By Peter Pinedo
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jul 18, 2024 / 15:26 pm
The Florida government is warning that a proposed pro-abortion amendment to the state constitution could have a depressive effect on the state’s economy.
The Florida abortion amendment proposal is titled the “Limiting Government Interference with Abortion Amendment” or simply “Amendment 4.” If passed, it would mandate 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 health care provider.”
This week the state Financial Impact Estimating Conference approved a “financial impact” statement that will be placed on the ballot alongside the abortion amendment. The statement provides an official analysis of the economic impact the amendment would have on Floridians if passed.
The impact statement says that the abortion amendment would “result in significantly more abortions and fewer live births per year in Florida,” something it says “may negatively affect the growth of state and local revenues over time.”
Additionally, the statement posits that there is “uncertainty about whether the amendment will require the state to subsidize abortions with public funds” and that “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.”
The statement concludes that “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.”
Jeremy Redfern, a representative for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office, told CNA that the amendment would not just impact unborn humans in Florida but also the state’s budget.
“Voters deserve to know that Amendment 4 will likely lead to additional litigation that could result in, among other costs, taxpayer-funded abortions up until the moment before birth,” he said, adding that the impact statement is “a clear, fiscally sound analysis that will help voters understand the financial impacts of Amendment 4.”
Floridians Protecting Freedom, the group behind the abortion amendment, responded to news of the impact statement with outrage, calling it “deceptive and politically motivated.”
More in US
Lauren Brenzel, one of the leaders in the campaign to pass the amendment, said in a statement that the campaign “worked hard to ensure that the language of our initiative met constitutional standards.”
“The standards for the state’s financial analysis are no different — the financial impact statement to accompany Amendment 4 should be lawfully accurate, unambiguous, straightforward, clear, and transparent,” she argued.
Michael New, a political economy professor at The Catholic University of America who was involved with the drafting of the impact statement, pushed back against the abortion group’s claims. He told CNA that Florida is required to provide such an impact statement for all ballot proposals.
“Florida voters should be able to cast an informed ballot and not be blindsided by unexpected taxes, fees, and costs,” New said.
According to New, the governor’s office identified 20 statutes involving abortion that could be challenged in court and cause the state expensive litigation fees, should the amendment pass.
In addition to this, he said that “there is a very good chance this ballot question would require the state Medicaid program to cover abortions,” meaning that state tax dollars would need to be used for abortions.
Though New believes that Florida voters should oppose the amendment because he says it “will endanger preborn children” and “leave thousands of Florida women facing a lifetime of regret,” he said it is also important for voters to be aware of its impacts on the economy.
(Story continues below)
“The current language [of the impact statement] is not a ‘trick.’ It reflects quality research about the impact of this law,” he said.
“Amendment 4 would have a negative long-term impact on the Florida economy. It would result in fewer children being born and place additional strain on future taxpayers.”
