Title on Ballot: Prohibition on Public Funding of Abortions; Construction of Abortion Rights
Sponsor/Originator: The Florida Legislature
What it would do:
This amendment would make the existing federal ban on public funding for most abortions part of the state constitution. It would narrow the scope of a state privacy law that is sometimes used in Florida to challenge abortion laws.
IF YOU VOTE YES:
A “yes” vote means you support putting the existing federal ban on the use of public funds for abortions into the state constitution; and you support eliminating the state’s privacy right with respect to a woman’s right to choose.
IF YOU VOTE NO:
A “no” vote means you are against placing the existing federal ban on using public funds for abortions into the state constitution; and you are against eliminating the state’s privacy right with respect to a woman’s right to choose.
Click here to visit the Florida Division of Elections Background on Amendment 6 (including full text of the amendment)
Summary of Amendment (from Division of Elections site):
This proposed amendment provides that public funds may not be expended for any abortion or for health-benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. This prohibition does not apply to an expenditure required by federal law, a case in which a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, or a case of rape or incest. This proposed amendment provides that the State Constitution may not be interpreted to create broader rights to an abortion than those contained in the United States Constitution. With respect to abortion, this proposed amendment overrules court decisions which conclude 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.
Arguments for:
Supporters say this makes it clear Florida prohibits public funding for abortions and gives the public a voice in deciding state abortion law.
Arguments against:
Opponents say this amendment discriminates against women, strips away a woman’s fundamental right to choose, and erodes established law, including rights of privacy.
Should federal abortion laws be enshrined in the state constitution? And should the state’s constitutional right to privacy be modified?
Amendment 6 raises two questions related to abortion rights in Florida. The first – whether the state constitution should reflect the existing federal prohibitions on the public funding of abortions – would not change current abortion funding practices in Florida. The second – whether to modify a provision in the state constitution that guarantees a right to privacy for every Floridian – would affect abortion law in the state.
As to the impact on state law, the first question matters less than the second. For several decades, federal law has prohibited the expenditure of federal funds for most abortions (exceptions include rape, incest and medical conditions that threaten the mother’s life). Amendment 6 would not expand those prohibitions. If passed, it would simply duplicate the existing federal prohibitions.
The second question is more consequential. In 1980, Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment that says, in part: “Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life…” This privacy right is often used to challenge abortion measures passed by Florida lawmakers. 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. The law was pivotal in a landmark case in 1989 that prevented Gov. Jeb Bush from stopping a pregnant 13-year-old in state custody from choosing to have an abortion.
In short, passage of Amendment 6 would mean parental-notification laws or other types of procedural abortion legislation passed by state lawmakers would no longer be subject to challenge under the state’s privacy law.
Supporters say this amendment puts the state on even footing with the federal government and allows the electorate to express its opinion on abortion law. “It’s a broad enough value issue that we should let the public speak,” state Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, a sponsor of the amendment, told the Ocala Star-Banner. “I think it’s far-reaching and it’s controversial, but we as a state will address the sanctity of life, which is a foundational issue.” Opponents say it is a pre-emptive strike on a woman’s right to choose. “This amendment would roll back women’s rights as protected under the Florida Constitution. We would be reversing that express right to privacy,” Stephanie Kunkel, the former executive director of Planned Parenthood of Florida, told the Ocala Star-Banner.
The Florida House approved the measure by a 79-34 vote. The Florida Senate voted 27-12 to approve the measure. As with all amendments, passage requires the approval of 60 percent or more of the voters. If approved, the bill will go into effect on Jan. 8, 2013.
History
By 1965, abortions were deemed illegal in all 50 states. As a result, many women began to utilize illegal underground abortion services. In 1973, the landmark United States Supreme Court decision, Roe V. Wade, reformed abortion law. The Court recognized that a woman has a constitutionally protected right to terminate pregnancy until her fetus is viable, which the law says is at about 24 weeks’ gestation. Abortions beyond that legally defined viability period can occur to protect the mother’s life.
In 2007, a total of 91,954 abortions were performed in Florida, according to a state analysis of the bill that became Amendment 6. For 83,890 of those, the gestational age of the fetus was 12 weeks and under; for 8,063, the gestational age of the fetus was 13 to 24 weeks; and for one, the gestational age was over 25 weeks.
The Hyde Amendment
In 1976, three years after Roe v. Wade, a federal legislative provision called the Hyde Amendment passed, which prohibited the use of public money for abortions except in cases of rape, incest and for preserving the life of the mother. The Hyde Amendment, introduced by Rep. Henry J. Hyde, R-Ill, prevents Medicaid and any other programs under the Department of Health and Human Services to fund abortions. Based on the Hyde Amendment, Medicaid reimburses for abortions if:
- The woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused or arising from the pregnancy itself that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.
- When the pregnancy is the result of rape (sexual battery).
- When the pregnancy is the result of incest.
State Privacy Law
In the 1970s, a newspaper reporter seeking to obtain the records of a private consulting firm’s search for a managing director of a public utility invoked the state’s public records law. Not wanting to make the documents public, the consulting firm argued that the state’s constitution protected individuals from government intrusion, according to a review of the state’s privacy law in the book, “Constitutional Politics in the States.”
The case eventually ended up before the Florida Supreme Court, and in January 1980 the court said it found no language in the state constitution guaranteeing a right to privacy. Soon after, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a resolution to establish a constitutional right to privacy. Their intent was to limit government intrusion into the private lives of individuals. Concerns that it would limit access to public records and government meetings were addressed by adding a provision protecting those rights. According to the review in “Constitutional Politics in the States,” little debate was given to whether the privacy amendment would expand abortion rights. In the end, lawmakers from both parties overwhelmingly passed the proposed privacy right amendment and it was placed on the November 1980 ballot. That legislative support carried over to the ballot box as nearly 61 percent of the voters approved the amendment.
Nine other states have privacy laws in their constitution (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina and Washington), according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
IF YOU VOTE YES:
A “yes” vote means you support putting the existing federal ban on the use of public funds for abortions into the state constitution; and you support eliminating the state’s privacy right with respect to a woman’s right to choose.
IF YOU VOTE NO:
A “no” vote means you are against placing the existing federal ban on using public funds for abortions into the state constitution; and you are against eliminating the state’s privacy right with respect to a woman’s right to choose.
___________________________________________
a woman should always have the right to choose without the goverment interfering.that is what the supreme court said many years ago.
A woman can chose and also pay for her own choice. My conscience should not be jeopardized by another person’s decisions. Those who approve can support her financially on an individual basis. It should not be forced on the public to pay for what they disapprove of.
There would not be a change to the funding by the state for abortions therefore this amendment has no bearing on tax payer dollars. What it does is change the privacy laws for women and sets us back 40 years in the gains women have made in their right to choose.
Della,
Your point is irrelevant. Federal law already prohibits any of your tax dollars, in any state–Florida or otherwise–from funding abortion. The real part of this amendment is about the privacy rights. Read past the first few lines next time.
I don’t approve, but let’s be realistic. The people who use state funding for abortions can’t afford a child. So either way I’m going to end up supporting this child.
I’d like to know why no one thinks to ask the baby if it chooses to live?
If this passes it is a step backwards for women. And if women’s privacy rights take a hit, everyone else’s privacy rights are in jeopardy as well. It’s just a matter of time….
voiceofreason, this amendment does not address privacy rights. It is only dealing with who pays for our decisions.
For the life of me I cannot understand how we have become such a nation of whiners. If you read the amendment it is not a ban on abortions but it means you are responsible for paying for your choices. I personally do not agree with abortions but I realize God gave us a free will and you can exercise your choice to abort your unborn child under the laws of our land BUT it doesn’t mean I have to fund it.
I know that some liberal minded people will think that I am wrong, but as a Bible believing Christians I feel my political and moral decisions should be based on the Bible. A woman who has been abused and forced into the sex act should have the right of an abortion. A woman who is saying ‘OOPS’ should not be able to terminate a life, when do we start letting people be responsible for their actions. Some people and even some elected people are correct about saying we are not a Christian nation any more, we truly do not deserve that honor.
We never were a Christian nation. We are and always have been a nation where the majority of citizens profess Christianity, but others are free to believe otherwise as they will. Big difference, and one that must be preserved.
Gary, I agree with your post 100%. I would just like to point out that this amendment does not deal with the moral issue of abortion, only who pays for it. I am voting ‘yes’ on this amendment. We should all take personal responsibility for our decisions, right or wrong.
Really? Would you stone a person to death for cursing his parents? would you stone an adulteress woman and an adulterer man to death for adultery? (Lev. 20:9-10)
We never were a Christian nation….we are a nation of freedom of religion, our most important fundamental right. It’s not freedom to be Christian. Also, what part of Christianity gives you the right to judge others choices? Oh right it doesn’t, it’s a sin…now go pray to fix yourself.
I am concerned as to when and who agrees a woman was abused, raped or was abused by a relative and should be allowed to have an abortion? If it’s up to the local police pending an investigation what is the timeframe until that determination is made. What standards will the police/sheriff be held accountable? When will this law be extended to allow that determination be made ONLY by the courts. If left to the Courts, how long will that take; a year?
If arguing from a religious perspective, isn’t someone accountable to their God for their actions? There are religions in this world who do not oppose abortion. Govt has no business here.
Woman need to have the right to choose.
Stan, Amendment 6 does not take away that right to choose. It only stipulates that public funds can not be used to pay for that right.
I beleive women should have the right to choose and I am a Christian. But I am totally against the public funding of that abortion!!! or for any reason.
This amendment takes away a woman’s right to make a personal decision about her own body…A DECISION THAT IS MADE BY A WOMAN AND HER PHYSICIAN
……NOT LEGISLATORS!!!!!.
If men were the one’s getting pregnant we would not be having this debate!!!
Amen.
Taxpayers should not pay for abortions.
Amen!
TOTALLY AGREE !!!!!!
I agree, as a tax payer I do not want to pay for someone mistakes. I don’t care wether a women has the abortion but not on the expense of others.
Yes they should. They should help their fellow man in times of crisis.
“…this proposed amendment 50 overrules court decisions which conclude that the right of 51 privacy under Article I, Section 23 of the State Constitution is 52 broader in scope than that of the United States Constitution.”
Right there, that “overrules court decisions” puts me on the no side.
You lost in court so you’re trying to write a law that will be again challenged in court.
Waste of time, redundant, and my uterus is offended.
If a body really hates abortion then they ought to write a law stating that healthcare providers and health insurance companies must cover contraception upon request regardless of the providers’ personal beliefs; they ought to set up a contraception fund to cover every woman and every girl who is about to be a woman. In fairness this fund should provide condoms and/or other male birth control options. People won’t stop having babies, just unwanted babies.
So yeah, that’s a “NO” on this one. Call me when the legislative branch actually figures out where babies come from.
This is really a no brainer. If you vote for this, then you are just bowing to the bible thumping right that can’t keep its nose out of politics, and trying to take choices of women away.
Amen!
I want the government to keep it’s nose out of my pocket book. Why should we pay for the oops pregnancies in this USA? Let them pay for their own and leave me alone. They are responsible for their mistakes not me.
I disagree. We only want you (the woman) who waits the abortion to pay for it. Not on my dime.
I agree with you Mike (and I am a woman!)!
@Mike Do not forget it takes two to tango (you, the man). Consider it to be child support in advance, if that is more to your sensibilities.
What about the rights of the women who are being aborted?
Commentors, this is not about your personal opinions about abortion. This is about using tax money to pay for an elective procedure. A majority of Americans do not feel the government should use public money to pay for abortions, and that’s why an existing federal ban is currently in effect. The federal allows medicaid reimbursement for life/health, rape and incest exceptions. Voting YES Means FL agrees with this federal prohibition of tax dollars going to fund private elective abortions. A woman can still choose to get an abortion if this passes, but we don’t have to pay the bill for her lifestyle decision. Support this ban.
You said it right. Noone is taking away any right to choose. Choose away, just do not ask us to pay for it.
Seems to me that “women” and we can’t forget that many of these are actually young, impressionable, girls, always have a choice. They have the fundamental choice to say “yes” or “no”. That also applies to males. No matter what the law says, the males should bear responsibility for the outcome of their acts. A lot of problems would be mitigated if they did. TV sit-coms and reality shows bear responsibility too. Is this the point where we ALL have to decide whether to say “yes” or “no”?
So far almost all of the comments posted are inaccurate; sorry to confuse you with the facts. First, federal prohibits funding for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or certain health factors for the mother. So all Florida would do is adopt the same policy; you want an abortion you pay for it. What is so controversial about that? Next, the privacy provision in sec. 23, Article I of Florida’s constitution has not proposed to address abortion in any way, shape, or form. The legislative intent was different, however, judges have taken it upon themselves to write abortion law. This should be done through the democratic process not through judicial activism. Amendment 6 just ties the state to federal abortion policy standards. Polling shows that this thing will pass.
Vote … No! No! No!
Florida already bans public funding for abortions. This puts it in the constitution, making it harder to change in the future.
A woman who feels compelled to abort her fetus has the option to exercise her right to do so; however, as a taxpayer, it should not be my responsiblity to fund her choice. A woman who desires an abortion should be the person responsible for paying for the procedure.
A very good summary. This amendment does not interfere with a woman’s right to choose. It simply aligns Florida law with Federal law in that government funds (i.e. our taxes paid) will not be used to fund abortions. This amendment would protect the rights of both those who are pro-choice as well as those who are pro-life, in that no one would be told what to do and no one would have their tax money used to fund something they do not support. This amendment will likely pass.
A women should always have the right to choose, just not the right to use my money to make her choice a reality. I didn’t get her pregnant, so I shouldn’t have to pay for her abortion. Come on people, if you start being a responsible adults, the taxpayers won’t have to pay for your abortions!
What happens when a woman cannot afford an abortion and cannot find a legal and safe place to get once since the funding has been cut off? Religion and Politics need to remain separate at the Governor’s Mansion and the White House!
No public funds are use for abortions now. Why do we need a law for this??
Chris is mostly right. This is not about abortions. This is about FUNDING for abortions and the PRIVACY, particularly of minors, with regards to abortions. There is already a federal measure disallowing use of taxpayer funds for abortions. This is nothing new and the proposed state amendment is just meaningless redundancy and should not be added to the state constitution. The important part is about privacy. Under current Florida law, a minor who has been raped is required to tell her guardians that she is getting an abortion (though this is not strictly enforced). There is already oposition to this rule based on doctor/patient privacy laws. Under the proposed amendment, that child would need to obtain explicit AUTHORIZATION from her guardians to get that abortion. This takes more than just privacy rights away from rape victims. For our daughters’ sakes, vote NO on this…
While I do not support abortion, I can understand, with in extreme circumstances such as rape or medical reasons; the need to have an abortion. As a Christian, I know that God says in the bible “for I knew you while you were in your mother’s womb”. For you who are more on the liberal side, I believe it was the rapper Common who said “abortion is turning a mother’s womb into a baby’s tomb”. I read one of the previous post above where Jack says “….trying to take choices of women away”. While over looking the grammatical errors in his sentence, I would like inform him that most “bible thumping” Christians just don’t want to have to pay for it! Would you really want to pay for something you don’t support? Jack, I’m just assuming your not a Republican, wouldn’t it piss you off if you were forced to pay taxes in which a portion of it would go to support the Republican party? I have a feeling you’d be a little bitter. You wouldn’t want one penny of your tax dollars, again assuming you are gainfully employed, going to support the Republican party. So while we really can’t prevent women from having choices, Roe vs. Wade, I just dont want one red cent that I pay in taxes to be used to kill babies. However, as Chris pointed out, it has nothing to do with “choices of women”.
Women should have the right of choice. (That’s a period at end of sentence.) I’m voting no.
Why is it all Pro-Choice people say it is a woman’s right to do with her body what she wants, and then turn around and tell me it is not my right to have a say on how my tax dollars are spent. If a woman wants an abortion, well it is between her, her doctor and God. I do not ever see where I am asked if I want to pay for this, I am just told that my tax dollars are going to be used regardless of my beliefs or desires. Why is it your right and my obligation? NOW that is what is just wrong about Pro-Choicer’s.
Another thought on this subject. If the state is using tax dollars to pay for someone’s abortion, then that person, in my opinion, looses their right to privacy concerning the payment of their abortion. If they want me to pay for it, then I at least have the right to know who is using my tax dollars. Especially if they are aborting as a means of birth control. If the state has to pay, then the public has the right to know. It is just that simple, don’t make it complicated like the politians try to do. If a woman makes the choice to have an abortion, she also makes the coice on how it will be paid for and if she chooses the state, then sho chooses to allow her name to be put on the public rolls for this reason. That is PRO-CHOICE. Incest, rape or as a means to save the mother’s life is totally different and should not be confused or included in this discussion.
There is no reason that abortion, as a means birth control, should be used today. There are just way too many, and affordable, means of birth control. My late wife and I were totally broke, down to our last dollars, two different times in our lives and we always managed to take responsiblility and practice methods to minimize pregnancy. It can be done and does not cost that much, if someone wants to and is responsible.
If you want smaller government lets keep the government out of our wombs. I would rather legislate real state matters that my body and that include this ridiculous laws about requring sonograms for woment having abortions and keep church out of state business.
regarding the “landmark case in 1989 that prevented Gov. Jeb Bush from stopping a pregnant 13-year-old in state custody from choosing to have an abortion” – I don’t remember this but I’m assuming this happened in 1999, when Bush was actually governor.
Taking public funds from funding abortion does not limit or effect a womans right to choose. It keeps the government out of her decision. Vote NO.
There is no way on God’s green earth I will ever support killing an unborn innocent child, ever. Without question this is a NO vote.
Life is a gift. I disagree with abortion except under severe circumstances. Why would I choose to pay for something which I do not condone. Our concern should be about owning and being responsible for our actions.
Abortion is a difficult decision that should be between a woman and her God and her Doctor, not the woman and her Congressman. Nonetheless abortions should NOT be paid for by the government.
I think this is the first step towards Florida’s right wing pushing through laws forced ultrasounds, mandatory religious and moral counseling, waiting periods, and whatever else comes up that can make an extremely difficult decision even more so.
And it will be pushed through by people that are usually screaming that government has no business in the decisions between a doctor and patient.
Why should the state government force me to pay for abortions when doing so it violates my conscience and my religious freedom?
If a woman chooses to have an abortion, I should not be forced by the government to violate my conscience and pay for it with revenues from my taxes. This is coercion, pure and simple. The overarching power of government trumps any free choice on my part.
Government funding of abortion violates my right to refrain from cooperating with an act which violates my most cherished and fundamental beliefs. It is a government-coerced material cooperation with evil. I too have a right to choose!
Rather pay for the abortion than pay for raising the kid. Sorry.
I believe that women should be able to have access to public funding to have an abortion in the incident of rape, incest or a mother’s health issue’s. I do not, however, believe public funding should be offered to women who use abortion as a form of birth control. I am not saying that a woman’s right to have an abortion should be taken away, they should have to pay for it. In the case of a minor child under the age of 18, I believe they should be able to have public funding for one abortion as minor’s do not have the capacity to make the same decisions that an adult can make.
I am not a religious fanatic OR Catholic! Not Pro Choice or Pro Life, just a woman with an opinion.
I respect others opinions and hope you will respect mine.
i also dont agree with having to pay for an oops but then we pay for a hungry homeless mother and child that depends on welfare for the next 18 years that also a waste of my tax dollars for a lot longer and then we have to pay for that dcf worker to constantly check in on her if she cant find a descent foster home that my tax dollars pay for her stay in the county jail when she fall short on her care of that oops i give you one oops and after that she should have to pay for her other oops’ cause some times you can make a mistake but with abortion u get one in a life time.( I’ve never had one and i have all my kids and my oops is alive and well)but abortion is a woman’s choice and we pay for that choice everyday with welfare and dcf and foster care and group home and jails and every thing in the cities and counties we live in
If we do not collectively pay for a woman’s abortion our children will be supporting those unwanted children when they all go on welfare.
It also disqualifys health insurance plans that include abortions benefits. This would effect many people who would never have or think about having an abortion. What state money pays for abortions now anyway?
Wake up people, nobody’s right to an abortion is being abridged. The bottom line is WHO PAYS! No government, any government, ever, ever should pay for abortions. If we haven’t learned that lesson yet, we’re really in trouble.
Another thing to consider: Public funding of abortion is already banned in our state, and passing this would make it an amendment to our state constitution.