After a proposed constitutional amendment on abortion rights did not pass Tuesday, a federal judge has denied a request for a preliminary injunction against state officials over threats to television stations that aired an ad supporting the ballot measure.
Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker on Wednesday issued an eight-page decision that rejected an injunction sought by Floridians Protecting Freedom, a political committee that sponsored the amendment.
The committee filed a lawsuit last month seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction after the state Department of Health sent threatening letters to broadcasters alleging that the disputed ad posed a public “health nuisance.” The letters came as Gov. Ron DeSantis and his administration tried to defeat what appeared as Amendment 4 on Tuesday’s ballot.
The ad, dubbed “Caroline,” told the story of a woman who was diagnosed with brain cancer when she was 18 weeks pregnant. Doctors told the woman they could not treat her with chemotherapy or radiation while pregnant, so she had an abortion. The woman in the ad said that “doctors knew if I did not end my pregnancy . . . I would lose my life” and that “Florida has now banned abortion even in cases like mine.”
The assertion in the ad was based on a law that DeSantis and the Republican-controlled Legislature passed last year to largely prevent abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.
The DeSantis administration contended that the ad was inaccurate because women can obtain abortions to save their lives. The Oct. 3 letters to the TV stations alleged that the ad included “dangerous” information and threatened to seek injunctions or possible criminal prosecution against the stations.
Walker on Oct. 17 issued a temporary restraining order, backing Floridians Protecting Freedom’s arguments that the Department of Health letters violated First Amendment rights. He extended the temporary restraining order Oct. 29.
But in his ruling Wednesday, Walker dissolved the temporary restraining order and denied the requested preliminary injunction. He said Floridians Protecting Freedom could not show “irreparable harm.”
“Although the record supported a limited temporary restraining order to prevent the Department of Health from unconstitutionally coercing broadcasters to stop airing ‘Caroline’ ahead of election day, plaintiff has identified no evidence in this record demonstrating that television broadcasters will continue to be unconstitutionally coerced, nor that plaintiff faces an imminent threat of enforcement action for any other pro-Amendment 4 speech it may engage in after the election,” Walker wrote. “Moreover, plaintiff has not identified what other speech it intends to engage in going forward that would likely be the target of such an enforcement action.”
Walker added that to the extent Floridians Protecting Freedom “fears a possible future enforcement action for airing its ‘Caroline’ ad before election day, or for continuing to post the ‘Caroline’ ad on its website and on YouTube, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that any such enforcement is indeed imminent to justify extraordinary relief in the form of a preliminary injunction.”
Amendment 4, in part, proposed that 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.” It received support from 57.15 percent of voters, short of the 60 percent needed for passage.
--- News Service senior writer Dara Kam contributed to this report.
