A federal judge this week has dismissed a lawsuit filed in October after state officials threatened television stations that aired an ad supporting a ballot measure that would have enshrined abortion rights in the Florida Constitution.
Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued an order Dec. 17 after Floridians Protecting Freedom, a political committee that led unsuccessful efforts to pass the ballot measure, filed a notice that it was dropping the case.
In the lawsuit, the committee sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction after the state Department of Health sent letters to broadcasters alleging that the disputed ad posed a public “health nuisance.”
The letters came as Gov. Ron DeSantis and his administration tried to defeat what appeared as Amendment 4 on the Nov. 5 ballot. The proposed constitutional amendment did not pass.
The ad, dubbed “Caroline,” told the story of a woman who was diagnosed with brain cancer when she was 18 weeks pregnant. Doctors told the woman they could not treat her with chemotherapy or radiation while pregnant, so she had an abortion. The woman in the ad said that “doctors knew if I did not end my pregnancy. .. I would lose my life” and that “Florida has now banned abortion even in cases like mine.”
The assertion in the ad was based on a law that DeSantis and the Republican-controlled Legislature passed last year to largely prevent abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.
Walker in October issued a temporary restraining order, backing Floridians Protecting Freedom’s arguments that the Department of Health letters violated First Amendment rights. But a day after the election, Walker denied the committee’s request for a preliminary injunction.
In that ruling, Walker wrote that the committee “has identified no evidence in this record demonstrating that television broadcasters will continue to be unconstitutionally coerced, nor that plaintiff faces an imminent threat of enforcement action for any other pro-Amendment 4 speech it may engage in after the election. Moreover, plaintiff has not identified what other speech it intends to engage in going forward that would likely be the target of such an enforcement action.”
