A Leon County circuit judge is slated Wednesday to hear arguments in a political committee’s request for a temporary injunction to block the state Agency for Health Care Administration from disseminating what the committee calls “misinformation” about a proposed constitutional amendment on abortion rights through a website and ads.
In a related case, Attorney General Ashley Moody’s office Monday argued the Florida Supreme Court should reject a petition filed by a Palm Beach County attorney alleging that top state officials used the website and ads to interfere with the referendum.
Circuit Judge Jonathan Sjostrom last week scheduled a hearing after Floridians Protecting Freedom, a committee leading efforts to pass the amendment, filed a lawsuit and an emergency motion for a temporary injunction on Sept. 12.
The case stems from a website and ads that the agency has used to disseminate information about Amendment 4, which would enshrine abortion rights in the state Constitution. With Gov. Ron DeSantis helping lead efforts to defeat the amendment, Floridians Protecting Freedom contends the agency has violated state law by using public resources to spread inaccurate information about the proposal.
Attorneys for the state late Monday urged the judge to reject the committee’s request.
Issues in the Floridians Protecting Freedom lawsuit include statements on the website such as, “Current Florida Law Protects Women, Amendment 4 Threatens Women’s Safety.”
“Through this website, AHCA disparages Amendment 4 and Floridians Protecting Freedom as its sponsor, alleging fearmongering and lying,” the motion for a temporary injunction said. “AHCA presents voters with false information about Amendment 4 and current law and creates a sense of urgency that ‘Current Law Protects Women. Amendment 4 Threatens Women’s Safety,’ that Amendment 4 will ‘lead to unregulated and unsafe abortions,’ and ‘We must keep Florida from becoming an abortion tourism destination state.’ Voters can only be left with the impression that this state agency is advising them to vote no on Amendment 4.”
In a document filed late Monday, AHCA attorneys criticized the injunction request.
“Nothing in Florida law supports FPF’s (Floridians Protecting Freedom’s) attempt to make this court a referee in a fundamentally political dispute over the accuracy of AHCA’s speech about Amendment 4,” the state’s attorneys wrote. “In any event, FPF is wrong when it accuses AHCA of ‘spreading false information about the amendment.’ AHCA has not made false, deceptive or misleading statements about Amendment 4.”
Also, in an email earlier this month, AHCA’s communications office said the agency was providing facts and information to Floridians.
“Part of the agency’s mission is to provide information and transparency to Floridians on the quality of care they receive,” the email said. “Our new transparency page serves to educate Floridians on the state’s current abortion laws and provide information on a proposed policy change that would impact care across the state.”
DeSantis this month also defended the agency’s information, describing it as “above board” and likening it to public service announcements by other government agencies.
But in the motion for a temporary injunction, Floridians Protecting Freedom said the website “contains express advocacy against Amendment 4.”
It wants Sjostrom to declare that the agency’s actions violate the committee’s right to propose constitutional amendments, order the agency to remove advertising or materials that “violate FPF’s (the committee’s) rights and enjoin AHCA from disseminating such advertising or other materials in the future.”
The Floridians Protecting Freedom lawsuit came two days after Palm Beach County attorney Adam Richardson filed a case at the Florida Supreme Court about the agency information. That case also remains pending.
Richardson asked the Supreme Court to issue what is known as a writ of quo warranto to AHCA Secretary Jason Weida, DeSantis and Attorney General Ashley Moody “forbidding them from misusing or abusing their offices to interfere with the election for Amendment 4, and to unravel whatever actions they have already taken to do so.”
But in a 32-page response Monday, lawyers in Moody’s office said the petition should be rejected for a series of reasons. “Petitioner is free to disagree with the content of the webpage, but he has no right to silence respondents (Weida, DeSantis and Moody) from voicing their serious concerns about the proposed amendment and the misinformation spread by its proponents,” the response said. “Respondents in fact have a duty to inform the public about those concerns. That is not ‘(interference) with an election.’ It is just good government.”
In part, the proposed constitutional amendment says, 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.”
Floridians Protecting Freedom began the drive to pass the constitutional amendment after DeSantis and the Republican-controlled Legislature last year approved a law to prevent abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. That law took effect May 1.
Copyright 2024 WUSF 89.7
