TALLAHASSEE, FL – Liberty Counsel Action (LCA) filed an amicus brief to the Florida Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, et al., v. State of Florida, et al., requesting that the In re T.W. decision issued by an activist court in 1989 be overturned and the original intent of Article I, Section 23 be restored so as not to recognize a right to kill preborn children by abortion. Before the Florida Supreme Court is a 15-week abortion ban passed by the legislature in 2022. Like the 15-week abortion ban that went to the U.S. Supreme Court and resulted in the overturning of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Florida case could follow a similar result.

The counsel of record in this amicus brief, Kenneth L. Connor, was president of Florida Right to Life in 1989 when the Florida Supreme Court issued In re T.W. Mat Staver, who serves as Chairman of Liberty Counsel Action, was general counsel for Florida Right to Life in 1989. Attorneys Connor and Staver wrote an amicus brief to the Florida Supreme Court at that time urging a correct interpretation of Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution. Contrary to the historical purpose and meaning of the text, the Florida Supreme Court wrongly invented a right to privacy that extends to abortion.

However, as presented in LCA’s amicus brief, the Court should now rectify this wrong and remain faithful to the Florida Constitution.

Originally, Article 1, Section 23 was written to primarily protect personal property rights against government intrusion. In 1980, Florida voters approved the constitutional amendment providing for an explicit right of informational privacy. This amendment had nothing to do with abortion. While the amendment protects the individual against private or government sector intrusion into the person’s informational privacy, it does not restrict the same person’s right of access to public records as provided by law.

The amendment became Article 1, Section 23 and states:

“Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.”
 
The second sentence clarifies the application of the amendment. While the government is constrained from unwarranted intrusion in a person’s “private life,” the public still has access to public records. The act of abortion involves the willful and deliberate destruction of a third party: an unborn child.  And typically, the killing of that child is perpetrated by, or through, another third party, a so-called health care provider. Therefore, the act can scarcely be deemed to involve only the private life of the mother.

The case of In re T.W. involved a pregnant unmarried minor, T.W., who petitioned for a waiver of parental consent under a judicial bypass provision in order to obtain an abortion. She informed the Court that due to her mother's illness, she had assumed extra duties at home caring for her sibling and that if she told her mother about the abortion, “it would kill her.”  In that decision, the state Supreme Court ruled that the right to an abortion was included under the federal constitutional right of privacy and would therefore be covered by the Florida privacy amendment, Article 1, Section 23, of the Florida Constitution.

However, The Florida Supreme Court’s radical redefinition of the right of privacy under Article I, Sections 23 violates the fundamental principle that “All political power is inherent in the people.” Therefore, the Court should restore Article 1, Section 23 to its intended meaning by overturning In re T.W. and holding that this privacy amendment contains no hidden right to an abortion. Only the people, not the courts, have the authority to rewrite their state Constitution.

Staver said, “The radical decision by the Florida Supreme Court at that time regarding In re T.W. should be overturned and the original intent of the privacy amendment be restored. The right to privacy does not include the right to abortion.”

Liberty Counsel Action is a 501(c)(4), nonprofit, grassroots organization advancing religious and civil liberties, the sanctity of human life, the family, limited and responsible government, national security, and support for Israel in Washington D.C. and across America. Liberty Counsel Action can provide interviews by email, phone, and broadcast quality TV interviews via Hi-Def Skype and LTN at no cost.