Since the Florida Supreme Court released dual decisions about abortion, there’s been some confusion. Five of the seven justices were appointed by DeSantis.
One decision upheld a fifteen-week ban on abortion, with the understanding that it would be superseded on May 1 by a six-week ban, already signed into law by Governor DeSantis. A six-week ban is the equivalent of a total ban, since few (if any) women realize they are pregnant at that point. The ban was approved by a vote of 6-1.
The second decision allowed a referendum this November that would guarantee the protection of abortion rights in the state constitution. This decision was approved by a vote of 4-3.
Are these two decisions in conflict? Well, yes. And there is a catch. The state constitution includes a guarantee that “all natural persons’ have a right to life and liberty.” Are fetuses “natural persons?” Some of Florida’s Supreme Court justices think so.
Our reader Democracy espies a scheme behind the scene:
In the oral arguments over the Florida abortion amendment to the state constitution, the chief justice of the Florida Supremes – Carlos G. Muñiz – asked specifically about fetal rights. As Bloomberg reported,
“Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Carlos G. Muñiz asked during Feb. 7 oral arguments on an amendment that would protect abortion in the state whether the Florida Constitution’s guarantee that all ‘natural persons’ be ‘equal before the law’ can apply to fetuses. Muñiz questioned whether justices must first decide this before determining whether the proposed amendment protecting abortion until fetal viability was misleading.”
Meredith L. Sasso, a DeSantis appointee, raised the issue of fetal rights in voting NOT to allow the amendment on the ballot. Renatha Francis, another DeSantis appointee, did the same.
Jamie R. Grosshans, ALSO appointed by DeSantis, wrote the opinion finding that in Florida privacy does NOT apply to abortion, also said this when voting AGAINST the abortion amendment’s placement on the ballot:
“The voter may think this amendment results in settling this issue once and for all. It does not.”
Is it too cynical to believe that the Florida Supreme Court would approve a referendum that they intend to invalidate?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I don’t think the two decisions are in conflict. One decision is saying that a statute enacted by the legislature is constitutional. The other is saying that a referendum to change the constitution is not defective. The standard of review for the constitutionality of a law is plenary—i.e., the court shows no deference to the legislature or the lower courts’ decisions. The standard of review for whether a referendum item is defective is very deferential to the legislature that drafted it.
I will say, though, that I don’t know how a court could find that an amendment to a constitution is unconstitutional. Perhaps I’m under the misapprehension that the ballot initiative would actually amend the constitution. But if it would amend the constitution, it seems to me that it would necessarily be constitutional.
Both Florida and Arizona legislatures ignored referenda opposing vouchers
This whole argument seems to hinge on the personhood of the fetus. It just seems crazy. My dog is more human than a human zygote.
Don’t let your dog near Kristi Noem.
due to my personal habits, I have avoided knowing who that is. Another person of 15 minute infamy?
Governor of South Dakota. She’s been in the news lately.
Kristi Noem hated her puppy. She couldn’t train him. He was supposed to be a hunting dog, but he was disobedient. She took him to a gravel pit and shot him in the head. She could have brought him to a humane society but she killed him. She included that in her bio to show how tough she was.
Well, she just destroyed any chance she has of holding an elected national office. Thanks be to all the gods for that.
Like many of these Trump hangers-on, she is a total moron, as evidenced by the stupidity of a) doing what she did and b) writing about it and c) thinking that people would actually approve of this. Clueless. Utterly freaking clueless. And sick.
Shortly after killing her 14 month old puppy, she also killed her goat:
https://www.rawstory.com/noam-goat/
Defining a fetus as a person is all part of the political ploy.
Defining a fetus as a person is like calling dirt a flower.
Correction: ”Defining a fetus as a person is all part of AN XTIAN THEOCRATIC political ploy.’
“A fertilized egg, also known as a zygote, remains a single cell for the first 12 hours after conception. After about 30 hours, the egg divides into two cells, and then four cells about 15 hours later. By the end of three days, the fertilized egg has become a berry-like structure with 16 cells…”
And that single cell after conception is now a person and the pregnant woman who has about 28 trillion cells is not considered a person anymore because of that one cell after conception.
Talk about off the charts crazy.
This is what the dangerously dumber-than-dumb fascist MAGARINO cult has done to the Republican Party as all the sane conservatives decide do leave and become an independent or Democrat after receiving death threats if they don’t kowtow to Traitor Trump. And the Traitor does what his cult wants so they do not abandon him. Without the MAGARINO cult, Traitor Trump might be in prison already.
Not at all. I read Jessica Valenti on Substack every day, and this has been discussed there. The nationwide goal of the anti-abortion crowd is fetal personhood, which would reduce the status of women to that of breeding stock, literally. The far-right evangelicals and the “Crusader Catholics” on the federal bench and on SCOTUS seem to support the idea of fetal personhood, which is why Thomas and others would like to get rid of contraception also. Religious freedom lawsuits have been filed by plaintiffs whose religions teach, for example, that a fetus is not a person, but part of the mother, until it is viable outside the womb…essentially until it’s born. Anyone who believes that the government has no business inserting itself in any way between a pregnant person and their doctors need to understand that only one party is behind all the draconian laws and vote accordingly.
These people are characters out of The Handmaid’s Tale. Sickening. Horrific. F these people.
Or, rather, don’t F these people. Ever. And curses on anyone who does.