Gabrielle Russon
In front of a national stage at the March for Life rally, Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has framed himself as a champion for the pro-life movement, was inconsistent on his own history regarding abortion legislation.
DeSantis told the crowd he ran for re-election on the Heartbeat Protection Act and was proof that Republicans could get elected after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
“I ran on a pro-life platform on the Heartbeat Protection Act, and I won the largest victory that any Republican has ever won in the history of the state of Florida,” DeSantis said.
However, DeSantis actually campaigned on the state’s 15-week abortion ban, which he signed in April 2022. He was re-elected to his second term in November 2022 but didn’t sign the heartbeat legislation until April 2023, with little fanfare. That measure banned abortions once the fetus has a detectable heartbeat.
DeSantis used his speech Friday as an opportunity to slam The New York Times and bring up illegal immigration, which DeSantis has been pressuring lawmakers to address via a Special Session next week.
“So The New York Times had a hit piece going against this, and here was their headline: ‘Undocumented women ask: Will my unborn child be a citizen?’” DeSantis said. “So The New York Times is admitting it’s not just a clump of cells. Let’s welcome The New York Times to the pro-life movement.”
In his remarks, clocking in under 10 minutes with his wife and children next to him, DeSantis portrayed himself as the underdog up against public opinion in fighting against Amendment 4, which raised more than $100 million.
“The wind was in our face,” DeSantis told the crowd attending the rally in the cold January afternoon.
DeSantis spoke out against Amendment 4 during his daily press conferences as Governor last year and used his state power to fight the initiative by threatening TV stations playing a pro-Amendment 4 ad and requiring a lengthy “financial impact statement” to appear on the ballot. He also openly accused the political committee of ballot petition fraud.
“We barnstormed the state. I had physicians against Amendment 4. We had survivors of abortion talking against Amendment 4. You name it, we did it,” DeSantis said. “We even mobilized our state agencies and we ran public service announcements dispelling the lies that were being told about Florida’s heartbeat bill. But we were doing this, quite frankly, against the tide of public opinion.”
With 57% in favor, Amendment 4 fell short of the 60% of voter approval to pass.
33 comments
GeeWoo
January 24, 2025 at 2:19 pm
Gabrielle, you have an axe to grind, clearly. Grinding that axe in a “news report” is so obvious. We know better.
Jake Laughlin
January 25, 2025 at 10:53 am
US Dollar 2,000 in a Single Online Day Due to its position, the United States va02 offers a plethora of opportunities for those seeking employment. With so many options accessible, it might be difficult to know where to start. You may choose the ideal online housekeeping strategy with the tr-20 help of this post.
Begin here>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Payathome9.Com
Mark
January 27, 2025 at 1:19 am
No axe to grind. Simply stating Rhonda’s actions. But since you fetus fascists can’t handle reality, science or empathy it’s no surprise it goes over your head. Also, appeal to a the majority fallacy is weak. It demonstrates a subconscious understanding of the weakness of your position and the need to project strength.
Rita Joseph
January 24, 2025 at 2:40 pm
No honorable system of justice can tolerate indefinitely the deliberate life-destroying premature eviction of a little daughter or son from her/his first home in her/his mother’s womb.
It should never be forgotten that elective abortion is the only medical procedure that involves two patients that has for its express purpose the direct killing of one of the patients.
Every procured abortion is an act of violence, albeit in a medical setting.
Lethal violence against children is never “necessary.” Violence against children is preventable. Before as well as after birth, children should not receive less protection than adults.
Their mothers’ personal and social needs can and should be met by non-violent means.
Mark
January 27, 2025 at 1:20 am
Sure, Rita. And every miscarriage is Gawd murdering the “precious baby”
His Story
January 24, 2025 at 2:55 pm
“However, DeSantis actually campaigned on the state’s 15-week abortion ban, which he signed in April 2022″
Your facts are faulty. Note the following from a Tallahassee Democrat article of May, 2022:
1/”. . .and once said he’d go even further and back a “heartbeat” bill that effectively moves the cutoff for an abortion to roughly six weeks of pregnancy.”
2/ “Pushing measures like a heartbeat bill — which DeSantis backed in 2018 when he was campaigning — could help him in a presidential primary.”
Ian
January 25, 2025 at 8:52 am
You are right on, but wait — there’s more!
Gabrielle wrote:
“That measure [the Heartbeat Protection Act] banned abortions once the fetus has a detectable heartbeat.”
Reality:
That’s not true. The law prohibits physicians from performing abortions beyond 6-weeks of gestation, unless an exception applies. The law does not rely on whether a heartbeat can be detected. The name of the law is just window dressing — nothing more.
Ocean Joe
January 24, 2025 at 5:03 pm
So why the continued Republican opposition to expansion of Medicaid which would help many of the less financially fortunate children born here in Florida?
Ian
January 25, 2025 at 8:39 am
How?
Children under age 1 are already eligible up to 200% of the federal poverty level. Children between 1 year old and 19 years old are already eligible up to 138% of the federal poverty level.
Expanding Medicaid under Obamacare up to 138% of the FPL for childless adults would not make any more children eligible, because they are already eligible, up to or beyond that point.
JD
January 25, 2025 at 9:52 am
See my comment to you on my comment thread for your “How”.
JD
January 24, 2025 at 5:33 pm
Florida’s heartbeat law is nonsense, it ignores the health of the mother and tragic edge cases like my wife and twins.
Meanwhile, Republicans block Medicaid expansion that could help struggling kids, all while peddling the myth of ninth-month abortions.
They treat it as a moral issue, not a public health crisis.
When someone loses a wife or child to this law or watches a partner carry a rapist’s baby, they’ll blame the retribution on someone else moral failing.
It’s not the heat; it’s the stupidity.
Ian
January 25, 2025 at 8:41 am
JD wrote:
“Meanwhile, Republicans block Medicaid expansion that could help struggling kids…”
Reality:
See my response to Ocean Joe, above.
JD
January 25, 2025 at 9:50 am
The true reality:
Medicaid expansion improves maternal care, leading to healthier pregnancies and better outcomes for babies. It reduces infant mortality, ensures kids get preventive care, and provides coverage continuity as teens age out of CHIP.
Denying this is ignoring facts, not making policy.
Ian
January 25, 2025 at 10:47 am
In Florida, pregnant women are eligible for Medicaid up to 185% of FPL (much higher than the 138% under Medicaid expansion), and they’re eligible for 12 full months post-partum. Meanwhile, their children are already eligible at an FPL equal to or higher than the expansion FPL until their 19th birthday.
Care to try again?
JD
January 25, 2025 at 10:58 am
Why yes, I will try again.
You cherry-picked one detail to sidestep the broader point and try to dilute it’s message. Yes, Medicaid covers maternal care, but it doesn’t address gaps that Medicaid expansion would fill, like ensuring teens aging out of CHIP don’t lose coverage or helping families avoid financial ruin. Ignoring these gaps dismisses how Medicaid expansion supports children at every stage, not just infants.
I’m advocating because I don’t want others to go through what my wife and twins endured. So, what’s your motive for arguing against helping more families? Facts matter, but so does context. Care to address both? Or you just some ass that wants to argue on the internet?
JD
January 25, 2025 at 11:07 am
You’ve used a classic tactic: focusing on a narrow technical point to distract from the larger issue. Medicaid expansion isn’t just about filling gaps on paper, it’s about giving families the tools to care for their children at every stage. Teens aging out of CHIP, financially struggling families, and kids in unstable homes all suffer when access to care is limited. Ignoring these realities isn’t just shortsighted, it’s harmful.
This tactic mirrors the strategy of anti-abortion groups: deflect attention from the real consequences of restrictive policies. Republicans claim the heartbeat law protects mothers, but in practice, it leaves families navigating medical and legal chaos. Freedom shouldn’t mean abandoning families once they’re forced to carry pregnancies to term.
How does this aligns with “pro-life” values?
Ian
January 25, 2025 at 11:43 am
JD, I wrote about Medicaid expansion, which was the topic at hand. I did not cherry-pick or sidestep anything.
In terms of CHIP (since you brought it up), teens age-out of CHIP on their 19th birthday, one year after the day they are no longer minors. As for avoiding financial ruin, such persons and their families are eligible for an Obamacare plan that provides generous premium and cost-sharing subsidies for families between 100% and 400% of the FPL. For truly impoverished families, coverage is available with no premium payments.
I’m not “arguing against helping more families.” I’m merely setting the facts straight. You don’t seem to like that, for some reason. Yes, context matters, but in context of whether Medicaid expansion would provide more coverage for children, it’s simply a fact that Florida Medicaid already covers children at an FPL equal to or higher than the Medicaid expansion FPL. Context does not change that fact.
JD
January 25, 2025 at 12:13 pm
Ian, your response cherry-picked one detail about Medicaid thresholds while ignoring the broader context of my argument. This isn’t just about eligibility, it’s about the real-world impact on families.
The myth of nine-month abortions is a propaganda tool that ignores medical realities.
Laws like the heartbeat bill fail families in tragic edge cases, like my wife and twins, would be leaving them in legal and medical limbo with the law as it is today.
For victims of rape, the requirement to “prove” it was rape before accessing care is not only impractical but downright cruel.
Refusing Medicaid expansion adds to this harm, denying struggling families the resources they need to survive and thrive.
Cherry-picking technicalities to avoid addressing these broader issues doesn’t hold up when context is key.
Care to respond to the full picture? Or don’t those fact matter?
Ian
January 25, 2025 at 5:18 pm
JD wrote:
“Ian, your response cherry-picked one detail about Medicaid thresholds while ignoring the broader context of my argument.”
Reality:
I spoke only to your erroneous statement about Medicaid, and I corrected it. That’s not cherry-picking; it’s known as fact-checking. I didn’t have anything to say about your other comments on the abortion law, but now I do.
JD wrote:
“For victims of rape, the requirement to ‘prove’ it was rape before accessing care is not only impractical but downright cruel.”
Reality:
I’m looking at the law right now, and it shows you’ve made yet another error. Rape victims don’t have to prove anything in order to trigger an exception to the 6-week time frame. The law says: “…she must provide a copy of a restraining order, police report, medical record, or other court order or documentation providing evidence that she is obtaining the termination of pregnancy because she is a victim of rape.” She does not have to prove she was raped. She does have to show some evidence behind her claim. Without the need for evidence, anyone could claim anything about anything.
JD wrote:
“Cherry-picking technicalities to avoid addressing these broader issues doesn’t hold up when context is key.”
Reality:
You call them technicalities. However, they are, in fact, falsehoods. I corrected your falsehoods. Stop writing falsehoods and I’ll stop correcting them.
JD
January 25, 2025 at 6:02 pm
Ian (or is it Billy), I appreciate your thoroughness, but your response reinforces my point. You’ve cherry-picked within the broader issue. Let’s take your claim about the law. The language you referenced, the requiring “a restraining order, police report, medical record, or other documentation” amounts to proof. Victims of rape often don’t report immediately, may not seek medical attention due to fear or stigma, or face barriers to obtaining legal documentation.
In reality, these requirements are impractical and cruel because they add layers of bureaucracy to a deeply traumatic situation. It’s easy to argue for “evidence” in theory, but in practice, this law fails to account for the lived experiences of survivors.
Your approach of focusing on “fact-checking” isolated details while ignoring these broader realities makes it clear you’re cherry-picking to dilute the larger argument. Let’s engage with the full picture, not just selective fragments. So your falsehood got corrected. Perhaps you should stop writing them.
JD
January 25, 2025 at 6:29 pm
And while the law says “evidence,” in practice it functions as a demand for proof. Most rapes go unreported due to fear or stigma, making it impossible for many victims to provide formal documentation like a police report. This requirement creates a cruel barrier that denies care to countless survivors. A law claiming exceptions while imposing these hurdles fails in the real world. It’s just cruel and doesn’t align with the party of “life”.
Ian
January 25, 2025 at 7:26 pm
JD, you’re simply saying the same thing over and over again.
There are realities here that you refuse to accept. “Evidence” does not equal “proof.” If the law required proof, it would not say “evidence.” If the law required “up,” it would not say “down.”
Don’t bother trying to convince the world otherwise.
JD
January 25, 2025 at 9:10 pm
Ian, accusing me of “saying the same thing” doesn’t change the fact that you’re avoiding the larger context. You’re clinging to a technical distinction between “evidence” and “proof,” yet refusing to acknowledge the practical realities: the law creates barriers that disproportionately harm survivors by requiring formal documentation many can’t obtain.
Cherry-picking again with this single point while ignoring the broader consequences I’ve raised like the law’s impact on real families and its failure to provide meaningful support only highlights your unwillingness to engage with the full picture. If you’re going to accuse others of repeating themselves, it’s worth noting that your argument seems stuck on avoiding the realities I’ve outlined. Stop trying to use that avoidance to convince the world otherwise.
Ian
January 26, 2025 at 9:05 am
“Technical distinction” is the same as true versus false. Please come over to the “true” side.
JD
February 1, 2025 at 11:33 pm
Um, no, a “technical distinction” is not necessarily the same as true versus false. It is not binary as you are trying to paint. It may instead clarify a gray area, refine definitions, or distinguish between similar but different concepts. Come over to the “reality” side.
Childless Cat Lady
January 24, 2025 at 7:24 pm
“….. if his lips are moving….”
ScienceBLVR
January 25, 2025 at 9:44 am
You can bend but never break me
Deny women’s rights at your own peril, boys..
Cause it only serves to make me
More determined to achieve my final goal
And I’ll come back even stronger
Not a novice any longer
‘Cause you’ve deepened the conviction in my soul
Each woman gets to make her own decisions.. not Ron or any of you other blokes.
Earl Pitts American "WEIGHS IN"
January 26, 2025 at 6:47 pm
Always Remember, America,
IT’S NOT “NEWS” UNTIL” EARL PITTS AMERICAN ” WEIGHS IN”,
Please see my,
Earl Pitts American’s Sage Commentary of Great Political Wisdom Below,
EPA
EARL PITTS AMERICAN
January 26, 2025 at 6:34 pm
Good evening America,
We, The Sage Patriots, MUST Encourage our fellow Sage Patriots to be “FRUITFULL & MULTIPLY” as we were taught in The Sage Christian Bible.
As babies raised by Sage Patriot Parents have a 99.999% chance of growing up to be Sage Patriot Adults.
“I WILL PREACH ON”, said Earl:
Further more & at the same time “Our Great Nation” should allow the abortion of all babies born to “DOOK 4 BRAINS LEFTY” Parents as these babies have a 99.999% chance of growing up to become “DOOK 4 BRAINS LEFTY ADULTS”.
IN CLOSING:
Be sure to follow The Sage Wisdom of EARL PITTS AMERICAN now & forever.
Thank you America,
EARL PITTS AMERICAN
THE "SAGE" EARL PITTS AMERICAN
January 26, 2025 at 7:18 pm
Good Even ‘Ting America,
STAND BY FOR NEWS:
If you, or your woman aborted a baby against Christian (and Catholic God’s) instructions HERE’S SAGE NEWS:
You can be forgiven thru Christian Jesus.
No other religion offers A Get Out Of Hell Pass like that.
Thank you, America,
Along for the Ride
January 26, 2025 at 8:48 pm
DeSantis admits that he knows most Floridians want legal abortion. He illegally used our tax dollars to kill the amendment
SuzyQ
January 26, 2025 at 10:48 pm
Awesome speech! It was well received by the thousands gathered in Washington, DC. Susan B. Anthony would be so proud of America’s Governor.
Mark
January 27, 2025 at 1:24 am
“America’s Governor” like Dallas is “America’s Team”. Full of s— and unbearable to be around. Susan B. Anthony championed women’s suffrage. I doubt should would want them brood mares dying for a lying state.
Comments are closed.