Florida OKs Misleading Statement To Print Next To Pro-Choice Ballot Measure

The supposedly nonpartisan committee that drafted it included an economist from the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, the group behind Project 2025.

The advocates behind Florida’s pro-choice Amendment 4 cleared a huge hurdle in April when the notoriously conservative state Supreme Court approved the measure for the November ballot. Many were relieved at the time — believing that the biggest obstacle was behind them — but after this week, it’s clear they’re not out of the woods just yet.

A Florida administrative committee decided earlier this week on a financial impact statement that must appear alongside Amendment 4 on ballots. Over the course of three meetings, including a 12-hour debate on Monday, the Florida Financial Impact Estimating Conference crafted a statement riddled with misinformation that will be printed next to the amendment seeking to restore abortion access until around 24 weeks in the state.

The supposedly nonpartisan FIEC crafts fiscal statements to appear next to any citizen-led measure that makes it on the ballot. The panel is usually made up of a Florida House staffer, a Florida Senate staffer, a representative from the governor’s office and the state’s chief economist. But state House Speaker Paul Renner (R) replaced the House staffer with an economist from the Heritage Foundation, the ultra-conservative think tank behind Project 2025.

Abortion rights advocates who fought for the ballot measure believe the FIEC statement includes inaccurate information that was written to intentionally mislead voters. Read the statement in full below:

“The proposed amendment would result in significantly more abortions and fewer live births per year in Florida. The increase in abortions could be even greater if the amendment invalidates laws requiring parental consent before minors undergo abortions and those ensuring only licensed physicians perform abortions. There is also uncertainty about whether the amendment will require the state to subsidize abortions with public funds. Litigation to resolve those and other uncertainties will result in additional costs to the state government and state courts that will negatively impact the state budget. An increase in abortions may negatively affect the growth of state and local revenues over time. Because the fiscal impact of increased abortions on state and local revenues and costs cannot be estimated with precision, the total impact of the proposed amendment is indeterminate.”