This op-ed was originally published in Tallahassee Democrat.

This current Florida legislature continues its all-out attack on reproductive freedom and access to abortion care.

A six-week ban was not far enough for this extreme anti-abortion legislature. 

Now they are seeking to open the door to civil lawsuits for money damages against doctors, and against the friends, family, clergy and other support systems that help individuals seeking abortion care obtain the care they need. (See House Bill 651). 

But it’s worse: Senate Bill 476, as originally filed, would go even further and also allow civil lawsuits for money damages to be brought against Floridians for their own abortion.

Extremist politicians have also filed a total abortion ban -- from the moment of fertilization – and that would eliminate any exceptions for rape or incest or human trafficking. (House Bill 1519)

Some of these bills are being fast-tracked through the legislature. HB 651 was only referred to two committees in the House and has already passed one of them, with 12 votes in favor and 5 votes in opposition. Time is of the essence to slow these bills down.

Consider HB 651, by Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, as well as its Senate companion SB 476, by Sen. Erin Grall. While the House bill sponsor stated that these bills have nothing to do with abortion, the fact that they were filed by the same duo that brought us the extreme 6-week ban last Session suggests otherwise.  

These deceptive bills are another example of how legislators are continuing to make it more difficult for Floridians to access the care they need. They incentivize and encourage civil lawsuits against doctors providing essential health care by allowing plaintiffs to recover money damages.

The intent is to intimidate doctors and make them fearful of providing abortion care by threatening them with lawsuits. This will lead to doctors denying necessary healthcare and will increase the likelihood of pregnancy complications not being timely addressed. This could have grave impacts on the overall health and safety of those patients needing care.

Additionally, the threat of having to defend against lawsuits and having to pay money damages will likely result in fewer OB/GYNs willing to practice in Florida. As more and more OB/GYNs leave Florida for states where they are not subject to civil lawsuits, the quality of prenatal care in Florida will suffer. 

Because these bills also encourage lawsuits against the friends, family, and support systems of pregnant Floridians, they will result in pregnant patients being more isolated and afraid to seek help from friends and family members for fear of exposing them to potential lawsuits.

Nobody should be subject to a civil lawsuit for damages for seeking the healthcare they need. Not the individual seeking their own health care, not their doctor for providing the care their patients need, and not friends and family members assisting with accessing such care. 

Under these bills, civil lawsuits for damages could be brought by any person who impregnates someone else. Additionally, there is no definition of “unborn child” in the bill’s language. It’s unclear whether a cause of action accrues at the moment of fertilization or sometime after. 

Despite the intent the sponsor claims to have, that these bills are meant to support grieving families, Floridians will not be duped. The devastating impact of these bills on abortion access in Florida is clear.

Anti-abortion politicians aren’t satisfied with criminalizing abortion after six weeks. Left to their own devices, our Legislature will continue to make it harder and harder to access abortion care in Florida.

The good news is that this is an election year. We know how every one of Florida’s representatives and senators voted on the six-week ban and we will soon see how they vote on these bills, if they make it to the floor.

Floridians will take that knowledge to the polls in November.  

This op-ed was originally published in The Palm Beach Post.

Claiming that “social media companies are taking the lives of young people,” the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives Paul Renner has fast tracked legislation that would ban the opening of social media accounts for those under the age of 16 and deleting accounts held by those who are currently under 16.

The dead giveaway that legislation is on a fast track to be enacted into law – introducing it as House Bill 1 (as the “Social media use for minors” proposal is numbered) and assigning the bill to be reviewed and approved by only two committees.

Of course, there is plenty of ugly material on Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, X, YouTube, WhatsApp, Snapchat and other social media platforms – plenty of bullying and plenty of hateful messages and inappropriate content. I don’t know anyone defending the use of these platforms for those communications.

There are concerns about the harm that social media poses to mental health, including depression and anxiety. Some critics of social media have cited examples in which social media exposure has led to students committing or attempting suicide.

The link between social media and the mental health of young people, especially worries about appearance and body image and eating disorders among young women, is supported by limited empirical evidence and certainly needs further study. Nevertheless, the perception seems to be firmly fixed in the public’s (and legislator’s) mind.

A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study found social media use among teenagers to be “nearly universal,” and use of these electronic communication platforms to involve approximately 40% of children aged 8-12.

It is probably true that too many young people spend too much time on social media but we need more data about the impact of the time on those platforms and harm to mental health. But it’s also clear that legislators are ignoring the benefits and opportunities of social media for young people.

And there are both benefits as well as risks that should not be obscured by politicians with a pro-censorship agenda.

Social media use expands conversation and connection with on-line friends that can be a significant source of social support – it certainly did so during the isolation of the COVID pandemic.

It can also boost self-esteem. Young people can also use social media to develop marketable skills that advance their future careers. Some teenagers become social media influencers, enabling them to earn money for themselves and to help support their families.

Social media also allows young people to have access to educational materials and information, which may be even more important now considering the epidemic of book bans plaguing local school boards and libraries. And yes, young people also have First Amendment rights of self-expression, which includes access to information and literature.

But all this ignores what should be the major point.

There are serious negatives to social media as well as positives for the intellectual and emotional development of young people – but the real issue is, who should be doing the balancing: parents or the state legislature?

Whatever happened to parents’ rights?

House Bill 1 has the state legislature dictating how parents should raise their children. That from the legislature of what the Governor terms “the free state of Florida.”

You would think conservatives would want to strengthen the ability of parents to raise their children, not dictate to parents about child-rearing. For example, how about classes in computer and social media literacy?

The orientation of proposed HB 1 (“if we think it’s bad, it should be banned”) is the approach of an authoritarian state, not a state that respects freedom.

Even the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, which I hope is still perceived as impeccably non-ideological, takes the position that, “Choosing when kids have social media accounts should be based on your family values, conversations with your children and their development level.”

This is all evidence that the “parents’ rights” mantra heard here for the last few years was always just a cover for censorship by the Governor, the legislature, and the little army of book banners that have been unleashed on Florida.

Politicians who call themselves “conservative” don’t dictate to families how to raise their children.