3 strikes in Florida’s efforts to block abortion
A woman torn about an unplanned pregnancy confides in her minister. If Florida lawmakers had their way — a way that clearly intrudes on freedom of religion, speech and privacy — the minister would first have to register as an abortion counselor, pay a fee and follow a prescribed script from the state.
The intrusive over-reach by lawmakers was shut down late last Friday by a preliminary injunction issued by a federal judge in New York.
The order follows two other significant court actions that at least put a hold on draconian legislation aimed at making it harder for women to access legal, safe abortions.
Only on the issue of abortion are many conservative lawmakers so keen on overregulation, invasion of privacy and unequal treatment of medical facilities.
The Florida Supreme Court earlier barred enforcement of a statute mandating a 24-hour waiting period before a woman may obtain an abortion until a full trial can be held.
And Planned Parenthood successfully challenged part of a law that barred abortion providers from receiving Medicaid funds for non-abortion related services including contraception, cancer screenings, and sexually transmitted disease testing.
Taken together, the three legal decisions at least temporarily derail the worst of the threats facing Florida women and families who may need abortion services and counseling.
Across the nation, similar anti-choice initiatives are winding their way through courts and statehouses. Fortunately, courts are generally protecting a woman’s right to choose an abortion with adequate privacy and access to appropriate treatment and counsel.
In the latest order, Tallahassee federal Judge Robert L. Hinkle blocked the legislation that would make it a crime to advise or assist a woman seeking an abortion without registering with the state.
“This law is an example of how far Florida politicians are willing to go to compromise a woman’s right to access abortion,” said Talcott Camp, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “A woman’s trusted advisers, whom she turns to for personal and private conversations when considering abortion, should be free to provide compassionate support without the threat of criminal charges. We are very pleased that the court has blocked these dangerous requirements from causing further harm.”
The law also imposes special requirements on anyone counseling a minor about abortion by mandating that the adviser notify the minor’s parents. Any violations would subject the adviser to possible criminal sanctions, up to a year in jail.
As the judge wrote, the law violates the First Amendment because it places no burdens on a “minister or other person” for giving advice or help to someone seeking “vaccinations or cancer treatment or an infinite variety of other services,” but does so if the person’s “advice or help” is for someone trying to obtain abortion care.
Over-regulation thy name is anti-abortion forces. The 24-hour waiting period — ostensibly to allow a woman to reconsider before ending a pregnancy — is thinly disguised discrimination adding to the financial burden of women seeking abortions by making them take more time off work between initial counseling and abortion services. The lawmakers apparently feel such reconsideration time isn’t necessary for any other surgical procedure, from heart transplants to plastic surgery.
Women seek abortions for myriad reasons rarely acknowledged by antiabortion fanatics: some have medical concerns for themselves or the child, some cannot afford more children, some are in abusive relationships. Some, too, may not want to carry a child to term because they are unmarried, unsettled or emotionally unprepared to be a parent. Teens too young to become responsible parents may need abortion services. The anti-abortion activists prefer to pretend that abortion seekers are just misled and can be convinced to carry a baby to term for themselves or adoption. They don’t like to consider the all-too-real medical and family problems many face.
Fortunately, still today each individual considering abortion deserves privacy and the right to seek counsel when and how she wishes. Inserting government mandates into religious relationships and speech is clearly a step too far.
The latest legal case resulted from a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the law firm of Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, on behalf of three ministers, three rabbis, the Women’s Emergency Network, Emergency Medical Assistance, Inc., Palm Beach County Chapter of the National Organization for Women, and The Miami Workers Center.
On Florida laws, the courts so far are protecting the most personal of these decisions, allowing women to choose how to live their lives and plan their families. Future full hearings will ultimately determine if women and families retain the right to privacy, free speech and religious freedom.
It’s hard to imagine ministers or rabbis or other counselors facing a year in prison for failing to pay fees and recite government doctrine to members of their church, synagogue or other nonprofit.
We hope these preliminary injunctions hold. It’s encouraging that federal judges have said the plaintiffs face likely success on the merits. For now, the multi-year tilt to the right of the Florida Legislature has been righted back to preserving individual privacy.
On Florida laws, the courts so far are protecting the most personal of these decisions, allowing women to choose how to live their lives and plan their families.