|
Defend Womens Rights
|
|
Vote NO On Initiative 6
Vote NO On Initiative 8
|
     
Visit us on Facebook |
|
WINTER PARK, Fla. — Amendment 6 is one of the most controversial questions on the Florida ballot this election year.
Amendment 6 is one of the most controversial questions on the Florida ballot this election year.
Amendment 6 is one of the most controversial questions on the Florida ballot this election year. If passed, it would amend the state constitution when it comes to abortion. The language that voters would read on their ballots regarding Amendment 6 reads in part, "This proposed amendment provides that public funds may not be expended for any abortion or for health-benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion except in the case of rape or incest." Toni Van Pelt, board member of the National Association For Women and a representative of the group Nix Six, and Republican Sen. David Simmons from Longwood, who supports the measure joined Greg Fox on WESH 2 News' new daily political news program Friday. The two spoke about the proposed amendment that would overrule the courts' decision, which concluded that the right of privacy under Article I, Section 23 of the State Constitution is broader in scope than that of the United States Constitution.
This amendment would make the existing federal ban on public funding for abortion a part of the state constitution. It would also narrow the scope of the state’s privacy law that has been used successfully to challenge some proposed abortion laws.
Amendment 6 raises 2 questions related to abortion laws in Florida. The first is whether the state constitution should reflect the existing federal prohibitions on the public funding of abortions. This would not significantly change current abortion funding practices in Florida. The second is whether to modify a provision of the state constitution that guarantees a right to privacy for every Floridian and this would definitely affect abortion laws in the state.
As it stands now, the Hyde Amendment prevents Medicaid and any other dept. under HHS from using public money to pay for an abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest and preserving the life of the mother. But, this amendment also addresses any health benefits that a women might receive who is employed by the state as a teacher, social worker or police officer. These benefits are part of a public employee’s employment package and a share of the cost is deducted from her paycheck. Currently, medical decisions relating to contraception and fertility are made by the woman, her doctor and her family. This might impact high risk pregnancies, and might for example not cover an abortion for a woman who has cancer and needs chemotherapy which would endanger her unborn child but she would not be eligible under her insurance because she wasn’t in “danger of death”. In the real world things can go very wrong in a pregnancy and women need all their options, whether they are employed by the state or a private company.
The second issue is more significant as it involves a 1980 Florida Amendment that says in part “every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from government intrusion into the persons’ private life.” This amendment would deny this right of privacy to anyone seeking to have an abortion outside of the limits of rape, incest and protecting the life of the mother. This privacy right is often used to challenge abortion measures. Over the years, courts have cited the clause when blocking parental notification laws involving pregnant minors and laws requiring doctors to counsel women about alternatives to abortion. In short, passage of Amendment 6 would mean parental notification laws would be restored not matter the situation or the age of the minor. It would also allow other types of procedural abortion legislation such as requiring mandatory ultra sounds which are now protected under the state’s privacy law. It might also outlaw certain forms of contraception such as IUD’s and the morning after pill.
So, a vote yes on Amendment 6 would
A vote no on Amendment 6 would
This is more than just a legal issue as it involves good people on both sides. It is an emotional and moral issue among those who believe that life begins at conception and that the fetus has an inalienable right to life and those that believe that women should have the right to choose, and that abortion should remain legal and safe.
BALLOT INITIATIVE 6 – EXCLUDING WOMEN FROM THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION
Florida GOP legislators slipped new little-noticed rules into this year’s elections bill that make it harder to challenge the language of a ballot measure, just as two controversial amendments made their way onto the 2012 ballot. One that might be attacked would curb a woman’s state constitutional right to privacy but is written as a ban on state funding for abortion. Another amendment up for a vote in 2012 would repeal a ban on state funding for religious institutions. As HJR 1179 made its way through the state Legislature this session, the bill was presented as a way to restrict public funding of abortion — which is already illegal and has been for three decades. But one of the underplayed consequences is that it would also roll back a constitutional privacy right in the Florida Constitution, which currently provides more protection for women than the U.S. Constitution does. Article 1 § 23 of the Florida Constitution states that “Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life…”. This promise has been used as the precedent for most of the pro-choice legal decisions in our state. The Florida Supreme Court in their landmark decision, In re T.W., A Minor, 551 So.2d 1186 (Fla.1989), found that the right to abortion in Florida was guaranteed based on this explicit ‘right to privacy’ thus making Florida’s privacy rights broader in scope than that of the federal Constitution. House Joint Resolution 1179, which has become Initiative 6 on the November Ballot, proposes “the creation of a Section 28 of Article I of the State Constitution to generally prohibit public funding of abortions and prohibit the State Constitution from being interpreted to create broader rights to an abortion than those contained in the United States Constitution.” While the bill summary includes this information, some might take issue with the amendment’s title: “Prohibition on Public Funding of Abortions; Construction of Abortion Rights.” This is a direct assault on women and their basic rights as currently guaranteed here in Florida. It is incumbent upon us to educate every person we know what a travesty this attempt is on every female in this State. It is part of a continuing War on Women that right wing ideologues are waging in this Nation. Such a precedent creates a slippery road that we as a State should not want to travel.
Provided by a retired Lake County attorney with 21 years in public service.
1. Strict scrutiny: Roe v. Wade: a state regulation may only be justified by a (i) compelling state interest, (ii) through the least intrusive means possible, and (iii) any legislative enactments must be narrowly tailored to address legitimate state interests by the least restrictive means possible. 2. Intermediate level of scrutiny: Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pa. v. Casey: the focus is on whether a restriction is unduly burdensome and whether it creates a substantial obstacle to a woman’s right to access an abortion. The above is the reason for Florida’s attempted constitutional amendment. The most intrusive regulations that the legislature enacted to date attempting to limit a woman’s right to abortion were successfully challenged because of Florida’s expansive constitutional right to privacy (Section 23). The legislature believes that if the existing right to privacy does not include the right to an abortion (as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court), then they will be successful if challenged in the future under the rational basis standard. 3. Rational basis review – This level of review refers to a level of scrutiny used by the courts when deciding constitutional challenges to due process or equal protection issues relating to the Fifth Amendment (right to privacy issues) and Fourteenth Amendment (states’ rights) (it does not apply to a fundamental right or a protected class). This is the lowest standard of review and means that if the governmental action is a reasonable means to an end, it may be legitimately pursued by the government. Rational basis review means that the legislature is required to be “rational” and acting intelligently; but unfortunately, laws reviewed under the rational basis standard are upheld when challenged. unless the challenger can prove that each justification presented is illogical. As you know amendment diminishes rights under Florida’s right to privacy and attempts to use the funding of abortions as a smoke screen. The Hyde Amendment, prohibiting using public funds for abortion, is included each year in the appropriation bills, so this constitutional amendment is clearly unnecessary. Florida Abortion, Amendment 6 (2012)here are some websites to check out as Amendment 6 and Right to Privacy resources: FL House Analysis: Anti-choice brief with a great synopsis on abortion in Florida and why destroying the 'right to privacy' in Florida has long been their goal: http://www.aul.org/docs/statecourts/FL.pdf The Senate Analysis of CS 1538 by the Senate Judiciary Committee: “The Right to Privacy in Florida in the Age of Technology and the Twenty-First Century: A Need for Protection from Private and Commercial Intrustion” FL State Univ Law Review (1997): http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/251/overton.pdf “Legislative Efforts to Limit State Reproductive Privacy Rights” : http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/252/carres.pdf
From BallotpediaA Florida Abortion, Amendment 6 will appear on the November 6, 2012 state ballot in Florida as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The proposed measure would prohibit the use of public funds for abortions except as required by federal law and to save the mother's life. Additionally, the measure stipulates that the state constitution cannot be interpreted to include broader rights to abortion than those contained in the United States Constitution.[1][2] The Senate bill version (SJR 1538) is sponsored by Sen. Anitere Flores, while the House bill (HJR 1179) is sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley. HJR 1179 was referred to the ballot. The proposed measure requires 60 percent voter approval for adoption. Path to the ballotIn order to qualify for the November 2012 ballot the proposed amendment requires approval by a minimum of 60% in the both the House and the Senate. On March 28, 2011 the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 4-2 in favor of the proposed measure. Previously, the proposal was approved by the Senate Health Regulation Committee following a 8-4 vote on March 14.[3] On April 15 the Senate Rules Committee voted 9 to 3 in favor; sending the proposal to the Senate floor.[4] The House version, HJR 1179, of the proposed legislation was approved by the House on April 27 following a 82-35 vote. A day later, on April 28, the Senate voted 27-12 in favor of referring the measure to the ballot. However, the Senate amended the proposed legislation, therefore the measure must be approved by the House one last time.[5][6] On May 4 the House approved the amended bill thus referring the bill to the ballot. The House voted 79-34.[7][8] TimelineThe following is a timeline of events surrounding the measure:
On Election Day, this November 6th, Floridians will vote on a state constitutional amendment that would interfere with a woman’s ability to make her own healthcare decisions. In collaboration with Catholics for Choice, the National Council of Jewish Women and local faith community partners, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice is working to stop this dangerous and demeaning amendment. We believe that the decision to end a pregnancy is best left to a woman in consultation with her doctor, her family, and through discernment of her own faith tradition and practices. Please join us in opposing Amendment 6 by signing one of the Faith Voices pledges below and by sharing these links with your colleagues, friends, family, congregants, and neighbors!
Also, we encourage you to read the “6 Ways for People of Faith to Fight 6”athttp://salsa3.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=bYywt6pqd7rIkdn0tSioEzF21jVfP7pZ and help us rally your congregation and community. This is a unique opportunity to lift your voice in support of access to healthcare on a decision that could affect Florida’s women and families for decades to come. Please join us in opposing political interference in personal decision-making by opposing Amendment 6! In Faith (and Action), RCRC on behalf of Faith Voices Against Amendment 6
Links to Sign-on Letters:
|
Florida Abortion, Amendment 6 (2012)
Legislative Bill Text that created Ballot Initiative 6
|
