新闻中心

Phony originalism could cost Florida women their abortion rights.

A challenge to Florida’s stringent abortion regime is currently before the conservative Supreme Court of Florida. The challenge is based on Florida’s right to privacy. Voters enshrined that right in our constitution in 1980 and, starting with 1989’s case In re T.W., the court held that the provision protects the right to abortion. The 15-week ban should fail given those authorities, but the state of Florida has asked the court to recede from its precedents. Under public meaning originalism, which conservative judges use to interpret constitutions today, the meaning of a constitutional provision at the time it was adopted controls. So the case has come to revolve around the original public meaning of the privacy right now found in Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution—that is, what Florida voters in 1980 more likely than not would have understood the language of the proposal to mean.

The Supreme Court held oral argument in September 2023, with a majority expressing skepticism that the privacy right encompasses abortion; we should expect a final decision in the next few months. During the argument, multiple conservative justices suggested that the public in 1980 did not understand the amendment to protect abortion, because there is no record of such debate.

But there is historical evidence that public discussion about the amendment acknowledged its potential impact on reproductive rights. That the Florida Supreme Court might declare otherwise reveals a key flaw in originalism: Judges must rely on a historical record that is inevitably incomplete, with gaps in the evidence leading to inaccurate conclusions.

Section 23’s text sweeps broadly. It states, in full:

Advertisement

Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public’s right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.

Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement

The state and its fellow travelers argue that the public understood Section 23 to protect only Floridians’ right to control their personal information(informational privacy) rather than control over personal decision making (decisional privacy), including abortion. They are wrong. In separate law review articles, I and Stetson University law professor James Fox argue that Section 23 was originally understood to protect decisional privacy, including the decision to have an abortion.

The historical materials uncovered before the oral argument, mostly newspaper articles, showed that after they voted to send the proposal to voters, state legislators claimed the proposed right was limited to informational privacy. Additionally, abortion was mentioned only a few times during the public debate. But it was communicated to voters that the proposed right was extremely broad, would mirror or exceed the rights protected by the federal Constitution, and would protect informational anddecisional privacy. Add to that the general political, social, cultural, religious, and legal background. Most importantly, in 1973’s Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court rooted the right to an abortion in a broader constitutional right to privacy—something the public widely understood.

Advertisement

At the oral argument in the Florida Supreme Court, Justice John Couriel, a Gov. Ron DeSantis appointee, observed that in 1980, advocacy organizations did not debate each other on whether the proposed amendment would include abortion. “You don’t even see an op-ed saying, ‘Well, this is about Roe,’ ” Couriel said.

Advertisement

Further research shows that there were, indeed, op-eds stating more or less exactly that.

On Oct. 31, 1980—just before the Nov. 4 election—the Catholic Archdiocese of Miami’s weekly newspaper the Voice ran an editorial titled “Privacy Proposal a Pandora’s Box?” The editorial recommended the proposal be defeated. One of the things it said (emphasis mine):

Advertisement

Even the proponents of the amendment acknowledge that they don’t know how the courts would rule on drug abuse or pornography laws. We know that the right of privacy was used by the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade to legalize abortion.

Advertisement

We see something similar in a much different part of the state, rural Madison, located in central north Florida. On Oct. 24, the weekly Madison Enterprise-Recorder ran an op-ed by a young local lawyer discussing that election year’s proposed amendments. About the proposed privacy right, the lawyer wrote, in part (emphasis mine):

However, in 1965 Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the U.S. Supreme Court, fashioned a right to privacy from the penumbra of rights contained in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This creative construction has been used by the federal courts to accomplish results ranging from the legalization of abortionto the striking down of certain codes of conduct regulating hair style.

Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement

For unpersuasive reasons, the lawyer nonetheless concluded that the proposed Section 23 could not be used in the same way. He said he’d vote for it.

And there were more than op-eds. On Oct. 29, the Bradenton Herald on the west coast of Florida ran a report from the Associated Press that I discussed in my article. The report stated that Bob Kunst, a prominent Miami gay-rights activist who stumped for the amendment across the state, “contends it would void anti-abortion laws.” Further research shows that the same day, the Ocala Star-Banner in north Florida ran the AP report. There is no reason to think these are the only two instances; this report likely ran in other local papers around the state.

Advertisement

Kunst comes up again in more recent materials. Every 20 years, Florida has a Constitutional Revision Commission that vets possible amendments to put to our voters. In the 2018 cycle, one of the commissioners, John Stemberger, a co-author of the law review article arguing that Section 23 protects only informational privacy, introduced a proposal to exclude abortion from Section 23. At a public hearing, Kunst told the commission (emphasis mine):

Advertisement

The privacy rights issue was our fourth election. We went all over this state. We went before city councils and commissions. The Anita Bryant [and] Falwell gang said this was the gay rights constitutional amendment, said this was going to legalize abortion, marijuana, the whole nine yards. And by the way, we didn’t argue with them, we said, yes, because we had 600 murders in Miami, and our position was are we going to have the police do what they need to do or worry about who is having sex and who is getting high.

Advertisement Advertisement

Although this account comes to us decades later, I find it probative. Aside from agenda-driven pro-life activists, no one in 2018 seriously cared about the original public meaning of Section 23—public meaning originalism had not yet been employed by the Florida Supreme Court. So there was no reason for Kunst (a Trump supporter) to shade his recollection of the public debate on this point.

In news clippings from 1980 that Kunst submitted to the CRC, we find a letter his associate, Dr. Alan Rockway, wrote to the editor of the Weekly News, a newspaper for the South Florida gay community, on Oct. 22, 1980. Rockway wrote (emphasis mine):

We will win the Privacy Rights Act campaign, being conducted by Floridians for Privacy Rights[,] precisely by raising the issues of banning electronic snooping, being pro-choice, pro-decriminalization of pot, pro-gay rights and pro-straight rights, eliminating state statutes … which outlaw cohabitation and fornication between unmarried men and women.

Advertisement

Sounding a similar note, there is an article from the Sept. 23 edition of the Sun-Sentinel, also in south Florida, reporting (emphasis mine): “Kunst said the amendment will give backing to court challenges of issues such as prostitution, gun control, abortion rightsand others when government intrudes in personal lives.” Further research also found this in the Ledger, from west Florida’s Lakeland, on Nov. 3 (emphasis mine): “Kunst … says the amendment could be used to litigate everything [including] the state forbidding abortions.”

Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement

At times in the oral argument, the current justices of the Florida Supreme Court hinted at an understanding that voters would have reasonably tied Florida’s right to privacy with the federal right to privacy, which emerged in the context of reproductive rights. Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz, a DeSantis appointee, suggested at the oral argument that the connection between Roeand privacy “was part of, sort of the, our cultural kind of lexicon.” Later, though, Muñiz added: “In a legal sense, privacy may have included abortion, but it doesn’t seem like the people of Florida really had an actual debate over this when it was adopted.”

Advertisement

Republican Officials Openly Insult Women Nearly Killed by Abortion Bans

Read More

Another DeSantis appointee, Justice Jamie Grosshans, asked the plaintiffs’ lawyer:

How would you respond to the fact that there is really virtually no sort of attention given to this subject in 1980? Your brief doesn’t have very many supporting documents to show that that was the understanding of any voter in the state in 1980. Abortion has always been a divisive issue—it was divisive in 1980—why is there not more that emphasizes your view of what that term meant at the time?

This question points toward broader flaws with applying originalist methodology: No one has reviewed the full universe of publicly available materials; neither the plaintiffs, defendants, nor justices are historians. But the research undertaken by me and others—including one of the state’s allies—suggests that the original meaning of Section 23 was that it would protect decisional privacy, a part of which, unquestionably, is the right to an abortion.

Advertisement

Popular in News & Politics

  1. We’ve Been Entertaining an Illusion About the Supreme Court. It’s Finally Been Shattered.
  2. The Lawyer Defending Idaho’s Abortion Ban Irritated the One Justice He Needed on His Side
  3. Prosecutors Are Finally Revealing Their Strategy Against Trump
  4. Why David Pecker’s Testimony Was So Credible

Clearly there are more materials from 1980 out there undiscovered, and not just online. What else could be in the physical archives of libraries, newspapers, and even local television news stations? Indeed, Kunst’s submission to the 2018 CRC points to this TV programing note in the Miami News for channel 10’s Florida Journal on Oct. 19: “Debate on Privacy Amendment: Dr. Allan [sic] Rockway, Florida for Privacy Rights, vs. Mike Thompson, Florida Conservative Union.” We will likely never know the answer to the question of what else is out there, because the practice of law is not the practice of history; real historians understand that there are no “right” answers in history, as there is always room for doubt.

Advertisement Advertisement

In the consequential case before it, where the state asks the justices to use patchy historical evidence to overturn decades of pro-choice precedent, the Florida Supreme Court will have to gamble: Is it more likely that what’s out there further demonstrates a debate that connected Section 23 to abortion? Or is it more likely there is some undiscovered smoking gun that conclusively proves voters understood there was no connection between Section 23 and reproductive freedom?

To recede from In re T.W.and later cases, the court must be convinced that it clearly erred. Put another way, it must come to a definite and firm conviction that the precedent was wrong. If the gaps in the evidence leave room for doubt about what the voters in 1980 understood, and since that debate was in the living memory of the justices who decided In re T.W., it is difficult to see how that standard can be met.

Tweet Share Share Comment

上一篇:North Korea internally promotes 'nuclear statehood' to its people ahead of summit 下一篇:汽车音响喇叭6.5寸套装改装前门中高低音重低音全频喇叭带分频器

Copyright © 2024 宿迁市某某医疗设备教育中心 版权所有   网站地图