Florida is threatening to prosecute TV stations over an abortion rights ad. The FCC chief calls it ‘

I'm not discarding it altogether; it just doesn't do what you say it does. The only mention of "other life-threatening conditions" in the text of the administrative law is a requirement that hospitals keep records of when that reason is used to end pregnancies ... and presumably one of the reasons for that is so potential prosecutors can have records to file criminal charges if they want to split hairs about what is "necessary".

I don't understand your last statement. If only 3 pregnancy-ending procedures are exempt from being reported as abortions, then what is the problem with pointing that only 3 procedures are exempt? If I'm wrong, then what other pregnancy terminating procedures are exempt from being reported, and why doesn't the rule say it?

 

I hopefully added context to that with my edit. What I am saying is just because only 3 are listed does not mean only 3 are excluded. I'm not aware of all the possible circumstances which could warrant an exception. But my final point was this has to do with reporting. Do we know that other allowable procedures that involved the termination of life would need to be unreportable (as abortion) to be allowable?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Abortion is Reproductive Rights.

Also, slavery is Human Resources.

 

This is interesting:
Why the DeSantis administration lawyer who threatened TV stations over abortion ad quit
When he abruptly resigned from his post last week, the top attorney for the Florida Department of Health suggested in a resignation letter that he was uncomfortable with decisions taken by the state agency, which days earlier had threatened to prosecute television stations over political advertisements.

“A man is nothing without his conscience,” John Wilson wrote in a resignation letter obtained by the Herald/Times. “It has become clear in recent days that I cannot join you on the road that lies before the agency.”

His resignation came seven days after he sent cease-and-desist letters to Florida television stations that threatened to criminally prosecute them if they did not take down political advertisements in support of Amendment 4, a ballot measure that if approved on Nov. 5 would broaden access to abortion.
--------------------------------------------
BTW, a federal judge just issued a TRO barring the state from taking action against the TV stations over the ad. Shocker, their threats violate the First Amendment. (We did, after all, just have a damn Supreme Court case where New York got smacked down for doing a similar thing to the NRA. But hey, when has DeSantis ever cared about the Constitution?)

 

A Captain Ron presidency would have been much more dangerous

 

To the point:

“To keep it simple for the State of Florida: it’s the First Amendment, stupid.”
​

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/17/media/florida-judge-tv-abortion-rights-ad-health/index.html

 

Perhaps, Rick, the judge's words to the State of Florida will provide some guidance for you on this constitutional issue.:

 

It was linked in the CNN article, but for those that didn't see or didn't click, here is the Order from yesterday.

DocumentCloud

 

In the least surprising news ever, the Florida Department of Health General Counsel quit because DeSantis's Office drafted the illegal letters and told him he had to send them:
DeSantis’ office drafted threats to Florida TV stations over abortion ads, lawyer says
Florida Department of Health General Counsel John Wilson said he was given pre-written letters from one of DeSantis’ lawyers on Oct. 3 and told to send them under his own name, he wrote in a sworn affidavit Monday.

Although he had never participated in any discussions about the letters, Wilson sent them anyway, he wrote, setting off a firestorm that led to a federal judge last week granting a temporary restraining order against the state.

Wilson abruptly quit on Oct. 10, writing in his resignation letter that “A man is nothing without his conscience.” The letter, first reported by the Herald/Times, did not explicitly say he was resigning over the controversy.

But in his affidavit, Wilson said the decision was made to avoid sending out more letters. “I resigned from my position as general counsel in lieu of complying with directives from [DeSantis General Counsel Ryan] Newman and [Deputy General Counsel Jed] Doty to send out further correspondence to media outlets,” he wrote.
------------------------------------------
DeSantis continues to be a freedom-hating piece of garbage.

 

L.A. Times has more info on "Caroline's" case. It was a case that fell in the gray area of the law. He treatment that required an abortion was considered "life extending" but would not save her life or prevent permanent harm as required by letter of the law.

In the ad — one of a series of commercials prepared by FPF — Caroline Williams, who is identified only as "Caroline," tells her personal story: After she was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in 2022 while 20 weeks pregnant, her doctors said she could obtain life-extending treatment that would give her more time with her husband and daughter, but only if she terminated her pregnancy. "The doctors knew if I did not end my pregnancy, I would lose my baby, I would lose my life, and my daughter would lose her mom," she says on camera.

The 2023 law, however, bans abortions after six weeks only when they're "necessary to save the pregnant woman's life or avert a serious risk of ... irreversible physical impairment" of the pregnant woman. "None of these exceptions would have applied in Caroline's case," the organization says. She received an abortion in Florida in April 2022.

Column: Inside the abortion case that prompted a federal judge to call Florida officials 'stupid'

 

I realize I'm quoting quoted content; no misrepresentation intended...

How is "life-extending treatment" not synonymous with "sav[ing] the pregnant woman's life?"

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

The line of reasoning that says it is only extending her life, is a line of reasoning that says nothing save a patient's life, because we are all going to die some day. Seems kind of pointless to try and distinguish between life-extending and life-saving.

 

This obviously isn’t a case where a doctor can say, “if you have an abortion, odds are favorable that we can save your life”. The law says nothing about delaying inevitable death, just saving her life or preventing permanent harm. That is certainly a reasonable interpretation and a reason why doctors are reluctant to take action in these gray area cases, as we’ve already seen.

 

Thank you; it's pretty clear that "saving someone's life" only refers to protecting them against a specific threat. You can rescue somebody from a fire ("save their life"), but if they get hit by a car the next day and die does that negate that you saved their life for a day? The other issue is that there's a "reasonable medical judgment" qualifier. What lawyer would want to tackle the prosecuting side here and what would the angle even be?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

How does the state define "saving her life?" How is that fundamentally different from "delaying inevitable death?" If you delayed inevitable death for 5 minutes, have you not saved 5 minutes of life?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

I don't know. If you were a doctor, would bet your freedom and career that "saving someone's life for 5 minutes" meets the standard necessary to perform an abortion?

 

If I were a doctor, I wouldn't say that "saving someone's life for 5 minutes" is worth having an abortion. I don't think this is the right question to ask, though. Why isn't anybody asking if the state has an interest in treating it this way? Isn't there a mechanism to request the Attorney General give legal interpretations of existing law? How many requests has she received on this issue? Have any hospital administrations that have access to this service complained that they haven't been able to get legal interpretations on this and that the requests have gone unanswered? This whole thing presents as chasing a boogey man. I would use the state's letter that the ad was false as proof that the state would not prosecute under that circumstance.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

LOL. The mere fact you are asking that question explains the doctor's dilemma. If the statute does not CLEARLY apply to a given situation that doctor performs an abortion at great personal and professional peril.

In your example, for instance, the state could argue that merely EXTENDING the life of someone who is going to die is not SAVING that life. Without clear guidance from the statute, the cautious doctor is either going to decline to perform the procedure or, alternatively, seek judicial guidance. Who is going to pay those legal fees and what happens to the poor patient during the appeals? The right doesn't care...the statutory scheme has had the desired effect and prevented the abortion.

Vote YES on amendment 4 and keep the State of Florida out of these hyper personal medical decisions.

Our Attorney General?1?!?!?!? Are you (redacted) kidding me? She spearheaded the attempt to keep Amendment 4 off the ballot. I know Ashley Moody fairly well and practiced before her dozens of times. She is a huge Gator fan and I spent significant time in her chambers talking about Gator related things. I voted for her the first time, likely the last time I will vote for a Republican for state-wide or national office. I no more trust her to her render an opinion on an abortion related matter than I trust the mods at Warchant to officiate this year's Florida/Florida State game.

 

he should have made them fire him and then sued them. I'm sure he isn't hurting for job options but wow..here sign this