With the Florida Supreme Court deciding whether an abortion-rights constitutional amendment should go on the November ballot, Attorney General Ashley Moody’s office and abortion opponents are urging justices to consider another part of the state Constitution that they say could apply to “unborn children.”
Moody’s office Monday raised the possibility of filing an additional brief about what is described as the “natural persons” provision of the state Constitution. A day later, the group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America urged justices to order briefs on an “expedited basis.”
The proposed constitutional amendment seeks to ensure abortion rights, but the Supreme Court would need to sign off on its wording before the issue could go on the ballot. Justices look at issues such as whether the proposed wording would be clear to voters and would not address more than one subject.
The ballot summary of the proposal says, in part: “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.”
The filings this week stem from questions that Chief Justice Carlos Muniz raised during Feb. 7 oral arguments on the proposal. Those questions involved whether the “unborn” are covered by part of the Constitution that says, in part, “All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness.”
In his questions, Muniz appeared to suggest that the court might not be able to decide on the wording of the proposed abortion-rights amendment without also looking at whether voters would understand that it could affect the “natural persons” provision of the Constitution.
“If sort of the bare minimum is that people need to be on notice as to what does the Constitution do now and what are you proposing to change, can we evaluate that without taking a position on whether the current Constitution legally, not morally or politically or whatever, but legally, speaks to this issue of any kind of rights for the unborn under this declaration of rights provision?” Muniz said.
Later, Muniz said the proposed constitutional amendment “kind of assumes that the Constitution as it exists right now is silent as to any rights of the unborn. And I don’t know if that assumption is correct.”
During the hearing, state Senior Deputy Solicitor General Nathan Forrester said Moody’s office had not taken a position on the issue. But in the filing Monday, Moody’s office said it “stands ready (to) file a supplemental brief on the important question of how best to understand the Natural Persons Clause as it applies to unborn children.”
“The concern Chief Justice Muñiz expressed was that the proposed abortion amendment could have the effect of dramatically curtailing the scope of the ‘right to enjoy and defend life’—an effect not disclosed in the ballot summary,” Forrester and other lawyers in Moody’s office wrote.
In its filing Tuesday, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America said the Supreme Court “should accept the attorney general’s offer of supplemental briefing and order all interested parties to brief these issues on an expedited basis.”
Attorneys for the group Liberty Counsel, which opposes the proposed constitutional amendment, made two filings last month that addressed Muniz’s comments. One of those filings came after a controversial Alabama Supreme Court opinion about embryos created for in-vitro fertilization.
“Directly relevant to Chief Justice Muñiz’s questions, the Alabama Supreme Court noted that an unborn child qualifies as a human life, a human being, and a person,” Liberty Counsel, which is representing the group Florida Voters Against Extremism on the constitutional amendment issue, said in the filing.
As of Wednesday morning, Florida justices had not indicated whether they would order briefs on the issue. The court is supposed to decide by April 1 about whether the proposed constitutional amendment will go before voters in November.
The political committee Floridians Protecting Freedom, which is sponsoring the proposed constitutional amendment, had not made a filing about the possibility of additional briefs.
But during the Feb. 7 arguments, Courtney Brewer, an attorney for Floridians Protecting Freedom, noted the attorney general hadn’t raised the issue in opposing the proposed amendment.
“What you would be asking amendment sponsors to do is to think of all the ways that another provision of the Constitution might be interpreted and to somehow communicate that to the voters,” Brewer said. “I think in that instance, we would really lose the clarity and what the Constitution requires a proposed amendment to say.”
Floridians Protecting Freedom announced the initiative in May after the Republican-controlled Legislature and Gov. Ron DeSantis approved a law that could prevent abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.
The six-week limit is contingent on the outcome of a legal battle about a 15-week abortion limit that DeSantis and lawmakers approved in 2022. If the proposed constitutional amendment reaches the ballot, it would need support from 60 percent of voters to pass.
–Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida
Laurel says
I can see it now. When passing the border, from Georgia to Florida:
“Welcome to Florida!”
“The Stepford State”
Wallingford says
Those who don’t want the proposition to go on the ballot know that it will pass if it does. The majority of Floridians want it passed.
endangered species says
rights? who needs those. So an egg is live chicken? Feel bad for all the women who will suffer because of horrible republicans. Those elected officials should have to watch the babies die that didnt have a chance to begin with. born without lungs so get to watch them suffocate. Sick republicans wanting to increase pain and suffering. Or maybe we should allow people to sue their hateful male governors for inflicting such unnecessary pain and suffering upon them. Truth is population and economy will crash without immigration.
Bobby says
Those that don’t want this on the ballot know well enough this is what the majority of the people want and will pass with flying colors. Why is it the Republican party always try to find away to cheat so they can win, they never play fair and square. Stop messing with womans rights,
This state is going backwards and this is one of the many reasons they keep losing at the polls, where they also try to cheat on who and who can’t vote.
Me says
House Republicans Endorse National Abortion Ban. This is the reason when you cast you vote in 2024 it should be for Democratic Party.
The Republicans are not for womans rights so there for that do not deserve our votes.
Endless Dark Money says
I think their attempts are to just make it harder to overturn their terrible policies one they have been removed from office. Unlike the city manager there are plenty of reasons to vote to remove republicons from their stranglehold on America. Use democracy put women’s rights up for vote and see how it passes instead of changing rules in the middle of the night that overturn decades of precedent on a whim. Only oldies get healthcare in Merica. Only developed country in the world that forces women to give birth, charges them tens of thousands of dollars for doing it and then doesn’t allow them any time off to care for new child. Not to mention the astronomical costs for childcare, health insurance, food, diapers, wipes, supplies. Makes me remember when repubicons voted against the increased child credits that reduced child poverty by 50%. Since then child poverty has increased more than 50% GO FIGURE. They are more concerned little johnny doesnt read a book from an author with the last name “gay” than little johnny eating lunch. remember that when you go to vote.
Steve says
Let them do it. See you at Election time. Women Voters will show Politicians what’s up
Ban the gop says
How do I get to cover the fetus on my insurance? Can I get life insurance on the fetus too? Do I pay premium for unnamed human with no social? So prenatal care is now included in health insurance? Will dads now owe child support from conception? Ask a republicon how long it takes a woman to know they are pregnant? IS that 6 weeks? If the exception is rape does there need to be a guilty charge before procedure, in modern American court that could take years even longer if they have money? You see people should put thought into policy and looking at republicons i don’t see any thinkers just boot lickers.
Nephew Of Uncle Sam says
The ballot summary of the proposal says, in part: “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.”
Pretty straight forward and easy to understand, except for GOP politicians.
Deborah Coffey says
I am just so sick of this. Can’t these sick religious zealots keep their beliefs to themselves? What is making them try to force those beliefs and behaviors on everyone else? What is their REAL MOTIVE? Because they hate gays, we’re all supposed to hate gays? Because they think a few cells make up a human, we’re all supposed to believe that, too? Because they hate and ban books written by Black people, we all have to live with those bans? We can’t ever allow zealots with hidden ulterior motives to be in charge…not ever.