Florida Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Whether Embryonic Stem Cell Research Ballot Proposals Meet State Requirements

The Florida Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments on whether two proposed constitutional amendments related to human embryonic stem cell research meet the requirements to be placed on the state ballot, the AP/Lakeland Ledger reports. According to the AP/Ledger, the state Supreme Court determines whether proposed constitutional amendments conform to requirements that they cover only one subject and the summaries read by voters in voting booths clearly and accurately reflect the amendments’ purposes (Royse, AP/Lakeland Ledger, 4/16). Gov. Charlie Crist (R) in November 2006 while serving as state attorney general asked the court to conduct the review for one of the initiatives, which would require the state to appropriate $20 million annually for 10 years to embryonic stem cell research projects (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 11/9/06). Another initiative the court will consider, which would ban the state from funding embryonic stem cell research, was not argued on Monday. Both amendments need more than 610,000 signatures to be placed on the ballot. The initiative to prohibit state spending on the research has more than 85,000 verified signatures, the AP/Ledger reports. The proposal to require funding has more than 67,000 verified signatures. Arguments
Justice Raoul Cantero questioned whether dictating that money be spent on embryonic stem cell research and requiring a certain amount be spent on the research represented separate subjects. Stephen Grimes, an attorney for supporters of the proposal to require funding and former state Supreme Court justice, said, “We submit that’s all related to the same thing.” The justices on Monday also questioned whether a section of the funding proposal that would require the state-funded research only to be conducted on embryos that the donor was not paid for constituted separate subjects. Opponents of the initiative argued that that part of the proposal made it illegal, the AP/Ledger reports. Former Supreme Court Justice Major Harding, now a lawyer representing the opponents of the amendment, also said that requiring the state Legislature to spend $20 million a year on a certain program encroaches on lawmakers’ power to write the budget and on the governor’s right to veto state spending items (AP/Lakeland Ledger, 4/16).

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

Popularity: 10% [?]

Share This

Also Read