Legislative Session Preview: Tina Polsky targets abortion safety, guns, protecting medical cannabis users
This is why we can't have nice things: On top of everything else, Tina Polsky is now getting death threats. Image via Colin Hackley.

FLAPOL042921CH062
All stem from hot-button issues.

Boca Raton Democratic Sen. Tina Polsky already has a fleet of bills filed for the coming Legislative Session. Their focuses range from abortion, gun safety and medical cannabis use to property taxes, text spamming and campaign finance.

Many are re-runs, she said, because the changes they propose are still very much needed.

Atop the list is SB 288, which Polsky described as a “very mild” adjustment to Florida’s existing ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.

The bill would enable abortion after six weeks if it’s necessary to prolong the woman’s life or prevent morbidity of a major body part, including “substantial impairment” to her fertility. Currently, the law allows for post-six-week abortions only to save the mother’s life or prevent “serious risk of substantial physical impairment.”

SB 288, which pends a House companion, would require only one physician to determine if a later-than-six-weeks abortion is necessary, rather than two as Florida law now mandates. It would also nix a requirement that a doctor certify their judgment in writing.

“Basically, we’re looking to expand (what constitutes) medical emergencies so doctors and hospitals can treat their patients without worrying about being sued, losing their license or going to jail,” Polsky told Florida Politics.

Polsky referenced an ad opposing Amendment 4, a failed ballot measure from last year aimed at codifying abortion protections in the Florida Constitution, which told viewers that pregnant women with life- or health-threatening medical emergencies could still be treated. In reality, she said, that hasn’t entirely been the case.

“The language in the original bill is just too restrictive. I have a constituent who bled out and had a miscarriage in a salon bathroom because the hospital turned her away. That’s not acceptable,” she said. “We’re trying to keep women from dying, as they have in Georgia and Texas. This is really a pro-life bill.”

Two related bills aimed at helping legal pot users are also on the docket.

One (SB 142), would add protections for government employees with medical use cards from termination. Oakland Park Democratic Rep. Mitch Rosenwald is carrying its House analog.

The other (SB 146) would ensure that parents with medical marijuana clearance won’t have their parental rights denied or restricted solely because they have a card.

Polsky, who practices labor and employment law, said Florida’s restrictions on medical cannabis use don’t make sense when considering federal disability laws.

“If you had to take Xanax for a mental health condition, they couldn’t fire you for that, but they can fire you for using medical marijuana for the same mental health condition. It doesn’t make sense,” she said.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency still classifies marijuana as a Schedule I substance alongside heroin and considers the drug to have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” Polsky said that’s a big roadblock she’s “disappointed didn’t get taken care of by the (Joe) Biden administration.

“But still, if Florida is going to maintain this medical marijuana card, then people should not have adverse employment or parental actions as a result of using something legally as long as it doesn’t affect their job or ability to parent,” she said.

Polsky is carrying several gun-related bills. They include:

SB 256, named “Jaime’s Law” after 14-year-old Jaime Guttenberg, one of the many victims of the Feb. 14, 2018, shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (MSD) in Parkland. The bill would apply to ammunition sales many of the same strictures currently in effect for firearms. Coral Springs Democratic Rep. Dan Daley, an MSD alum, is carrying its House twin.

SB 252, dubbed the “Responsible Gun Ownership Act.” It would mandate universal background checks for firearm sales and transfers, strengthen safe storage standards and require every gun sold to include educational materials on responsible gun ownership and either a trigger lock or gun case. The measure would also ban the possession or manufacture of unfinished firearms without serial numbers, including so-called “ghost guns” made with a 3D printer. Democratic Rep. Christine Hunschofsky, who was the Mayor of Parkland when the MSD shooting occurred, is again sponsoring the House version.

SB 238, to which Daley is carrying a House analog. The bill would enable local governments to pass stricter gun regulations.

SB 254, which would expand the definition of “machine gun” to include any gun modified to fire at a faster rate. The measure, essentially, is an answer to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last year to undo a ban on bump stocks effectuated during President Donald Trump’s first administration after one was used in the Oct. 1, 2017, massacre in Las Vegas.

Polsky lamented efforts by her GOP colleagues in recent years to roll back safety measures the Legislature enacted after the MSD shooting, such as a bill Palm City Republican Rep. Toby Overdorf filed this month to delete Florida’s bump stock ban from state statutes so that it’ll match federal law.

“I don’t understand this backwards trend we’re seeing,” she said. “As the Senator of Parkland, I want to do everything I can to keep that good work going and go further to keep Floridians safe”

Three more bills are high on Polsky’s to-do list. One, which she hasn’t yet filed, would remove the sunset date of a bill she and Hollywood Democratic Rep. Marie Woodson passed in 2022 to give property tax exemptions to people whose homes were damaged during a natural or man-made disaster.

The current law is set to expire in July. The update, Polsky said, would allow it to continue in perpetuity.

Another (SB 245) isn’t likely to be popular with people maddened by the seemingly nonstop political texts that went out last year. Florida cracked down two years ago with a law banning spam text messages sent to recipients who opted out of receiving them. An attractive feature in that measure was that people could sue for damages against the unwanted sender.

Polsky’s bill would exempt nonprofit organizations, including political groups and campaigns, from that liability. That was the intent of the original legislation, she said, but nonprofits have nevertheless still been taken to court, though every case has been tossed.

“Nobody likes that we were all bombarded by political campaigns, but this law wasn’t meant to affect nonprofit organizations,” she said. “I don’t want a cottage industry to start where if I can’t stand Donald Trump and he sends me a lot of texts and I try to unsubscribe and it keeps coming, I can sue him for that. Because that’s what is starting to happen.”

The last priority bill (SB 216) is one that more people are likely to get behind. It would simply provide that a state agency cannot use state funds — taxpayer dollars — to advocate for or against any matter that is the subject of a constitutional amendment or revision.

It’s Polsky’s answer to what Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration did last year by leveraging state resources and funds to defeat a pair of constitutional amendments meant to guarantee abortion access and legalize recreational marijuana.

“I am so disgusted by how much state money was spent for political purposes,” she said.

The regular 2025 Legislative Session commences March 4 and runs through May 2.

Jesse Scheckner

Jesse Scheckner has covered South Florida with a focus on Miami-Dade County since 2012. His work has been recognized by the Hearst Foundation, Society of Professional Journalists, Florida Society of News Editors, Florida MMA Awards and Miami New Times. Email him at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter @JesseScheckner.


3 comments

  • Did

    February 5, 2025 at 7:27 pm

    I would need another reality check ✔️. Looks like a bunch of paperwork with living mammals still doing their thing.

    Reply

  • Rita Joseph

    February 5, 2025 at 8:07 pm

    In every pregnancy, two patients need care. One older and vulnerable: the other smaller, utterly defenseless.
    Both are unique, lively human beings.
    Genuine medicine recognizes a fundamental difference between abortion ‘services’ that are elective and those necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of a mother, even where such treatment results in the loss of her unborn child who was too premature to be saved.
    Deliberately taking the life of her child because there might be “substantial Impairment to her fertility” is just not justifiable.

    Reply

    • JD

      February 5, 2025 at 8:55 pm

      Why This Argument Fails

      A fetus and a pregnant person are not equal patients. A fetus depends entirely on the pregnant person to survive, while the pregnant person is a fully developed individual with rights and medical autonomy. We don’t force organ donation or blood transfusions on people to save others, so why should pregnancy be different?

      “Elective” vs. “Necessary” is a false choice. Many abortions fall between elective and life-saving, such as those involving fetal abnormalities or health risks. Losing fertility can be devastating, so why should someone be forced to risk it? Doctors, not politicians, should decide what is medically necessary.

      The argument uses emotional, not logical, language. Calling a fetus “utterly defenseless” is meant to guilt people, not explain the issue. Abortion is not “deliberately taking a life.” It is a medical procedure to protect a person’s health and future.

      It ignores reproductive autonomy. If a pregnancy could harm someone’s health, fertility, or future, shouldn’t the person experiencing it decide? Why should the government force someone to stay pregnant when they have a serious medical reason not to?

      Conclusion: This argument isn’t medical or logical. It is an emotional and moral claim disguised as a health debate. It misrepresents medical care, oversimplifies abortion, and ignores the real-life complexity of pregnancy and health risks.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


#FlaPol

Florida Politics is a statewide, new media platform covering campaigns, elections, government, policy, and lobbying in Florida. This platform and all of its content are owned by Extensive Enterprises Media.

Publisher: Peter Schorsch @PeterSchorschFL

Contributors & reporters: Phil Ammann, Drew Dixon, Roseanne Dunkelberger, A.G. Gancarski, Ryan Nicol, Jacob Ogles, Cole Pepper, Jesse Scheckner, Drew Wilson, and Mike Wright.

Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @PeterSchorschFL
Phone: (727) 642-3162
Address: 204 37th Avenue North #182
St. Petersburg, Florida 33704