— TICKING TIME BOMBS? —
Attorney General Ashley Moody has outlined her reasons why she thinks the state Supreme Court should block an abortion rights amendment from the 2024 ballot.
Late Tuesday, Moody filed a 43-page brief with the court arguing the proposed amendment uses a “misleading ballot summary to trick voters into freezing into place a legal framework that conceals the amendment’s potentially sweeping legal effects.”
Organizers pushing the initiative — which would block state legislators from banning abortion before the viability of the fetus — are on pace to gather enough required signatures to make the ballot. So far, election officials have verified nearly 553,000 voter signatures. It takes almost 900,000 to qualify for the ballot.
But the Florida Supreme Court must also review the amendment to ensure the ballot summary is not misleading and that the amendment sticks to a single subject.
Moody’s legal filing contends the initiative is misleading because voters will be confused over the meaning of “viability,” as well as the definition of the phrase “patient’s health” that is also contained in the summary.
The Attorney General also takes aim at the definition of “health care provider” and suggests voters might think it means physicians but that the term could be broader in application.
“The ballot summary here is part of a similar overall design to lay ticking time bombs that will enable abortion proponents later to argue that the amendment has a much broader meaning than voters would ever have thought,” the brief from Moody and her legal team states. “It hides behind an uninformative parroting of the text of the amendment to veil from voters its potentially expansive scope.”
Organizers behind the amendment still need to file legal briefs with the high court. Still, earlier this month, they blasted Moody when she first argued about “viability” in an op-ed posted with a conservative online site.
“The proposed amendment is clear and precise in limiting government interference with abortion ‘before viability,’” Floridians Protecting Freedom Campaign Director Lauren Brenzel said. “Viability in the abortion context has always meant the stage of fetal development when the life of a fetus is sustainable outside the womb through standard medical measures.”
Brenzel added that “this is a disingenuous argument by a politician desperate to block Floridians from voting on this amendment. Voters know what viability means, and they will see right through this effort to silence their voice.”
___
I welcome your feedback, questions and especially your tips. You can email me at SextonHealthNewsletter@gmail.com or call me at 850-251-2317.
— ABORTION COSTS —
Would Florida be required to pay for abortions if the proposed constitutional amendment passed? Members of the Financial Impact Estimating Conference (FIEC), the group charged with scoring the impact of proposed constitutional amendments, discussed whether the Florida Medicaid program would be required to use state tax dollars to provide women access to abortions.
The state and federal governments jointly fund Medicaid. The Hyde Amendment bans the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of the mother. But states can use state funds to fund abortions.
The Florida Supreme Court weighed in on the issue more than 20 years ago when the court ruled that Florida’s Medicaid program was not required to fund abortions.
But opponents worry the broad amendment would require state-funded abortions.
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America State Policy Director Katie Glenn Daniel said Michigan, where voters passed a similar provision protecting abortion access, anticipates its costs will increase between $2 million and $6 million.
Moreover, Daniel submitted information to the FIEC on Wednesday saying other states have been forced to use state funds to cover the costs of abortion due to court rulings.
However, some members of the FIEC were skeptical.
“I don’t think the amendment, in and of itself, requires funding of abortions in the state of Florida,” said FIEC member Azhar Khan, who also is the staff director of the Senate Finance and Tax Committee. “I don’t see that in the amendment’s language.”
FIEC member and Director of the Office of Economic and Demographic Research, Amy Baker, suggested the economists continue to mull it over until Nov. 16, the FIEC’s last scheduled meeting before the deadline for it to submit its findings to the Supreme Court for review.
Wednesday’s discussion was part of a broader conversation about the economic impact of the proposed constitutional amendment that would preclude lawmakers from passing restrictions on abortion access. Economists agreed last month that it would be challenging to develop a price tag for several reasons and that they would instead form a statement explaining why they were not able to score the proposed amendment.
While a dollar figure may not be attainable, the economists did agree to work on what they called a “long form,” which details all the information they considered when reviewing the potential costs of the amendment.
— INTERESTING —
There could be sweeping changes in how Florida procures services and awards contracts to winning vendors.
State. Sen. Tom Wright filed legislation (SB 286) that would essentially keep the state from releasing vendors’ responses to state solicitations until the procurement process is finalized.
Under current law, sealed bids, proposals or replies received by an agency pursuant to a competitive solicitation are exempt from Florida’s constitutional and statutory public records requirements “until such time as the agency provides notice of an intended decision or until 30 days after opening the bids, proposals or final replies, whichever is earlier.” Competitive solicitation, meanwhile, is broadly defined as “the process of requesting and receiving sealed bids, proposals, or replies in accordance with the terms of a competitive process, regardless of the method of procurement.”
Wright’s bill would preclude the state from releasing vendors’ bids, proposals, or replies until 72 hours (excluding weekends and holidays) after the agency provides notice of an intended decision if no protest is filed. If the decision is challenged, the information is excluded from public record law until the issuance of the agency’s final order or an appellate court mandate or order resolving the protest.
In addition to changing the state’s public records law, SB 286 also expands the exemptions to Florida’s public meetings laws for recording agency meetings where negotiation strategies are discussed.
Wright’s bill also provides what’s known as “legislative intent” to justify the sweeping changes.
“Temporarily protecting such information ensures that the process of responding to a competitive solicitation remains fair and economical for vendors while still preserving oversight after a competitive solicitation decision is made or withdrawn.”
