Florida Supreme court clears the way for ballot measure on abortion rights – while granting 6-week ban

[essentialsaltes]

Florida court clears the way for ballot measure on abortion rights – while granting 6-week ban​

Abortion will officially be on the ballot in Florida this fall, after the state's Supreme Court on Monday issued one ruling approving a ballot measure that could expand access to the procedure, but another [entirely separate ruling] that paves the way for a strict six-week ban [i.e. challenges to the 6 week law already on the books were rejected].

Floridians have the chance to essentially vote on whether to reinstate what was once the federal standard set by Roe v. Wade, before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark case in 2022.

But at the center of the state Supreme Court's ballot measure decision this week was the constitutional amendment's language, which opponents argued was too complicated for voters to understand.

"The people of Florida aren’t stupid. They can figure it out," Chief Justice Carlos Muniz, a DeSantis appointee, said then.

 

[Larniavc]

The people of Florida aren’t stupid.

Wait, what?

 

[Desk trauma]

But at the center of the state Supreme Court's ballot measure decision this week was the constitutional amendment's language, which opponents argued was too complicated for voters to understand.

They keep using the argument that voters are too dumb to read for some reason. It was even used after the vote in Kansas as denial of the margin of the vote.

 

[AlexB23]

Florida court clears the way for ballot measure on abortion rights – while granting 6-week ban​

Abortion will officially be on the ballot in Florida this fall, after the state's Supreme Court on Monday issued one ruling approving a ballot measure that could expand access to the procedure, but another [entirely separate ruling] that paves the way for a strict six-week ban [i.e. challenges to the 6 week law already on the books were rejected].

Floridians have the chance to essentially vote on whether to reinstate what was once the federal standard set by Roe v. Wade, before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark case in 2022.

But at the center of the state Supreme Court's ballot measure decision this week was the constitutional amendment's language, which opponents argued was too complicated for voters to understand.

"The people of Florida aren’t stupid. They can figure it out," Chief Justice Carlos Muniz, a DeSantis appointee, said then.

Man, the US should be focusing on more pressing issues, such as solving poverty, getting rid of the $30 trillion debt, and making health care cheaper.

But, for those who want a summary of the USA Today article, and dislike advertisements on the margins of newspaper websites, here it is:

The article by Savannah Kuchar, published on April 1, 2024, reports that the Florida Supreme Court has issued two rulings regarding abortion rights in the state. The first ruling allows a ballot measure that would expand access to abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, giving Floridians the opportunity to vote on reinstating the federal standard set by Roe v. Wade. The second ruling allows a six-week abortion ban backed by Republican officials, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, to take effect.

Currently, Florida law permits abortions up to 15 weeks of pregnancy, and the Supreme Court rejected challenges against this law in a separate ruling on Monday. The newly approved ballot measure would override these laws and limits if passed.

Republican officials have long advocated for abortion restrictions in Florida, including DeSantis' six-week ban. However, opponents argued that the ballot measure's language was too complicated for voters to understand. The court heard arguments on this issue in early February and expressed their support for the measure's language at that time.

Abortion rights activists gathered outside the Supreme Court on March 26, 2024, as the court heard oral arguments over access to mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortions. If passed, the ballot measure would guarantee abortion access through viability and potentially override the six-week ban.

Anna Hochkammer, executive director of Florida Women’s Freedom Coalition, expressed optimism about their chances in the town hall held last week. She described the issue as "the most compelling political issue in America right now" and emphasized that Florida would give voters the opportunity to decide on abortion rights, following the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. Hochkammer believes they will win the November election.

 

[Desk trauma]

Man, the US should be focusing on more pressing issues, such as solving poverty, getting rid of the $30 trillion debt, and making health care cheaper.

How would that take place via Florida ballot measures?

 

[AlexB23]

How would that take place via Florida ballot measures?

Well, ballots should have these issues printed on them, allowing voters to decide.

Here are two examples:

1. Should insulin prices be reduced to fair market prices?
Fill in the bubble of your choice.
A. Yea
B. Nea

(by the way, Biden made it so insulin is less expensive)

2. Should maximum cost of rent be limited by the government?
Fill in the bubble of your choice.
A. Yea
B. Nea

These could be real examples that people could vote on. A democracy would let us vote on these issues. But sadly, the government decides what goes on the ballot, not the people. We are a republic, not a democracy.

 

[JSRG]

Given this is all about a ballot question and a court opinion, it would have been nice had the article linked directly to either of those. I've complained about it before, and I'll complain about it again: Why can articles that are about a court decision not link to the court decision? Or at a minimum, give the name of it so it can be looked up?

For convenience, though, here are the opinions:
https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/c...opinion/Opinion_SC2022-1050 & SC2022-1127.pdf (this is the one about whether the 6-week ban was constitutional or not)
https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/2285282/opinion/Opinion_SC2023-1392.pdf (this is the one about whether the ballot question could be used or not)

Also, here's the text of the ballot question itself:

Anyway, here's the text, which I do have to agree with the court doesn't seem hard to understand:

"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. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion."

However, I want to point out that the linked article describes it wrong. It claims:

"Floridians have the chance to essentially vote on whether to reinstate what was once the federal standard set by Roe v. Wade, before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark case in 2022."

However, this is not the standard set by Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade effectively banned abortion regulation entirely prior to the second trimester, banned abortion regulation in the second trimester unless it could be shown to be directly related to medical concerns, and then allowed regulation in the third trimester, though still under various limits. This blatantly arbitrary and baseless standard came under criticism even by those who thought the Constitution offered a right to an abortion, and the later Planned Parenthood v. Casey threw it out and instead of splitting the rules for regulations into three pieces, set fetal viability as the important line with the guideline that regulation prior to it that causes an "undue burden" to abortion access would not be allowed (exactly what constituted an undue burden was the subject of various subsequent court cases).

This referendum is therefore going with the Casey standard, not the Roe standard (interestingly, the Casey standard was actually effective longer than the Roe standard; Roe was in effect from 1973 to 1992, Casey from 1992 to 2022). Well, actually, it isn't quite the Casey standard. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court did rule that under the new standard it set, a 24-hour waiting period requirement for an abortion was permitted. However, the referendum disallows any delay, going farther than Casey did. That said, the law is a lot closer to Casey than it is to Roe.

Maybe someone can claim this is a nitpick. But it explicitly says "reinstate what was once the federal standard set by Roe v. Wade".

 

[AlexB23]

Given this is all about a ballot question and a court opinion, it would have been nice had the article linked directly to either of those. I've complained about it before, and I'll complain about it again: Why can articles that are about a court decision not link to the court decision? Or at a minimum, give the name of it so it can be looked up?

For convenience, though, here are the opinions:
https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/2285280/opinion/Opinion_SC2022-1050 & SC2022-1127.pdf (this is the one about whether the 6-week ban was constitutional or not)
https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/2285282/opinion/Opinion_SC2023-1392.pdf (this is the one about whether the ballot question could be used or not)

Also, here's the text of the ballot question itself:

Anyway, here's the text, which I do have to agree with the court doesn't seem hard to understand:

"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. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion."

However, I want to point out that the linked article describes it wrong. It claims:

"Floridians have the chance to essentially vote on whether to reinstate what was once the federal standard set by Roe v. Wade, before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark case in 2022."

However, this is not the standard set by Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade effectively banned abortion regulation entirely prior to the second trimester, banned abortion regulation in the second trimester unless it could be shown to be directly related to medical concerns, and then allowed regulation in the third trimester, though still under various limits. This blatantly arbitrary and baseless standard came under criticism even by those who thought the Constitution offered a right to an abortion, and the later Planned Parenthood v. Casey threw it out and instead of splitting the rules for regulations into three pieces, set fetal viability as the important line with the guideline that regulation prior to it that causes an "undue burden" to abortion access would not be allowed (exactly what constituted an undue burden was the subject of various subsequent court cases).

This referendum is therefore going with the Casey standard, not the Roe standard (interestingly, the Casey standard was actually effective longer than the Roe standard; Roe was in effect from 1973 to 1992, Casey from 1992 to 2022). Well, actually, it isn't quite the Casey standard. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court did rule that under the new standard it set, a 24-hour waiting period requirement for an abortion was permitted. However, the referendum disallows any delay, going farther than Casey did. That said, the law is a lot closer to Casey than it is to Roe.

Maybe someone can claim this is a nitpick. But it explicitly says "reinstate what was once the federal standard set by Roe v. Wade".

Amen brother on the fact that news articles should link to the sources (heck, even a random Wikipedia article, say one about bananas*, links to all the sources). Articles should link to the court decisions, and the ballot information itself. Hmm, goes to show that news reporters need to do more research. I couldn't have caught this one.

*By the way, the "banana" Wikipedia article has 144 sources as of April 1st, 2024. Whew, that is a lot.