Q&A – Could Florida Be Forced to Fund Abortions If Amendment 4 Passes?
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com
Social: @brianmuddradio
iHeartRadio: Use the Talkback feature – the microphone button on our station’s page in the iHeart app.
Today’s Entry: Brian- please explain the controversy about the abortion amendment language. Is it true that taxpayers may be forced to pay for abortions if it passes?
Bottom Line: Today’s question is in reference to the most recent controversy regarding Amendment 4, the abortion amendment, which would enable abortions up to the point of viability as determined by a health care provider. Under Florida law, financial impact statements must be provided for any proposed change in policy. This is true for all legislation under consideration by the state legislature and for any proposed constitutional amendments so that legislators and voters may make informed decisions.
On Monday the state’s Financial Impact Estimating Conference issued their financial impact statement that will appear with Amendment 4 on November’s ballot. It will state that there is “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”. Advocates of the proposed amendment are suggesting the state is providing misleading guidance to attempt to influence the outcome. So, what’s the real deal?
In breaking down the financial implications of Amendment 4, including whether taxpayers would potentially be forced to pay for abortions if this proposal were to pass, the conversation starts with what’s known as the Hyde Amendment. In 1977, the federal government passed a law banning the use of federal dollars paid through in the form of Medicaid for abortions except in the instances of rape, incest and if the woman’s life is at risk. However, the Hyde Amendment didn’t prevent states from funding abortions through Medicaid and that’s the crux of what’s in question here.
There are currently 17 states that do cover abortions through Medicaid. Of those 17 states, nine were forced to do so after having been sued by abortion activist organizations due to “rights” to an abortion being established under state law. This is what’s in play with the proposed constitutional amendment. The legal argument goes like this. If there’s an explicit constitutional right to an abortion and as such it’s treated as essential healthcare, how then could a state deny funding to through Medicaid for it? Again, that argument has been successful in forcing nine states to have taxpayer funded abortions through Medicaid and that takes us to the state conference’s statement. Let’s break it down:
Statement 1: Uncertainty about whether the amendment will require the state to subsidize abortions with public funds. This is a fact. As I just covered should this amendment pass, there will surely be lawsuits seeking to have taxpayer funded abortions through Medicaid and ultimately the courts would decide whether this would happen or not.
Statement 2: 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. This is also a fact. The lawsuits would be aimed at making the state pay for abortions, therefore, the state would incur the legal expenses of providing a defense throughout the duration of the legal process.
Statement 3: An increase in abortions may negatively affect the growth of state and local revenues over time. That statement is self-evident and obviously true.
Statement 4: 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. That’s obviously also self-evident and accurate.
So, the bottom line is this. As always there are two sides to stories and one side to facts. Here’s the fact of the matter. All four statements issued and that will be provided as guidance for voters on Amendment 4 are true and correct. The effort to discredit the state’s guidance, as required by law, is but the latest effort by those seeking to trick Floridians into voting for what would be the most radical abortion law in the country. A constitutional law that would allow an abortion clinic to determine whether a baby is viable or not and allow them to eliminate a baby at any stage of pregnancy, or even during birth. Given the reprehensible nature of any person and/or organization who would advocate for such, it’s no surprise that they’re willing to lie about the implications of their prized amendment and it’s to be expected that they would then seek to have Floridians pay for abortions through Medicaid as has been done in other states.