Worthy Christian News > US News > Florida Supreme Court Allows Financial Statement on Abortion Ballot Measure in Win for Pro-Lifers

Florida Supreme Court Allows Financial Statement on Abortion Ballot Measure in Win for Pro-Lifers

by Karen Faulkner, Worthy News Correspondent

(Worthy News) – In a victory for pro-life activists, Florida’s Supreme Court ruled last week that Amendment 4, a pro-choice measure to be voted on in the November ballot, can be accompanied by a financial statement warning that state taxpayers may have to pay for abortions if the amendment passes, the Washington Times reports.

Introduced by pro-choice activists and titled “Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion,” Amendment 4 would prohibit state restrictions on abortion prior to fetal viability – around 23-24 weeks gestation – or “when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider,” the Times reports.

Amendment 4 measure specifies: “This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.”
In a 6-1 ruling in favor of the financial impact statement advanced by No on 4 Florida pro-life activists, Florida’s highest court rejected a request by pro-choice activists to strike the revised financial impact statement appearing on the November ballot with Amendment 4, the Times reports.

“This statement advises voters that Amendment 4 could result in taxpayer-funded abortions, and would allow abortions to be performed on minors without a parent’s consent — information that Florida voters deserve to know and that the extremists who wrote Amendment 4 are attempting to hide,” No on 4 grassroots director Sara Johnson said in a statement.

Criticizing the ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, said in a separate statement: “We are disheartened by the Florida Supreme Court’s refusal to take action against the State’s politicization of these financial impact statements and flagrant bypassing of the judicial safeguards that are supposed to protect the integrity of our electoral process.”