2012 Proposed Amendments to the State of Florida Constitution–Part I

 

Looking at the 2012 Proposed Amendments to the State of Florida Constitution, which will be in the ballot this coming November for the General Election I see the disgusting hand of the Republican-controlled Legislature.

You would think, in a perfect world, that you would get to vote on sensible, rational, non-partisan ideas for the betterment of the citizens of the State. Not in Florida, not this time.

There are 12 (twelve) amendments.
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/initiativelist.asp?year=2012&initstatus=ALL&MadeBallot=Y&ElecType=GEN

Take a look at this sample:

1. HEALTH CARE SERVICES:
"Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to prohibit laws or rules from compelling any person or employer to purchase, obtain, or otherwise provide for health care coverage; permit a person or an employer to purchase lawful health care services directly from a health care provider; permit a health care provider to accept direct payment from a person or an employer for lawful health care services; exempt persons, employers, and health care providers from penalties and taxes for paying directly or accepting direct payment for lawful health care services; and prohibit laws or rules from abolishing the private market for health care coverage of any lawful health care service. Specifies that the amendment does not affect which health care services a health care provider is required to perform or provide; affect which health care services are permitted by law; prohibit care provided pursuant to general law relating to workers’ compensation; affect laws or rules in effect as of March 1, 2010; affect the terms or conditions of any health care system to the extent that those terms and conditions do not have the effect of punishing a person or an employer for paying directly for lawful health care services or a health care provider for accepting direct payment from a person or an employer for lawful health care services; or affect any general law passed by two-thirds vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature, passed after the effective date of the amendment, provided such law states with specificity the public necessity justifying the exceptions from the provisions of the amendment. The amendment expressly provides that it may not be construed to prohibit negotiated provisions in insurance contracts, network agreements, or other provider agreements contractually limiting copayments, coinsurance, deductibles, or other patient charges."

This is a blatant attempt to stop one of the most important parts of the Federal Affordable Care Act, he most significant regulatory overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.

One of the key provisions is a shared responsibility requirement, commonly called an individual mandate, which requires that all individuals not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs, purchase and comply with an approved private insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service, or waived in cases of financial hardship.

Simply, this ensures that people will have coverage and will reduce the cost to everybody else, as hospitals now provide service to these people and then pass the cost to all of us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/index.html

I'll be voting NO on this one.

6. PROHIBITION ON PUBLIC FUNDING OF ABORTIONS; CONSTRUCTION OF ABORTION RIGHTS:
"This proposed amendment provides that public funds may not be expended for any abortion or for health-benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. This prohibition does not apply to an expenditure required by federal law, a case in which a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, or a case of rape or incest. This proposed amendment provides that the State Constitution may not be interpreted to create broader rights to an abortion than those contained in the United States Constitution. With respect to abortion, this proposed amendment overrules court decisions which conclude that the right of privacy under Article I, Section 23 of the State Constitution is broader in scope than that of the United States Constitution."

Why? Have these people ever heard of Separation of Church and State? If your religious beliefs do not allow for abortions, then don't have one. Live and let live. There are women that for no fault of their own, get raped or pregnant. Some are their fault due to low education or simple stupidity. Forbidding these people to have access to safe, legal abortions (mind you, it is legal), will only force them to do it in back-alley shops.

Am I pro-abortion? No. It is something horrible that I do not wish on anyone. But I am not against it and I defend the freedom of having one for women that need it. Who are a bunch of white, rich, fat-cat Republicans in Tallahassee to decide what’s best for them?

I'll be voting NO on this one.

8. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM:
"Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution providing that no individual or entity may be denied, on the basis of religious identity or belief, governmental benefits, funding or other support, except as required by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and deleting the prohibition against using revenues from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution."

Great title folks. It is so misleading that makes the gullible think that it increases religious freedom. Does it? All it does is it allows public funding of religious schools, in direct contravention of the US Constitution and the Separation of Church and State. If you want to send your kids to religious schools to be taught creationism, by all means. I am sorry for them, but it is your choice. To force public money into religious schools, opens a can of worms. Would you like your tax money funding Catholics schools? How about Mormon schools? How about an Islam Madrasah? Why not one for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead?

I'll be voting NO on this one.