product of individual choice is unsupportable. That stark fact is the product of a culture that simply devalues life, especially the life that cannot protect itself.
JD
September 13, 2024 at 10:18 am
Your argument rests on an illogical assumption: that abortion can only be viewed as a moral issue rather than a healthcare decision. This is a fundamental fallacy because it disregards the complex, real-life circumstances surrounding abortion, turning it into a binary debate about morality when it is, in fact, deeply intertwined with healthcare, autonomy, and ethics. Let me break this down:
Fallacy of Oversimplification: You argue that abortion is primarily a product of a culture that “devalues life,” but this ignores the multifaceted healthcare implications. Many individuals seek abortion not out of disregard for life, but to protect their own health, manage severe medical conditions, or due to fetal anomalies that make survival impossible. In this case, abortion is not about “choosing death,” but about managing complex healthcare realities.
False Dilemma: You’re presenting abortion as a choice between life and death, without acknowledging the shades of gray in medical ethics. Abortion bans or restrictions can lead to life-threatening situations for individuals carrying nonviable pregnancies or suffering from dangerous health conditions. To reduce this to a moral argument oversimplifies the complexity of each case. It disregards individual autonomy, a core principle of ethical healthcare.
Ignoring Individual Autonomy: A healthcare decision, including abortion, involves personal autonomy—a right that is fundamental in medical ethics. By framing abortion only as a “moral failure,” you overlook the need for patients to make their own healthcare decisions in consultation with medical professionals, balancing personal beliefs with real-world health risks.
To correct this, it’s essential to recognize that abortion is not merely a moral issue, but also a healthcare issue, which includes ethical concerns about the well-being of both the patient and potential life. Balancing morality with healthcare needs creates a more compassionate and fact-based approach, allowing for individualized care rather than imposing blanket moral judgments.
In sum, your argument contains a fallacy of oversimplification by conflating abortion with a devaluation of life, and a false dilemma by presenting abortion as a stark moral issue without regard to its healthcare dimensions. Correcting this requires acknowledging the ethical complexity of abortion as both a healthcare right and a personal decision.
Sheeza Pagan
September 13, 2024 at 11:04 am
And your argument is, in plain form, the fallacy of the special pleading. You claim that a question of individual right of healthcare takes precedence over the general right of life, that the mother’s right to comfort overtakes the right to life of the baby. But you can show no evidence that pregnancy is a general risk to the health of the mother, and you ignore that nearly all of us who oppose free abortion admit that it should be allowed to prevent endangering the life of the mother. Nor is there any question of personal autonomy. Of course, a woman has a right not to be pregnant, and the law and common sense rally to defend that right. But neither should she be able to punish with death the child who bears no responsibility for her disagreeable circumstance. At the bottom of the claim to personal autonomy is the mistaken idea that the child in the womb is wholly an extension of the mother. This is false. The child is the product of two people, has the DNA of two people, and has from the moment of conception a potential existence of its own, and that life approaches nearer every day. “It’s just a clump of cells,” the ignorant say. “Is that all you were?” I ask them. “When did you become human? When your mother decided?” Obviously, to return to the previous dismissal of your healthcare argument, the mother is a person who has the same right to life as the child. But to carry forward your argument you have to admit a woman could seek abortion because the child in her womb is causing her morning sickness. To the return to that special pleading: if we are to accept it then I, as an adult, who may be ill have the right to any treatment that I like, including a treatment that is possible only with the deliberate death of another, so that my personal autonomy is respected. I am told that such things happen in China, although I doubt it because the Chinese are more civilized than that. But I wonder about the “pro-aborters”.
Comments are closed.