This is about the right to hunt and fish "traditionally," which some are saying is about being able to use inhumane and banned methods for both.
I don't want women in men's sports and I think all public bathrooms should be single stalls with locks. Thanks for confirming what I thought that you believe you have the right to control the bodily autonomy of women.
Low Information Voter Alert: Well over half the abortions performed in the US are done with medication, not surgery. So typical of these people.
1 - Yes. The hardest question for me on my ballot. Ended up going this way because public schools are already political, so let's just admit it. 2 - No. Not worthy of constitutional change & property rights > hobbies like hunting and fishing. 3 - Yes. Though I'd prefer the age threshold be 18. 4 - Yes. Have an abortion (or 10), have a kid (or 10), or neither. Meh. I'm torn between two "takes" that both lead me to this vote: (1) I've no interest in what women do with their bodies, except that it'd be nice if the 60-ish year old women stopped blocking the whole damn aisle at Publix and (2) I have an active belief that a fetus is just "clump of cells" to the point that I roll my eyes at women trying to attract empathy after a miscarriage. 5 - No. I'm a renter and oppose any action to further favor homeowners. 6 - No. Ain't broke, don't fix it. (edit: typos)
The ads against Amendment 4 are very misleading. For example one ad criticizes A4 because it doesn't define "viability". That's because the definition of "viability" is in State statutes. And parental notification is required for minors.
The right to hunt and fish is already in the FL constitution. The constitution gives the FWC the authority to regulate those activities. I dont understand the clear need for this amendment. There must be some unclear reason.
Generally, I agree. But the politics if extremism sometimes forces amendments to protect voters rights. It used to be if a party won an election 51% to 49%, they would try to govern moderately. Not anymore. DeSantis wins 50.3% to 49.7%, but he governs as if he won 100% of the vote. Crush the opposition when you get a chance. That's how we get extremist abortion bans, without protections for the health of the woman and victims of rape or incest.
And why we have a ballot initiative (with a requred 60% supermajority) where we can tell the gerrymandered legislature to go pound sand.
They’re trying to expand commercial gill netting. Plain and simple. As you point out, all the “protections” are already protected.
This proposed amendment just came up out of the blue. It would be interesting to learn what corporation/individuals are heavily invested in the gill netting industry and then track their political donations.
"No" on Amendment 4 saves parental rights on teenage abortion. 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. NO 4. NO 5, NO 6. Yes
If people say "yes" to Amendment 3 my cannabis stock wins, but I will still vote "No" on Amendment 3.
Don’t fool yourselves if the Democrats had wanted to make abortion the law of the land they would have done it when Obama was President and they had both the House and Senate. They know it’s a great tool to use to bring out the vote whenever necessary. Republicans do the same thing with the border.
LOL, your lack of awareness cracks me up. Abortion rights WERE the law of the land when Obama was president. Roe v. Wade, perhaps you've heard of it?
He's right. You're wrong. Constitution > statutory law. Reproductive rights were the law of the land. And codifying them in a statute, when they were already protected by the Constitution, would have done nothing. The same Supreme Court that changed constitutional law could and would have struck down a statute.
