A long-simmering battle over abortion in Florida is ramping up, with the state’s Supreme Court set to decide whether “The Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion,” a constitutional amendment guaranteeing abortion access in Florida, will appear on state’s ballot in November.

Background

The initiative’s sponsor, a group called Floridians Protecting Freedom (FPF), started campaigning for state-wide abortion access last May, claiming to give voters “the chance to ensure that their personal medical decisions are theirs and theirs alone to make.”

The proposed amendment reads:

“No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.

“This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.”

The Florida Division of Elections officially dubbed the initiative Amendment 4 after FPF collected almost 911,000 signatures in support of the proposal — far more than the 891,523 signatures Florida requires to qualify for ballot placement.

“Today marks the official end of the first phase of the campaign — qualifying for ballot placement,” FPA celebrated on January 26.

Imagine a friend told you that her baby is sick and may die. You’d feel shock and grief, and likely ask how you could help. You’d commit to pray for her child and the family.

Would anything change if the friend then replied, “Thank you, we’re hoping Fluffy pulls through”? According to many, it shouldn’t.

As fertility hovers around an all-time low and pet ownership at an all-time high, more Americans are not only talking about but treating furry companions like children.

Recently in her article in The Atlantic titled “Pets Really Can Be Like Human Family,” Katherine Wu argued that “calling some pet owners the ‘parents’ of their dogs or cats might be the best shorthand for these relationships.”

Wu described the growing pet economy of products and services that mirror those once intended for children.

More Americans than ever are buying their animals “home-cooked foods … strollers … memory-foam mattresses … their own clothing lines.”

They’re also paying for wellness centers, doggy daycares, “acupuncture, surgeries, chemotherapy, even organ transplants.” In 2022, the pet economy totaled over $136 billion and, by most indications, is only likely to grow.

According to a survey by Pew Research that was quoted in the article, the majority of America’s 200 million pet owners described their animals as “family,” and more than half said their pet is “as much a part of their family as a human member.

When Justice Sonia Sotomayor sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee back on July 13 of 2009 to testify in her confirmation hearings, the 55-year-old judge said her philosophy from the bench was “simple.”

“Fidelity to the law,” she said.

“The task of a judge is not to make the law — it is to apply the law.”

Justice Sotomayor went on to praise the United States Constitution as a document that helps make dreams come true.

Nearly fifteen years into her tenure on the High Court, the Bronx native was expressing a much different perspective this past Monday — not to mention confirming the fact that her assurances from 2009 haven’t held up too well over time.

Lecturing at the University of California’s Berkeley School of Law, Justice Sotomayor told students how she’s been handling and processing recent court decisions.

“I live in frustration,” she said.

“And as you heard, every loss truly traumatizes me in my stomach and in my heart. But I have to get up the next morning and keep on fighting.”

Justice Sotomayor’s comments are revealing, and on several levels.

First, has any Supreme Court justice ever described being traumatized over differences of constitutional opinion with his or her colleagues?

A Maryland school board voted last month to protect children by restricting school instructional and supplemental materials that contain sexually explicit content.

The board defined “sexually explicit content” as “unambiguously describing, depicting, showing, or writing about sex or sex acts in a detailed or graphic manner.”

The Carroll County Public School Board adopted the measure after parents, some of whom are affiliated with the Carroll County Chapter of Moms for Liberty, challenged almost 60 books, many of which were then pulled from district libraries.

As is typical, many media reports — and their allies quoted in news stories — attacked parental rights and portrayed the board’s decision to protect children as negative and harmful.

This is a very consistent response from those who want children to read sexualized, profane and inappropriate material.

Here are three ways the media and their allies dodge the real issues and work to push offensive books on children.

1. Frame the narrative as “book banning,” “censorship,” and a “freedom of speech” issue.

WBAL TV in Baltimore labelled the restrictions a “controversial book ban policy.” CBS News published a story about the ongoing school board debate, calling the restrictions a “book banning policy.”