Most people think pregnant teenagers should consult their parents before seeking an abortion, and most families facing unwanted pregnancy find ways to talk through the painful options. The problem with requiring such communication as part of the state Constitution is that not every pregnancy or every family is the same.
The Constitution, in other words, is an awkward arbiter of family crisis.
The history of Amendment 1 illustrates how quickly personal issues can get twisted once politicians get involved. The amendment was the legislative priority this year of House Speaker Johnnie Byrd, who was running in a crowded Republican primary for U.S. Senate and felt he could use parental abortion notice as a way to win the votes of hard-right conservatives. So Byrd proposed a constitutional amendment that would have required parental notice under any and all circumstances, even in cases where the girl may have been impregnated by the father or stepfather. How can she be expected to seek advice from the very person who abused her?
The Senate ultimately forced Byrd to moderate his stance, but these tragic exceptions are still relevant because the proposed amendment grants the Legislature full latitude to write the abortion notice law. So what happens if the next legislative leader also thinks victims of incest must consult with their parents? Is that the way the Legislature will write the law?
This is the third time lawmakers have tried to require parental notice of abortion for minors, and both previous attempts were thrown out by courts. That's why they are seeking to change the Constitution this time. But this Legislature, given its political history, cannot be reasonably trusted to enact a law with sufficient safeguards for girls who are victims of rape or incest.
The truth is that most girls and their parents need no constitutional guidance in their anguish over how to deal with unwanted pregnancy. And the ones who aren't communicating are the ones who, in many cases, don't need the constitutional interference.
This is Byrd's amendment, and we recommend that voters tell him NO.
AMENDMENT 2: NO
EARLIER DEADLINE FOR CITIZEN INITIATIVES
Florida really does need to keep pregnant pigs out of its Constitution, but lawmakers blew their chance this year to make honest changes to citizen initiatives. Instead, Amendment 2 asks voters to accelerate petition deadlines in ways that will hurt only the genuine grass-roots efforts. Those who pay their way onto the ballot will see it as little more than a speed bump.
This amendment proposes to move up the deadline in which petitions must be gathered in order for a proposed amendment to appear on a general election ballot. Currently, the petitions must be completed at least three months before the November ballot. The amendment would triple that waiting period, setting a deadline of Feb. 1.
The idea is born of good intentions. The earlier the deadline, the more voters are likely to know. But this change is almost irrelevant to the larger problems the Legislature set out to address. Interest groups are usually taking their cases directly to voters because lawmakers ignore the pleas. Those same groups, such as the one that wanted to ban indoor smoking, have no other political outlet but the constitutional initiative. The select legislative committee that analyzed initiatives this year, in fact, wouldn't even consider the alternative of letting groups petition to change the law, rather than the Constitution.
The manner in which the Legislature delivered this amendment to the ballot is instructive itself. Lawmakers mostly refused to hear the ideas of citizen groups. Then, an obstinate House speaker wanted to barter for the constitutional reforms. The Senate balked. The one portion that did survive was filed for the Nov. 2 ballot on June 18. That means the amendment was submitted to voters 41/2 months later than the sponsors claim is essential for proper public debate. Then again, this earlier deadline would also apply only to citizen initiatives, not those proposed by the Legislature. That hypocrisy alone is reason enough to oppose it.
Amendment 2 might also produce one unintended, yet disturbing, consequence. Groups can ask the state Supreme Court to rule on the legal validity of their proposed amendments once they have gathered 10 percent of the nearly 500,000 required signatures. Currently, the court must rule "expeditiously," but this amendment says the court must rule by April 1. Since the same amendment requires all petitions to be submitted by Feb. 1, interest groups might be forced to collect all their signatures in the legal dark. Given the court's propensity to toss measures off the ballot, that scenario could prove devastating to grass-roots groups.
"The initiative process gives voters a check on special interests and politicians," says Jack Gargan, the former national chairman of the Reform Party. "This amendment would give special interests and politicians a check on voters instead."
In this case, we agree with Gargan. We recommend that voters reject Amendment 2.
AMENDMENT 3: N0
LIMIT ATTORNEY FEES IN MALPRACTICE CASES
Amendment 3 is the latest battle in a long-running political war over medical malpractice, and smart voters will keep their heads down.
This amendment is about payback and little else. It was put on the ballot by doctors who think the Legislature didn't go far enough last year in limiting the amount of money victims of malpractice can receive in court. The doctors blame lawyers, which is why this amendment is aimed at reducing the fees lawyers can receive in such cases.
In public, though, the doctors put on a face of compassion for malpractice victims. In one of the first television commercials aired by the doctor's group, Citizen's for a Fair Share, a woman in a wheelchair says she was awarded $1-million for medical malpractice. "My doctor hurt me bad," she says, "but my lawyer took almost half." In truth, the woman is an actor, and the story she tells is, in the euphemism of the doctors group, a "dramatization."
The doctors, of course, aren't really fighting to make sure that victims of medical malpractice are well-compensated. Rather, they want to cut lawyers' contingency fees in hopes that the lawyers will be dissuaded from ever trying such cases of malpractice. Note that their amendment does not restrict the amount that can be paid to lawyers who defend doctors.
The lawyers have been quick to point out such hypocrisy, but they also bring their own brand of hyperbole to the campaign. Floridians for Patient Protection, which has raised more than $16-million to defeat the amendment, all but argues that patients will die if the amendment passes. One mailing shows a scalpel superimposed on an X-ray, with the screaming headline, "Medical Errors Are Threatening Florida Patients."
The calculated hysteria from both sides only distracts from the real issue. Medical malpractice insurance premiums have skyrocketed, in some cases forcing physicians out of state or out of practice, and the Legislature's actions so far have done little to improve the situation. But this amendment is so far removed from those legitimate health industry concerns that the Florida Medical Association's own political allies are running in the opposition direction. Last fall, the Florida Association of Health Plans, Associated Industries of Florida, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Insurance Council - all of which are fighting for legal reforms related to malpractice - tried to get the doctors to drop the amendment.
"Although contingency fee reform is arguably fair game, the FMA amendment is fatally flawed because, in our opinion, it is too extreme," the groups wrote. ". . . (We) are strongly opposed to all of the "antisomebody' constitutional amendments being advanced this year by disgruntled interest groups."
When the state Supreme Court approved the amendment language for the ballot, Justice Fred Lewis mused that "this is truly a wolf in sheep's clothing." He's right. Amendment 3 is really just about doctors wanting revenge on lawyers, and we strongly recommend that voters reject it.
AMENDMENT 4: NO
SLOT MACHINES IN MIAMI-DADE, BROWARD PARIMUTUELS
Though Florida is hardly puritanical when it comes to gambling, three times in the past quarter-century voters have drawn a distinct line: no casinos. But the gaming industry has refused to take no for an answer, and it is back yet again this year. It wants casino-style games and profits.
The best case that can be made for Amendment 4 is that it is more modest than previous attempts. It would allow slot machines to be added only to seven existing race tracks and jai alai frontons in two counties, Miami-Dade and Broward, and voters in those counties would also have to approve them. The money that could be raised from taxing these slots is not pocket change. In the first year, according to legislative estimates, the state could receive $438-million.
But the argument being advanced by the industry's "Floridians for a Level Playing Field" campaign group is likely to be no more convincing than it was in 1994 or 1986 or 1978. Florida indeed is home to many forms of state-sanctioned gambling, including the lottery and parimutuels. But the casinos and slot machines that operate on Indian reservations and cruise ships are the product of federal laws and thus beyond the control of lawmakers and voters. To argue that voters need to "level the playing field," then, is to assume they approve of the other casinos.
The most galling part of this campaign, though, is its attempt to use schoolchildren as props. The amendment directs that any proceeds "must supplement public education funding statewide," and the campaign has hired former Education Commissioner Jim Horne in an attempt to bring further credibility. But anyone who believes the money from slots will be used to improve schools has been asleep in the 18 years since voters adopted what was then billed as the "Education Lottery." The lottery now raises roughly $1.1-billion a year for education, yet the money only supplants general taxes that are now spent elsewhere. Some educators have even argued that the net result, when factored for inflation and the resulting voter backlash, has been a loss.
In 1986, then-Education Commissioner Ralph Turlington insisted that the lottery would enhance school funding. "There has been some speculation that the Legislature will simply cut the education budget by the amount the lottery brings in, and then spend the lottery money any way it wishes," he wrote. ". . . Make no mistake. The pro-education forces would not miss a shifting of budget priorities inconsistent with the education priority listed in the amendment schedule." Those forces indeed did not miss the shifting, but they couldn't stop it either.
The slots for schoolkids campaign is just another cynical gambling charade, and we recommend that voters reject it.
AMENDMENT 5: YES
INCREASE MINIMUM WAGE TO $6.15 AN HOUR
Franklin Delano Roosevelt insisted that people who work full time earn a "decent living," but his minimum wage has met with diminishing congressional enthusiasm over the years. Wages haven't been increased now for seven straight years, which is the second-longest stretch in the law's 66-year history, and minimum-wage earners now live at 28 percent below the federal poverty level.
The congressional indifference to a living wage is one reason cities and states, which led the charge for the original law, are now increasing wage standards on their own. Amendment 5 would make Florida the 13th state to take matters into its own hands.
The Florida amendment comes courtesy of a petition process financed largely by unions and trial lawyers, but its direct impact would extend to an estimated 850,000 workers who either earn the current minimum or whose wages are close enough they are likely to be increased as well. The amendment would raise the minimum wage by $1, to $6.15 an hour, in May and require annual increases thereafter that are tied to inflation.
Business groups who oppose the increase argue that the cost will be in lost jobs, as companies are forced to lay off workers to pay for the higher wages. But there is little evidence that wage increases have produced significant job losses. In fact, the last time Congress increased the minimum wage, in 1997, there was no discernible loss among any of the job categories that pay low wages.
The state Constitution is not the best place to be setting policy for living wages, but the problem is that workers have few other options available to them. Congress has refused to consider increases, and so has the Legislature, even though the ratio of minimum wage to the average pay of nonsupervisory workers is at the lowest level in 55 years. Some 560 economists, including four Nobel Prize winners, signed a statement recently urging Congress to act. They wrote that "the minimum wage helps to equalize the imbalance in bargaining power that low-wage workers face in the labor market."
The $6.15 hourly wage prescribed by Florida's amendment is $2.34 lower than the minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, was in 1968. It is modest and, unfortunately, the only realistic political opportunity for this state to keep faith with people who work full time and, as Roosevelt suggested, deserve a decent living. We recommend a vote of YES.
AMENDMENT 6: YES
REPEAL THE HIGH-SPEED RAIL AMENDMENT
Try driving Interstate 4 between Tampa and Orlando during rush hour, and you'll begin to understand why voters four years ago said they wanted a high-speed alternative. But the initiative, financed from the deep pockets of Lakeland businessman C.C. "Doc" Dockery, turned the costly, thorny, fluid exercise of rail transit planning into a brittle constitutional imperative.
The state Constitution now orders "a high speed ground transportation system consisting of a monorail, fixed guideway or magnetic levitation system, capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour . . . that will link the five largest urban areas." Never mind the cost. Never mind whether people will ride it.
That's why Amendment 6, led by Gov. Jeb Bush and Chief Financial Officer Tom Gallagher, asks voters to take a second look. High-speed rail links between urban areas are, at best, premature. They are certainly more expensive than voters could ever have imagined, with the first leg between Tampa and Orlando estimated to cost $2.6-billion alone. So the governor and most lawmakers want voters to repeal the high-speed rail.
In 2000, we argued that voters should oppose the high-speed rail amendment and think the project has revealed itself to be no more feasible in the four years that have passed since.
The only troubling issue, then, is the extent to which lawmakers ignored the constitutional mandate and have been generally unwilling to confront Florida's broader mass transit needs. The amendment called for construction to begin last November, which it didn't, and some lawmakers have used the debate to angrily denounce any such effort. Without question, the voter-adopted high-speed rail plan is unrealistic. Its ridership base is largely fictional, and its ultimate price tag may reach $25-billion.
That said, even the governor acknowledges that continued population growth will create future demands and potentially affordable solutions for transit alternatives. The problem is that if the state waits too long, everyone will end up paying the price.
Dockery argues that lawmakers won't plan for rail alternatives without a constitutional mandate from voters. He may well be right, but his 2000 amendment is simply too much, too fast. We recommend a YES vote on Amendment 6, which repeals high-speed rail.
AMENDMENT 7: YES
DISCLOSE RECORDS OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
After doctors took constitutional aim at legal fees this year, lawyers struck back. The result is two amendments, 7 and 8, asking voters to rein in doctors who make dangerous mistakes.
The petitions that placed these two amendments on the ballot were financed by lawyers as part of a strategy by the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers to force doctors to play defense in the same election in which doctors are trying through Amendment 3 to play offense. So these amount to constitutional tit for tat, steeped more in tactical politics than in medical safety.
This kind of professional warfare demeans the Constitution, but voters still have to consider each amendment on its own merits. As such, we think one of them is worthy of support.
Amendment 7 is about disclosure. It would require hospitals and health care facilities to give patients pertinent information about cases in which they or doctors have made serious mistakes and endangered patients' lives. Current law bans the disclosure of "adverse medical incidents," which means patients are left in the dark. Though review boards are empowered to oversee such incidents and discipline doctors, their record is less than inspiring.
Under this amendment, a patient would "have a right to have access to any records made or received in the course of business by a health care facility or provider relating to any adverse medical incident." To protect the privacy of patients, those records would exclude the names of any patients who were involved.
Doctors say that disclosure of adverse medical incidents might lead to fewer of them being reported, but that's a disturbing argument. People who put their lives in the hands of health care providers have the right to know about a history of mistakes, and the Florida Board of Medicine has the duty to make sure that doctors are reporting such incidents.
Public disclosure ought not require a constitutional amendment, but the Legislature has already voted for secrecy. We recommend YES on Amendment 7.
AMENDMENT 8: NO
THREE STRIKES FOR DOCTORS WITH MALPRACTICE
The second amendment filed by lawyers, No. 8, employs the same kind of mindless baseball metaphor that influences entirely too much government policy these days. The amendment would require the state to revoke the license of any doctor who has committed three acts of medical practice. In other words, three strikes and you're out.
The three-strikes approach has a superficial appeal. Certainly, doctors who make repeated medical mistakes should not be allowed to practice. But this kind of blunt directive belies the real-life complexities in medicine. Doctors who handle high-risk cases face enormous challenges and are much more likely to have patients die in their care, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are bad doctors.
The decision to remove a doctor from practice needs to be based on all the circumstances, the difficulty of the cases, the history and the likelihood of future problems. A three-strikes imperative leaves no room for such discretion.
