Lucky is the loser who, when faced with defeat, can simply change the rules.
If Amendment 4 passes this November, the Florida Constitution will be amended to ensure that women and their health care providers, not lawmakers and their think tanks, will determine whether abortion is appropriate.
Polls show it’s headed for passage.
That’s not surprising. Banning abortion is not a winning political strategy. More than four of 10 Republican women nationwide favor a federal right to abortion, according to KFF polling. Combined, more than six in 10 Democratic and independent women said abortion is the single most important issue in their vote.
In Florida, a recent survey showed 69% of polled voters back Amendment 4.
Gaming the system
Winning over hearts and minds to defeat the amendment was always going to be a challenge, but why do the hard work when you can game the system?
At the ballot box, voters will see both the amendment and a brief explanation of its likely financial impact on state and local budgets. Assembled by a team of sober-minded experts in state government, it’s ordinarily routine.
The panel’s first bottom-line estimate could be summed up as “we’re not sure.”
But there’s a new estimate now, which will appear on your ballot barring lawsuits, that reads: “The proposed amendment would result in significantly more abortions and fewer live births per year in Florida. The increase in abortions could be even greater if the amendment invalidates laws requiring parental consent before minors undergo abortions and those ensuring only licensed physicians perform abortions. There is also uncertainty about whether the amendment will require the state to subsidize abortions with public funds. 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. An increase in abortions may negatively affect the growth of state and local revenues over time. 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.”
What changed is that Tallahassee put its thumb on the scale.
Governor plays politics
First, Gov. Ron DeSantis replaced one of the panel members with Chris Spencer, his former budget director who oversees the state pension fund. Spencer was involved in securing lawmakers’ and lobbyists endorsements for the governor’s presidential run as DeSantis was positioned to greenlight or kill their legislation.
Then, the governor’s office shelled out $300 an hour for the services of Michael New, an assistant professor at The Catholic University of America, who’s on record as opposing expanded birth control because it could lead to more sex.
The state House of Representatives put Rachel Greszler on the panel. Greszler, who hails from The Heritage Foundation, is a contributor to the think tank’s notorious Project 2025, which has plenty to say about who has the last word on women’s bodies (and it’s not women). Heritage separately provided its analysis.
So no one should be surprised that a required realistic assessment of budgetary impacts devolved into a series of imaginary futures. What if there were fewer students five years from now because there were fewer babies? Wouldn’t that hurt school budgets?
Hypothetical what-ifs
What if the state were sued to enforce the amendment and lost? Wouldn’t that cost a lot? What if fewer future babies meant fewer adults to buy fewer things? Wouldn’t that hurt sales tax collections?
Then there’s Medicaid. A financial review pointed out that the state’s Medicaid program currently has no legal obligation to pay for abortions. But what if someone sued and won and the state had to pay damages?
A voter presented with this litany of what-ifs might understandably be moved to vote no. Which is entirely the point.
It’s also why the fanciful budget scenarios did not seriously consider the flip side of their doomsday costs. Florida is most likely to lose a costly lawsuit if it tries to end-run a voter-approved constitutional amendment. And no child costs Florida more than one who is born to parents unwilling or unable to care for them.
Overlooked or undetermined were the costs of increased foster care for children parents did not want, or the price of doctors avoiding Florida, or the state-subsidized child care that mothers will need to return to work and support their babies, or the economic hit of young families refusing to live in a state that injected criminality into pregnancy.
A petition pending at the Florida Supreme Court asks justices to order yet another set of financial estimates, one not twisted by pretzel logic.
Even if justices see through the politics, the gamesmanship isn’t over. There are three more months before election day, plenty of time for people behind this win-at-any-cost strategy to keep Floridians from deciding what’s best for Floridians. Don’t be fooled, voters.
The Sun Sentinel Editorial Board consists of Opinion Editor Steve Bousquet, Deputy Opinion Editor Dan Sweeney, editorial writers Pat Beall and Martin Dyckman and Editor-in-Chief Julie Anderson. Editorials are the opinion of the Board and written by one of its members or a designee. To contact us, email at letters@sun-sentinel.com.
