CV NEWS FEED // The Supreme Court of Florida ruled in favor of a state estimating committee on August 21, throwing out claims that the committee purposefully exaggerated the financial pitfalls of the “Right to Abortion Initiative.”
The pro-choice sponsors of the ballot measure, which is also known as “Amendment 4,” had filed a petition challenging the authority of the conservative state’s Financial Impact Estimating Conference to issue a financial impact statement for the ballot measure.
The measure in question seeks to enshrine a “constitutional right to abortion” both before fetal viability and when the health of the mother is concerned. “Viability” is usually defined at around 24 weeks gestation.
The following language would be added to Florida’s constitution if Amendment 4 is passed:
Except as provided in Article X, Section 22, 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.
Two progressive groups, Floridians Protecting Freedom and the ACLU, argued that the financial estimating committee’s statement—which will be featured on the ballot in November—had inflated the ballot’s projected costs to politically undermine the success of the measure.
“The politicization of these financial impact statements erodes public trust in our institutions and threatens the integrity of every future ballot measure,” ACLU’s Michelle Morton told the press, according to a local August 21 report from the Florida Phoenix.
However, Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz wrote in the decision: “The petitioners never questioned the Estimating Conference’s authority to voluntarily adopt a revised financial impact statement.”
“Instead,” he pointed out, “they actively participated in every step of the revision process without objection.”
The impact statement the committee drafted raises three primary financial concerns about the amendment.
In the first place, the committee raises the issue of whether the amendment would require the state to subsidize abortion with taxpayer funding.
The committee’s second concern is closely related to the first: “Litigation to resolve those and other uncertainties will result in additional costs to the state government and state courts that will negatively impact the state budget.”
Lastly, the financial impact statement argues that the projected rise in the number of abortions performed in the state—if the measure passes—could “negatively affect the growth of the 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,” the statement concludes.
The pro-life committees that have registered to oppose the ballot measure include Florida Voters Against Extremism, Keep Florida Pro Life, Do No Harm Florida, Life First PC, and Gov. Ron DeSantis’ Florida Freedom Fund.
For its part, the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops issued the following statement regarding the measure:
We urge all Floridians of goodwill to stand against the legalization of late-term abortion and oppose the abortion amendment. In doing so, we will not only protect the weakest, most innocent, and defenseless of human life among us but also countless women throughout the state from the harms of abortion.
