State Panel Approves Proposal Revamping Right to Privacy
In a 4-3 vote, the Constitution Revision Commission's Declaration of Rights Committee agreed to a proposal that would say people have a right to be free from governmental intrusion “with respect to privacy of information and the disclosure thereof.”
January 26, 2018 at 03:18 PM
3 minute read
A proposal that would narrow the right to privacy in the state Constitution was approved by a panel of the Florida Constitution Revision Commission.
In a 4-3 vote, the commission's Declaration of Rights Committee agreed to a proposal that would say people have a right to be free from governmental intrusion “with respect to privacy of information and the disclosure thereof.”
Commission member John Stemberger, who is sponsoring the measure (Proposal 22), said the 10-word addition to the privacy clause is aimed at restoring the right to its original intent and to act as a correction to court decisions that have extended the clause to abortion cases.
“It's about restraining the Florida Supreme Court's gross overreach by ignoring the original intent of the amendment and in doing so producing bad public policy,” said Stemberger, who is from Orlando.
Stemberger said if voters approve the amendment it would not eliminate the right to an abortion, which is protected under federal court rulings, but it would allow Florida to impose “reasonable regulations” on abortion procedures.
He said the amendment could lead to laws requiring parental consent before minors can have abortions and requiring 24-hour waiting periods before abortions, two measures that have been struck down by Florida courts based on the privacy clause.
Kimberly Scott, representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, asked the committee to reject the measure, saying it could have “dangerous implications for women's health,” including imposing the 24-hour waiting period.
“This specific clause has protected women from onerous and medically unnecessary restrictions intended to limit access to abortion services,” Scott said.
Ingrid Delgado of the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops urged the committee to support the measure, saying it would clarify the original intent of the privacy clause.
“It's lamentable that this clause historically intended to protect privacy of information, and not intended to address abortion, has established in our state a broader right to abortion than the federal Constitution,” Delgado said.
Commission member Arthenia Joyner, a former state senator from Tampa, voted against the proposal, saying Florida should protect the right to privacy.
“Do I want to give government broader powers to snoop into my personal business?” Joyner said. “Because make no mistake, that's exactly what this amendment would do.”
Stemberger disputed arguments that courts should have the ability to expand their constitutional interpretations based on changes in society. He said those expansions should be limited to amendments put on the ballot and approved by voters.
“That's the way the Constitution lives and breathes, not through the court making law on its own whim,” Stemberger said.
The proposal next heads to the commission's Judicial Committee. If eventually approved by 22 members of the 37-member Constitution Revision Commission, the measure would be placed on the 2018 general election ballot. It would have to be approved by at least 60 percent of voters to be enacted.
Lloyd Dunkelberger reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
3 minute readFlorida-Based Law Firms Start to Lag, As New York Takes a Bigger Piece of Deals
3 minute readFowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute readDisbarred Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Lawsuit Against Miami-Dade Judges
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1$34M Verdict Shows How 1 Claim Could Ratchet Up Employment Suit
- 2OIG Progress Puts Connecticut in Leadership Position
- 3Bankruptcy Judge to Step Down in 2025
- 4Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
- 5Judge to hear arguments on whether Google's advertising tech constitutes a monopoly
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250