Vote "NO!" on Amendment 4

 I have a problem.  I do not like to be sold.  Slick marketing, fancy words, emotional appeals, anecdotal evidence and fine print turn me off quicker than pineapple on pizza.  Over the last few weeks, I have been seeing multiple ads by seemingly qualified people in places of authority pushing for passage of a constitutional amendment in support of overturning what the ad refers to as Florida's Abortion Ban.

Now, regardless of whether Florida's law rises to the level of "ban" is debatable among sensible people, but that is just a tip of the hat to the willingness of the group behind the ad to twist words and selectively craft verbiage to purposely deceive.  It is actually what prompted me to do some digging and to research the amendment and to write this article for you today.

First of all, making amendments to our state constitution via the voting booth is a horrible form of legislature and should never be employed.  In cases like this, the law is narrowed down from large, legal, and distinct documents into a simplified paragraph or sometimes even a single sentence.  Then, voters who are in a long line rush through the voting booth, uninformed and rushing to pick one.  No one in their right mind should think this is good leadership.  We hire the best state officials to seek out the best course of law for our state and it seems more and more, they are punting it back to the people.

That being said, we will be called upon in a few weeks to vote on one such legislation. I went to my Lake County sample ballot and downloaded a copy of the paragraph that you will see when you step into your booth on November 5th.

Florida Amendment 4, Right to Abortion Initiative 

A "yes" vote supports adding the following language to the Florida Constitution’s Declaration of Rights: “… 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 healthcare provider.” Amendment 4 would maintain the current constitutional provision that permits a law requiring parents to be notified before a minor can receive an abortion.

A "no" vote opposes amending the Florida Constitution's Declaration of Rights to provide that the state cannot "... prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider."

I may not be the brightest lightbulb on the Christmas tree, but I am not so dim as to see the lack of clarity in the paragraph for a "yes" vote.  Now, usually this kind of ambiguity causes me to vote "no." But, it may need a little more for others and so I want to parse out the paragraph line by line so that we can be informed voters.

The first line that would be added to the Florida State Constitution would be that "no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability..."  

Hold your horses...  "No law"...  None, never... not any.  Short of disbanding our state and reconstituting, we can never, under any circumstances or new scientific discovery undo what this amendment would do.  Those first two words should strike fear in the heart of anyone.  

Furthermore the first line states that abortion would be unrestricted before "viability."  Let me ask you this, when does an infant become "viable."  What does "viable" even mean in this case.  According to dictionary.com "viable" means "capable of living, (of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus."  the intentional vagueness of this word leaves abortion open to any child born until they could live apart from medical care.  No slap on the butt, no intervention at all. 

Abortions up until and perhaps even after birth. Unacceptable.  

The second line of this run-on sentence says "or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.”  

What was that?!  What kind of "patient's health" are we trying to protect?  Other cases that are made along this line of argument used to say "when the life of the mother is at risk" or to "save the life of the mother."  This intentional word play is to cause you to think that it is a serious situation, while leaving the door open to any and every kind of health risk imaginable.  So, are we to allow for abortion when it may damage the mother's emotional health?  What about vaginal tearing that often accompanies natural childbirth.  Is that in context?  According to this bill, it all can be considered the "patient's health."  Again, this is intentionally vague and a shell game of words.  Unbelievable! 

As if that was not enough, the last line seals the deal;  "healthcare provider."  Now, you or I assume this means qualified obstetric physician with experience in labor and delivery.  I would prefer even the simple word "doctor."  The framers of this amendment were hoping we would make this assumption without much thought in the voting booth as we filled in the black dot next to the word "yes" on our ballot.  They were counting on it.  They did not expect us to question their use of vague words.  They wanted to leave this as open ended as possible.  Are we talking about MD's, or DO's, PA's or RN's...  Perhaps LPN, or doula's or candy stripers or local witchdoctors, I mean, all bets are off.  

Conclusions

• Constitutional amendment is a really bad way to make laws.  Especially irrevocable laws.
• We should be wise to the intentional use of bland, mediocre terms, as much as technical jargon.
• We cannot, and should not vote for any law that is as undefined, and unclear as amendment 4.
• Babies are not viable on their own, in my experience, until they are well into their twenties.  
• A patient's "health" is not a diagnosis or prognosis.  Laws need clarity.  
• The phrase, "healthcare provider" does not tell me anything about the qualifications or expertise of the one making the decision.
• Regardless of where you stand on abortion or abortion rights, amendment 4 is bad for Florida, it sets a bad precedent on how we turn ideas into law, and it sets in stone, that which should be able to grow alongside our understanding of when life begins.