Florida panel revises ‘financial statement’ for abortion amendment, drawing accusations of bias

A state panel late Monday finalized revisions to a “ financial impact statement ” for a proposed constitutional amendment on abortion rights, which will appear on the November ballot. Supporters of the amendment accused the panel of employing a “dirty trick to mislead voters.”

>>> STREAM ACTION NEWS JAX LIVE <<<

Financial impact statements estimate the effects of proposed constitutional amendments on government revenues and the state budget. Typically overlooked, the abortion measure incited heated debate and divided the panel.

Representatives from Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office and the Florida House pushed to include information about potential Medicaid-funded abortions and a range of costly lawsuits, issues cited by amendment opponents. With the support of the panel’s representative from the Florida Senate, this information was incorporated into the statement.

The revised statement highlights “uncertainty about whether the amendment will require the state to subsidize abortions with public funds. Litigation to resolve those and other uncertainties will result in additional costs to the state government and state courts that will negatively impact the state budget. An increase in abortions may negatively affect the growth of state and local revenues over time. Because the fiscal impact of increased abortions on state and local revenues and costs cannot be estimated with precision, the total impact of the proposed amendment is indeterminate.”

READ: What to know about legal battles on details of abortion rights ballot measures across US

Chris Spencer, DeSantis’ representative on the panel, emphasized that “protracted” lawsuits about abortion issues would be inevitable if the amendment passes, including lawsuits about Medicaid funding and healthcare providers authorized to perform abortions.

Panel member Amy Baker, coordinator of the Legislature’s Office of Economic & Demographic Research, agreed that passage of the amendment would lead to lawsuits but objected to including potential litigation costs related to Medicaid-funded abortions.

“I would, personally, feel more comfortable if we just did it clean and crisp,” Baker said. “We’re not making a political statement here. We are not trying to frighten people. There will be litigation costs.”

Spencer countered, denying that including the information was political. “I don’t think it’s a political statement,” he said. “I don’t think it’s anything other than we know litigation is going to occur.”

The proposed amendment , known as Amendment 4 , states that no “law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” The initiative followed a bill approved by DeSantis and the GOP-controlled Legislature in spring 2023 to prevent abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.

The Financial Impact Estimating Conference released an initial statement for the abortion proposal in November 2023. However, on April 1, the Florida Supreme Court allowed a six-week abortion ban to take effect, prompting the need for a revised statement.

READ: Florida sees decrease in the number of abortions following six-week abortion ban, report says

Floridians Protecting Freedom , a committee leading efforts to pass the amendment, filed a lawsuit arguing that the November statement was outdated after the Supreme Court ruling. Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper agreed, but the state appealed to the 1st District Court of Appeal, where the case is pending.

In response, Senate President Kathleen Passidomo and House Speaker Paul Renner directed the Financial Impact Estimating Conference to revise the statement. The panel met three times, with Monday’s meeting extending into the night.

Floridians Protecting Freedom and its “Yes on 4″ campaign criticized the revised statement in a news release , describing it as “highly-politicized and unlawfully inaccurate to mislead voters on Amendment 4.”

“What should have been an easy administrative fix on outdated (financial impact statement) language has become a dirty trick to mislead voters,” said Lauren Brenzel, campaigns director for Yes on 4.

Conversely, Sara Johnson of the anti-amendment group Vote No on 4, supported the inclusion of potential lawsuit costs, stating, “It’s important for Florida voters to know that what you see is not what you will get. What we will get is costly litigation for years to come that will result in policies we have not yet seen and therefore cannot yet analyze.”

[SIGN UP: Action News Jax Daily Headlines Newsletter ]

Click here to download the free Action News Jax news and weather apps, click here to download the Action News Jax Now app for your smart TV and click here to stream Action News Jax live.