DeSantis-Crist debate

A bunch of justices said the Florida Constitution protects until viability. The Florida Constitution has no explicit protections on abortion.

Also, if the people of Florida should ALWAYS favor more rights and a broader window for abortion is always an expansion of those rights, what would be your problem with an abortion for convenience, say, 1 week before a due date? Hell, why not go all in on partial-birth? What exactly are the competing interests here?

So let me get this straight, despite already being an implicit right to privacy and an implicit right to an abortion, Florida felt the need to add an EXPLICIT right to privacy, but not an EXPLICIT right to an abortion.

That’s interesting to me. Why did they feel the need to EXPLICITLY promise privacy when it was already IMPLICITLY promised, but not EXPLICITLY promise abortion despite being IMPLICITLY promised?

It almost sounds like abortion activists are trying to win on abortion policy through euphemisms and deceit.

 

The Second Amendment has no explicit protections for ammunition.

Floridians voted for the right to privacy less than 10 years after SCOTUS decided Roe on the right to privacy. It only makes sense that the Florida Supreme Court would look to Roe to help define abortion rights. (Worth noting that the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the Florida Constitution provides broader protections than the federal Constitution.)

It's extremely simple. The right to privacy protected the right to abortion. You don't need a separate right to possess ammunition. In 1977, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that there was no right to privacy implicit in the Florida Constitution, unlike the U.S. Constitution. That is when the movement to enshrine an explicit right to privacy in the Florida Constitution occurred.

You believe in originalism, right? In 1980, what did "right to privacy" mean?

Better yet, what does this text mean to you "Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life"?

Do you not understand that the Florida Constitution and U.S. Constitution are separate documents?

 

Yes. You are being intentionally obtuse so you can pretend like I didn’t clearly state my point or insult my intelligence by implying that I don’t understand legal distinctions between the Federal and Florida Constitutions.

You understand the point I made, you just don’t like it.

And I understand the point you’re making. The problem is, we both disagree on whether Roe was correctly decided in the first place. We both disagree as to what “a right to privacy” means, and we both disagree whether it’s “clear” as to whether Florida voters were specifically talking about abortion when they voted in favor of a right to privacy.

It’s not clear, debates over what “a right to privacy” means happen to this day. If you wanted a “right to an abortion” protected by law, explicitly write into law, don’t weasel it in by a “right to privacy.”

And it’s again particularly interesting that Florida voters felt the need to enshrine a specific right to privacy in their state Constitution despite already being promised implicitly in the Federal Constitution, but they didn’t do the same for abortion.

Also, if you can’t see the difference between jumping from “guns to ammo” and jumping from “privacy to abortion,” I don’t know what to tell you. “Privacy” is much more broad than “arms.” You’re making quite a bigger leap in saying abortion falls under privacy than saying ammo falls under arms.

Lastly, even if I just gave you that privacy clearly means abortion (which I’m not) that doesn’t even answer why viability is where we draw the line. The answer is because a bunch of judges said so, and you want to play that off as democracy when it is in fact the exact opposite.

 

Your point is nonsensical. The Florida Constitution explicitly protects numerous rights that the U.S. Constitution also protects.

Your (and my) thoughts on Roe are irrelevant for the sake of this conversation. We are talking about Florida's right to privacy. I will quote Roe for you: "This right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

SCOTUS decided Roe in 1973. That means from 1973 until 2022, the "right of privacy" protected "a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." We enacted our explicit right to privacy in 1980.

In 1980, what did the "right to privacy" mean? You know the answer. You just don't like it. And no, your belief that Roe was wrongly decided DOES NOT MATTER to the meaning of "right to privacy" when the voters enacted this amendment in 1980. The question is what the phrase meant at the time, unless you want to abandon originalism.

But hey, just in case you're unsure, here's the Florida Supreme Court in 1977 discussing the federal right to privacy (Laird v. State):
"The Supreme Court held . . . that the right to privacy encompasses a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy[.]"

In a separate case in 1977 (Wright v. State), the Florida Supreme Court noted that Roe recognized a "right to privacy in the abortion decision." But hey, it seems totally plausible that nobody actually knew that the "right to privacy" protected abortion rights back then.

But even if you want to pretend that isn't dispositive, the actual text of the amendment is: "Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life[.]" Is the government banning abortion an intrusion into a person's private life? Yes, it absolutely is.

Does the Second Amendment protect ammunition? The answer is yes. Why? Because it is implicit in its protection of the right to bear arms. The right to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy was implicit in the right to privacy in 1980. How do we know? BECAUSE ROE SAID SO IN 1973!

It's particularly interesting that Florida voters approved the right to privacy in the state constitution knowing that it protected abortion rights and then REJECTED an amendment years later that would have excepted abortion rights. Yet again, we see a "conservative" abandon "originalism" as soon as it becomes inconvenient.

SCOTUS explicitly said that abortion falls under privacy seven years before Floridians enacted our right to privacy! I don't know how to make that any clearer.

Again, this goes back to original meaning. When Floridians voted to enact our right to privacy, the right to privacy protected a woman's right to abortion until viability. I'm not "play[ing] it off as democracy." That's what Florida voters approved. I'm simply using the mode of interpretation that you "conservatives" love---originalism.

 

I agree with this. I also think we need to accept that this also goes the other way, and many on the right don’t understand those on the left. And this issue seems to go back a long way:

“Differences in political opinions are as unavoidable as to some extent they may perhaps be necessary, but it is to the regretted exceedingly that subjects cannot be expressed with temper on the one hand or decisions submitted to, without having the motives that led to them improperly implicated in the other. And this regret borders on chagrin when we find that men of abilities, zealous patriots, having the same general objects in view and the same upright intentions to prosecute them will not exercise more charity in deciding on the opinions and actions of one another.”

-George Washington

 

I believe the way it works is that if SCOTUS overturns Roe, case law relying on the part of Roe or Planned Parenthood v. Casey that is overturned becomes bad law.

Roe was incorrectly decided. Roe is now bad law. You want to shoehorn in a right to an abortion under a right to privacy, you want to keep it out of the hands of voters and legislators, I want to put it back in their hands.

Then, you have the nerve of saying you are pro-democracy and I am anti-democracy.

 

That isn't the way it works. Florida law is unaffected by Dobbs.

LOL. Florida voters enacted the right to privacy knowing it protected abortion rights. Florida voters then rejected a new constitutional amendment that would remove abortion rights from the right to privacy. The people of Florida voted to take the issue out of the hands of the legislators here. Go spew your lies elsewhere.

(And as I pointed out, as soon as originalism becomes inconvenient to "conservatives'" politics, they abandon it.)

 

Case law that relies on the part of Roe that was overturned by Dobbs is now bad law.

Rejecting an Amendment that BANS abortion is not taking it out of the hands of the Florida Legislature.

If you want a right to an abortion so badly, you shouldn’t have pinned your protections to it based on the language of a questionable and controversial decision like Roe, which even justices like RBG warned against.

 

That's not correct. The Florida Supreme Court adopted Roe to Florida law under our explicit right to privacy. Dobbs does not affect that.

And why did the Florida Supreme Court do that? Because the meaning of the right to privacy in 1980, when Floridians voted, included protections for the right to an abortion based on the framework laid out in Roe. The Florida Supreme Court in 1977 even defined "right to privacy" in the abortion context via Roe and its framework. But hey, when originalism becomes inconvenient, just abandon it, right?

 

Why should it matter whether the right is explicit or implicit? An implicit right to privacy did not stop the SCOTUS from overturning Roe, but an explicit right to privacy is supposed to stop the Florida Supreme Court from recognizing abortion as a right under privacy?

You keep acting as though Roe established a right to privacy, it didn’t. Griswold v. Connecticut established a right to privacy. Roe, which is now bad law, said that includes abortions.

So in a nutshell, Roe doesn’t affect Florida law, but the Florida Supreme Court used Roe, which is now bad law, to define right to privacy. Sounds like it pretty dramatically affects Florida law.

 

It's called federalism. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that our right to privacy provides greater protections than the U.S. Constitution's right to privacy. Thus, SCOTUS's decisions regarding the U.S. Constitution do not displace Florida case law on our right. The rights are different.

No, I keep acting as though Roe established that the right to privacy protects the right to an abortion and Florida voters were aware of that when they voted to enact a right to privacy seven years after Roe. I'm not sure how many times I have to explain this. It goes to ORIGINAL MEANING. What happened 40+ years afterwards is irrelevant.

Do you oppose originalism?

 

The point is a right to privacy means a number of things that do not include abortion.

The meaning of a right to privacy has been disputed for the last half century.

The Florida Supreme Court pinned their definition of a right to privacy as it pertains to abortion to something that is now bad case law.

Now you expect Roe to bind that meaning despite it not binding the SCOTUS, and despite an implicit right to privacy continuing to exist under the Federal Constitution.

 

There's truth to that. Many on both sides tend to view the other side as more monolithic and more ideologically extreme than they probably are. With respect to Trump specifically, I do know some Republicans who don't like him and voted for him holding their noses. But that doesn't take away from the fact that Trump won the GOP primary and is still proudly revered by probably up to half of Republicans. I'm convinced that his personality and behavior is more of a feature than a bug; that they don't support him in spite of those things but because of them.

 

This is my last post because you aren't even trying to address the points I'm making, likely because you know they're fatal to the argument you're trying to make. I'll ask a few questions. Yes or no answers only.
1. In 1980, did the "right to privacy" protect a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy?
2. Did Florida voters enact our own constitutional right to privacy in 1980?
3. Under originalism, we should look at the meaning of "right to privacy" as it was understood in 1980, right?

 

If Roe was always a shaky decision and the meaning of "right to privacy" was controversial even in 1980, then you don't need Roe, a bad decision even for its time, to bind every law that mentions "privacy" between Roe and the Dobbs decision.

But to answer your questions:
1. Yes, due to Roe, a bad and controversial decision, even for its time, which is now bad law.
2. Yes.
3. Yes, but that doesn't mean you have to pin it to the Roe decision as the Roe decision was overturned.

 

1. I'll note you refused to answer the questions. I can only assume it's because you know the answers foreclose the argument you want to make.
2. The voters in Florida had a remedy if the right to privacy, as it existed in 1980, was too controversial. They could have voted it down. Instead, it got the supermajority support it needed to become a part of our constitution.

Enjoy your Friday.

 

1. I edited the post. Not on you, on me.

2. The remedy was banning it under the Florida Constitution, which doesn't preclude the issue from the Legislature if that remedy fails, especially if the line of reasoning that defined the right to privacy as encompassing of abortion is shot down by the SCOTUS, while SCOTUS still maintains a right to privacy exists under the Federal Constitution.

 

I don't see how Florida is bound by Dobbs in any way. Florida courts have ruled that the right to privacy includes abortion (and the right not to wear a mask during a 100 year pandemic). Unless the Florida Supreme Court wants to completely eschew any deference to originalist principles with respect to the Florida Constitution, it is going to have to conduct a strict scrutiny/compelling interest analysis. The easiest way for it to do this would be to rule that the state can meet that very high standard in order to protect the interests of the fetuses.

 

Gotcha on #1. On #2, the voters of Florida had the opportunity to amend the Florida Constitution if they disagreed with the broader protections Florida's right to privacy conferred to abortion rights. Instead, 55% of Floridians voted no.
Florida Amendment 6, State Constitution Interpretation and Prohibit Public Funds for Abortions Amendment (2012).

Basically, Floridians voted to take it away from the Florida Legislature in 1980, and then in 2012, they rejected an attempt to walk that back to some degree. I don't think the voters could be any more clear.

Now, of course, Republicans could seek a constitutional amendment that excepts abortion from the right to privacy. But they know the voters would reject it. Instead, they want their "judges" to rewrite the Florida Constitution for them.