Eesh. Well, if it's fodder for different discussion, there's two sorta-interesting amendments coming up on the florida voting ballot, amendments six and eight.
This proposed amendment provides that public funds may not be expended for any abortion or for health-benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. This prohibition does not apply to an expenditure required by federal law, a case in which a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, or a case of rape or incest. This proposed amendment provides that the State Constitution may not be interpreted to create broader rights to an abortion than those contained in the United States Constitution. With respect to abortion, this proposed amendment overrules court decisions which conclude that the right of privacy under Article I, Section 23 of the State Constitution is broader in scope than that of the United States Constitution.[3]
Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution providing that no individual or entity may be denied, on the basis of religious identity or belief, governmental benefits, funding, or other support, except as required by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and deleting the prohibition against using revenues from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.
The latter particularly seems kinda' nasty to me, though par for course for this kinda' shit. Big issue with it is the fact that it's an
and statement, and while the first part is possibly unobjectible (depending on what they mean by
entity; if it were just individual I'd probably withdraw potential objections), the latter is one hell of a rider, and a damned nasty one on that. It's somewhat damned telling that the amendment itself is titled "Religious freedom" when the latter aspect has basically jackall to do with that.
As for the former... I'm reminded of the hullabaloo a bit back with the non-church religious organizations making a fuss about not being able to buy health-insurance that covers abortion and then deny their employees that portion of the benefits. Seems a way to target insurance policies that provides such, somewhat indirectly harming (by disallowing them from offering the coverage in question to public employers) institutions that do so.
A more thorough going opinion on either would be interesting. Also suddenly curious how many other states have similar things on the ballot this cycle...
