Jump to Navigation
Topical Breezes
Following the Currents that Guide Florida's Future
Amendment 6: Should Florida's constitution be changed to address abortion?
Joe Saunders
Facilitator
Forty years after Roe v. Wade, abortion is as divisive a topic as ever. On Nov. 6, Floridians will be asked whether to approve an amendment to the state's constitution that makes clear no public funds will be used to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or to save a mother's life. The amendment also would limit laws governing "privacy." Specifically, according to the summary language, the 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." Here's why the author of the amendment and its supporters think it's necessary, and why its opponents say it should be defeated.
State Rep. Dennis Baxley
Republican, Ocala

In the 2011 legislative session, I sponsored House Joint Resolution 1179 which was passed by the Florida Legislature and now appears on the 2012 November ballot as Amendment 6. This legislation would prohibit the use of our scarce public tax dollars to fund abortions instead of helping members of our vulnerable population including children, seniors and physically and mentally challenged individuals.

Furthermore, public funding cannot be used to purchase health care coverage that includes abortion.

Our opponents are claiming that our public servants will be denied health care coverage, which is patently false. If a woman wants to have an abortion, a personal decision, she will have to pay for it. Public employees are entitled to health care coverage, just not coverage for elective abortion.

There are three circumstances, under this amendment, where public funds may pay for abortion: rape, incest, or a life-threatening condition that would cause a woman to die unless she has an abortion. This mirrors the Hyde Amendment language, which has been in federal law, in various forms, since 1976. If passed, any future changes in the federal law regarding a limit on the use of public funds for abortion would be reflected in state law, as is the current situation.

Lastly, the amendment would prevent future interpretation of Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution, referred to as the “right of privacy” clause, from being interpreted as giving more abortion rights than those in the United States Constitution.

Floridians can now make their voices heard on this foundational issue and make permanent their clear position on public funding of abortion.

Jessica Lowe-Minor
Executive Director, Florida League of Women Voters

When faced with a difficult personal decision, most Floridians prefer to consult with their closest advisors – family members, long-term friends, religious mentors and others. One person who most Floridians do not usually turn to in these situations is a state legislator for whom they may or may not have voted and have likely never met.

And yet, if Amendment 6 passes, politicians will have successfully inserted themselves into the most personal of decisions – whether and when to start a family – stripping Floridians of their constitutional right to privacy and potentially making it harder to access safe medical care.

While Amendment 6 appears to prohibit public money from being spent on abortion, that is a red herring to obscure its actual impact: narrowing the legal definition of “privacy” such that it does not include reproductive rights. This would make it possible for the state Legislature to pass more restrictive anti-abortion laws – laws that have been found unconstitutional in the past, but which could be approved under an amended state constitution.

No matter their personal views on abortion, all Floridians should view Amendment 6 skeptically. Federal law already prohibits the expenditure of taxpayer money for most abortions (the rare exceptions include rape, incest and threats to a woman’s life), so why is the Legislature confusing voters about the real effect of this amendment?

Make no mistake: Amendment 6 is seeking to erode our right to make private decisions privately. And, once the floodgates have been opened and our right to privacy is undermined, there’s no telling what aspect of our lives Florida’s politicians will go after next.

The League urges voters to learn more about all of the constitutional amendments on the ballot by visiting www.TheFloridaVoter.org.

Randy Armstrong
President, Citizens for Protecting Taxpayers and Parental Rights

Society has long honored the unique role that parents play in the lives of their children. Their first responsibility is to nurture and protect their child. Parents have a natural right that is recognized in law to direct their child’s education, their health decisions, and their general welfare. Those laws both protect parental rights but also hold parents accountable should that responsibility be neglected. It is a unique partnership that has, at its heart, the defense and protection of children.

Florida state law requires a parent’s consent if their minor child should need medication as simple as an aspirin at school, or some other medical treatment. Parental consent is also required for even mildly invasive physical procedures like tattoos or body piercing. Yet a full surgical procedure like an abortion, which can result in permanent health or psychological damage – or even death – to their minor child, is exempted from this requirement. Furthermore, any medical care that might be required as the result of complications from an abortion would be the financial responsibility of the parents.

Amendment 6 will open the way for parental consent rights to be restored, which will have the ultimate

effect of enabling a family to decide together such a personal decision as health care for their minor child without the interference of government. In 1989, the Florida Supreme Court, in In re TW, concluded that Article 1, Section 23, of the Florida Constitution gives more rights for an abortion than the United States Constitution and relied on that provision when it struck down the parental

consent statute. Therefore, passing Amendment 6 will allow a future Florida Legislature to enact legislation restoring parental consent."

(Please note, we are talking about a “minor child” under the age of 18 and not an adult woman as those opposed to Amendment 6 have incorrectly stated.)

Amendment 6 would also prohibit the use of state tax funds for abortion, except in the case of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother, contrary to statements by our opponents. Our opponents are peddling fear – claiming that a public employee whose life is at risk would have to pay for her abortion.

This is simply not true and the ballot language cannot be more clear about this issue. The amendment language is the same as the Hyde Amendment, which governs use of federal tax dollars for abortion.

Any number of national surveys confirms that a majority of Americans feel exactly the same way, that no matter whether a person is pro-life or pro-choice, it is wrong for government to pay for abortions. This is not a call to deny access to abortion for anyone, but simply to say that a private act shouldn’t be a public expense – that taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to foot the bill for abortion in Florida.

All Floridians who uphold the rights of parents to be involved in medical decisions affecting their minor children and who believe government should not spend public money on abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother as currently provided in federal law are urged to vote “yes” on Amendment 6.

Kellie Dupree
Vice President of Public Policy and Communications, Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida

Amendment 6 has real-life consequences.

Amendment 6 is a flawed and poorly written initiative that could allow politicians to interfere with a woman’s personal health care decisions. Voters should trust a woman, her doctor and her family to make the best medical decisions for a woman’s specific situation – not Tallahassee politicians.



Women should be trusted and respected to protect their own health, but Amendment 6 makes no exceptions for a woman's health. This flawed amendment could deny women access to insurance plans that cover care they count on.

Amendment 6 could take away access to health care that many women and their families who are public employees in Florida – like teachers, police officers, firefighters and nurses – currently have. In the real world, sometimes things go tragically wrong with a pregnancy. When these tragedies occur, a woman and her family deserve all the medically available options.

If passed, Amendment 6 could leave a woman and her family facing difficult decisions in the case of a severe fetal abnormality or a cancer diagnosis, with the added strain of figuring out how to afford the medical care she needs – even though she has insurance.

Here is just one real story that demonstrates the impact of Amendment 6. Three years ago,

Fran and her husband received the news no expectant mother wants to hear – that their genetic testing came back showing a severe fetal abnormality. Their genetic counselor told them there was no hope for the survival of the fetus and suggested they immediately end the pregnancy. Amendment 6 doesn’t take Fran’s situation into account at all. If passed, Amendment 6 would allow politicians to interfere in this personal medical decision best made by Fran, her doctor and her family.

There are women like Fran in every community and neighborhood throughout the state. We have to ask why our lawmakers are so focused on placing these kinds of amendments on the ballot at a time when working families are struggling just to make ends meet. What’s next? Will they interfere with whether birth control or heart medication can be covered by health benefits in Florida?

Simply put, Amendment 6 puts politics where it doesn’t belong – in personal medical decisions. Politicians in Tallahassee have no business meddling in decisions that should be made by a woman in consultation with her family, her physician, and her faith.

Remember to vote “no” on Amendment 6.

B.J. Star
President, West Pinellas National Organization for Women

The Florida Constitution is very generous concerning human rights. In Article 1, it states that “All natural persons, male and female alike, are equal before the law.” And in 1980, Florida voters added Section 23, which says “Right to Privacy – Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life.” Florida is one of only 10 states that grants this very unique ‘explicit right to privacy.’

Unfortunately, it is this very exceptional latter section that the Florida Legislature wants to amend. It wants to add a new amendment 28 to our Constitution that would limit this right to privacy as it pertains to women and their right to make their own medical decisions.

Ballot Initiative 6 is titled “Prohibition on Public Funding of Abortions; Construction of Abortion Rights.” The first phrase is disingenuous in that it is merely a recital of the Hyde Amendment – a federal statute banning the use of public funds for abortions which has been the law for 36 years – redundant language that doesn’t need repeating in our Florida Constitution.

The effect would be to change the insurance coverage that all female public employees currently have. Women deserve health insurance plans that cover the entire spectrum of their health care needs, not just partial coverage chosen by politicians or special interests.

The second section titled “Construction of Abortion Rights” is even more dishonest in its titling. It is not “constructing” anything – it is “destructing” in that it would carve a hole in the privacy rights of every woman in Florida.

Florida citizens for more than three decades have enjoyed broader rights to privacy than those expressed in the United States Constitution. Republicans want to add this exclusionary language to erase this fundamental right for 51 percent of our Florida residents.

The very party that preaches “small government” still wants to stay big enough to dictate how women use their body parts. They preach “freedom” but don’t want to extend it to women. They complain about “activist judges” but then draft legislation that would eviscerate the very spirit of our fundamental constitutional guarantees.

Women deserve and should demand that they continue to enjoy their rights as currently assured under our state constitution. Women merit far better than to have their privacy re-defined by church leaders under the guise of “religious freedom.” And likewise, our mothers, daughters and sisters, are entitled to more respect than to have politicians intrude while they make the most private of decisions, more properly made between a woman, her doctor and her family.

We urge a “no” vote on Amendment 6.

Archbishop Thomas Wenski
Archbishop of Miami

Our nation continues to be divided over abortion. The Catholic Church’s position in opposition to the liberal abortion regime initiated in our country since Roe v. Wade has been clear and unwavering. Despite the public dissent of some “cultural” Catholics, no Catholic can assert that support for legalized abortion is coherent with church teachings.

Nevertheless, both those who identify themselves either as pro-life or pro-choice should be able to agree that parents' first responsibility is to nurture and protect their child. As a society, we have long honored the unique role that parents play in the lives of their children.

Parents have a natural right that is recognized in law to direct their child’s education, their health decisions, and their general welfare. So much so that those laws both protect parental rights but also hold parents accountable should that responsibility be neglected. It is a unique partnership that has, at its heart, the defense and protection of children.

Florida state law honors the rights of parents by requiring a parent’s consent if their minor child should need medication as simple as an aspirin at school, or some other medical treatment. Parental consent is also required for even mildly invasive physical procedures like tattoos or body piercing. Yet a full surgical procedure like an abortion, which can result in permanent health or psychological damage – or

even death – to their minor child, is exempted from this requirement. Furthermore, any medical care that might be required as the result of complications from an abortion would be the financial responsibility of the parents.

Amendment 6 will allow the Legislature to restore rights to parents which will have the ultimate effect of enabling a family to decide together such a personal decision as health care for their minor child without the interference of government.

It is unfair to parents to both hold them responsible by law for their child’s health, while on the other hand removing their ability to consent to treatment that puts the life and health of their child at risk.

Amendment 6 would also prohibit the use of state tax funds for abortion. Any number of national surveys confirms that a majority of Americans feel exactly the same way – including a significant number of those who, while identifying themselves as “pro-choice,” agree that taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to pay for someone else’s abortion.

Amendment 6, which bolsters the rights of parents to be involved in medical decisions affecting their minor children, should be supported by all Floridians whether or not they describe themselves as “pro-life” or “pro-choice”.

Susan Smith
President, Democratic Progressive Caucus of Florida

Amendment 6 is an attempt to deceive voters and to play politics with women’s health. The Democratic Progressive Caucus of Florida urges a “no” vote on this amendment.

Amendment 6 did not originate with the citizens of Florida, but with the Florida Legislature.

The ballot language of Amendment 6 is misleading. Under the guise of limiting public funding for abortions – which is already prohibited – Tallahassee politicians are attempting to undermine privacy protections  guaranteed by the Florida Constitution.

Amendment 6 would allow politicians to interfere in women’s personal medical decisions, which are best made by women in consultation with their doctors and trusted advisers of their choosing. As Floridians, we do not need politicians barging into our doctors’ offices and demanding a voice in our health care decisions.

Florida has a history and tradition of respecting its citizens’ right to privacy. Amendment 6 would allow government to interfere in the private health care decisions of women. The ballot language reads: “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.”

Because of our employer-based health care system, the people who would be most affected if this amendment passes are women, specifically women who work in public service: teachers, firefighters, law enforcement officers and nurses in public hospitals.

Women should not be singled out for discrimination in the Florida Constitution. Limiting the right to privacy based on gender is inherently unfair. It’s alarming that the Legislature, made up overwhelmingly of men, would attempt to use our Constitution to insert themselves between women and their health care providers.

Republican politicians have denied waging a “war on women,” but Florida legislators have, time and again, shown that they are more interested in limiting women's rights and personal health care decisions than in strengthening our economy and creating jobs.

The women of Florida deserve the privacy protections guaranteed to all citizens in our state constitution. All women should have the right to make their own health care decisions without interference. Therefore, the Democratic Progressive Caucus of Florida recommends a “no” vote on Amendment 6.

Comment on this Roundtable Using Facebook

FloridaVoices User Comments

Tom Butler - Sat, 2012-09-29 08:26.

No doubt, every individual has a right to voice his or her opinion. However, when a priest appears in his collar with his official title, he can be viewed as presenting an opinion of his religious organization. Under these conditions, when a religious organization promotes legislation or an individual candidate, it is supposed to loose its tax-exempt status. Of course, no politician has the courage to enforce the law.

Tom Butler - Sat, 2012-09-29 08:26.

No doubt, every individual has a right to voice his or her opinion. However, when a priest appears in his collar with his official title, he can be viewed as presenting an opinion of his religious organization. Under these conditions, when a religious organization promotes legislation or an individual candidate, it is supposed to loose its tax-exempt status. Of course, no politician has the courage to enforce the law.

Pages

You Might Also Enjoy: