Pro-lifers are sounding the alarm on Florida’s 2024 ballot initiative, Amendment 4, which, if passed, would not only end Florida’s six-week pro-life protection but would “enshrine” abortion into the state’s constitution. As the initiative states, “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.”

Former President Donald Trump has expressed his skepticism in the past over Florida’s current heartbeat law, claiming six weeks “is not enough weeks” for women to make this decision. But to the relief of those in the pro-life movement, Trump made his stance concerning Amendment 4 crystal clear on Friday. Characterizing the proposal as “radical,” he said, “I’ll be voting no.” But even after his statement, several voters are still unaware of what this amendment entails.

John Stemberger, president of Liberty Counsel Action and former president of the Florida Family Policy Council, explained on last Friday’s “Washington Watch” that Amendment 4 “is an extreme and deceptive constitutional amendment that is being proposed for our state constitution” that is expected to “appear on the ballot in Florida on November 5th along with the presidential election.”

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

He went on to say how this initiative “has been funded and contrived by the same suspects that [have] done this all around the country,” including “George Soros, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and others.” In total, these groups “spent $12 million just getting the petitions to get this on the ballot,” Stemberger explained. “It is very, very dangerous,” and “if this passes in Florida, it will be permanent.” He further contended that one of the most dangerous aspects of this amendment is that, while “we’ll still have pregnancy centers … advocacy, and … education,” it would “basically shut every single pro-life law down and challenge everything that exists, including health and safety standards, parental consent, whether a doctor should do an abortion or not.”

As Stemberger stated, “It’s just an extreme amendment.” He argued that even many who consider themselves pro-abortion would likely “not support this if they really understood the impact of it.” Jody Hice, former congressman and guest host of the program, agreed, noting that Amendment 4, if passed, “enshrines abortion” on demand into law. He added, “It totally does away with every other legislative codification … of pro-life positions.”

“That’s right,” Stemberger agreed. “Our parental consent law would be overturned and challenged. Our 24-hour waiting period that requires a woman to reflect for [a day] before they take the life of their unborn child, a permanent and irreversible decision … will go by the wayside. The regulations on chemical abortions requiring a doctor to administer these very powerful poisonous drugs will be gone.” In all ways, Stemberger insisted, Amendment 4 “wants to enshrine [abortion] as a fundamental right,” putting it “on par with freedom of speech or freedom of religion.” As such, anything that gets in the way of someone getting an abortion “is automatically struck down, unless they can show that there’s a compelling state interest, narrowly tailored.”

Stemberger went on to explain how similar radical measures have taken place in states such as Ohio and Michigan. Ohio “struck down their 24-hour waiting period.” Both Ohio and Michigan have challenges toward parental consent. And “in Michigan,” Stemberger emphasized, because “they’re saying that … abortion is a fundamental right,” laws “prohibiting public funding of abortion through Medicaid should also give way.” Ultimately, he contended, this amendment is essentially “going to be a free-for-all,” even allowing “abortion up almost through the entire pregnancy. … [I]t is radical, it is extreme, and it is something very deceptive [with] the way it’s worded.”

Agreeing that “there is a lot of deception, a lot of lies … that are being told about Amendment 4 and what it really does,” Hice inquired about “what needs to happen” in order “to adequately inform the voters of Florida.”

One way the amendment is deceptive, Stemberger pointed out, is by including the word “viability.” As he explained, “Some people just read the word ‘viability’ and” think it “is a pro-life amendment” when it’s not. But another problem Stemberger raised is the portion of the amendment that talks about the “patient’s health.” “The problem with this is the word ‘health,’” he underscored, because “the U.S. Supreme Court defines health extremely broadly,” taking into account almost “all factors including mental, physical … emotional, psychological, familial, and even a woman’s age.” Under the World Health Organization’s definition, he noted, it includes “a complete state of physical, mental, and social well-being.”

Stemberger pointed out that “back pain, … fatigue,… nausea, cramping, depression sometimes” are all normal side effects of being pregnant, “so basically, this amendment would allow abortion for any symptom … of being pregnant.” Not only is this definition “extremely broad” and “radical,” he explained, but the amendment also goes on to use the term “health care provider” over doctor or physician. “There’s a reason they didn’t use the word physician,” Stemberger argued, because it follows the theme this amendment has of having “no definitions at all.” And this “is the biggest problem.”

To further emphasize the extreme nature of this ballot initiative, Stemberger compared it to when Florida had an amendment regarding medical marijuana. He explained, “[I]t was four pages of definitions.” But again, Amendment 4 “has no definitions at all, and it’s done on purpose so you can deceive people.”

In other words, Hice concluded, “[T]his is a time to step up and vote no on [A]mendment 4.”

LifeNews Note: Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand, where this originally appeared.