Florida Supreme Court upholds financial impact warning on pro-abortion ballot initiative
The Florida Supreme Court has upheld the inclusion of a financial risks warning as part of a state ballot question that could make abortion a constitutional right in the Sunshine State.
Florida’s highest court ruled 6-1 on Wednesday in Floridians Protecting Freedom, Inc., et al v. Kathleen C. Passidomo, et althat the financial impact statement could remain, despite a pro-choice group’s objections.
The revised statement says that if the proposed amendment on the November ballot passes, it would “result in significantly more abortions and fewer live births per year in Florida.”
Get Our Latest News for FREE
“The increase in abortions could be even greater if the amendment invalidates laws requiring parental consent before minors undergo abortions and those ensuring only licensed physicians perform abortions,” continued the statement.
“An increase in abortions may negatively affect the growth of state and local revenues over time. Because the fiscal impact of increased abortions on state and local revenues and costs cannot be estimated with precision, the total impact of the proposed amendment is indeterminate.”
Chief Justice Carlos G. Muñiz, appointed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, authored the majority opinion, writing that the plaintiffs “actively participated in the Estimating Conference process that they now challenge, without questioning or objecting to the Conference’s authority to issue a revised financial impact statement on its own initiative.”
“The record demonstrates that those who participated in the Estimating Conference’s revision process, including the petitioners, understood that the Conference was acting on its own initiative,” continued Muñiz.
Justice Jorge Labarga, an appointee of former Democrat Gov. Charlie Crist, authored a dissenting opinion, writing that “the petitioners should not be precluded from their claim to extraordinary relief.”
“As the sponsor of the amendment, Floridians Protecting Freedom was entitled to contribute to the process of reconsidering and revising the financial impact statement,” Labarga wrote.
“Had the petitioners not engaged in the process, they would have lost their opportunity to participate and to potentially influence the finished product. Because they did participate, they are now penalized, and their arguments are deemed waived or forfeited.”
Labarga believes “today’s decision has significant implications beyond the present proposed amendment and related financial impact statement.”
“Despite the majority’s focus on the actions of the Estimating Conference, make no mistake that today’s decision opens the door to the legislative branch leadership to intervene in the citizen-driven constitutional amendment process — even in the midst of ongoing legal proceedings such as were taking place here,” he continued.
The Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based Christian conservative legal organization, praised the court for upholding the warning on the ballot, believing that voters should be aware of the reported broad ramifications of the proposed amendment.
“Voters should understand that Amendment 4 will not only allow abortion up to birth for any reason, but will force Floridians to pay for abortion, and will place women at extreme risk by overriding every health and safety standard,” said Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida denounced the ruling, believing the inclusion of the financial warning statement was anti-democratic.
“This ruling, allowing an unauthorized and unlawful financial impact statement to stand, is a direct affront to the rights of Florida voters, who deserve accurate and lawful information when making decisions on constitutional amendments,” said Michelle Morton, staff attorney at the ACLU of Florida, in a statement.
“We are disheartened by the Florida Supreme Court’s refusal to take action against the State’s politicization of these financial impact statements and flagrant bypassing of the judicial safeguards that are supposed to protect the integrity of our electoral process.”
