Home » About » Newsletters » March 1999
Protecting Freedom in the 1999 Legislature
By Larry Spalding
Legislative Staff Counsel, March 1999
The ACLU of Florida is working hard to defend personal freedoms and civil liberties in the 1999 Legislative Session. Many of these challenges are not new and this year there is less protection expected from gubernatorial vetoes to curb the legislature's excesses and attacks on constitutional rights. In the last session, too many legislators were perfectly content to let TV preachers and religious fundamentalist politicians set the agenda for our state. Unfortunately, we can expect much of the same in 1999.
The following is a sampling of some of the issues that are expected to affect civil liberties in the upcoming session, including some that State Legislative Watchers call the "morality agenda."
School vouchers
In one of his first announcements, Gov. Jeb Bush proposed allowing parents in "failing" schools to use tax dollars to fund a voucher system that could allow their children to attend private or religious schools. Legislative advocates of government funds for private and sectarian schools are insisting on using the politicallyuseful euphemism "opportunity scholarships" instead of "vouchers. But disguise it as they may try, vouchers would drain needed resources from an already overburdened and underfinanced education system, and would very likely lead to the resegregation of the schools.
In addition, proponents of vouchers pretend that the constitution is not an impediment to the use of public funds to support religious education. In fact, the use of taxpayerfunded vouchers violates constitutional protections that are part of both the Florida and U.S. Constitutions. The Florida Constitution, for example, specifically bans any revenue from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, religious denomination or sectarian institution.
Governmentsanctioned display of the Ten Commandments
Senate Bill 52, sponsored by Senator John Grant, would allow government agencies to display the Ten Commandments in the lobby of government buildings, in the public schools and on other public property. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments on the walls of public school classrooms violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights protects religious minorities by prohibiting the government from promoting any particular religion, or religion in general. Although Christianity may be the majority religion in the United States, our Constitution does not permit special preference to any religion.
Mandatory patriotic programs
House Bill 9 and Senate Bill 330 would require all elementary and secondary public school students to obtain written permission from a parent or guardian in order to be excused from reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. It was in 1943, in the middle of World War II, that the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government cannot coerce citizens "by word or act" to affirm their loyalty to the United States. The Court was acting to protect the religious liberty of Jehovah's Witnesses. The First Amendment grants all citizens, including students, the freedom of speech, which includes freedom from coerced speech as well as the right to protest and criticize the government. While patriotism is certainly a laudable goal, freedom of speech includes not having to stand or make any other gesture of respect or acceptance, regardless of parental permission.
School prayer
Although no school prayer bill has been prefiled, we fully expect that issue to resurface in 1999. Late in last Fall's election, then candidate Jeb Bush indicated that he saw no problem with prayer in the schools as long as it was "nonsectarian" and "nondenominational." So, expect the legislature to pass a school prayer bill that they call "nonsectarian" and "nondenominational." Gov. Chiles vetoed a similar bill in 1997. Every student already enjoys the right to pray in school on a voluntary basis a right guaranteed by the First Amendment and supported by the ACLU. Organized school prayer, however, usurps the right of parents to raise a child within their own religious beliefs. It also sends the message that the majority's religion has preferred status, and that religious practices are endorsed by government.
Bills that threaten women's rights and reproductive choice
The ACLU expects a number of bills designed to limit women's reproductive choice to be reintroduced in the coming session. The "Choose Life" license plate and legislation requiring parental notice for a minor to obtain an abortion were vetoed by the late Gov. Chiles. The ban on socalled "partialbirth abortion" was enacted over Chiles' veto but struck down by the federal courts.
"Partialbirth abortion" ban
The ACLU believes that women and their families, not government officials, should make decisions about medical care, including any decision about childbearing. If a woman's life and health are endangered because of a pregnancy, and she and her doctor decide that the best possible treatment is particular procedure, the government should not stand in the way of her access to safe, legal abortion. A "partialbirth abortion" ban is not about stopping a seldom used lateterm abortion procedure, as the rhetoric of the anti abortion movement would have you believe. Proponents of this ban typically oppose ALL abortions, and not surprisingly these bans have been written to apply to an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. The prohibition also provides no exception which would permit the use of the procedure when protecting the health of the woman would require. Unfortunately, Florida's new governor appears to be poised to permit the legislature to sacrifice the rights and the health of Florida women to the rhetoric of antiabortion activists.
"Choose Life" license plate
This legislation is more than a symbolic effort to inform women about pregnancy decisions it is an attempt by antichoice advocates to force the state of Florida to endorse one side in the politically explosive abortion debate. That much became clear during the last session of the Legislature, when lawmakers rejected the slogan "Adopt a Child" for the antiabortion message "Choose Life." Perhaps of greater significance than the shortsighted decision to make the Florida license plate a political battleground, however, is the fact that revenue from the sale of the antiabortion license plate could be used to fund local agencies that oppose pregnancy terminations.
Parental notification
The legislature once again is likely to consider a bill to prohibit performing an abortion on a minor without notice to a parent or guardian. As in the last legislature, the bill is likely to establish a procedure for judicial waiver of notice. The need to reinforce family relationships is the reason most often cited to justify laws requiring parental consent or notification for an abortion.
But such laws are unnecessary for stable and supportive families, and they are ineffective and cruel for unstable, troubled families. Such laws cannot transform abusive families into supportive ones, nor can they reduce the alarmingly high rate of teenage pregnancy. Instead, notice and consent requirements only add to the crushing problems faced by pregnant teenagers delays that increase medical risks and effectively eliminate the option of abortion for many minors.
The ACLU of Florida expects the Florida Legislature to pass many of these proposals. If they become law, the ACLU will then use its resources to fight these attacks on personal freedoms in the courts.
