July 18, 2024
Out of the same mouths that champion confusing and misleading abortion ballot initiatives are the same people crying about how Florida’s ballot referendum will include an impact statement confirming abortion’s negative financial burden on citizens.
A new Washington Post article called “DeSantis-stacked panel approves ‘dirty trick’ language for abortion referendum” is circulating in the news cycle and ensuing panic among abortion lovers everywhere. The first paragraph of the article succinctly states:
“A Florida panel has approved language that will appear beneath an abortion ballot proposal in November that states the referendum will ‘negatively impact the state budget,’ a move that reproductive rights proponents call ‘a dirty trick.’”
Since last fall, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida House Speaker Paul Renner appointed new panelists who approved a financial impact statement in the 2024 November Amendment 4 ballot initiative, which would upend existing pro-life laws in Florida, including the Heartbeat Abortion Protection Act enacted this May.
READ: Pro-Life Win: Preborn Hearts Will Beat in Florida Under the Heartbeat Abortion Prevention Act!
Financial Impact Statements are exactly how they sound: they describe the financial impact on individuals and family units if a piece of legislation is passed and is included in the legislation. Though it’s become less common in recent years, impact statements can give voters a full picture of how legislation will practically affect their finances and cost of living.
So, the Washington Post is 100% correct on one thing: abortion does negatively impact a state’s budget. What they’re wrong about is that it’s a “dirty trick” to point it out, something abortion zealots so desperately try to hide.
The abortion lobby doesn’t want people to think about the money. And not just how much money is given to the abortion industry (try over $700 million), but how much of that is YOUR money.
DeSantis hired Michael New, an assistant professor at the Catholic University of America and a Students for Life of America (SFLA) contact. At a recent meeting, New advised this Florida panel that if Amendment 4 passes, “the overall reduction in fertility will result in less federal funding … and a worse credit rating, hurting Florida’s fiscal output.”
There’s a common, easy-to-understand economic phrase, “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” It’s the same with abortion:
“There ain’t no such thing as a free abortion.”
To state the obvious, abortion takes freedom away from the preborn. But to address “free” in financial terms, just like there’s no such thing as free housing, someone is paying for those abortions. Some Joe TaxPayer is footing the bill.
So, when politicians get on their high horse and rally for “abortion access for everyone,” they mean more of YOUR tax money going towards the purposeful and brutal death of the preborn and also the physical and mental harm of women.
Is that something most taxpayers want to pay for?
Among the Youth Vote, the data found that SFLA data found that four in 10 rejected supporting a candidate who wanted abortion without limits and no restrictions of any kind, 35% said that their vote was unlikely to go to someone promising taxpayer-funded abortion, which is littered throughout our federal budget, and young people now believe abortion should not be legal, now at 23% compared to 9% in 2022.
Even the more “moderate” pro-abortion voters, who fall into the “your body, your choice” camp, don’t want their money going towards another woman’s decision (according to the pro-choice logic).
Abortion supporters on the political stage are desperate for the public to believe the financial impact is bogus, which couldn’t be more evident with this statement from Lauren Brenzel, the campaign director for Yes on 4, the opposite of our “Vote NO on 4” Florida Billboard Truck Tour initiative earlier this year.
Brenzel stated, “They’re trying to cause confusion and hide the real issue: Amendment 4 is about ending Florida’s extreme abortion ban, which outlaws abortion before many women even realize they are pregnant.”
There is no confusion, Brenzal. It’s more straightforward to inform voters about the moral AND financial effects of abortion instead of fooling voters with confusing ballot language.
That’s the abortion supporters’ dirty trick.
