TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Florida’s 2000 ballot amendment protecting the treatment of pregnant pigs has more term definitions and legal protection than the state’s current pro-abortion ballot amendment.
More specifically, the abortion measure has no terminology definitions whatsoever, raising concerns over the state’s ability to issue basic health and safety standards during the practice.
…
Individuals pointed out the irony in that the pregnant pig amendment not only extensively defined the terms used in the amendment, but it also emphasized the need for health and safety standards when dealing with pregnant pigs.
The amendment from 2000 defined the terms “pig,” “person,” “enclosure,” “farm,” “turning around freely” and the “prebirthing period.”
Not only does the abortion amendment that voters will consider in November not include any definitions, it also uses vague terminology such as “healthcare provider” and “viability,” words that are easily used for justifying abortions later in the pregnancy or without the approval of a licensed medical doctor.
In addition to its vagueness, the bill would make it so the legislature and the court have very little ability to limit or regulate the practice.
The “Vote No On 4” campaign, working to combat the ballot amendment, reflected on the irony of the measure when compared to the animal rights amendment.
“Florida voters should be concerned that pregnant pigs will have clearer health protections in the constitution than women and children if Amendment 4 passes,” the campaign said.
“The only 39-word Amendment 4 lacks any definitions, and the vague terms remove essential safety standards like ultrasound viewing and necessary medical facility requirements, endangering both mothers and their unborn children,” it said.
“Floridians deserve the truth – that Amendment 4 would make abortion the ONLY procedure for minors not requiring parental consent, giving broad abortion approval rights to non-doctor clinical staff, and not only legalizing abortion during the first 6 months but the entire pregnancy,” it added.
…..
The initiative was originally challenged by Attorney General Ashley Moody on the basis of the proposed amendment’s vagueness. However, it was narrowly upheld by the Florida Supreme Court and was allowed to be put on the 2024 ballot.
Since then, polls have shown that the abortion amendment passes with the required 60% needed to be placed into the state’s constitution.
Opponents of the measure, including Gov. Ron DeSantis, have argued that the vagueness is intentional as the pro-abortion movement is attempting to mislead Florida voters.
“They way they wrote the summary, there are people that are pro-life that poll in favor of this because they think it’s a pro-life amendment,” DeSantis said.
Floridians Protecting Freedom originally petitioned for the measure to be put on the ballot and are also coordinating the “Yes on 4” campaign to turn out support for it. Florida’s Voice reached out to the organization regarding the issue of terminology vagueness in the amendment and did not receive a reply
https://flvoicenews.com/florida-provision-protecting-unborn-pigs-has-more-definitions/
