Florida Constitutional Amendments

[Pangloss]

This thread is probably useful to Florida residents only, but since blike asked, and I know we have a few Floridians here, I'll go ahead and post them. Apologies to anyone outside of Florida for any wasted bandwidth.

 

==================

 

(By the way, one of the links Douglas posted in another thread, at the Florida Sports Fishermen Forum, has an excellent discussion area for all eight amendments, including polls. Some good discussion going on there. Link just below this paragraph.)

 

http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zeroforum?id=99

 

==================

 

There are EIGHT proposed amendments to the state constitution.

 

Amendmends Sources:

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare/pr/pr004642.php3

http://www.iandrinstitute.org/BW%202004-0%20(List).pdf

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare/rp/rp004641.pdf

 

 

Amendment 1:

This amendment is about parental notification of a minor who wishes to get an abortion. The Florida Supreme Court in 2003 struck down a law that provided parental notification, saying that it violated a minor's right to privacy under the state constitution. This Amendment would change the state constitution to allow parental notification. The bill also provides a "way out" for minors -- they can talk to a judge, who can give them permission based on the merits of their individual case.

 

Simplification:

Voting YES is a vote in favor of parental notification.

Voting NO is a vote againt parental notification.

 

My current inclination: Yes. I think parents should be notified about their child getting an abortion, and I'm not particularly concerned about the privacy rights of minors. They need to grow up and learn responsibility first -- THEN they get rights. And the "way out" provision seems like a reasonable compromise (parental endangerment cases, etc), and keeps an adult in the loop. So I'm in favor.

 

 

 

Amendment 2:

This amendment is about curtailing the citizenship initiative process, and was placed on the ballot by the state legislature. If passed, new initiatives would have to be proposed by Feb 1 in election years in order to get on the November ballot (currently the deadline is in early August). It also requires that the Florida Supreme Court create an "advisory opinion" about whether they believe the initiative is valid by April 1st. Otherwise citizen initiatives are allowed to continue as before. Apparently this was the only measure that emerged from all the hue and cry about this earlier in the year.

 

Simplification:

Voting YES makes it a little harder to get a citizen's initiative on the ballot.

Voting NO leaves things like they are.

 

My current inclination: No. It's already hard enough to get an initiative on the ballot, and the Supreme Court's opinion is irrelevent -- it's what the people think that counts for a ballot vote.

 

 

 

Amendment 3:

Don't be fooled by all the rhetoric on TV -- this amendment is about curtailing the amount of money a lawyer can earn from medical malpractice cases. It does NOT curtail the amount of money people can win from a lawsuit.

 

Proponents (mainly doctors) believe it will help to lessen frivoless (how do you spell that word??) lawsuits by limiting lawyer greed.

 

Opponents (mainly lawyers) believe it will harm citizens by making contingency cases less palatable to lawyers.

 

Brief technical detail:

"Limits contingency fees by requiring that an injured claimant who enters into a contingency fee agreement with an attorney in a claim for medical liability is entitled to no less that the first $250,000 in all damages received by the claimant and 90% of damages in excess of $250,000."

 

Simplification:

Voting YES makes it a little less profitable for lawyers to get involved in medical malpractice suits.

Voting NO leaves the situation as it currently is.

 

My inclination: Yes. But I am concerned about what would happen if you had a case that would earn, say, $40k. Who would help me? (Rosanne has pointed out to me, however, that lawyers could still charge a set fee for their services in those cases.)

 

 

 

Amendment 4:

This amendment is about slot machines in Dade and Broward counties. It's a STATE-wide vote, though, because it's an amendment to the constitution. But the result would only affect Dade and Broward. The amendment only authorizes a referendum (apparently we need a whole constitutional amendment to authorize a referendum -- go figure) about this. The slot machines would only be allowed in existing parimutuel facilities, like race tracks.

 

Simplification:

Voting YES is a vote in favor of slot machines in Dade/Broward.

Voting NO is a vote against slot machines in Dade/Broward.

 

My incilination: Yes. I couldn't care less what other people do with their money.

 

 

 

Amendment 5:

This amendment is about creating a Florida Minimum Wage of $6.15/hour. The wage would also be indexed to inflation so it would go up automatically.

 

Simplification:

Voting YES imposes (immediately) a Florida Minimum Wage of $6.15/hour.

Voting NO retains the Federal minimum wage ($5.15/hour.)

 

My inclination: No. Wages should be based on what the business can afford versus what the market can bear. Jobs are a privilege, not a right. Even worse, estimates place the cost of this thing at a whopping $443 million per year. Job losses would also result, and Florida becomes less competitive.

 

An interesting blog article providing an opposing perspective can be found here:

http://brownwatch.squarespace.com/to-the-present/2004/9/27/florida-minimum-wage-intiative-may-play-role-in-turnout-at-polls.html

 

 

 

Amendment 6:

This amendment is about repealing the 2000 amendment that we (the voters) passed requiring the development of high-speed rail in Florida.

 

Simplification:

Voting YES puts a stop to high-speed rail in Florida.

Voting NO continues the push for high-speed rail in Florida.

 

My inclination: Yes. We do not need high speed rail at taxpayer's expense in Florida. It's a huge waste of MY money ($20-25 *billion*!) for something that would have to be taxpayer-supported *indefinitely* because so few people will actively use it. This is a NEW problem, NOT a solution to an old problem.

 

 

 

Amendment 7:

This amendment was proposed by trial lawyers, and is about giving patients the right to review records of healthcare providers pertaining to adverse medical incindents, such as prior malpractice cases against the same doctor.

 

Simplification:

Voting YES allows patients to see the results of a doctor's prior litigation.

Voting NO denies this.

 

My inclination: No. I'm all in favor of the information about the doctors, but there's no guarantee of prior PATIENT privacy in this. For example, if a patient had a sexually transmitted disease and were treated improperly by a doctor, that could be revealed. The bill SAYS that privacy "should be protected", but there's no guarantee provided in the amendment. And since this bill was sponsored by trial lawyers, I think we can see where that's going. This also would trump out-of-court settlements that hide the results (denying guilt just to settle the case), and I'm not sure if that's such a good idea. I think this bill might work if it guaranteed privacy of the patient, though.

 

 

 

Amendment 8:

This strange amendment would prohibit medical doctors who have been found to have committed three or more incidents of malpractice from being licensed to practice medicine in Florida.

 

Simplification:

Voting YES prohibits doctors with three or more "incidents of malpractice" on their record from being licensed in Florida.

Voting NO allows them to continue.

 

My inclination: No. It sounds like a good idea, but what's strange about it is that I've read that MOST good doctors ALREADY have 3 or more cases of malpractice on their record. And what constitutes an "incident of malpractice"? Also this was proposed by trial lawyers. I can't figure out what their angle is, so I'm leaning against this.

[Pangloss]

I was absolutely amazed at the number of these, by the way. It sure sounds like the trial lawyers and the doctors are at war in Tallahassee, doesn't it? Maybe we should send in the Seminoles to calm things down (since the Guard is off in Iraq). ;-)

[blike]

Amendment 8:

This strange amendment would prohibit medical doctors who have been found to have committed three or more incidents of malpractice from being licensed to practice medicine in Florida.

Once again, the wording on this one will get it passed, but it's a horrible, horrible amendment. You're right pangloss, many physicians, especially high-risk physicians, already have 3 or more cases against them. If this amendment is passed you will see more and more high-risk specialists refusing to do procedures. Take for example Joe Neurosurgeon who just finished residency and passed his boards. Joe specializes in neurotrauma cases in which the brain has been exposed to all sorts of nastiness from the outside. >60% of these cases result in death. In the past five years Joe has been practicing, he's had 5 suits filed against him, two of which he lost. Now Joe risks losing his right to practice in Florida, and thus leaves the state. Joe was an excellent neurosurgeon, but juries don't care about that. They award emotionally. All they knew was that someone lost a loved one because Joe decided to operate on the brain. Specialists like Joe are hard to come by. Next time someone is in a car accident and they need the type of surgery Joe was good at, they'll be stuck with whatever they hospital has to offer, which won't be Joe. These things come up in all sorts of specialties. You have very experienced, good physicians who have four or more lawsuits against them. It's statistically bound to happen after praticing so many years in certain fields.

[Pangloss]

Good points.

[Douglas]

Good job Pangloss........interesting amendments.

[Pangloss]

Thanks, and by the way thanks again for passing along those forum links. The Florida sports fishin' guys have a quite extensive and interesting discussion taking place about each of the amendments, along with a poll, and was quite excellent.

[Douglas]

Thanks, and by the way thanks again for passing along those forum links. The Florida sports fishin' guys have a quite extensive and interesting discussion taking place about each of the amendments, along with a poll, and was quite excellent.

Pangloss, I checked them out the other day (after I posted them here), it looked like a pretty good site.

 

Did you register?

[Pangloss]

Yes, as Pangloss. It's not likely you'll see me post there in the near future, as I tend to lurk for a while, and I'm pretty swamped right now anyway.

[Pangloss]

I found some more stuff that I passed along to my friends here in Florida, so I thought I'd go ahead and pass it along to you guys as well.

 

VoteSmart Florida has this web page on the eight amendments:

http://www.votesmartflorida.org/voterguide.asp#amend1

 

They have a specific points of view on some of the amendments, being supporters of amendment 2 for example, but they do a good job of making the pro and con side of each amendment very clear, and what your vote will mean on either side. It also shows what organizations are sponsoring the amendments and how much money they've raised and spent, which is kinda cool. (Take a look at the funding for 7 and 8... holy cow!)

[Pangloss]

Changed my mind and posted something anyway (over at the fishin' place).

[blike]

It's interesting to note that the same trial lawyers introduced 2 medical liability bills.

 

# Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. (Florida)

# Grossman and Roth, PA (Florida)

 

If this amendment passes, doctors practicing in high-risk fields, such as ob-gyns, neurosurgeons and trauma surgeons, will leave Florida and new doctors will decide not to come to Florida to practice. This will limit patient’s access to quality healthcare.

[Pangloss]

Don't know if you guys caught the Senatorial candidate debate on Monday night, but Tim Russert asked the candidates for their stance on Amendment 3. Unfortunately he stated in the question that it placed a cap on award size! Obviously he got some bad prep on the issue. (sigh)

[Diedra Moose]

Hello!

I thank you for putting up the amendments and your thoughts about them...I've defnitely been grappling with them myself I really appreciate the fact that you put up links to views opposing your own on some issues. I have found that in this (especially) politically charged election, people haven't been taking the time to show both sides. However, there were two amendments for which there weren't opposing views, and I'd jsut like to put them out there for consideration.

 

Amendment 1 deals with parent notification of a minor's abortion. If passed, it would make it legally necessary for a minor to give parental notification before obtaining an abortion.

I agree that parents should know if their teenage daughter is going to have an abortion; but I also feel that a good parental/child realtionship would ensure that a parent would be informed as to the state of their child's health, which includes pregnancy. However, I do not feel that such a relationship can or should be mandated by GOVERNMENT. It is a PARENT'S responsibility to make sure that a trsusting relationship exist between them and their child. NO law can substitute for good parenting.

There ae many cases were a teenage girl may feel threatened enough by her family that she would feel unsafe telling her family about her pregnancy and/or decision to obtain an abortion. What if she had been raped and she comes from a family who believes rape victims "ask for it"? (There are still such people.) What if she had been raped by her father and has no mother or other legal gaurdian? Is she really going to ask her rapist for permisson to get an abortion? What if her brother raped her and she told people, but no one believed her? Horrible things happen every day...

Also, I would like to point out that no teen ever goes through the abortion process alone. Many teens bring along other trusted adults and/or friends, and EVERY patient goes through counseling at the clinic before the procedure to make sure this is what they really want to do, and after the procedure to deal with post-procedural stress or depression.

I fear the passage of this Amendment, I honestly do, becasue it is not about me, or most other young women who have good relationships with their parents. This is aobut those teens who have been abused and brutalized, raped and maimed, mentally, physically, and emotionally by THEIR OWN FAMILIES. What happens to these girls when they no longer have the choice to obtian abortions and/or the counseling that comes with it? What would happen to the babies these girls would be forced to have? Would they be left in toilets, trashcans, the woods, swamps? Would they try to self abort with pills, or (God forbid) coathangers? (This HAS been tried and HAS proven fatal.) Would they commit suicide? Would their families mueder them?

If Amendment one passes, I fear that such situations will become more common than they already are.

To recap, having your daughter trust you enough to tell you that she is pregnant and has chosen to obtain an abortion is a PARENT'S RESPONISIBILITY! It's is not the GOVERNMENT'S place or job to make sure that parents and their teenage daughters have trusting relationships.

[Diedra Moose]

It's getting late, so I'll deal with the other amendment I was going to talk about on the morn

[Diedra Moose]

I couldn't have said it any better myself...The senate campaign has been nothing but mud-slinging, and the media hasn't heled a bit

[Diedra Moose]

I really need to learn how to use this quote thing...any helpful hints?

[blike]

I really need to learn how to use this quote thing...any helpful hints?

Hello there! I see you're from Tampa as well! There are several different ways to quote. The easiest is to hit "Quote" at the bottom of a post and it will take you to a new page with the quote vbCode already in place. See here for another method: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/misc.php?do=bbcode#quote

 

If you still need help feel free to send me a private message!

[Pangloss]

Hi Diedra, welcome to the forums.

[Pangloss]

I agree that parents should know if their teenage daughter is going to have an abortion; but I also feel that a good parental/child realtionship would ensure that a parent would be informed as to the state of their child's health, which includes pregnancy. However, I do not feel that such a relationship can or should be mandated by GOVERNMENT. It is a PARENT'S responsibility to make sure that a trsusting relationship exist between them and their child. NO law can substitute for good parenting.

 

I just wanted to point out that Senate candidate Betty Castor is opposed to Amendment 1.

 

I'm actually leaning towards voting for her, because Martinez (whom I voted for in the primary over Peter Deutsch) came off as slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun in the debates. I was waiting for him to say "you can have civil unions when you can pry my Bible from my cold, dead fingers". Wow. He really came across as a moderate just a few months ago, and I was all ready to vote for the guy. He totally blew it.

 

So now I gotta vote for Betty Castor, who's opposed to Amendment 1 because she doesn't feel there's enough of a guarantee in there that judges will be able to overrule notification in appropriate cases. Which is just a ridiculous cop-out, IMO.

[Diedra Moose]

unfortunately, it isn't a "ridiculous cop-out" (I still can't figure out how to use that quote thing!!! Thanks for trying to teach me tho...). When a law is in place, unless there are stated exceptions within the law (which in this case there aren't), there can be no exceptions made. Here's the thing aobut amend. 1: is it really truly the gov't's resposnibility, place to tell you waht to do with your family? It's common sense that the kid should tell oyu she's having an abortion!

Pro-lifers are using amend 1 to push their morals onto the rest of us by prmoting a pro-life culture. And they are using our constitution to do it. There's a reason seperation of church and state exists...

[Diedra Moose]

By the way, thanks guys! I'm glad to behere

[Pangloss]

But Amendment 1 specifically says that such a procedure is included. Amendments are *never* more specific than that. That's why it's a cop-out.

[Diedra Moose]

But Amendment 1 specifically says that such a procedure is included. Amendments are *never* more specific than that. That's why it's a cop-out.

 

A procedure to make sure that the safety of the mother would be ensured?

In any case, it's still an infrigment of a person's right to privacy. This amendment is basically like the government coming to tell you that what you're are doing is wrong and we're going to stop you...

As Americans, we are very lucky to have a right to privacy. Are we willing to change our consitution (albeit as state one) so that gov't may impinge on that right?

[Pangloss]

Not exactly, it's a procedure to allow the young woman a chance to tell her story to a judge, who can then decide whether telling her parents institutes a danger to her.

 

I can see that you feel that it's an invasion of privacy, and I respect your opinion. Mine differs. But getting back to the point, the issue I raised was that Betty Castor is in favor of telling the parents. She's just not comfortable with the wording of the amendment.

 

Of course, if you feel that she's lying, and what she actually believes is that the parents should not be told, then I would suggest that what you actually have there is another reason not to vote for Betty Castor, because she'd be a liar.

 

I prefer to believe she's telling the truth. Note that I'm also voting for her, because I liker her positions better than those of her opponent.

[Diedra Moose]

Of course, if you feel that she's lying, and what she actually believes is that the parents should not be told, then I would suggest that what you actually have there is another reason not to vote for Betty Castor, because she'd be a liar.

I prefer to believe she's telling the truth. Note that I'm also voting for her, because I liker her positions better than those of her opponent.

 

Oh, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought she was voting

against the amendment, as in she believed that the decision should remain private...Got it.

 

I do feel rather passionate abot this because *sigh* I am a high school studetn and I see these things every day. That said, I don't mean to come off as militant, and if I do I apologize ...sometimes I get a liiiittle carried away.