Revised abortion amendment financial forecast remains unfinished

Amy Baker, coordinator of the Office of Economic and Demographic Research, and Chris Spencer, executive director of the State Board of Administration, talk about the financial impact of Amendment 4 during a July 8, 2024, meeting in Tallahassee. (Screenshot via The Florida Channel)

Quality Journalism for Critical Times

The panel charged with analyzing the financial impact of Florida’s proposed state constitutional abortion amendment struggled Monday to agree on what any litigation arising from it might cost, amid other disputes, and opted to schedule another meeting to continue the debate.

The panel, in a session that spanned seven hours, went back and forth about whether members should be analyzing long-term or short-term costs of the amendment before deciding to take time to collect their thoughts, leaving the analysis unfinished.

If it receives 60% support on the November ballot, Amendment 4 would allow abortions up to the point of fetal viability, about 24 weeks, a drastic change from the existing six-week ban.

A state trial judge overturned an earlier economic-impact forecast at the urging of Floridians Protecting Freedom, the amendment sponsor, on the theory that enforcement beginning on May 1 of the six-week ban had rendered that assessment inaccurate.

Litigation and long-term economic calculations

Two topics remained unsolved at the end of Monday’s meeting: the costs of any litigation over the proposed amendment and the effects an increase in the number of abortions might have on the state budget.

Members of the group, one each appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, House Speaker Paul Renner, and Senate President Kathleen Passidomo, all Republicans, and state economist Amy Baker, will meet a third time next week to determine what voters will read on the ballot explaining the financial impact of Amendment 4.

On Monday , the discussion focused on Medicaid coverage and whether the state would be responsible for paying for what would be legal abortions, depending on how a court would rule in any legal challenge.

According to a letter read to the panel by Chris Spencer, DeSantis’ appointee, state Attorney General Ashley Moody’s office believes there is uncertainty about whether the state would subsidize abortions. Moody wants the analysis to account for this factor.

The committee struggled to come to a consensus about how to project population growth and potential state revenue from people who might be born if not aborted under the amendment.

Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper said in his ruling that the analysis should “be on what the law is now, not what used to be or what it might be at some future time.” Yet Spencer argued that since litigation seems likely, it should be accounted for in the analysis.

He also wanted to consider the effect fewer births would have for Florida’s sales tax.

“I believe that there is a strong positive relationship between economic output and economic performance and revenues that are generated by the state, particularly because we’re a sales-tax state,” Spencer said.

Such economic effects are no longer included in most financial analyses, a change that Baker, coordinator of the Office of Economic and Demographic Research, said she believes means they should remain out of the analysis and that the panel should focus instead on the state budget and revenue.

The group disagreed whether they should look to the short term or long term. Baker suggested the group could agree to disagree.

Rachel Greszler, a panel member who previously worked for a conservative activist group researching labor and retirement policies, proposed language assuming the proposed amendment would hurt the state’s budget over time due to increased per capita spending and possible harm to the state’s credit rating.

Greszler said it would be “intellectually dishonest” to release a financial analysis that does not include long term analysis.

“I think our charge is limited to the budget and to revenues and, if we can’t draw a conclusive long-term effect, I don’t know how to bring it in,” Baker responded.

Azhar Khan, staff director of the Senate Committee on Finance and Tax, said he was not comfortable relying on the assumptions that go into a long-term analysis, including why mothers have abortions. He noted that patients who undergo abortions might yet bear children later.

Public-school budgets

One thing the panel did agree on was how to express the effects on public school districts.

With state funding attached on a per-student basis, the group concluded that if increased abortions result in slowed population growth, the amendment could result in schools struggling with budgets.

The group agreed to add language suggesting the amendment could “exacerbate financial constraints” for school districts already struggling with declining enrollment.

“How many students are you able to, within the [state school funding] system, not have in your school district before you start to put pressure on your capital costs?” Khan said.

The post Revised abortion amendment financial forecast remains unfinished appeared first on Florida Phoenix .