Florida Supreme Court allows 6-week abortion ban to take effect, but voters will have the final say
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In a pair of significant decisions Monday, the Florida Supreme Court upheld a 15-week ban on abortion in the state while also allowing a proposed amendment that would enshrine abortion protections in the state constitution to appear on the November ballot.
The conservative-leaning court's decision on the 15-week ban also means that a six-week abortion ban, with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the woman, that Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law last year will take effect.
But the bench's ruling to allow the constitutional amendment to appear on the ballot this fall means voters will have a chance in just seven months to undo those restrictions.
Republicans have made multiple moves over the nearly two years since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade to restrict access to abortion.
In 2022, DeSantis, a Republican, signed a 15-week abortion ban passed by the GOP-controlled Legislature that was almost immediately challenged in court.
Then, in April 2023, just weeks before he announced his presidential campaign, he signed a ban after six weeks — before many women even know they're pregnant — which was also immediately challenged.
In reviewing the initial challenge to the 15-week ban, the state Supreme Court had said the six-week ban would remain blocked until it ruled on the 15-week proposal.
In its ruling Monday, the court's justices wrote in a majority opinion, "Consistent with longstanding principles of judicial deference to legislative enactments, we conclude there is no basis under the Privacy Clause to invalidate" the 15-week statute.
They added that Planned Parenthood, the plaintiff, "cannot overcome the presumption of constitutionality and is unable to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the 15-week ban is unconstitutional."
As a result, the justices concluded, the "six-week ban will take effect in thirty days."
At the same time, their ruling on the proposed amendment will allow Florida voters to effectively decide whether to keep the six-week ban in effect.
In allowing the proposed amendment to appear in November, the justices embraced a straightforward interpretation of their responsibility under the law in approving ballot measures: making sure the proposed language isn't confusing, unclear or misleading and making sure it doesn't cover more than one subject.
"We approve the proposed amendment for placement on the ballot," the justices wrote in their opinion.
They added that the intention of the measure's sponsors was clear and that opponents' philosophical disagreement with didn't merit its being struck from the ballot.
"That the proposed amendment's principal goal and chief purpose is to limit government interference with abortion is plainly stated in terms that clearly and unambiguously reflect the text of the proposed amendment. And the broad sweep of this proposed amendment is obvious in the language of the summary," they wrote. "Denying this requires a flight from reality."
Reproductive rights groups simultaneously slammed the decision on the ban and lauded the decision on the ballot measure — while highlighting that the disparate rulings significantly raise the stakes of the November election.
"We're thrilled the Court has let the voters decide the fate of abortion access in Florida," Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates Executive Director Laura Goodhue said in a statement. But she added, "This comes at the same time they have allowed a 6-week ban to go into effect, making this initiative more important than ever."
Jessica Mackler, the president of EMILYs List, a national Democratic group that supports pro-abortion-rights women running for office, said in a statement: "The stakes for protecting reproductive freedom in Florida have never been higher. With a near-total abortion ban set to go into effect in 30 days, essential health care will be pushed out of the hands of millions because of this Florida Supreme Court decision. But Floridians have the opportunity to fight back against this Republican law that strips them of their bodily autonomy just like voters have in every other abortion ballot initiative across the country."
Conversely, anti-abortion-rights groups celebrated the ruling on the ban and slammed the ballot measure while also noting the conflicting decisions raise the stakes of the November election.
DeSantis spokesperson Jeremy Redfern said that the governor agreed with the dissenting opinion and that the measure "is misleading and will confuse voters."
Florida Voice for the Unborn Executive Director Andrew Shirvell said his group was "profoundly disappointed in the Florida Supreme Court" for allowing the ballot measure to advance while calling the decision paving the way for the six-week ban to stand a "silver lining in an otherwise dark day for Florida's unborn children."
Monday's decision on the proposed amendment had been the last major obstacle in the red-leaning state in the path for the measure to appear on the ballot this fall.
Under Florida law, the measure will have to receive the support of 60% of voters in November — not a simple majority — to pass.
Reproductive rights groups had surpassed the required number of valid signatures in the state needed for the measure, which state officials have already announced as "Amendment 4," to appear on the general election ballot.
But under Florida law, the state Supreme Court must review the proposed language of any citizen-initiated constitutional amendment before it can formally advance.
The proposed amendment would bar restrictions on abortion before fetal viability, considered to be at about the 24th week of pregnancy. That means it would invalidate the six-week ban.It would also include exceptions past that point for "the patient's health, as determined by the patient's healthcare provider."
Allowing the measure to appear in November could also have political consequences: Putting the decision to expand access to abortion in the hands of voters could help drive turnout in Florida among Democrats, as well as independents and Republicans who strongly support reproductive rights. That could boost the prospects of Democrats up and down the ballot in the state, where key races for president and the U.S. Senate this year are likely to be closely decided.
Underscoring that possibility, President Joe Biden's re-election campaign, in a memo released moments after the decisions came down, said it sees the state as winnable, largely because abortion rights has been such a strong issue for Democrats.
"Abortion rights will be front and center in Florida this election cycle," Julie Chavez Rodriguez, Biden's campaign manager, wrote in the memo.
The effort by pro-abortion-rights groups in Florida to place the ballot measure is one of at least 11 across the U.S. seeking to put abortion rights directly in the hands of voters in 2024.
Advocates on both sides of the issue had long viewed the state Supreme Court's review of the proposed amendment as conservatives' best chance to stop the measure from appearing, mostly because of the court's ideological makeup: Five of the seven justices were appointed by DeSantis, a fierce opponent of abortion.
The court's review was aided by a robust challenge from anti-abortion conservatives, including Republican state Attorney General Ashley Moody, who contended that the ballot language was designed to mislead voters.
Moody's challenge specifically urged the court to prevent the question from appearing on the ballot altogether. She slammed the measure as an effort to "hoodwink" voters because abortion-rights supporters and opponents have different opinions about the definition of fetal viability.
Despite its ideological makeup, the conservative court signaled during opening arguments last month that it as likely to let the amendment appear.
And despite having doled out tough questions to the attorneys representing Floridians Protecting Freedom, the abortion rights group leading the ballot effort, the judges were even harsher in their commentary to attorneys for the state.
"It's pretty obvious that this is an aggressive, comprehensive approach to dealing with this issue," Chief Justice Carlos Muniz said at one point, shooting down an argument that the ballot language was confusing. "The people of Florida aren't stupid. They can figure out what this says."
The court's deadline to approve or reject the proposed language was Monday.
Tags
Who is online
282 visitors
Many women don't even know that they are pregnant at 6 weeks.
I think that's the real point of a 6 week ban. It's easier to argue "heartbeat" than an outright "fuck you".
Except there is no "heartbeat" at 6 weeks. All they can detect is a fluttering of cells at 6 weeks, there is no heart and the cells are not pushing any blood through the body. It's like saying that a newborn bird is "flying" because it can wiggle its undeveloped appendages upon birth, even though there are no actual wings or feathers..
Is a 'fetal heartbeat' really a heartbeat at 6 weeks?
the "fuck you" officially starts when the kid is born...
I thought that happened about 13 years after the kid is born?
Those of us who care about fact and logic already know. It's the believable lie the anti-abortionists tell themselves to make them feel good about interjecting government into other people's business.
Remember the good old days when republicans were completely opposed to "Obamacare" because it interjected government into other people's healthcare business.
I still can't get past the hilarity of their anti-vax hypocrisy of the "government telling them what to do" ...
most of those fucking maga morons are barely one rung above crash test dummies on the evolutionary ladder.
Please don't insult crash test dummies like that. They actually serve a useful purpose.
sorry, mannequin...
Don't insult the crash test dummies.
Florida joins the other ''backward'' states with this decision.
I think Florida was about as backwards as you could get before this decision, so this is just par for the course for these useless brainless dip shits.
Funny enough, and perhaps not surprising, they are mostly in the southern states.
Education is not as prized in certain segments of southern society
not as prized as humping cousin becky at the family reunion...
This is a win for Dems. They will flood the state with cash to energize their voters.
nothing worse for republicans than pissed off women, especially in a voting booth ...
[off topic] [✘] as [well...][✘]
Problem solved, the voters will decide. this is the way it is supposed to work.
In Florida, it takes 60% to pass the amendment which is a fairly high number. If it received 59.9 it's a no go. So 40.1% would have control of 59.9%.
Just saying.
If Abortion is as big of an issue as we have heard, then 60% shouldn't be a problem. Should it?
With the Governor, the AG and most of the Legislature against I would expect even more roadblocks ahead.
It certainly seems to be a big issue based on the states that are making abortion next to impossible, and those that are trying to protect a women's right.
Hopefully, Florida will join the states that protect women's right and leave the others in the 19th century.
No doubt about that.
Or they could just win elections and pass a law.
Speaking of winning elections, the last couple of times around you should have taken your own advice. And then we have Mr. Unwoke getting his ass stomped in the Republican primary was a stroke of genius on his part now he can continue to screw up Florida..
Lets hope so, and each state should follow suit and protect their citizens rights as they see fit, that is how democracy works. I am pro-choice to a point, but have no illusions and am not going to lie to myself, everytime an abortion is performed it ends a human life. that embryo/zygote/lump of cells can't become anything else but a human.
It has the potential to be human. Do you call an acorn an oak tree?
When does the same life form magically transition from not human to human?
in all fairness, women should then have the right to make life altering medical decisions for anti-choice wackos...
Good grief! there's no magic! It's called GROWTH!!!
I wish
Cool. At what specific point during it's development path does the human organism transition from non human to human?
When it takes it's first breath.
that's what it says in the bible, well, at least one of them anyway...
Sean..did you take any kind of biology classes in school?
So with a tree it's when it begins the process of photosynthesis
So put you down in the abortion until birth camp.
But what's changed biologically? What happened to the organism biologically as it moved a few centimeters to make it human?
Did you? I'm asking you at what specific stage of development does the human organism become human. It's a biological question.
And like an Acorn it can't become anything else but what it was designed to be.
Did I say it could?
I would say probably about the 24th-26th week. Preemies born at that stage have survived. I don;t know of any cases before 24 weeks where it survived.
Some women can feel that fetus at 16-weeks moving, but that doesn't mean it's a fully formed human
Yet terminations are already highly regulated beyond the first trimester (12 Weeks) when nearly all abortions occur. How many even know for sure that they are pregnant at 6 weeks?
It's nearly impossible. One missed period is not an indicator that a woman is pregnant. The best thing she can do after one missed period is to take a home pregnancy test but it's doubtful there's enough hormone present to indicate a pregnancy
Go to the doctor if you miss. Especially if you know you had unprotected (or protected for that matter.) sex within the last month or so.
And then what?
What will the doctor do? Take another pregnancy test?
Schedule you for pre-natal care
You have to schedule time with your provider and then you have to find the time to see her/him. It's not as easy as you think
No, and that wasn't the question you asked.
It was disconnected and removed from the mother.
That's very insulting
It has been a long time since I suffered a pregnancy scare either personal or a friend, but being in complete denial for the first few months is completely normal for teenagers...
what was?
“Go to the doctor if you miss.”
Frightening that by extrapolation, some would have no issue regulating a woman’s period. Why not extend having others determine her entirely personal health decisions?
This entire debate is degrading…and not only to an individual woman, but more so to all those who feel they have any right to interject, interfere, and influence anyone’s right to self-determination. [deleted][✘]
anything to impede or complicate the individual right to bodily autonomy for women, due to religious dogma.
abortion until born camp
So there's some vague point within a three week period when it suddenly transforms to human? That's magical thinking. . Nothing has changed biologically.
Viability (as Justice Blackmon recognized while writing Roe) is just an arbitrary point of a human's development. . It's the same organism six months before birth as it is six months after. It's one random point in a developmental process of humans that takes decades to complete.
I see. Pretty much, yeah.
Good, so now at least we are in agreement that it is ending a human life, the only quibble is how some want to label it to make them feel better about what they are supporting.
... kind of like virgin birth?
If it's just a ball of cells that isn't human, why wouldn't you favor abortion until birth? Do you oppose the removal of tumors?
It was disconnected and removed from the mother.
It's still the same biologically whether the chord is attached or not. Though I guess that will be the next step, the ability to kill a delivered baby until the moment the chord is detached, because it's apparently not human at that point. Echoes of Barbara Boxer's argument you can abort a baby until it's able to leave the hospital.
It's not magical, it's biology. What started as a clump of cells developed into a human being. And that's also called science not magic
I let people let their own conscience guide them. It's none of my business and frankly it's none of yours. You are not the watchdog of the entire human race
that's disgusting and it's illegal
Biology tells you that it's a human organism the whole time. I don't have to lie to myself. Its the same human organism the whole time, no transformation needed.
Magical thinking is believing the same organism transforms from a non human to a human at some unmeasurable time approximately six months after its started developing.
Do you always pose questions and then apply answers to something else? Considering I'll never have an abortion the whole question as you put it to me is moot. I support a person's right to body autonomy and medical privacy. I've not heard of any abortions of viable fetuses near birth. I have heard of women forced to carry dead fetuses until they go into shock before they can get medical attention.
It is not the same biologically. It is fully dependent on the mother until such a point as it isn't. When the mother is no longer necessary to keep it alive it's a baby. Is the mother biologically required to keep a embryo alive at 6 weeks? At that stage it doesn't have arms, legs, eyes or ears.
The next step by whom? Those that make absurdist statements?
Never said it was, and as a reminder, I am pro-choice to a point, it is right there in my first comment, I'm just not going to sugarcoat what is happening. it is the end of a human life, the only quibble is where you are ending it.
Do you recognize a distinction between human life form and human being?
The distinction is typically that a human life form is a living organism that has the potential to grow into a human being. Thus a zygote is a human life form. The point at which a life form transitions into a human being is when it is fully formed (i.e. viable). Fully formed often means that the entity has all of its systems working to sustain life and could thus theoretically survive outside of the womb with modest, temporary assistance to strengthen weak systems (e.g. an incubator) versus an artificial womb.
There is a biological distinction in the above paragraph. We could scientifically define the transition with significant detail is we so chose.
The next issue is human being vs. person. Human being is still biologically defined, but person now brings in the legal dimension. Thus the question as to when a human being becomes a person. Currently this is the birth event. This is a convenient, historical delineation, and is somewhat arbitrary. Some would argue that once a fetus achieves the status of human being (as defined) it is ipso facto a person and should be legally protected. This is akin to protecting the rights of the third trimester unborn.
There is no correct answer of course, but I am inclined to frame the answer first in terms of science. To wit, my first pass is that prior to achieving human being biological status (as defined above), abortion is the choice strictly of the woman and her doctor. After that point (which is commonly known as viability), more stringent considerations might apply. For example, abortion strictly for convenience would then be a stretch.
Of course whenever the issue comes down to the life of the unborn versus the life/health of the mother, my view is that the mother's life/health has the priority.
that's disgusting and it's illegal
Why? It's not human according to him. Why should it matter if it were "killed?" Not sure if killed is the right word, since it's just a bag of cells crying in the nurse's arms and apparently not human life. I don't think correct to say you kill it. Do you kill a tumor?
Now as someone who's cut an umbilical chord, I think it's disgusting and frankly monsterous to claim the tiny life I was holding in my arms was not human until I cut the umbilical chord. But people need to tell lies to themselves to avoid thinking about what they are doing I guess.
No, you are conflating the concept of personhood with biology.
here is a biological distinction in the above paragraph. \
Yes, you've randomly selected one of many developmental stages a human goes through and imbued it with meaning it doesn't have. It's a human before and after viability. Just like its a human before and after the nervous system begins to function. Or it talks. Or can survive without it's mother care. Just look at this thread, you have different people claiming it somehow turns into a human at different stages.
Simply picking out a developmental point isn't hard nor does it have any actual biological meaning when compared to any other stages. You've just selected it to hang your hat on for convenience's sake. Others, as we've seen, claim it happens at different stages. That in and of itself refutes your point that there's an actual biologically defined place during fetal development when the fetus suddenly becomes a human.
A whole paragraph of nothing to avoid the question. "considering I'll never have an abortion the whole question as you put it to me is moot" is [deleted][✘] . When the mother is no longer necessary to keep it alive it's a baby.
So 15 year old give or take?
You literally said a delivered baby isn't human. Own it.
You clearly made no attempt to understand what I wrote. Pretty much what I expected.
There was nothing random about it. I described the biological distinction.
Do better than clearly false claims.
Nope. When it can survive outside the mother. Are you saying it's not human until it's born?
'When it takes it's first breath." This occurs when the baby is born, meaning 'when it can survive outside the mother'
What a bunch of ignorant and hateful nonsense and lies.
Hey now, don't go trying to dismantle the only things the religious right has left to defend their hilariously flawed arguments. Without hateful nonsense and lies they would have nothing left to sell their racist sexist moronic adherents.
Yes. Feel free to provide a rational and legal reason why not.
Birth.
Biology is a scientific issue, not a legal one. The real question is, when does it become a legal person? Answer: birth!
Irrelevant. See previous statement.
Viability is a medically defined and established point of gestation. There is nothing arbitrary or random about it.
An embryo/fetus is like a tumor.
While it's connected and feeding of the woman, she should have final say as to whether she wants to leave it connected.
Nice hyperbole. But I suppose that's the best you can offer.
It's not a person. I'm not sure why that has to be repeated so often.
Emotional rhetoric.
Personhood is what is legally defined and applicable.
And you're hung up on biology which is irrelevant to legality.
Sean claims to be an atheist
Not possible.
Thank-you for your clear and concise comment. You explained it so that even a 5 year old can understand
like that never leads to problems for him elsewhere...
there's no science wing at a parochial school.
Abortion restriction
Lose elections.
Republicans need to accept this because they have better and more important issues to advance
abortion restrictions are not worth loosing important things for..
Unfortunately right wing populists won't care until they lose their seats. Then they'll accuse liberals of trickery instead of themselves.
the foundation for another 50 year learning curve being laid down...
no, they don't. Just look at polling. There are very few single issue abortion voters, and those that are almost all already vote in line with that. The governor of Ohio signed a 6 week ba, was reelected with a massive majority and then had the ban overturned by voters. It doesn't actually impact elections, particularly high turnout general elections.
There aren't a pool of potential Republican voters who would vote for Trump if only there was unlimited abortion. It's kind of funny trying to imagine who that person would be. The parties split on abortion decades ago and those who care have voted accordingly for decades. It's like believing that because conservative positions have won in progressive places like California on ballot initiatives (affirmative action, immigration enforcement) meant that Democrats would lose those state or elections over those issues.
They haven't.
Whatever happens in 2024 will have zero to do with abortion.
keep telling yourself that...
You beat me to it.
Abortion not that big an issue anymore. What's going to destroy the dems is the border disaster and the trans idiocy.
lol - keep telling yourself that
I don't believe abortion will be that big of a deal in the presidential election, it will be overshadowed by immigration and the border, and the economy. But I believe that abortion will be a bigger issue for the down-ballot elections. Republicans are still unable to properly talk about this and present a reasonable presentation on this. When almost 70% of the voting public is in favor of an action, it just seems like a losing strategy to instead go for a ban.
Yes, the presidential election this year will be about illegal immigration (and other issues), Trump's behavior, and the personal characteristics of the nominees.
Personally, I think Trump should not even be a consideration regardless of all other factors.
Logically, abortion will be more important for state elections. If that is what you were referring to by down-ballot then I agree.
Abortion is a very big issue and it is going to hurt the Republican Party.
meh, barry goldwater warned the GOP about thumpers long ago, and nobody listened...
Way out there beyond the horizon where the nearsighted MAGAs cannot even see it yet there is a great big blue wave just starting to swell. The predicted landfall is November 5th 2024! Bye Bye MAGA!
When those holier than thou parents find out their precious little girl that they just spent thousands to straighten her teeth and they have big plans for her to go to the college they went to is pregnant, probably by a boy they don't approve of, they will want an exception just for their case.
I like the way you think
Prohibition did not work, and abortion prohibition won't work because people like drinking and having sex.
MAGA type populists still think they can use government to regulate morality in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
Yes, it's called SOS (stuck on stupid)
The 'right' want to outlaw recreational sex and all forms of birth control
"while allowing an amendment that would enshrine abortion protections in the state constitution to appear on the November ballot."
Leave it up to the states as it should be, as the Supreme court decision said.
History has shown some states cannot be trusted or responsible when it comes to the issue of rights.
How so? People get what they vote for?
Who votes to have rights restricted? Or maybe legislators don't care once they are voted in?
Not a very good way to keep a job
They do this all the time because on most issues the electorate does NOT hold them accountable.
Then the electorate gets what they deserve.
... or part of the electorate is so blinded by partisanship, they've forgotten the american legal concepts of due process and equal justice, and are complicit in their obstruction.
Because those opposed to abortion do not want others to be able to fix mistakes, they should not return things they bought, use backspace and delete keys on their computer, or change any decision they have made. Practice what you preach.
If you want to deny others the right to choose and correct situations that happen then apply that to your life and be stuck with what happens
the long march of the 21st century crusaders in their quest to certify, regulate, and tax sex.