Filing # 151264228 E-Filed 06/10/2022 01:14:56 PM

IN THE COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERATION TO GENERATION, INC., a

religious non-profit organization in Palm Beach
County, Florida, d/b/a Congregation L’Dor Va-
Dor, on behalf of itself, its congregants, its
members, its supporters and their families,
Plaintiff,
v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA; RON DeSANTIS, in

his official capacity as Governor of the State of
Florida, JACK CAMPBELL, in his official
capacity as State Attorney for the Second Judicial
Circuit of Florida; DAVID A. ARONBERG, in his
official capacity as State Attorney for the Fifteenth
Judicial district of Fla, FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, JOSEPH
LADAPO, M.D. in his official capacity as
Secretary of Health for the State of Florida,
FLORIDA BOARD OF MEDICINE; DAVID
DIAMOND, M.D. in his official capacity as Chair
of the Florida Board of Medicine; FLORIDA
BOARD OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE;
SANDRA SCHWEMMER, D.O. in her official
capacity as Chair of the Florida Board of
Osteopathic medicine; FLORIDA BOARD OF
NURSING, MAGGIE HANSSEN, M.H.S, R.N. in
her official capacity as Chair of the Florida Board
of Nursing; FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH
CARE ADMINISTRATION, SIMONE
MARSTILLER, J.D. in her official capacity as
Secretary of the Florida Agency for Health Care
Administration, and ASHLEY MOODY, in her
official capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL for
the State of Florida.

Defendants.
 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND FOR TEMPORARY AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION DECLARING HOUSE BILL 5, INVALID
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNENFORCEABLE

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Over a generation ago, the people of Florida amended the Florida Constitution to

guarantee Floridians a broad right of privacy, including the right to abortion. Art. I, § 23, Fla.

Const. This “independent, freestanding constitutional provision which declares the fundamental

right to privacy” was drafted “in order to make the privacy right as strong as possible,” Winfield

v. Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 477 So. 2d 544, 548 (Fla. 1985), and to “embrace more privacy

interests, and extend more protection to the individual in those interests, than does the federal

Constitution,” In re T.W., 551 So. 2d 1186, 1192 (Fla. 1989). The Florida Supreme Court has

always held that this broad right to privacy includes a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy.

“The Florida Constitution embodies the principle that ‘[f]ew decisions are more personal and

intimate, more properly private, or more basic to individual dignity and autonomy, than a

woman’s decision . . . whether to end her pregnancy. A woman’s right to make that choice freely

is fundamental.’” Id. at 1193 (quoting Thornburgh v. Am. Coll. of Obstetricians &

Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986)). Floridians have consistently reaffirmed that abortion is a

fundamental right deserving of the strongest protection against government intrusion. In 2012,

Floridians rejected a ballot initiative that would have amended the state constitution to overturn

precedent by construing the right to privacy narrowly to prohibit state courts from interpreting

the Florida Constitution to provide stronger protection for abortion than the federal constitution.1

1 Fla. Dep’t of State, Div. of Elections, Initiative Information: Prohibition on Public

Funding of Abortions; Construction of Abortion Rights, https://dos.elections.myflorida.com/
initiatives/fulltext/pdf/10-82.pdf (last visited May 22, 2022); Fla. Dep’t of State, Div. of Elections,
Prohibition on Public Funding of Abortions; Construction of Abortion Rights,
https://dos.elections.myflorida.com/initiatives/initdetail.asp?account=10&seqnum=82 (last
visited May 22, 2022).
 2. In violation of the will of the people, all case precedent and Florida’s history of

protecting the right to abortion as inviolate and fundamental, the Florida legislature recently

passed House Bill 5, a law that criminalizes pre-viability abortions in direct violation of Floridians’

fundamental privacy rights guaranteed by the Florida Constitution. See Ch. 2022-69, §§ 3–4, Laws

of Fla. (“HB 5” or “the Act”) (amending §§ 390.011, 390.0111, Fla. Stat.). HB 5 was signed by

Governor Ron DeSantis on April 14, 2022, and it is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2022. The

Act is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

3. HB 5 also violates Article 1, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution which provides

“There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the

free expression thereof.” The Florida Constitution thus goes beyond the United States

Constitution in its protection of religious freedom in that it adds that the free exercise of religion

may not be penalized. Plaintiff and its members, congregants and supporters rely on Jewish law

and understanding regarding abortion, which differs from the requirements of the Act, and thus,

if the members, congregants and supporters of Plaintiff practice their religion regarding decisions

related to abortion, they will be penalized by the state in violation of the Constitution.

4. The Act establishes as the law of the State of Florida, a particular religious view

about abortion and when life begins, which is contrary to the views of Plaintiff, its members,

congregants, and supporters as well as many other Floridians. While the Act does not specify all

the penalties for violation of its terms, the Act has been instigated across the nation by those who

espouse the view that human life begins at conception, and thus equates abortion with murder.

Accordingly, the penalties for violations of the Act could be grave and could include death. By

failing to include all penalties for violation of the Act, the Act is unconstitutionally vague, and

Floridians are left in the dark as to who will face punishment and the penalties if they exercise

their religious beliefs, which has a great chilling effect upon the free exercise of religion in

1
Florida.

5. HB 5 severely restricts the ability of Floridians to make decisions about whether or

not to bear children and assume the obligations of parenthood, in violation of their rights under

the Florida Constitution. Bringing children into this world is among the greatest blessings, but it

can become a curse if forced upon a woman against her will, as will result if HB 5 takes effect.

As such HB 5 violates the rights of all women to determine when they are ready and prepared to

take on the awesome challenges, responsibilities and risks to their health, associated with

childbirth and parenthood. Rather than encouraging women who take parenthood seriously and

who understand the importance of this decision, the Act deprives them of their basic right to

choose parenthood and to manage the size of their families, the Act treats women as incubators

for potential life and forces them to risk their health, their lives, and their emotional well-being to

further a law which has no rational basis and which serves no compelling state interest.

6. Specifically, HB 5 criminalizes the provision of abortion care after fifteen weeks

as dated from the first day of a woman’s last menstrual period (“LMP”). That timing is early in

the second trimester and months prior to both fetal viability and the current limit under Florida

law. This timing is arbitrary and capricious, is not supported by any rational basis or compelling

state interest and is hard to understand for many women and their medical providers.

7. By banning the provision of abortion care after fifteen weeks LMP, the Act will

unlawfully intrude upon the fundamental privacy rights of Florida women. It will deny Floridians’

autonomy over their own bodies and undermine their ability to make deeply personal decisions

about their lives, families, and health care, free of government interference.

8. The Act threatens Plaintiff and its members, congregants and supporters, and their

families as well as those who currently provide abortion care services to Plaintiff and their

congregants in Florida after 15 weeks LMP, with severe penalties: it makes the provision of

2
abortion care after 15 weeks LMP a felony and threatens clinics and health care professionals

with adverse licensing and disciplinary action for providing essential health care to their patients.

If the Act goes into effect, it will cause immediate and irreparable harm to Floridians seeking

abortions after 15 weeks LMP, including, but not limited to Plaintiff, its congregants, members

and supporters, and their families.

9. The Act criminalizes physicians who perform an abortion but does not criminalize

abortions performed by non-physicians. Thus, the Act unreasonably jeopardizes the lives of all

women in Florida, including those who choose to exercise their religious freedom, such as the

Plaintiff, its members, congregants and their supporters, by forcing the women of Florida to seek

abortions from non-physicians or out of state. The Act targets women without the means to pay

thousands of dollars to travel out of state to obtain an abortion and takes Florida backwards to

the dangerous days when women were forced to obtain back-alley abortions in order to exercise

their right of privacy and their religious freedom, and as a result suffered injury and death.

10. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment and a temporary and permanent injunction

pursuant to Chapter 86 and Section 26.012(3), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rules of Civil

Procedure Rule 1.610 to prevent the violation of Floridians’ constitutional rights.

11. Unless this Court grants an injunction before HB 5 takes effect, abortion

providers will be unable to provide pregnant Floridians, including the members, congregants,

supporters and families of Plaintiff with abortions and health care that they are guaranteed under

the Florida Constitution. If denied an abortion by the Act. Plaintiff’s pregnant members,

congregants and supporters and their families will lose autonomy and the religious freedom to

make important decisions about intimate aspects of their lives, while those with the means to do

so, will be required to travel great distances, which could be thousands of miles to exercise their

rights, and all such delays increase the danger and harm to women from abortion, which

3
nevertheless is less than the dangers of childbirth. Other women in desperation may seek to end

their pregnancies in the manner utilized by women when abortions were illegal in the United

States, which involved being treated by unlicensed, untrained individuals who were often not

physicians and often caused great harm to the women they treated which included permanent

damages and death. Because of the vague, undefined terms in the Act, others may be afraid to

assist women in making a decision regarding abortion, leaving women to struggle with the stress

of an unwanted pregnancy alone.

12. Forcing parenthood upon women against their will harms women, their families,

our society and the religious freedom of those who do not share the views reflected in the Act.

By denying women their dignity, autonomy, religious freedom and their fundamental rights, the

Act denigrates women, threatens the integrity of families and reverts back to a time in our

nation’s history when women were denied the right to vote, to enter into a contract and to enjoy

equal rights under the law. Thus, the Act takes us backwards to a time of less rights for women,

rather than forwards in pursuit of full equality of opportunity and rights under the law.

13. If injunctive relief is not granted, the Act will deny Plaintiff and other Floridians

their fundamental constitutional rights and will cause Plaintiff, its members, congregants,

supporters and their families irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. In

order to infringe upon the religious freedom and privacy rights of Plaintiff and all other women

in Florida and their families, the State must show a compelling state interest in support of the Act

and the least intrusive manner to achieve this goal. No compelling state interest exists nor even a

rational basis is offered to support the Act and its methodology is overly broad and vague.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to article V, section 5,

subsection (b) of the Florida Constitution and Sections 26.012(3) and 86.011, Florida Statutes.

4
 15. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Section 47.021, Florida Statutes, because

at least one Defendant has a principal office in Leon County.

III. THE PARTIES

A. Plaintiff

16. Plaintiff GENERATION TO GENERATION, Inc. is a religious non-profit corporation

organized under the laws of Florida, d/b/a Congregation L’Dor Va-Dor,(hereinafter referred to as

“L’Dor Va-Dor”), operating in Palm Beach County, Florida for 25 years. It files this lawsuit on behalf

of itself, its congregants, its members, its supporters and their families, the Jewish community, religious

minorities of all backgrounds and on behalf of those whose ethics, values, morals and beliefs, whether

recognized as a formal religion or not, are in conflict with the religious views and assumptions that are

reflected in the Act and inspired its passage and who wished to impose their religious views upon all

“others” who they consider morally inferior and thus not deserving of the right to exercise autonomy

over their bodies in matters related to abortion, child birth and family, and must be threatened with

severe penalties if they attempt to make their own decisions in this regard.

B. Defendants

17. Defendant the State of Florida, through its Legislature and Governor, adopted the

challenged Act. It is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2022.

18. Defendant, Ron DeSantis, is Governor of the State of Florida, and spearheaded

the passage of the Act not for any legitimate rational purpose or compelling state interest, but due to

purely political reasons. He is sued in his official capacity, as are his agents and successors.

19. Defendant Jack Campbell is the state attorney of the Second Judicial Circuit of

Florida and is authorized to initiate and prosecute alleged violations of the Act per Fla Stat. §

27.02(1). Defendant Campbell is sued in his official capacity, as are his agents and successors.

20. Defendant David A. Aronberg is the state attorney of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit

of Florida and is authorized to initiate and prosecute alleged violations of the Act. § 27.02(1),

5
Fla. Stat. It is unknown to what extent Defendant Aronberg will enforce the Act, and until this is

known, he is sued in his official capacity, as are his agents and successors.

21. Defendant Ashley Moody is the Attorney General for the State of Florida, an

elected cabinet official and the chief legal officer in the State of Florida, responsible for the

enforcement of the laws of Florida and obligated to offer her opinion if she concludes that a law,

such as HB 5 is unconstitutional and unenforceable. Defendant Moody is sued in her official

capacity as are her agents and successors.

22. Defendant Florida Department of Health is the state agency authorized to

investigate potential violations of the Act and, in some instances, impose penalties for violations

of the Act on providers of abortion care, including members of the clinic’s staff and perhaps

others. Defendant Joseph Ladapo, M.D., is Secretary of the Department and is sued in his official

capacityas Secretary of Health for the State of Florida, as are his agents and successors.

23. Defendant Florida Board of Medicine is part of the Florida Department of Health.

Pursuant to Florida law, the Florida Board of Medicine exercises supervisory powers over the

state’s physicians and conducts disciplinary proceedings and imposes penalties against physicians

and physician assistants. Defendant Florida Board of Medicine is authorized to impose penalties

on providers of abortion care for violations of the Act. Defendant David Diamond, M.D., is the

Chair of the Florida Board of Medicine and is sued in his official capacity as Chair of the Florida

Board of Medicine, as are his agents and successors.

24. Defendant Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine is part of the Florida Department

of Health. Pursuant to Florida law, the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine is authorized to

impose penalties on providers of abortion care. Defendant Sandra Schwemmer, D.O., is the

Chair of the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine and is sued in her official capacity as Chair

of the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine, as are her agents and successors.

6
 25. Defendant Florida Board of Nursing is part of the Florida Department of Health.

Pursuant to Florida law, the Florida Board of Nursing exercises supervisory powers over the state’s

registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and advanced practice registered nurses and conducts

disciplinary proceedings and imposes penalties against them. Defendant Florida Board of Nursing

is authorized to impose penalties on nursing professionals who participate in providing abortion

care for violations of the Act. Defendant Maggie Hansen, M.H.Sc, R.N., is the Chair of the

Florida Board of Nursing and is sued in her official capacity as Chair of the Florida Board of

Nursing, as are her agents and successors.

26. Defendant Florida Agency for Health Care Administration is the state agency

authorized to license abortion clinics or refuse to renew licenses for failure to comply with the

Act. As Secretary of the Agency, Defendant Simone Marstiller, J.D. is sued in her official

capacity as Secretary of the Agency as are her agents and successors.

IV. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON ABORTION RIGHTS IN FLORIDA

27. Florida law currently bans abortions after a fetus attains viability, which is

defined as “the stage of fetal development when the life of a fetus is sustainable outside the womb

throughstandard medical measures.” § 390.011(13), Fla. Stat.; see also § 390.01112, Fla. Stat.

28. Section 390.0111, Florida Statutes, sets forth statutory requirements for the

provision of abortion care in Florida, including the current requirements that abortions be

performed prior to the third trimester of pregnancy, only by physicians, and only after obtaining

informed consent from the patient.

29. Section 4 of HB 5 amends section 390.0111 to prohibit and criminalize the

provision of abortion care after fifteen weeks LMP, approximately two months before a

pregnancy can be viable. Fla. HB 5, § 4 (2022) (to be codified at § 390.0111(1), Fla. Stat.).

Section 3 of HB 5 amends section 390.011 to provide definitions for Section 4’s operative terms. Fla. HB

7
5, § 3(6)–(7) (to be codified at § 390.011(6)–(7)).

30. The Act contains only two extremely limited exceptions. First, an abortion after

fifteen weeks LMP may be performed if “the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save the

pregnant woman’s life or avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a

major bodily function of the pregnant woman other than a psychological condition,” and either

two physicians certify this conclusion “in [their] reasonable medical judgment” in writing, or a

sole physician certifies that the risks are “imminent” and “another physician is not available for

consultation.” F.S. § 390.0111(1)(a)–(b).

31. Second, the Act permits an abortion after 15 weeks LMP when “[t]he fetus has not

achieved viability under § 390.01112 and two physicians certify in writing that, in [their]

reasonable medical judgement, the fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality.” Fla. HB 5, § 4 (to be

codified at § 390.0111(1)(c), Fla. Stat.). The Act defines “fatal fetal abnormality” to mean “a

terminal condition that, in reasonable medical judgment, regardless of the provision of life-saving

medical treatment, is incompatible with life outside the womb and will result in death upon birth

or imminently thereafter.” Id. § 3 (to be codified at § 390.011(6), Fla. Stat.).

32. A violation of HB 5 constitutes a third-degree felony; “any person” who “willfully

performs” or “actively participates” in an abortion in violation of the law is subject to criminal

penalties, including imprisonment of up to five years and monetary penalties up to $5,000 for a

first offense. §§ 390.0111(10)(a), 775.082(8)(e), 775.083(1)(c), Fla. Stat.

33. Physicians and other health care professionals are subject to disciplinary action for

violating the Act, including but not limited to revocation of their licenses to practice medicine and

administrative fines of up to $10,000 for each violation. §§ 390.0111(13), 390.018, 456.072(2),

458.331(2), 459.015(2), 464.018(2), Fla. Stat.

34. In addition, abortion clinics may be prevented from renewing their clinic licenses

8
for violations of the Act. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-9.020.

35. In addition, the Act requires extensive reporting requirements not required for any

other similar procedure in the State of Florida, such as detailed information about each abortion

performed and the number of abortion regimens prescribed or dispensed. Thus, after passing a

draconian abortion law, the State is further requiring abortion clinics and facilities to become

informers against their own patients, compelled to further violate the right of privacy of their

patients who choose abortion, after the State has already done so, in further violation of Article

1, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution. Such compelled speech against one’s own patient, and

the requirement that medical personnel who provide abortion care must violate their Hippocratic

oath by violating the privacy rights of their patients, constitutes compelled speech which is

anathema to the state’s obligation to guarantee the rights provided under the Florida Constitution.

36. The Act, by its terms, is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2022. Fla. HB 5, § 8.

V. STATEMENT OF FACTS

37. Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures in the United States. Abortion,

including pre-viability abortion after 15 weeks LMP, is much safer than continuing a pregnancy

through to childbirth. A woman’s risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 12 to

14 times higher than her risk of death associated with abortion. In addition, every type of

complication associated with pregnancy is more common among women who give birth than

among those who have abortions.

38. Abortion is not only safe, but common. Approximately one in four women in this

country will have an abortion. A majority of women having abortions (60%) already have at least

one child.

39. Women seek abortions for a variety of deeply personal reasons, including familial,

medical, and financial. Some women have abortions because they conclude that it is not the right

9
time in their lives to have a child or to add to their families. For example, some decide to end a

pregnancy because they want to pursue their education; some because they feel they lack the

necessary economic resources or partner support or stability; some because they are concerned

that adding a child to their family will make them less able to adequately provide and care for

their existing children; some because they decide not to have children at all. Some women seek

abortions to preserve their lives or their physical, psychological, and emotional health;some because they

have become pregnant as a result of rape; and some because they are experiencing intimate partner

violence and do not wish to be further tethered to an abusive partner or to bring a child into an abusive

environment. Some women decide to have an abortion because of an indication or diagnosis of a fetal

medical condition or anomaly. Some families do not feel they have the resources—financial, medical,

educational, or emotional—to care for a child with special needs or to simultaneously provide for the

children they already have. The decision to terminate a pregnancy for any reason is motivated by a

combination of diverse, complex, and interrelated factors that are intimately related to the individual

woman’s values and beliefs, culture and religion, health status and reproductive history, family situation,

resources and economicstability.

40. Some women, such as the members, congregants, supporters of Plaintiff L’Dor Va-Dor

and their families have an abortion because it is required by their religious faith. For Jews, all life is

precious and thus the decision to bring new life into the world is not taken lightly or determined by state

fiat. In Jewish law, abortion is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being

of the woman, or for many other reasons not permitted under the Act. As such, the Act prohibits Jewish

women from practicing their faith free of government intrusion and thus violates their privacy rights and

religious freedom. The most important institution in Jewish life is the family, which has withstood

centuries of persecution and discrimination by clinging to values and ideals which are quintessential to the

Jewish faith. By preventing Jews from making intimate, personal decisions about the size of their

families, or when and under what circumstances to bring new life into the world, the Act not only

threatens the lives, equality and dignity of Jewish women, the Act also threatens the integrity of the

1
0
Jewish family and denies religious freedom to Jewish women and their families. As such, the Act

establishes the religion of its proponents and prohibits the free exercise of the Jewish religion by

prohibiting Plaintiff’s members, congregants and supporters from exercising their religious beliefs in the

most intimate decisions of their lives in consultation with their rabbis, medical providers and their family.

41. Moreover, the Jewish people are just one group among all the people of Florida whose

religious beliefs about when life begins and when abortion is proper runs afoul of the Act. Thus, the Act

violates the religious freedom of all Floridians who do not share the religious views reflected and codified

in the Act.

42. The Act also discriminates against those who are most vulnerable, by specifically failing

to permit abortion due to considerations of the mental distress and challenges that a woman could face if

forced to bring a child into the world against her will. There is no rational basis nor compelling state

interest to justify such an exclusion

43. Due to a range of factors, including lack of access to affordable health care,

approximately 75% of people obtaining abortion care have incomes that classify them as poor or

low-income. Centuries of systemic racism have also contributed to inequities in health care access

and economic inequality; as a result, the majority of patients seeking abortion care are Black,

Indigenous, or women of color, and these same populations face disproportionately high rates of

maternal mortality and comorbidities that increase the health risks associated with pregnancy.

44. Forcing a woman to become a parent against her will not only discriminates

against Jews, it also violates the rights of the mentally ill, minorities, the poor and oppressed, and

those who do not wield similar power in the State of Florida as the Governor and the other

Defendants.

45. The Act serves no governmental interest and in fact is harmful to the interests of

the people of Florida. Those societies that respect women’s rights and grant women autonomy

over their own reproductive system and their own bodies prosper in every way, while those

1
1
societies who treat women as the property of the State, always suffer and decline. Thus, the

injunctive relief sought by the Plaintiff will serve the public interest.

46. No fetus is viable at 15 weeks of pregnancy. Fifteen weeks LMP is approximately

two months before the point in pregnancy at which fetal viability may occur. Like fully

developed people, all fetuses are different and thus they reach viability at different stages and

some never do. To base criminal charge on such an elusive definition and to threaten criminal

charges against physicians and a wide dragnet of others who may be deemed to have assisted a

woman in obtaining an abortion will have a strong chilling effect upon the women of this state

who do not share the views of a Governor who is all too willing to target even the most powerful

entities in Florida who defy his will and thus would not hesitate to persecute and prosecute those

who intentionally defy the Act or who cannot understand its vague terms.

47. In general matter, people who decide to end a pregnancy try to do so as early as

possible in their pregnancy. As a result, most abortions in Florida occur prior to 14weeks

LMP. However, women seek abortion in the second trimester for a number of reasons.

48. For example, some patients, especially those with irregular menstrual cycles or who

do not experience pregnancy symptoms, may not even suspect they are pregnant for weeks or

months. Because of the way pregnancy is dated, a missed period occurs at the earliest at 4.5 to 5

weeks LMP. Patients may be further delayed in confirming the pregnancy, researching and

considering their options, contacting an abortion provider, and scheduling an appointment.

49. Many patients seek abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy because they cannot

raise funds for the procedure and related expenses, such as transportation and childcare.

50. Other patients have difficulty arranging time off from work or school, finding

childcare, and arranging transportation.

51. Other patients, including women who initially intended to carry their pregnancies
1
2
to term, may decide to terminate a pregnancy because their life circumstances change: they lose a

job, they break up with a partner, or a family member becomes ill. Others experience health

conditions that are caused or exacerbated by pregnancy or receive a diagnosis of a serious fetal

condition or a serious medical condition of their own which makes carrying a fetus to term risky

and medically inadvisable. These health conditions may first arise or worsen after 15 weeks

LMP, and many fetal conditions are not able to be identified until after 15 weeks LMP, but these

conditions often do not fit within the Act’s very limited exceptions.

52. For all these reasons, nearly 5,000 patients obtain abortion care after 14 weeks

LMP in Florida each year. As a result of the Act, thousands of patients who need abortion care

after 15 weeks LMP will be left with few options. Some may attempt to travel extremely long

distances to obtain care in another state if such care is still available. But doing so will impose

substantial economic and logistical burdens, and will not be possible for many patients, 75% of

whom are poor or have low incomes. Some patients may decide to end their pregnancies on their

own, outside the medical system. Others will be prevented from obtaining abortion care entirely

and thus will be forced to continue their pregnancies and have children against their will.

53. Being forced to continue a pregnancy against her will can pose a risk to a woman’s

physical, mental, and emotional health, and life, as well as to the stability and well-being of her

family, including her existing children. The Act mandates the medically riskier course of

maintaining a pregnancy, regardless of whether continuing the pregnancy is contrary to an

individual patient’s will, and regardless of the specific health risks it imposes upon her.

54. Because of the Act’s severe penalties, absent an injunction, abortion providers will be

forced to stop providing care to patients seeking abortions after 15 weeks LMP, contrary to their

good-faith medical judgment and their patients’ needs and wishes. With no one available to

provide such care in Florida, Florida women will suffer irreparable harm to their autonomy, their

1
3
well-being, and their dignity, in violation of their right of privacy under the Florida Constitution.

Plaintiff, its members, congregants and supporters, who do not share the religious views reflected

in the Act, will suffer additional irreparable harm by having their religious freedom under the

Florida Constitution violated. This failure to maintain the separation of church and state, like so

many other laws in other lands throughout history, threatens the Jewish family, and thus also

threatens the Jewish people by imposing the laws of other religions upon Jews. There is no

adequate remedy of law for the irreparable harm that will be caused by the Act’s violation of the

Constitutional rights of the Plaintiff, its members, congregants, supporters and their families.

55. To obtain injunctive relief, Plaintiff must demonstrate a substantial likelihood of

success on the merits, irreparable harm to the Plaintiff, no adequate legal remedy, that the

equities are with the Plaintiff and that an injunction would not disserve the public interest. This

complaint amply demonstrates that all these prerequisites have been met and clearly

demonstrates that an injunction would serve the public interest.

56. In addition, the Act is unconstitutionally void for vagueness by failing to specify

the penalties for its violation and by failing to identify who could be prosecuted under its vague,

and incomprehensible terms such as “willfully performs” and “actively participates” in an

abortion. Our legal system abhors such traps for the unwary and prohibits such vague laws

which could impose draconian penalties upon those who exercise their fundamental rights such

as privacy and religious freedom in making their own health care decisions, especially when such

women are among the vulnerable and/or minority populations. The Act fails to define the term

“actively participates” and thus criminalizes behavior about which those of ordinary intelligence

would have to guess if it applies to them. The Act fails to make clear if those who assist a

woman to obtain an abortion in Florida by giving her a ride to the clinic, working as staff at a

clinic, provide rabbinic counseling regarding the permissibility of abortion under Jewish law,

1
4
counsels a woman that it is in her best interest to have an abortion, gives her directions to the

abortion clinic or other unspecified acts, would be subject to prosecution for “actively”

participating in an abortion.

57. Florida courts do not permit such vague laws which have an extreme chilling

effect on basic, fundamental rights, especially the right to abortion, which the Florida Supreme

Court considers among the most basic and fundamental of all rights as expressed in In re TW

(Id.).

58. In order to prevent this chilling effect upon Constitutional rights in Florida, by

criminalizing behavior that had been the law of the land for nearly half a century, and in order

not to violate the right of privacy, freedom of religion and the separation of church and state, this

Court should hold the Act unconstitutional as written and as it would be applied, and/or void for

vagueness. The status quo ante has served Florida well for many years and should be preserved

with the granting of a temporary and a permanent injunction, and/or declaratory relief.

59. The Act is arbitrary and capricious as written, and as revealed by the framers, will

also likely be arbitrary and vague as applied. The determination that a fetus becomes a human

being at 15 weeks is irrational and there is nothing in the Act which explains why this date has

been chosen to begin the imposition of harsh penalties. The President of the Senate, Wilton

Simpson replied when asked to explain the Act, “After 15 weeks, that is a child. And so, the

argument is, should you kill a baby after 15 weeks because it was (conceived) under certain

circumstances?” What criteria are used to determine that a fetus becomes a child at 15 weeks,

and not at 14 or 16 weeks is not explained in the Act, by Senator Simpson or by anyone else

because there is no rational basis to make such a determination. However, what is clear from his

remarks and the legislative intent of the Act is that anyone who performs, undergoes, or assists in

an abortion after 15 weeks from the time that the State begins to calculate conception, is subject

1
5
to the charge of murder according to the President of the Senate, whose above statement

indicates that he has conflated the terms, fetus, baby and child, and that if one takes the life of

this “child” he or she has killed a baby and thus may be subject to the charge of murder in

Florida.

COUNT I – RIGHT TO PRIVACY

60. Plaintiffs hereby reaffirm and reallege each and every allegation made in ¶¶ 1–59

above as if set forth fully herein.

61. The Act, on its face and/or, in the alternative, as it will be applied, violates the

right to privacy of women seeking and obtaining abortions in the state of Florida, as guaranteed

by Article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution. Plaintiff’s members and congregants, along

with all other women have the right to be let alone from government intrusion into their private

lives.

62. As a result of Defendants’ enactment and intended enforcement of the Act, the

right of privacy regarding decisions about abortion, of Plaintiff, its members, congregants,

supporters and their families has been violated, resulting in irreparable harm to the Plaintiff.

COUNT II: VIOLATION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

AND THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

63. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of ¶¶ 1–59 above as if set forth fully herein.

64. As described herein, the Act violates the right of the Plaintiff, its members,

Congregants and supporters from exercising their rights as Jews to freedom of religion in the

most intimate decisions of their lives. By harming and threatening the Jewish family, and the

rights of Jewish women, the Act does irreparable harm to the Jewish people.

65. The Jewish mother is widely praised, honored and cherished for her love and

devotion to her husband, children and family, and for working with the father of their children

to create a Jewish home, filled with love, joy and Jewish ideals.
1
6
 66. These qualities of the Jewish home and its positive influence upon the children are

threatened when women are forced to bear children against their will and the family is not

free to determine the number of children they feel responsible, capable and ready to raise.

When children are born outside of marriage, against the will of the mother, this harms the

sanctity of the Jewish home and family, and does incalculable harm to Jewish women and all

other women who cherish not the quality, not merely the quantity of lives they produce.

Preventing families from enjoying the freedom to determine the number of children that they

can raise responsibly, also does great harm to our society and shows a disregard for the sanctity

of life, which is among the highest ideals of the Jewish people.

67. Among the many contributions of the Jewish people to the world is a reverence

for life and the belief that all human life is sacred. Plaintiff, its members, congregants, and

supporters and their families do not require others to impose their religious views about when

life begins and the sanctify of life in order to supplant and replace by judicial fiat and the

power of the State the Jewish view of when life begins and the sanctity of life.

68. The Act reflects the views of Christian nationalists who seek to deny religious

freedom to all others, under the arrogant, self-righteous notion that only they are capable of

understanding God’s law and judgments and the religious views of all others are false, evil

and not entitled to respect or constitutional protections. Proponents of this way of thinking

used their political power to enshrine their narrow religious views as the law of the State of

Florida, which not only results in irreparable harm to Plaintiff and all others who espouse a

different view, including many of their co-religionists, but it also threatens and harms the very

framework or our Democracy, and the cherished ideal of the separation of church and state

which has been the cornerstone of American democracy since its inception and the reason why

has been so successful and the envy of freedom-loving people throughout the world.

1
7
 69. According to data from the Pew Research Center as reported by Jews For A

Secular Democracy, an overwhelming 83% of American Jews are pro-choice and this number

is almost assuredly an underestimate, since even those Jews who may not practice abortion, do

not need or require the government to tell them what to do in such personal areas, and do not

want the government to impose rules and regulations regarding abortion which contradict their

beliefs and views on abortion based on their practice of Judaism.

70. According to the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW) “Judaism permits

Abortion. Full stop. The Constitution gives us the right to have abortions. Full stop.” This

view reflects the view of most Jewish organizations, many of whom have led the effort to

protect abortion rights as quintessential towards protecting the rights of women, Jews and all

people and which is essential in preserving the sanctity of life, and the Jewish goal, which is

shared by many others, of living in a society where all children are wanted, cherished and loved.

71. The Jewish people have often borne the brunt of the horrors that occur when the

power of Christianity has merged with the power of the state. The result has been Inquisitions,

Crusades, ghettoes and pogroms for the Jews and the eventual loss of freedom for everyone else.

The founding fathers, well aware of such evils in Europe, sought to create a form of government

free of such horrors and so they enshrined in our founding documents such as the Declaration of

Independence and the Constitution of the United States the principle of the separation of church

and state as a guiding principle of our democracy, as they eloquently expressed in the letter to the

Baptists of Danbury, and the Treaty of Tripoli. The founders viewed this separation as the bedrock

of our democracy, essential to freedom and a prerequisite to enjoying the blessings of America. As

they understood so well, when this wall of separation experiences a crack or begins to crumble, as

is the case with the passage of the Act, the Jewish people are among the first to suffer, followed by

the suffering of all others and the collapse of society as well.

1
8
 72. The architects of the Act have taken a first step towards the dismantling of that wall

and returning the state of Florida and our nation back to a time when the merger of Christianity

and government produced genocide, slavery, misogyny, and the denial of equal rights and in many

cases, any rights at all to those who did not share the gender, race or religion of those in power.

73. The Jewish people have been among those who strongly believe in the principle of

the separation of Church and state in order to keep America where it is today, as a bastion of

freedom and a source of hope for people around the world rather than to take us back to the dark

days of the past where the light of freedom was dimmed and flickered.

74. Thus, as written and potentially applied the Act violates the rights of Plaintiff and

its members, congregants and supporters by unconstitutionally establishing religion in the

context of decisions regarding abortion and defining when life begins and also prohibiting the free

exercise of religion by Plaintiff and many others.

75. Jewish law does not consider life to begin at conception or at 15 weeks and most Jews

such as Plaintiff, its members and congregants do not believe that all the rights of personhood

are conferred upon a fetus. In fact, under traditional Jewish law life begins at birth and if a fetus

poses a threat to the health or emotional well-being of its mother, at any stage of gestation up until

birth, Jewish law requires the mother to abort the pregnancy and protect herself. Thus, if a Jewish

mother were to practice Jewish law in Florida in the context of abortion after the enactment of the

Act, she would be considered party to a crime and in the eyes of the some of the proponents of the

Act, she and her physician and staff would be considered murderers.

76. As a strong proponent of ecumenical harmony and good will, L’Dor Va-Dor also

makes this legal challenge not only on behalf of Jews, but also on behalf of the majority of

Christians who do not share the beliefs reflected in the Act, and who believe in a woman’s right

to choose, as well as those of all religious faiths and those of no religious faith at all, who share a

1
9
belief in the American ideal of the separation of church and state.

77. Accordingly, the Act violates the establishment and the free exercise clause of the

guarantee of religious freedom provided by the Florida Constitution in Article 1, Section 3. As a

result of Defendant’s Constitutional violation, the Plaintiff, its members, congregants, supporters

and their families and all Floridians have suffered irreparable harm.

COUNT III: VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS

78. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of paragraphs 1 to 59 as if fully set forth herein.

79. Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution provides that no person in the

State of Florida may be deprived of their right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness without

Due Process of Law. This provision prohibits laws, like the Act, which are vague and leave

plenty of room for the government to arbitrarily and capriciously enforce the Act.

80. A law is unconstitutionally vague when people of common intelligence must

necessarily guess at its meaning. Laws, such as the Act, which provide criminal penalties, which

could even include murder, are considered unconstitutionally vague when they invite selective,

arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, as written or applied, and thus have a chilling effect

upon the exercise of constitutional rights. The vagueness in the statute regarding the penalties for

violation of the act, those who are subject to these penalties because they have “actively

participated” in an abortion, and other vague provisions of the Act, invites arbitrary enforcement,

especially with an administration eager to punish those who disagree with the Governor.

81. The cut-off date of 15 weeks into a guess as to when gestation began, upon which a

fetus is said to become a human being, and thus entitled to protection under the Act, is arbitrary

and capricious, and lacks any support or foundation for this determination in the law.

82. Thus, the Act violates the due process provisions of the Florida Constitution as

2
0
provided in Article 1, Section 9. As a result of Defendant’s violation of their constitutional

rights, the Plaintiff, its members, congregants, supporters and their families and all Floridians

have been harmed.

COUNT IV: VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION

83. Plaintiff repeats the allegations of ¶¶ 1–59 above as if set forth fully herein.

84. The Act excludes any exceptions of its drastic restrictions on abortion rights due to the

adverse mental health effects of forcing pregnancy upon a woman, no matter how severe.

85. There is no rational basis or compelling state interest in ignoring the serious

psychological harm inflicted upon women by forcing them to carry a pregnancy to term and to

bear a child against her will, especially if the pregnancy is the result of rape, incest or other

traumatic circumstances. Regardless of how devastating the psychological harm would be to a

woman by compelling her to become a parent against her will, while exceptions are made for

other reasons, no exception is made due to mental health considerations when the trauma of an

unwanted pregnancy is compounded by the additional trauma inflicted by the State upon a

woman when her autonomy is denied in decisions of parenthood. The traumatic effect not only

of the pregnancy under egregious circumstances, but of the loss of power to terminate the

pregnancy is well established and well known to mental health practitioners.

86. On June 7, in response to yet another deadly shooting in Uvalde, Texas, Governor Ron

DeSantis signed a bill that will require mental health “crisis intervention” training for on-campus

officers. The new law also requires that 80 percent of employees at all schools receive training in

“youth mental health awareness and assistance,” and recognizes that under certain circumstances,

mental health concerns can represent a crisis in one’s life, especially to the young.

87. The Florida Constitution provides in Article 1, Section 2 that “All natural persons,

female or male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights.” By allowing other
2
1
considerations to be considered, but explicitly eliminating the mental health consequences of

forced parenthood upon a woman, regardless of the terrible circumstances which may surround

the pregnancy, the Act discriminates against the mentally ill or those why may suffer mental

illness as the result of trauma in their lives.

88. Accordingly, the Act discriminates against those who suffer mental illness or may

suffer mental distress and illness as a result of the Act. Accordingly, the Act violates Article 1,

Section 2 of the Florida Constitution. This violation of equal protection causes irreparable harm

to Plaintiff, its members, congregants, supporters and their families, some of whom suffer and/or

will suffer from mental illness and/or distress as a result of the Act.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court:

1. Issue a declaratory judgment that HB 5 violates the right of Plaintiff, its female

members, congregants, and supporters and their families and/or all women of Florida to privacy

as protected in Article 1, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution due to its unreasonable

restrictions upon decisions surrounding abortion, reproduction and personal autonomy. Plaintiff

further requests that this Honorable Court find that because HB 5 violates the provisions of the

Florida Constitution Article 1, section 23, it is therefore void, unenforceable, invalid and of no

legal effect.

2. Issue a declaratory judgment that HB 5 violates the rights of Plaintiff, its

members, congregants, supporters and their families as well as all others to be free to exercise

their religious, spiritual and/or ethical values and beliefs, free from government intrusion; and to

find that HB 5 violates the establishment and the free exercise clause of the Florida Constitution

2
2
as expressed in Article 1 section 3 and is therefore void, unenforceable, invalid and of no legal

effect.

3. Issue a declaratory judgment that HB 5 violates the rights of Plaintiff, its

members, congregants, supporters and their families, as well as many others in Florida by

depriving them of their fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and other

rights described in this complaint without due process of law; and to further find that because of

this violation, HB 5 violates the due process clause of the Florida Constitution as expressed in

Article 1, section 9, and is therefore void, unenforceable, invalid and of no legal effect.

4. Issue a declaratory judgment that HB 5 violates Article 1, Section 2 of the Florida

Constitution by denying equal protection under the law and by discriminating against those with

mental illness or who could suffer adverse mental health consequences as the result of the Act,

and therefore the Act is void, unenforceable, invalid and of no legal effect.

5. Issue temporary and permanent injunctive relief restraining the enforcement,

operation and/or execution of HB 5 by enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants,

employees, appointees, or successors, as well as those in active concert or participation with any

of them, from enforcing, threatening to enforce, or otherwise applying the provisions of the Act

in Florida due to its violation of the rights of Plaintiff, its members, congregants, supporters and

families and all other people in Florida as provided in the Florida Constitution, Article 1,

sections 2, 3, 9, and/or 23.

6. Grant Plaintiff’s costs.

7. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this 10th day of June 2022.

/s/ Barry M. Silver

Barry Silver (FL Bar #382108)
18624 Caple Sable Drive
2
3
Boca Raton, Fl. 33498
(561) 302-1818
[email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint and its
attached Exhibit A has been sent by electronic mail to the defendants or their representatives,
as listed on the service list below, this June 10, 2022.

/s/ Barry Silver

Barry Silver FBN 382108
18624 Cape Sable Drive
Boca Raton, Fl. 33498
(561) 302-1818
[email protected]

2
4
Dave A. Aronberg, State Attorney Joseph A. Ladapo, M.D.,State Surgeon
401 N. Dixie Highway, Suite 2800 General &
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4209 Florida Department of Health Secretary
Email: [email protected] 4052 Bald Cypress Way
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1719
Dennis W. Ward, State Attorney Email: Joseph A. Ladapo, M.D., State
530 Whitehead Street, Suite 201 Surgeon General,
Key West, Florida 33040-6547 [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Florida Board of Medicine
Florida Department of Health c/o David Diamond, M.D., Chair
c/o Joseph A. Ladapo, M.D., Office of the General Counsel
State Surgeon General 2585 Merchants Row Blvd.
4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1719 Email: Ed Tellechea, Chief Assistant
Email: John Wilson, General Counsel, Attorney General,
[email protected] [email protected]
Email: Joseph A. Ladapo, M.D., State
Surgeon General, David Diamond, M.D., Chair
[email protected] Florida Board of Medicine
Office of the General Counsel
Simone Marstiller, J.D., Secretary 2585 Merchants Row Blvd.
Fla Agency for Health Care Admin. Tallahassee, Florida 32399
2727 Mahan Dr. Email: Ed Tellechea, Chief Assistant
Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Attorney General,
Email: Deputy General Counsel [email protected]
[email protected]
Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine
State of Florida c/o Sandra Schwemmer, D.O., Chair
c/o Ashley Moody Office of the General Counsel
Florida Attorney General 2585 Merchants Row Blvd.
PL-01 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Tallahassee, Fl. 32399-1050 Email: Donna McNulty, Senior Assistant
Attorney General,
Simone Marstiller, J.D., Secretary [email protected]
Florida Agency for Health Care Admin.
2727 Mahan Drive
Tallahassee, Fl. 43408
[email protected]

2
5
Florida Board of Nursing
c/o Maggie Hansen, MHSc, RN, Chair
Office of the General Counsel
2585 Merchants Row Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Email: Deborah Loucks, Senior Assistant
Attorney General,
[email protected]
Email: David Flynn, Assistant Attorney
General, [email protected]

Maggie Hansen, MHSc, RN, Chair

Florida Board of Nursing
Office of the General Counsel
2585 Merchants Row Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Email: Deborah Loucks, Senior Assistant
Attorney General,
[email protected]
Email: David Flynn, Assistant Attorney
General, [email protected]

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

c/o Simone Marstiller, J.D., Secretary
2727 Mahan Dr.
Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Email: Deputy General Counsel,
[email protected]
Email: [email protected]

State of Florida
c/o Jack Campbell
State Attorney for the Second Judicial Circuit
of the State of Florida
Leon County Courthouse
301 S. Monroe St. Suite #475
Tallahassee, Fl. 32301
Email: [email protected]

Jack E. Campbell
State Attorney for Leon County
Leon County Courthouse
301 S. Monroe St. Suite #475
Tallahassee, Fl. 32301
Email: [email protected]

2
6
 EXHIBIT A

CHAPTER 2022-69
Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 5

An act relating to reducing fetal and infant mortality; amending s. 381.84,

F.S.; revising the purpose and requirements for the Comprehensive
Statewide Tobacco Education and Use Prevention Program; revising a
provision relating to a certain report to conform to changes made by the
act; creating s. 383.21625, F.S.; providing a definition; requiring the
Department of Health to contract with local healthy start coalitions for the
creation of fetal and infant mortality review committees in all regions of
the state; providing requirements for such committees; requiring local
healthy start coalitions to report the findings and recommendations
developed by the committees to the department annually; requiring the
department to compile such findings and recommendations in a report and
submit such report to the Governor and Legislature by a specified date and
annually; authorizing the department to adopt rules; amending s.
390.011, F.S.; revising and providing definitions; amending s. 390.0111,
F.S.; prohibiting a physician from performing a termination of pregnancy
if the physician determines the gestational age of a fetus is more than a
specified number of weeks; providing an exception; amending s. 390.0112,
F.S.; revising a requirement that the directors of certain medical facilities
submit a monthly report to the Agency for Health Care Administration;
requiring certain physicians to submit such report to the agency; requiring
the report to be submitted electronically on a form adopted by the agency,
the Board of Medicine, and the Board of Osteopathic Medicine; requiring
the report to include certain additional information; removing obsolete
language; creating s. 395.1054, F.S.; requiring that certain hospitals
participate in a minimum number of quality improvement initiatives
developed in collaboration with the Florida Perinatal Quality Collabora-
tive within the University of South Florida College of Public Health;
providing an appropriation; providing an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

Section 1. Subsections (2), (3), and (7) of section 381.84, Florida Statutes,
are amended to read:

381.84 Comprehensive Statewide Tobacco Education and Use Preven-

tion Program.—

(2) PURPOSE, FINDINGS, AND INTENT.—It is the purpose of this

section to implement s. 27, Art. X of the State Constitution. The Legislature
finds that s. 27, Art. X of the State Constitution requires the funding of a
statewide tobacco education and use prevention program that focuses on
tobacco use by youth. The Legislature further finds that the primary goals of
the program are to reduce the prevalence of tobacco use among youth, adults,
and pregnant women, and women who may become pregnant; reduce per
capita tobacco consumption; and reduce exposure to environmental tobacco

2
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
smoke. Further, it is the intent of the Legislature to base increases in
funding for individual components of the program on the results of
assessments and evaluations. Recognizing that some components will
need to grow faster than inflation, it is the intent of the Legislature to
fund portions of the program on a nonrecurring basis in the early years so
that those components that are most effective can be supported as the
program matures.

(3) PROGRAM COMPONENTS AND REQUIREMENTS.—The depart-

ment shall conduct a comprehensive, statewide tobacco education and use
prevention program consistent with the recommendations for effective
program components contained in the 1999 Best Practices for Comprehen-
sive Tobacco Control Programs of the CDC, as amended by the CDC. The
program shall include the following components, each of which shall focus on
educating people, particularly pregnant women, women who may become
pregnant, and youth and their parents, about the health hazards of tobacco
and discouraging the use of tobacco:

(a) Counter-marketing and advertising; Internet resource center.—The

counter-marketing and advertising campaign shall include, at a minimum,
Internet, print, radio, and television advertising and shall be funded with a
minimum of one-third of the total annual appropriation required by s. 27,
Art. X of the State Constitution.

1. The campaign shall include an Internet resource center for copy-

righted materials and information concerning tobacco education and use
prevention, including cessation. The Internet resource center must be
accessible to the public, including parents, teachers, and students, at each
level of public and private schools, universities, and colleges in the state and
shall provide links to other relevant resources. The Internet address for the
resource center must be incorporated in all advertising. The information
maintained in the resource center shall be used by the other components of
the program.

2. The campaign shall use innovative communication strategies, such as

targeting specific audiences who use personal communication devices and
frequent social networking websites.

(b) Cessation programs, counseling, and treatment.—This program

component shall include two subcomponents:

1. A statewide toll-free cessation service, which may include counseling,

referrals to other local resources and support services, and treatment to the
extent funds are available for treatment services; and

2. A local community-based program to disseminate information about

tobacco-use cessation, how tobacco-use cessation relates to prenatal care and
obesity prevention, and other chronic tobacco-related diseases.

2
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
Ch. 2022-69 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2022-69

(c) Surveillance and evaluation.—The program shall conduct ongoing

epidemiological surveillance and shall contract for annual independent
evaluations of the effectiveness of the various components of the program in
meeting the goals as set forth in subsection (2).

(d) Youth school programs.—School and after-school programs shall use

current evidence-based curricula and programs that involve youth to
educate youth about the health hazards of tobacco, help youth develop
skills to refuse tobacco, and demonstrate to youth how to stop using tobacco.

(e) Community programs and chronic disease prevention.—The depart-

ment shall promote and support local community-based partnerships that
emphasize programs involving youth, pregnant women, and women who
may become pregnant, including programs for the prevention, detection, and
early intervention of tobacco-related chronic diseases.

(f) Training.—The program shall include the training of health care

practitioners, tobacco-use cessation counselors, and teachers by health
professional students and other tobacco-use prevention specialists who are
trained in preventing tobacco use and health education. Tobacco-use
cessation counselors shall be trained by specialists who are certified in
tobacco-use cessation.

(g) Administration and management, statewide programs, and county

health departments.—The department shall administer the program within
the expenditure limit established in subsection (8). Each county health
department is eligible to receive a portion of the annual appropriation, on a
per capita basis, for coordinating tobacco education and use prevention
programs within that county. Appropriated funds may be used to improve
the infrastructure of the county health department to implement the
comprehensive, statewide tobacco education and use prevention program.
Each county health department shall prominently display in all treatment
rooms and waiting rooms counter-marketing and advertisement materials
in the form of wall posters, brochures, television advertising if televisions are
used in the lobby or waiting room, and screensavers and Internet advertising
if computer kiosks are available for use or viewing by people at the county
health department.

(h) Enforcement and awareness of related laws.—In coordination with

the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, the program shall
monitor the enforcement of laws, rules, and policies prohibiting the sale or
other provision of tobacco to minors, as well as the continued enforcement of
the Clean Indoor Air Act prescribed in chapter 386. The advertisements
produced in accordance with paragraph (a) may also include information
designed to make the public aware of these related laws and rules. The
departments may enter into interagency agreements to carry out this
program component.
3
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
Ch. 2022-69 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2022-69

(i) AHEC tobacco-use cessation initiative.—The AHEC network may

administer the AHEC tobacco-use cessation initiative in each county within
the state and perform other activities as determined by the department.

(7) ANNUAL REPORT REQUIRED.—By January 31 of each year, the

department shall provide to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives a report that evaluates the
program’s effectiveness in reducing and preventing tobacco use and that
recommends improvements to enhance the program’s effectiveness. The
report must contain, at a minimum, an annual survey of youth attitudes and
behavior toward tobacco, as well as a description of the progress in reducing
the prevalence of tobacco use among youth, adults, and pregnant women,
and women who may become pregnant; reducing per capita tobacco
consumption; and reducing exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.

Section 2. Section 383.21625, Florida Statutes, is created to read:

383.21625 Fetal and infant mortality review committees.—

(1) As used in this section, the term “department” means the Depart-
ment of Health.

(2) The department shall contract with local healthy start coalitions for
the creation of fetal and infant mortality review committees in all regions of
the state to improve fetal and infant mortality and morbidity in each region.
Each committee shall:

(a) Review and analyze rates, trends, causes, and other data related to
fetal and infant mortality and morbidity in a geographic area.

(b) Develop findings and recommendations for interventions and policy

changes to reduce fetal and infant mortality and morbidity rates.

(c) Engage with local communities and stakeholders to implement

recommended policies and procedures to reduce fetal and infant mortality
and morbidity.

(3) Each local healthy start coalition shall report the findings and
recommendations developed by each fetal and infant mortality review
committee to the department annually. Beginning October 1, 2023, the
department shall compile such findings and recommendations in an annual
report, which must be submitted to the Governor, the President of the
Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

(4) The department may adopt rules necessary to implement this

section.

Section 3. Subsections (6) and (7) of section 390.011, Florida Statutes,

are renumbered as subsections (7) and (8), respectively, present subsections
(8) through (13) are renumbered as subsections (10) through (15),

4
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
Ch. 2022-69 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2022-69

respectively, present subsection (6) is amended, and new subsections (6) and
(9) are added to that section, to read:

390.011 Definitions.—As used in this chapter, the term:

(6) “Fatal fetal abnormality” means a terminal condition that, in

reasonable medical judgment, regardless of the provision of life-saving
medical treatment, is incompatible with life outside the womb and will result
in death upon birth or imminently thereafter.

(7)(6) “Gestation” means the development of a human embryo or fetus as

calculated from the first day of the pregnant woman’s last menstrual period
between fertilization and birth.

(9) “Medical abortion” means the administration or use of an abortion-

inducing drug to induce an abortion.

Section 4. Subsection (1) of section 390.0111, Florida Statutes, is

amended to read:

390.0111 Termination of pregnancies.—

(1) TERMINATION AFTER GESTATIONAL AGE OF 15 WEEKS IN

THIRD TRIMESTER; WHEN ALLOWED.—A physician may not perform a
No termination of pregnancy if the physician determines the gestational age
of the fetus is more than 15 weeks shall be performed on any human being in
the third trimester of pregnancy unless one of the following conditions is
met:

(a) Two physicians certify in writing that, in reasonable medical

judgment, the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save the
pregnant woman’s life or avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible
physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman other
than a psychological condition.

(b) The physician certifies in writing that, in reasonable medical

judgment, there is a medical necessity for legitimate emergency medical
procedures for termination of the pregnancy to save the pregnant woman’s
life or avert a serious risk of imminent substantial and irreversible physical
impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman other than a
psychological condition, and another physician is not available for consulta-
tion.

(c) The fetus has not achieved viability under s. 390.01112 and two
physicians certify in writing that, in reasonable medical judgement, the
fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality.

Section 5. Section 390.0112, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:

390.0112 Termination of pregnancies; reporting.—

5
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
Ch. 2022-69 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2022-69

(1) The director of any medical facility in which abortions are performed,
including surgical procedures and medical abortions, including a physician’s
office, shall submit a report each month to the agency. If the abortion is not
performed in a medical facility, the physician performing the abortion shall
submit the monthly report. The report must may be submitted electronically
on a form adopted by the agency, the Board of Medicine, and the Board of
Osteopathic Medicine which, may not include personal identifying informa-
tion, and must include:

(a) Until the agency begins collecting data under paragraph (e), The
number of abortions performed.

(b) The reasons such abortions were performed. If a woman upon whom
an abortion is performed has provided evidence that she is a victim of human
trafficking pursuant to s. 390.0111(3)(a)1.b.(IV), such reason must be
included in the information reported under this section.

(c) For each abortion, the period of gestation at the time the abortion was
performed.

(d) The number of infants born alive or alive immediately after an

attempted abortion.

(e) Beginning no later than January 1, 2017, Information consistent with

the United States Standard Report of Induced Termination of Pregnancy
adopted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

(f) The number of medication abortion regimens prescribed or dispensed.

(2) The agency shall keep such reports in a central location for the
purpose of compiling and analyzing statistical data and shall submit data
reported pursuant to paragraph (1)(e) to the Division of Reproductive Health
within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as requested by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

(3) If the termination of pregnancy is not performed in a medical facility,

the physician performing the procedure shall be responsible for reporting
such information as required in subsection (1).

(3)(4) Reports submitted pursuant to this section shall be confidential

and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) and shall not be revealed
except upon the order of a court of competent jurisdiction in a civil or
criminal proceeding.

(4)(5) Any person required under this section to file a report or keep any
records who willfully fails to file such report or keep such records may be
subject to a $200 fine for each violation. The agency shall be required to
impose such fines when reports or records required under this section have
not been timely received. For purposes of this section, timely received is
defined as 30 days following the preceding month.
6
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
Ch. 2022-69 LAWS OF FLORIDA Ch. 2022-69

Section 6. Section 395.1054, Florida Statutes, is created to read:

395.1054 Birthing quality improvement initiatives.—A hospital that

provides birthing services shall at all times participate in at least two quality
improvement initiatives developed in collaboration with the Florida Peri-
natal Quality Collaborative within the University of South Florida College of
Public Health.

Section 7. For the 2022-2023 fiscal year, the sum of $1,602,000 in

recurring funds from the General Revenue Fund is appropriated to the
Department of Health for the purpose of establishing fetal and infant
mortality review committees under s. 383.21625, Florida Statutes.

Section 8. This act shall take effect July 1, 2022.

Approved by the Governor April 14, 2022.

Filed in Office Secretary of State April 14, 2022.

7
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.