House in Session — Closed Captions

>> Speaker Perez: THE HOUSE WILL COME TO ORDER. PLEASE RISE FOR THE PRAYER. WE ARE PLEASED TO HAVE TODAY REVEREND CHARLESTON WILSON. WITH CHURCH OF THE REDEEMER IN SARASOTA AND AT THE INVITATION OF REPRESENTATIVE MCFARLAND. REVEREND WILSON PLEASE APPROACH THE WELL. >> LET US PRAY. ALMIGHTY GOD UNTO WHOM ALL HEARTS ARE OPENED AND ALL DESIRES KNOWN AND NO SECRETS ARE HIDDEN WE GATHER TODAY BENEATH THE BRIGHT CANOPY AND BRIGHT FUTURE OF THIS SUNSHINE STATE. LIFT UP OUR HEARTS. WE THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA. BLESSED, O LORD, THOSE GATHERED HERE TO SERVE THE PUBLIC. THE HOLY SCRIPTURE TELLS US AND PSALM 107 THAT SOME WENT OUT ON THE SEE AND SHIPS AND SAW THE WORKS OF THE LORD AND HIS WONDERFUL DEEDS IN THE DEEP. LIKE THOSE ANCIENT MARINERS MAY THE LAWMAKERS IN THIS CHAMBER NAVIGATE THE COMPLEXITIES OF OUR TIME WITH STEADY WHEN THE STORMS OF PARTISANSHIP RISE BE THEIR ANGER. WHEN THE FOG OF UNCERTAINTY RULES IN BE THEIR LIGHTHOUSE. WE ASK FOR THE GRACE OF ST. FRANCIS THAT THESE LEADERS BE INSTRUMENTS OF WHERE THERE IS DISCORD LET THEM SO UNION. WHERE THERE IS DOUBT FAITH. AND WHERE THERE IS SHADOW THE LIGHT OF CLEAR PURPOSE. WE ASK FOR THE SPIRIT OF SAINT JUDE THE PATRON OF DIFFICULT CAUSES TO GUIDE THE MEN AND WOMEN WORKING ON THE STATES MOST COMPLEX CHALLENGES. MAY THEY AND WE ALWAYS REMEMBER THE PROMISES IN ST. MATTHEW WITH MAN THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE. BUT WITH THE SPIRIT ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. BLESS THE STATES PIONEERS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA REFLECT THE WARMTH OF OUR CLIMATE AND MADE WARM UP TODAY. AS WELL AS THE RESILIENCE OF OUR SPIRIT. MAY THOSE WHO TAKE COUNSEL HERE WORK TOGETHER SO THAT EVERY FLORIDIAN FROM THE BUSIEST CITY TO THE QUIETEST INLAND TOWN LIVE A LIFE OF DIGNITY, PEACE, AND PROSPERITY. FINALLY BLESS THE LORD ALSO THE FAMILIES OF THESE PUBLIC SERVANTS, THE STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS WHO LABOR HERE BEHIND THE SCENES AND EVERY FLORIDIAN WATCHING TODAY. KEEP US HUMBLE LORD IN THE TIME OF ABUNDANCE MAKE US QUICK TO GIVE YOU PRAISE AND IN TIMES OF TRIAL TRUSTED NOT IN THE THAT WE MAY FAIL. IT IS IN YOUR HOLY NAME WE PRAY AMEN. >> Speaker Perez: PLEASE OPEN THE MACHINES AND RECORD YOUR PRESENCE. HAVE ALL MEMBERS RECORDED THEIR PRESENCE? CLERK LOCK THE MACHINE AND ANNOUNCE THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM. >> 108 VOTING MEMBERS. A QUORUM IS PRESENT. >> Speaker Perez: MEMBERS AND VISITORS IN THE GALLERY PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. >> THE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE WILL BE LED BY JEFFREY BALLARD AT THE INVITATION OF REPRESENTATIVE DUGGAN. MIAMI SPRINGS AT THE INVITATION OF REPRESENTATIVE RIZO, AND CAROLINE TUCSON FROM WEST MELBOURNE AT THE INVITATION OF REPRESENTATIVE MILLER, AND GEORGE FALLER FROM SANTA ROSA BEACH AT THE INVITATION OF REPRESENTATIVE ABBOTT, AND SELENA AT THE INVITATION OF REPRESENTATIVE BANKSON, AND MATTHEW LOOMIS FROM SARASOTA AT THE INVITATION OF REPRESENTATIVE MCFARLAND, AND LOGAN NEWELL FROM WINTER GARDEN AT THE INVITATION OF REPRESENTATIVE BAKER, AND MATTHEW SCARY AT THE INVITATION OF REPRESENTATIVE NIX, AND PARKER WHITEHEAD FROM LICOLN AT THE INVITATION OF REPRESENTATIVE BARTLEMAN. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> Speaker Perez: WE’RE HONORED TODAY TO BE JOINED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE DAY CHIEF JEFFREY GODFREY WITH THE ORMAND BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT AT THE INVITATION OF REPRESENTATIVE PARTINGTON. CHIEF GODFREY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA HOUSE [APPLAUSE]. [NO AUDIO.] >> Speaker Perez: ARE THERE CORRECTIONS TO THE JOURNAL? HEARING NONE SHOW THIS APPROVED. REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES? READ THE REPORT. >> HONORABLE DANIEL PEREZ SPEAKER. DEAR MR. SPEAKER, YOUR RULES, AND ETHICS COMMITTEE HERE WITH SUBMITS THE SPECIAL ORDER FOR THURSDAY JANUARY 15th, 2026, CONSIDERATION OF THE HOUSE BILL OF SPECIAL ORDERS SHALL INCLUDE COMPANION MEASURES ON THE HOUSE CALENDAR, READING OF THE REPORT. >> Speaker Perez: REPRESENTATIVE GARRISON ON THE REPORT. >> Rep. Garrison: A SPECIAL ORDER. A SPECIAL ORDER TIME FOR DEBATE AND MOVE THE ADOPTION OF SPECIAL ORDER REPORT FOR TODAY. JANUARY 15, 26. >> Speaker Perez: QUESTIONS? DEBATE? THOSE OPPOSED? SHOW THIS ADOPTED. ARE THERE OTHER REPORTS? >> Rep. Garrison: NONE. >> Speaker Perez: MOTIONS RELATED TO THE COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE REFERENCES? MATTERS ON CONSIDERATION? BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS ON THIRD READING? >> NONE ON THE DESK. >> Speaker Perez: BILLS ON SPECIAL ORDER? READ THE FIRST. >> BY REPRESENTATIVE MCCLURE AND GENTRY HOUSE BILL 167 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED ACT RELATING TO FORMER PHOSPHATE MINING LANDS. >> Speaker : BEFORE WE BEGIN PLEASE JOIN ME IN WELCOMING BACK FORMER SPEAKER PRO TEM CHUCK CLEMONS TO THE FLORIDA HOUSE. [APPLAUSE]. REPRESENTATIVE MCCLURE EXPLAIN THE BILL. >> Rep. McClure: THIS IS A SIMPLE BILL ALLOWING FOR THE REMOVAL OF STRICT LIABILITY OF PREVIOUSLY OWNED PHOSPHATE LANDS WHEN TWO CONDITIONS ARE MET AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH STUDY CONDUCTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE OWNER AND SECONDLY, IT IS RECORDED WITH THE MUNICIPALITY THAT IT IS A FORMERLY MINED PHOSPHATE LAND AND THAT IS THE BILL. >> Speaker: QUESTIONS OF THE SPONSOR? REPRESENTATIVE CROSS YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> Rep. Cross: IN THIS BILL PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW A FUTURE LANDOWNER WOULD BE NOTIFIED THAT THE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT THEY ARE BUYING OR RENTING OF FORMER PHOSPHATE LAND? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE MCCLURE. >> Rep. McClure: IT IS A BUYER BEWARE STATE SO IT'S INCUMBENT UPON THE PURCHASER IN NORMAL REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, BUT ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT AS I EXPLAINED IN THE OPENING AND IN PREVIOUS SPEAKER STOPS THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC RECORD THAT WAS FORMERLY MINED AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH STUDIES THE DATA FROM THAT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE CROSS. >> Rep. Cross: THANK YOU. SO, IN A REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION IT MAY BE REASONABLE FOR SOMEONE WORKING WITH A REGISTERED REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONAL TO KNOW IF THERE IS A LIEN OR HOME ON A PROPERTY SO HOW WOULD A RENTER KNOW ABOUT THIS? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE MCCLURE. >> Rep. McClure: THANK YOU. THE SAME WAY THAT A RENTER WOULD FIND OUT INFORMATION ABOUT A FORMER GAS STATION OR LAUNDROMAT OR ANY PREVIOUS LAND USE. >> Speaker: FURTHER QUESTIONS? ARE THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? I AM SEEING NONE. ARE THERE ANY AMENDMENTS? >> NONE ON THE DESK. >> Speaker: ROLL OVER FOR THIRD READING. YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR MOTION. >> Rep. McClure: MOVE THE RULES BE WAIVED AND HOUSE BILL 167 BE READ A THIRD TIME BY TITLE AND PLACED ON FINAL PASSAGE. >> Speaker: MOVE THE RULES BE WAIVED AND THAT HOUSE BILL 167 BE READ A THIRD TIME BY TITLE AND PLACED ON FINAL PASSAGE. THOSE IN FAVOR? THOSE OPPOSED? SHOW THE MOTION ADOPTED AND READ THE BILL A THIRD TIME BY TITLE. >> BY REPRESENTATIVE MCCLURE AND REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY HOUSE BILL 167 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT RELATING TO FORMER PHOSPHATE MINING LANDS. >> Speaker: AMENDMENTS? >> NONE ON THE DESK. >> Speaker: LET'S GO TO STRUCTURED DEBATE ON HB 167. DEBATE WILL BE LIMITED TO TEN MINUTES PER SIDE IN TEN MINUTE INCREMENTS. TOTAL DEBATE TIME NOT TO EXCEED 20 MINUTES. REPRESENTATIVE GANTT YOU ARE RECOGNIZED IN DEBATE. >> Rep. Gantt: THANK YOU. I YIELD THE FLOOR TO REPRESENTATIVE CROSS. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE CROSS. >> Rep. Cross: MEMBERS, WE ALL KNOW THAT CHOOSING WHERE TO LIVE AND WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD TO SELECT AND WHICH HOUSE TO PURCHASE OR WHICH APARTMENT TO RENT IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISIONS THAT WE CAN MAKE. IT AFFECTS THE FINANCE AND HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE. FROM HEARING THIS A BILL IN COMMITTEE AND IN COMBINATION WITH THE BILL SPONSOR I HAVE CONSIDERED SOME OF OUR EXISTING RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING NOTIFYING FUTURE BUYERS OF LAND ONCE DEVELOPED WHO WERE ACTUALLY PLANNING TO LIVE THERE. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT FUTURE HOMEOWNERS AND TENANTS AND THOSE WHO WILL MAKE THESE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT DECISIONS BE PREEMPTIVELY NOTIFIED AND WELL INFORMED ABOUT RISK ASSOCIATED WITH ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS. THE BILL AS WRITTEN DOES NOT PROVIDE ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION FOR FUTURE LANDOWNERS OR PARTICULARLY THOSE IN THE RENTING COMMUNITY. JUST AS WE HAVE DISCLOSURES FOR LEAD PAINT AND NOW FLOODING, I BELIEVE WE SHOULD PREEMPTIVELY EDUCATE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS AND TENANTS ABOUT WHERE THEY WILL BE LIVING AND GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND HAVING THIS RECORDED IN A COUNTY RECORD. FRANKLY, MOVING FROM A BUYER BEWARE STANCE ON FORMER PHOSPHATE MINING LANDS MAY BE PROBLEMATIC AND LEAD TO UNINTENDED HARM FOR FUTURE RESIDENTS. IN THE SAME LEGISLATION SESSION WE’RE VOTING ON THIS BILL THIS BODY IS CONSIDERING REDUCING LOCAL WETLAND BUFFERS TO ACCOMMODATE BUYERS WHO WISH TO DEVELOP ON BUFFER ZONES THE SAME BUYERS WHO DID NOT DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE ON IMPORTANT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS WHEN BUYING LAND TO DEVELOP AND THEN MAY BE FRUSTRATED THEY CANNOT UTILIZE EVERY SQUARE FOOTAGE OR NEW PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT. SHOULDN'T WE BE HOLDING EVERY BUYER AND DEVELOPER AND FUTURE HOMEOWNER TO THE SAME STANDARD? SHOULDN'T WE INFORMED THEM OF ANY APPARENT RISK TO THEIR HEALTH AND PROPERTY TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY? I BELIEVE THIS BILL WILL HAVE THE UNINTENDED GLAZED AT RISK. PARTICULARLY THOSE IN THE RENTING COMMUNITY AND FOR THOSE REASONS I CANNOT VOTE ON THE BILL AND I URGE YOU TO VOTE NO AS WELL. THANK YOU. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT. >> Rep. Gantt: THANK YOU. I YIELD THE FLOOR TO REPRESENTATIVE NIXON. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE NIXON. >> Rep. Nixon: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. AS SOMEONE WHO WAS BORN AND RAISED ON A BROWNSVILLE DUMPSITE I KNOW FIRSTHAND WHAT IT'S LIKE TO GROW UP AND LIVE ON CONTAMINATED SOIL. MY BROTHER HAVING SUFFERED FROM CANCER WHEN HE WAS BORN IN ADDITION TO BEING BORN WITH A MAJOR ABNORMALITY, BEING ONE KIDNEY. SO I WOULD ASK EXCUSE ME, I WOULD ASK AND URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE DOWN ON THIS BILL. AS REPRESENTATIVE CROSS SO ELOQUENTLY PUT IT IT REALLY IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO DO THINGS TO PREEMPTIVELY DISCLOSE THESE TYPES OF ISSUES. AS MANY OF YOU KNOW WE ARE FACING AN AFFORDABILITY CRISIS. RIGHT NOW PEOPLE ARE JUST EXCITED TO BE ABLE TO MOVE INTO A HOME OR INTO AN APARTMENT THAT THEY CAN AND JUST THEY WON'T DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE TO ACTUALLY DO THE RESEARCH. THEY JUST WANT TO GET OFF THE STREETS AND BE HOUSED. AS LEGISLATORS IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO LOOK OUT FOR THE SAFETY AND WELL BEING OF ALL FLORIDIANS HERE AND THIS BILL DOES THE OPPOSITE OF THAT. I AM STRONGLY URGING MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE DOWN ON THIS IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE SAFETY OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS YOU WILL VOTE NO. THANK YOU. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE. >> Rep. Gantt: I YIELD THE FLOOR TO REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE DOCTOR ESKAMANI. >> Rep. Eskamani: THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. SPEAKER I APPRECIATE THAT AND WILL BE BRIEF. I WANT TO ECHO THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BUT ALSO ADD ANOTHER LAYER. MANY FOLKS MAY HAVE MISSED THIS UPDATE BUT THERE WAS REPORTING EARLIER THIS WEEK FROM THE EPA THAT THEY WILL NO LONGER LOOK AT THE COST OF HUMAN LIFE AND BASICALLY DETERMINING ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND INSTEAD THEY WILL FOCUS ON THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS. WHAT IS THE COST TO A CORPORATION TO HAVE ENVIRONMENT OF REGULATIONS. SO FOR ME WHEN WE LOOK AT POLICY LET'S LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE LIKE WHAT'S HAPPENING AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, THE STATE LEVEL, AND THE LOCAL LEVEL. AND I REALLY WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SEE AS REPRESENTATIVE CROSS SPOKE TO YOU MORE TRANSPARENCY BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE CHAIRS' POINT ABOUT FLORIDA BEING A BUYER BEWARE STATE BUT I DON'T WANT US TO BE A BUYER BEWARE STATE. I DO NOT THINK THAT IS A GOOD STATUS QUO TO MAINTAIN AND I WOULD RATHER SEE US REFORM THAT APPROACH TO ENSURE THAT THE BUYER HAS MORE INFORMATION ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE A RENTER WHO WILL MOVE INTO A LOCATION SEVERAL DEGREES SEPARATE FROM THIS INITIAL TRANSACTION. SO FOR THOSE REASONS AND MORE I ENCOURAGE MEMBERS TO VOTE DOWN ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT. >> Rep. Gantt: THANK YOU. WE YIELD TO THE REMAINING BALANCE OF OUR TIME. YIELD BACK THE REMAINING BALANCE OF OUR TIME. >> Speaker: THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE MAGGARD. >> Rep. Maggard: THANK YOU. WE YIELD BACK OUR TIME IN TOTAL. >> Speaker: YOU ARE RECOGNIZED CLOSE. >> Rep. McClure: UNLIKE LEAD BASED PAINT ONCE UPON A TIME A PIECE OF MACHINERY EXCAVATED A WHOLE DOES NOT INHERENTLY MEAN [INAUDIBLE] IT'S A CONTAMINANT OR A CARCINOGEN [INAUDIBLE] REGULATIONS AND PROCESSES THE FEDERAL AND STATE PROCESSES ON CONTAMINATION SOIL ARE APPLICABLE SO I FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT SIDE OF IT. I ALSO THINK THIS IS A BILL THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT FOR THREE TO FOUR YEARS IN THIS CHAMBER. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF INPUT AND THIS IS GOOD MIDDLE GROUND EVEN YOU KNOW THE DOH STUDY I SAID IN COMMITTEE IS SOMETHING I PROBABLY WITHOUT THE CONVERSATIONS WOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED. VERY FULFILLED WE ARE GETTING THIS BILL HOPEFULLY OFF THE FLOOR IN A MINUTE. LASTLY I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS A BILL THAT WOULD HAVE PASSED LAST YEAR AND SOMETHING THE SENATE PRESIDENT POINTED OUT AS BEING VERY IMPORTANT TO HIM BUT FOR THE RULES CHAIR AND THE FLORIDA SENATE PUTTING A HOLE IN THE SIDE OF IT FOR NO REAL REASON I THINK IT WOULD HAVE GOTTEN DONE. WE WILL SEND THIS BILL OVER EARLY AND THEY WILL HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO THINK THROUGH IT. AND HOPEFULLY THEY CAN GET IT PASSED. WITH THAT I CLOSE. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE MCCLURE HAVING CLOSED ON THE BILL THE QUESTION NOW OCCURS ON FINAL PASSAGE OF HB 167. CLERK UNLOCK THE MACHINE AND MEMBERS PROCEED TO VOTE. HAVE ALL MEMBERS VOTED? MEMBERS VOTED. >> 87 YES, 24 NO. >> Speaker: THIS PASSES. READ THE NEXT BILL. >> BY REPRESENTATIVE MCFARLAND HOUSE BILL 145 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT RELATING TO SUITS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. >> Rep. McFarland: YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO PRESENT THE BILL. >> Rep. McFarland: THANK YOU, HOUSE BILL 145 PROVIDES AN UPDATE TO THE SOVEREIGN ENTITY FINANCIAL LIABILITY CAPS WHICH WERE LAST UPDATED IN 2010 AND AS IT PERTAINS TO THE LIABILITY SHIELD FOR GOVERNMENT TO MODERNIZE THE WAY CITIZENS CAN SEEK REDRESS WHEN HARMED BY THEIR GOVERNMENT. THE BILL PROPOSES TO RAISE THE CAPS ON SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY TO $500,000 PER PERSON AND 1 MILLION PER INCIDENT WITH AN AUTOMATIC INCREASE IN FIVE YEARS TO 600,001.2 MILLION ALIGNING WITH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SO VICTIMS HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME TO BRING A CLAIM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ENTITY AS THEY WOULD AGAINST THE PRIVATE ONE AND GIVES GOVERNMENT ENTITIES THE OPTION TO SETTLE ABOVE THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY CAPS THAT THEY ELECT TO AND PREVENTS INSURANCE COMPANIES FROM WITHHOLDING PAYMENT UNTIL A CLAIM BILL HAS PASSED THE LEGISLATURE AND THAT MEMBERS IS THE BILL. >> Speaker: MEMBERS, QUESTIONS OF THE SPONSOR? ANY AMENDMENTS? >> NONE ON THE DESK. >> Speaker: ROLL OVER FOR THIRD READING. REPRESENTATIVE MCFARLAND DIRECTED AS HER MOTION. >> Rep. McFarland: I MOVE THE RULES BE WAIVED IN HOUSE BILL 145 AND BE READ BY TITLE AND PLACED ON FINAL PASSAGE. >> Speaker: MOVE THE RULES BE WAIVED IN HB 145 BE READ TO HAVE A TITLE PLACED ON FINAL PASSAGE. THOSE IN FAVOR? SHOW THE MOTION ADOPTED. READ THIS A THIRD TIME BY TITLE. >> BY REPRESENTATIVE MCFARLAND HOUSE BILL 145 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED TO ACT RELATING TO SUITS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. >> Speaker: AMENDMENTS? >> NONE ON THE DESK. >> Speaker: DEBATE? ANY DEBATE? REPRESENTATIVE MCFARLAND MAY CLOSE. >> Rep. McFarland: THANK YOU. MEMBERS THE CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY COMES FROM OLD ENGLISH LAW WHERE THE KING WAS SENT BEYOND REPROACH. AS AMERICANS WE HAVE A DEEP DISDAIN FOR MONARCHS BUT WE ALSO HATE TAXES WHICH MEANS WE HAVE CARRYFORWARD VERSION OF HIS OLD ENGLISH IDEA BUT SHAPED IT FOR HER OWN SYSTEM. IN FLORIDA TODAY THE SOVEREIGN'S ARE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. AND WHILE THEY ARE NOT SHIELDED FROM ACCOUNTABILITY THEY ARE SHIELDED FROM FINANCIAL LIABILITY OVER $2,000 TODAY, WHICH SERVES AS A DISINCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE BRINGING ANY LAWSUIT REGARDLESS OF MERIT AGAINST A SOVEREIGN ENTITY WHEN A VICTIM OF GOVERNMENT NEGLIGENCE HAS A STRONG CASE OUR LAWS RESTRICTED THEM FROM GETTING COMPENSATION ABOVE $200,000 WITHOUT FILING A CLAIM'S BILL AND COMING UP TO THE LEGISLATURE AND ASKING FOR AN ACTIVE LEGISLATIVE GRACE. WE KNOW THIS PROCESS WELL. YOU HAVE TO FIND A BILL SPONSOR AND KEEP YOUR ATTORNEY WITH YOU AND HOPE THAT A LOBBYIST WILL REPRESENT YOU AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE TO HOPE THAT BOTH CHAMBERS OF GOVERNMENT WILL BE INCLINED TO HEAR CLAIMS BUILD. IT IS AN INCREDIBLY ARDUOUS AND DIFFICULT PROCESS. REMEMBER AT THE END OF LAST SESSION IN ONE OF THE FINAL DAYS WE VOTED ON A SLEW OF CLAIMS BILLS ON THE FLOOR AND I MADE THE POINT EVEN THOUGH IT WAS LATE AT NIGHT AND WE WERE ALL TIRED FOR DEBATE OF EVERY SINGLE ONE DRAWING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THESE ARE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE CASES OF NEGLIGENCE. LOSS OF LIMB, LOSS OF LIFE, LOSS OF PROSPERITY. AND OUR RESIDENTS HAD TO COME UP TO US BEFORE THEY COULD BE MADE WHOLE. THIS BILL DOES NOT CHANGE THAT. CLAIMS BILLS WILL STILL COME BEFORE US AT THE LEGISLATURE IT JUST MEANS THAT MORE CITIZENS WILL BE ABLE TO SEEK REDRESS FROM THE GOVERNMENT. I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT TODAY IF YOU OR I OR ONE OF OUR LOVED ONES WERE GOD FORBID TO BE HIT BY A TRUCK WE HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHETHER ON THE SIDE OF THE TRUCK THERE IS A CORPORATE LOGO, NO LOGO, OR GOVERNMENT SEAL. DEPENDING UPON WHAT THAT VEHICLE IS AND WHO WAS DRIVING IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT ACCESS TO MONETARY WHOLENESS AND THAT DOES NOT SIT RIGHT WITH ME. I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD SIT RIGHT WITH YOU. I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN LOBBIED BY YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BACK HOME. BECAUSE THIS WILL INCREASE IN SOME WAY THE COST OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT BECAUSE WE ARE INCREASING THE LIABILITY. I KNOW THEY WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE IN INSURANCE. I AM JUST TELLING YOU THAT IT IS WORTH IT AND IT IS TIME. I ASK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THE BILL TODAY THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. >> Speaker: THE QUESTION NOW OCCURS ON FINAL PASS OF HB 145 THE CLERK WILL UNLOCK THE MACHINE AND MEMBERS WILL PROCEED TO VOTE. HAVE ALL MEMBERS VOTED? HAVE ALL MEMBERS VOTED? CLERK LOCK THE MACHINE AND ANNOUNCE THE VOTE. >> 140 YES, SEVEN NO. >> Speaker: SHOW THE BILL PASSES AND READ THE NEXT BILL. >> CIVIL JUSTICE CLAIM SUBCOMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE GRECO AND OTHERS CS FOR HOUSE BILL 289 THE BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT RELATING TO CIVIL LIABILITY FOR THE WRONGFUL DEATH OF AN UNBORN CHILD. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO EXPLAIN YOUR BILL. >> Rep. Greco: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. HB 289 FLORIDA WRONGFUL DEATH ACT TO INCLUDE THE PARENTS OF AN UNBORN CHILD IN THE DEFINITION OF SURVIVORS. THAT IS THE BILL, MR. SPEAKER. >> Speaker: QUESTIONS OF THE SPONSOR? REPRESENTATIVE TANT. >> Rep. Tant: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. REPRESENTATIVE, UNDER SECTION 755 0215 E IN OUR STATUTE, AN UNBORN CHILD, AND A PERSON AT ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT CARRIED IN THE WOMB. SO I GOT PREGNANT BETWEEN MY TWINS AND MY DAUGHTER WITH A PREGNANCY WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF A FERTILITY SPECIALIST. I HAD A POSITIVE PREGNANCY TEST FOR WEEKS. I WAS DIAGNOSED POSITIVELY PREGNANT. I WENT IN FOR A CONFIRMING ULTRASOUND WHERE THEY FOUND IT WAS A BLIGHTED OVARY. UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT BLIGHTED OVARY THAT WAS IN MY WOMB WAS NEVER GOING TO BE VIABLE. UNDER YOUR BILL WOULD MY DOCTOR OR MYSELF BE LIABLE FOR THAT LOSS OF THE PREGNANCY? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: THANK YOU. THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE QUESTION. SO, FIRST PART OF YOUR QUESTION WAS WOULD YOU BE LIABLE FOR THAT PREGNANCY? UNDER THE BILL AND NO CIRCUMSTANCE. THE BILL MAKES IT EXPLICITLY CLEAR THE MOTHER OF AN UNBORN CHILD CAN NEVER BE THE SUBJECT OF AN ACTION UNDER THIS BILL. AS FAR AS YOUR PHYSICIAN THE BILL ALSO MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THIS BILL CANNOT BE USED AGAINST A HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FOR LAWFUL MEDICAL CARE PROVIDED WITHIN THE APPLICABLE STANDARD OF CARE MEANING THAT IF THE MEDICAL CARE WAS NOT NEGLIGENT YOUR DOCTOR COULD ALSO NOT BE THE SUBJECT OF THE LAWSUIT UNDER THIS BILL. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE TANT. >> Rep. Tant: THANK YOU. WOULD ANYONE ELSE BE ABLE TO BRING A SUIT UNDER BILL? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE QUESTION. IN ANY WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION, A PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE NEEDS TO BE APPOINTED TO BE THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STATE AND FILE A LAWSUIT. AND THERE IS A PROCESS UNDER WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL CAN BE CERTIFIED AS A PERSON REPRESENTATIVE. THERE'S AN ORDER OF PRECEDENCE IN A LIST OF PEOPLE WHO ARE PROHIBITED FROM BEING A PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE. SO, IN THIS CASE AND IN ANY CASE IN ORDER FOR SOMEONE TO FILE A LAWSUIT UNDER THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACT WHETHER FOR AN UNBORN CHILD OR ANYONE ELSE THERE IS A PROCESS TO APPOINT A PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ONLY THAT PERSON CAN FILE THE LAWSUIT. THAT IS STEP ONE A OF ANY ACTION UNDER THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACT. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE TANT. >> Rep. Tant: WITH THAT APPLIED TO MY HUSBAND OR MY PARTNER WHO GOT ME PREGNANT OR SOMEONE ELSE IN MY FAMILY WHO WAS MY REPRESENTATIVE? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE QUESTION. YOUR HUSBAND COULD POSSIBLY BE A PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE BUT AGAIN THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF BEING APPOINTED BY A COURT AS THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE. THERE IS AN ORDER OF PRECEDENCE AND IN THE CASE OF AN IN TEST STATE DEATH WHICH IS THE LOSS OF AN UNBORN CHILD WOULD NECESSARILY BE BECAUSE THE UNBORN CHILD WOULD NOT HAVE A WILL THE ORDER OF PRECEDENCE WOULD DETERMINE WHO CAN BE THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE AND WHO CANNOT BE THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE AND WHAT A COURT HAS TO DETERMINE IN ORDER TO CERTIFY SOMEONE AS THE PR. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GOTTLIEB. >> Rep. Gottlieb: THANK YOU. WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS WHAT BASIS UNDER YOUR BILL ARE YOU UTILIZING TO DETERMINE LOST SUPPORT FROM FERTILIZED EGG AND HOW IS THIS TO BE CALCULATED? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: THANK YOU FOR THIS QUESTION. THE PROCESS FOR DETERMINING ANY DAMAGES UNDER THIS BILL WOULD BE THE SAME AS DETERMINING DAMAGES IN ANY WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION. THE BURDEN OF PROOF WOULD REST WITH THE PLAINTIFF AND ULTIMATELY IT WOULD BE A FACTUAL DETERMINATION FOR THE JURY. RIGHT NOW TODAY IN FLORIDA WE COULD HAVE A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION FOR THE DEATH OF AN EXTREMELY YOUNG CHILD. WEEKS, DAYS, EVEN MOMENTS OLD WHO DIES AS A CAUSE OF A WRONGFUL ACTION. AND IN THOSE CASES TODAY IN FLORIDA WE HAVE LAWYERS AND EXPERTS AND JURIES WHO ARE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT THE DAMAGES ARE. AGAIN, IT IS A FACT SENSITIVE DETERMINATION FOR A JURY AND AT THE END OF THE DAY IN THIS STATE AND IN OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM AROUND THE COUNTRY WE TRUST JURIES. BUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS WITH THE PLAINTIFF AND ULTIMATELY THAT IS A FACTUAL DETERMINATION THAT A JURY WOULD HAVE TO. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GOTTLIEB. >> Rep. Gottlieb: THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE GRECO, OTHER CAPS ON DAMAGES IN YOUR BILL FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND ECONOMIC DAMAGES? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER AND THANK YOU FOR THIS QUESTION. MY BILL EXISTS ENTIRELY WITHIN FLORIDA'S WRONGFUL DEATH ACT AND EXIST WITHIN THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE LEGAL INSTITUTIONS OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACT. THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACT HAS NO MONETARY CAPS ON DAMAGES. THAT SAID THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON THE TYPES OF DAMAGES THAT ARE AVAILABLE UNDER THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACT BUT THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACT FOR UNBORN CHILDREN OR ANYONE ELSE DOES NOT INCLUDE MONETARY CAPS ON DAMAGES. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE RAYNER. >> Rep. Rayner: THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE GRECO, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT SPECIFIC DAMAGES DOES YOUR BILL ALLOW THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY ENCAPSULATED IN LAW? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER AND THANK YOU FOR THIS QUESTION. UNDER CURRENT FLORIDA LAW AND UNBORN CHILD CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACT FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HAS SPOKEN ON IT AND IT DEFINITIVELY SAID THAT. SO THIS BILL WOULD CHANGE THE LAW TO ALLOW FOR AN UNBORN CHILD WRONGFUL DEATH OF AN UNBORN CHILD TO BE THE BASIS OF AN ACTION UNDER FLORIDA'S WRONGFUL DEATH ACT. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE RAYNER. >> Rep. Rayner: THANK YOU. UNDERSTAND THE BASIS. MY SPECIFIC QUESTION IS WHAT DAMAGES DOES YOUR BILL ALLOW THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY IN THE LAW? SPECIFICALLY AS TO DAMAGES? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: THANK YOU FOR THIS QUESTION. AGAIN GIVEN CURRENTLY IN FLORIDA LAW AN UNBORN CHILD CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR AN ACTION UNDER THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACT AT ALL CURRENTLY THE WRONGFUL DEATH OF AN UNBORN CHILD WOULDN'T IT COULD NOT RESULT IN DAMAGES UNDER THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACT AGAIN BECAUSE OF LOSS UNDER CURRENT FLORIDA LAW COULD NOT EVEN BE THE BASIS OF AN ACTION. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE RAYNER. >> Rep. Rayner: THANK YOU. AND AT WHAT POINT AT WHAT POINT IN PREGNANCY DOES YOUR BILL CONTEMPLATE A PREGNANCY TO BE CONSIDERED TO BE A DECEDENT? FOR LACK OF BETTER PHRASING. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER AND THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE QUESTION. THIS BILL DOES NOT WRITE A DEFINITION FOR WHAT AN UNBORN CHILD IS. WE SIMPLY CITE OTHER FLORIDA STATUTE 775.021, WHICH DEFINES WHAT AN UNBORN CHILD IS. THIS IS LONG EXISTING FLORIDA STATUTE. IT'S JUST A CITATION. THIS OF THE SAME DEFINITION THAT YOU FIND THROUGHOUT FLORIDA LAW WHEN FLORIDA LAW DISCUSSES AN UNBORN CHILD. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE RAYNER. >> Rep. Rayner: THANK YOU. WITH THAT BEING SAID, IS THE CONTEMPLATION THAT YOUR BILL WOULD BE AN IDEOLOGY THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: THANK YOU FOR THIS QUESTION REPRESENTATIVE. AGAIN, THIS BILL DOES NOT WRITE A DEFINITION OR INCLUDE A SPECIFIC DEFINITION FOR UNBORN CHILD. IT CITES EXISTING FLORIDA STATUTE THAT IS ELSEWHERE IN FLORIDA STATUTE THAT WE FIND THROUGHOUT FLORIDA STATUTE WHEN WE DISCUSS UNBORN CHILDREN. THAT IS THE DEFINITION INCLUDED IN THIS BILL. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS. >> Rep. Harris: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. RAP, WHAT SAFEGUARDS ARE IN THE BILL TO MAKE SURE DOCTORS ARE NOT SUBJECTED TO CIVIL LAWSUITS FOR DAMAGES FOR PROVIDING NECESSARY CARE THAT THEY BELIEVE IS LAWFUL UNDER THE STATUTE INCLUDING EMERGENCY CARE OR CANCER TREATMENT BUT THE PERSON WHO IS IMPREGNATED, THE WOMAN, I THOUGHT THE CARE DID NOT? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: THANK YOU FOR THIS QUESTION. IN THIS BILL UNDERLINE A 64 TO 71 THE BILL STATES THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION FOR THE DEATH OF AN UNBORN CHILD MAY NOT BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE MOTHER OF AN UNBORN CHILD ORGANS TO HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FOR LAWFUL MEDICAL CARE PROVIDED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE STANDARD OF CARE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CARE RELATED TO ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES PROVIDED WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MOTHER. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS. >> Rep. Harris: PER THIS BILL WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF LAWFUL. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: THANK YOU FOR THIS QUESTION. THIS BILL DOES NOT HAVE UNIQUE DEFINITION OF LAWFUL. IT WOULD USE THE DEFINITION OF LAWFUL THAT WE USE EVERYWHERE ELSE IN FLORIDA STATUTE AND THROUGHOUT LITIGATION. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS. >> Rep. Harris: A DOCTOR FACING AN EMERGENCY SITUATION WHAT DEFINITION OF LAWFUL IS HE TO USE? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. AGAIN THIS BILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF LAWFUL OR HAVE A UNIQUE DEFINITION OF LAWFUL DIFFERENT THAN THE DEFINITION OF LAWFUL FOUND ELSEWHERE AND USED ELSEWHERE IN FLORIDA STATUTE. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE NIXON. >> Rep. Nixon: THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE, IF A SURROGATE LOSES A PREGNANCY COULD A WRONGFUL DEATH FOR DAMAGES BE BROUGHT AGAINST A SURROGATE BY THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER FOR EXAMPLE? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: REPRESENTATIVE, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. THE ANSWER WOULD HINGE ON WHETHER THIS IS A TRADITIONAL SURROGACY OR GESTATIONAL SURROGACY. IN THE CASE OF TRADITIONAL THESE SURROGATE MOTHER FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES IS THE MOTHER OF THE UNBORN CHILD UP TO AND INCLUDING BIRTH. IN FACT, UNDER CURRENT FLORIDA LAW 48 HOURS AFTER THE BIRTH OF TRADITIONAL SURROGACY THE SURROGATE MOTHER CAN RETAIN CUSTODY OF THE CHILD. FOR THE PURPOSES OF A TRADITIONAL SURROGACY THE MOTHER WOULD BE TREATED LIKE A MOTHER THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THIS ACTION AND THUS COULD NOT BE THE SUBJECT OF A LAWSUIT UNDER THIS BILL. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT. >> Rep. Gantt: WOULD A BIRTH CERTIFICATE BE ISSUED FOR THE FETUS? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I DO NOT BELIEVE SO BECAUSE AGAIN, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE WRONGFUL DEATH OF AN UNBORN CHILD. THERE IS NO BIRTH IN THIS CASE. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT. >> Rep. Gantt: ON A DEATH CERTIFICATE WHAT WILL BE LISTED AS THE DATE OF BIRTH FOR THE FETUS? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT ALREADY SAID HE DOESN'T THINK IT WOULD BE ISSUED. YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> Rep. Gantt: I ASKED WHAT WOULD A BIRTH CERTIFICATE WILL BE ISSUED AND THEN THIS QUESTION SAID A DEATH CERTIFICATE. ON A DEATH CERTIFICATE WHAT IS THE DATE OF BIRTH LISTED ON THE DEATH CERTIFICATE FOR A PROBATE TO BE OPEN FOR THE FETUS TO BE LABELED AS A DECEDENT. >> Speaker: MY APOLOGIES. REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. WERE TALKING ABOUT UNBORN CHILD SO THERE IS NO DATE OF BIRTH. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GANTT. >> Rep. Gantt: WOULD A FETUS HAVE TO OR WITH THE PARENTS OR PARENT OF A FETUS HAVE TO APPLY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE A PROCESS OF PROBATE TO BE EFFECTUATED PROPERLY? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER AND THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE. I DO NOT BELIEVE SO. THE SERVICES ARE FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS AND SO I CANNOT SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF BUT NO, I DO NOT BELIEVE SO AND AGAIN BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT UNBORN CHILD HERE THERE IS NO BIRTH. IT'S NOT INDIVIDUAL ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI. >> Rep. Eskamani: THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE GRECO IF THE PATIENT GETS ABORTION MEDICATION FROM THEIR FRIEND AND HER ABUSIVE PARTNER FINDS OUT COULD HE SUE HER FRIEND? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: REPRESENTATIVE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AN ILLEGAL DISTRIBUTION OF A PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI. >> Rep. Eskamani: THANK YOU. NOI LAWS ARE BEING BROKEN. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO DOES THIS ANSWER YOUR CLARIFYING QUESTION? YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> Rep. Greco: THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE, I AM NOT SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND HOW WE WOULD GET TO A FACTUAL SCENARIO THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED WITHOUT VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATUTE 390.111. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI. >> Rep. Eskamani: WHAT IF THE ABORTION PILLS WERE PROVIDED IN DIFFERENT STATE. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: IF WHAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING IS LAWFUL MEDICAL CARE THAT THE WOMAN GOES TO HER PHYSICIAN AND IS PRESCRIBED THESE PILLS OR GHOST OR OTHER STATE WHERE THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PILLS IS LAWFUL, THIS BILL WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI. >> Rep. Eskamani: THANK YOU. WE HAVE SEEN CASES WERE STATES ARE SEEKING TO PROSECUTE DOCTORS OUT OF STATE AND PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ABORTION MEDICATION SO UNDER BILL THE SOMEONE BRING A WRONGFUL DEATH SUIT FOR A PROVIDER IN ANOTHER STATE? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. THIS BILL CANNOT BE USED AGAINST A HEALTHCARE PROVIDER FOR LAWFUL MEDICAL CARE PROVIDED WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MOTHER WHETHER IT WAS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA OR IN ANOTHER STATE. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE BARTLEMAN. >> Rep. Bartleman: I WANT TO PIGGYBACK ON THIS QUESTION. WHERE IN THE PROCESS IS THE LAWFUL MEDICAL CARE DETERMINED TO BE LAWFUL? IS IT FRONTLOADED BEFORE GOES TO COURT? OR IS IT DURING THE JURY TRIAL? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: THANK YOU. THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE. AND ANY FACTUAL DETERMINATION WOULD BELONG TO THE JURY IN THE COURSE OF THIS. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE BARTLEMAN. >> Rep. Bartleman: IF I AM PUBLIC'S IF I'M A DOCTOR. IF I AM AMAZON. ANY STORE CHAIN. PEOPLE THEN WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUE ME OVER LAWFUL AND THEN IT IS DECIDED IN COURT IF THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING WHAT WOULD THAT DO TO THE LIABILITY INSURANCE RATES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF I FOLLOW COULD YOU PLEASE REPHRASE IT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE RELATING WITH LAWFUL MEDICAL CARE VERSUS NONMEDICAL BUSINESSES. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE BARTLEMAN FOR THE LAST QUESTION. >> Rep. Bartleman: FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND, IS IT ANYTHING TO BE DETERMINED ON YOUR BILL IN TERMS OF A COURT CASE HAS TO BE DETERMINED AFTER THE LAWSUIT IS FILED AND AFTER GOES TO COURT? SO PEOPLE FILED LAWSUITS ALL THE TIME IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND WE DEAL WITH IT HERE. WE PASSED LAWS TO PREVENT FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS. SO EVERY TIME SOMEONE HAS A MISCARRIAGE WHICH IS 20 TO 30 PERCENT OF WOMEN WHO HAVE MISCARRIAGES JUST NATURALLY SOMEONE CAN CLAIM IT WAS BECAUSE OF UNLAWFUL MEDICAL CARE. SO THEY COULD FILE THE CLAIM EVEN THOUGH YOU KNOW IT MAY HAVE BEEN PREPREGNANCY PRE PROMPT BUT THEN THE DOCTOR OR THAT PROVIDER OR IN ANY SCENARIO THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO TO COURT, HIRE LAWYERS, DEFEND THEMSELVES, AND I'M ASKING WHAT DOES IT DO FOR LIABILITY INSURANCE IN FLORIDA KNOWING THAT 820,581 WOMEN MISCARRIED IN FLORIDA IN 2022? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE GRECO. >> Rep. Greco: THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE QUESTION. IN ANY OF THESE CASES IF YOU HAVE A MOTHER WHO MISCARRIES IF SHE FEELS HER MISCARRIAGE IS THE RESULT OF NEGLIGENT MEDICAL CARE AND BECAUSE SHE FEELS THAT HER LOSS OF HER PREGNANCY WAS THE RESULT OF NEGLIGENT MEDICAL CARE AND SHE FILED A LAWSUIT THE DEFENDANT WOULD THEY WOULD OBVIOUSLY PROBABLY CONTEST THAT IT'S NEGLIGENT MEDICAL CARE BUT WHETHER THE MEDICAL CARE WAS NEGLIGENT IS THE ENTIRE BASIS OF THE LAWSUIT. THAT IS A FACTUAL DETERMINATION THAT THE JURY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS WAS IN FACT A MISCARRIAGE DUE TO NEGLIGENT MEDICAL CARE. >> Speaker: TIME FOR QUESTIONS HAS EXPIRED. WE WILL PAUSE FOR RECOGNITIONS. REPRESENTATIVE OVERDORF AND REP. TRABULSY YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR RECOGNITION. >> Rep. Trabulsy: REPRESENTATIVE OVERDORF AND I WANT TO WELCOME TOM JONES PRESIDENT OF OUR ST. LUCIE COUNTY EDUCATION FOUNDATION AND HIS WIFE BEVERLY TO THE EAST GALLERY. THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT YOU DO TO SUPPORT ST. LUCIE COUNTY. [APPLAUSE]. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE HUNSCHOFSKY YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR RECOGNITION. >> Rep. Hunschofsky: THANK YOU. IN THE EAST GALLERY TODAY IS MY FATHER JOHN MAGUIRE. BORN IN ENGLAND AND WAS SENT TO IRELAND DURING WORLD WAR II TO LIVE WITH HIS GRANDMOTHER. HE CAME TO UNITED STATES AND SERVED IN THE ARMY RESERVES FOR SIX YEARS AND BECAME A CITIZEN AND HE IS 87 YEARS OLD. THE LAST TIME HE WAS HERE WAS DURING COVID. I'M SO EXCITED TO HAVE HIM HERE. WELCOME DAD TO THE FLORIDA HOUSE. [APPLAUSE]. >> Speaker: WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA HOUSE. ARE THERE ANY AMENDMENTS? >> ON THE DESK. >> Speaker: READ THE FIRST AMENDMENT. >> REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS OFFERS THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT WITH THE TITLE OF THEM BAR CODE 711845 REMOVE LINE 64 THROUGH 71 AND INSERT AN AMENDMENT. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENT. >> Rep. Harris: SIMPLY MY AMENDMENT ASSURES THAT NO WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION CAN BE BROUGHT AGAINST A PERSON WHO IS PREGNANT, THEIR HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS, OR THEIR FRIENDS AND FAMILIES IN CONNECTION WITH AN ABORTION OR OTHER MEDICAL TREATMENT. THAT IS THE AMENDMENT. >> Speaker: QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT? REPRESENTATIVE CROSS. >> Rep. Cross: THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS WHAT WILL BE THE IMPACT OF PASSING THIS BILL WITHOUT THIS AMENDMENT? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS. >> Rep. Harris: THANK YOU. THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. SO, THE IMPLICATIONS ARE, IF YOU HAVE A FRIEND, SAY, WHO WAS ASSAULTED AND BECAME PREGNANT DUE TO THAT ASSAULT AND YOU WANTED TO BE THERE FOR HER AND YOU WANT TO DRIVE HER TO GET REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE THAN THE PERSON WHO GOT YOUR FRIEND PREGNANT REGARDLESS OF CONSENT COULD SUE YOU FOR DRIVING THE FRIEND AND BEING SUPPORTIVE OF HER. AND WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE CAN STILL BE THERE FOR THEIR FRIENDS IN A TIME OF NEED WITHOUT THE FEAR OF HAVING LIABILITY ON THEM. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE CROSS. >> Rep. Cross: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER AND THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE COMPONENT OF THE WOMAN WHO WAS CARRYING THE CHILD. DOESN'T THIS BILL ALREADY CARVED OUT WOMEN FROM CAUSE OF ACTION AND HOW WOULD YOUR AMENDMENT CHANGE THIS? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS. >> Rep. Harris: THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE FOR THAT GOOD QUESTION. AGAIN, WE UNDERSTAND THE PERSON WHO IS PREGNANT IS EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY HOWEVER FRIENDS AND FAMILY, DOCTORS, MEDICAL PROVIDERS, ANYONE WHO COULD IMPACT OR BE A CAUSE OF THE END OF THE PREGNANCY COULD BE LIABLE FOR CIVIL LIABILITIES AND WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT SOMEONE WHO IS HELPING THEIR FRIEND OR FAMILY MEMBER IS EXEMPT FROM THAT. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE BARTELMAN FOLLOW UP. >> Rep.: REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS IS THERE ANYWHERE IN THE BILL THAT SAYS THE MOTHER HAS TO CONSENT FOR A PERSON WHO HAS IMPREGNATED OR GIVE CONSENT TO THE PERSON WHO IMPREGNATED HER TO FILE THE CASE? IS THAT IN THE BILL? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS. >> Rep. Harris: THANK YOU. NO. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE BARTLEMAN. >> Rep. Bartleman: SO IF I AM RAPED IN MY RAPIST WANTS TO TEST THINGS AND GO TO COURT I CANNOT SAY NO TO THAT? HE JUST GETS TO DO IT? >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS. >> Rep. Harris: THERE IS NO CLEAR DEFINITION OF PARENT. SO THEREFORE SOMEONE WHO HAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED SOMEONE AND GOT THEM PREGNANT COULD BRING A CASE AGAINST A MEDICAL PROVIDER OR A FRIEND OR ANYONE WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE ENDING OF A PREGNANCY. >> Speaker: FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT? SEEING NONE ARE THERE ANY AMENDMENTS? >> NONE ON THE DESK. >> Speaker: WE ARE IN DEBATE. REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI. >> Rep. Eskamani: THANK YOU. I THINK WHAT YOU ARE DOING SO ELOQUENTLY IS HIGHLIGHTING THE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THIS THIS RISK ASSOCIATED IF WE DON'T WITH THE AMENDMENTS IN AND DESPITE THE Q AND A SEGMENT I THINK IT IS CLEAR THAT WE ARE IN AN ATMOSPHERE WHERE THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHERE OTHER STATES ABUSE THIS TYPE OF LANGUAGE TO CREATE HARM FOR WOMEN WHO ARE SEEKING ACCESS TO ABORTION CARE OR THOSE WHO ARE HELPING THEM OR PROVIDING CARE TO THEM IN VERY DELICATE AND SENSITIVE SITUATIONS. THANK YOU FOR THIS AMENDMENT. >> Speaker: FURTHER DEBATE ON THE AMENDMENT? REPRESENTATIVE BARTLEMAN? >> Rep. Bartleman: I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT SIMILAR BILLS THAT HAVE PASSED AND OTHER STATES HAVE CAUSED PROBLEMS. FOR INSTANCE, IN TEXAS THE MAN WHO IMPREGNATED A WOMAN SUED HER FRIENDS WHO DROVE HER TO THE CLINIC FOR A MILLION DOLLARS EACH. IN ANY LAWSUIT A LAWSUIT CAN ALWAYS BE FRIVOLOUS. THE DOCTOR COULD WIN THE LAWSUIT. BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE LITIGATION PROCESS AND SO NOW ANYONE WHO IMPREGNATED SOMEONE CAN OKAY YOUR MOM DRIVEN TO THE HOSPITAL AFTER I RAPED YOU AND HE WINS THE LAWSUIT HE MAY NOT. BUT THE HEALTHCARE PROVIDER, THE HOSPITAL, THE MOTHER THEY STILL HAVE TO PAY MONEY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND I HAVE SPENT THE LAST FIVE YEARS IN THIS CHAMBER HEARING EVERYONE TALK ABOUT FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS AGAINST INSURANCE COMPANIES. ABOUT PEOPLE GETTING THEIR ROOF FOR NO REASON AND CAR INSURANCE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA ARE LITIGIOUS AND WE ARE TRYING TO REDUCE THOSE RATES. YOU'RE OPENING UP A LOOPHOLE HERE. THINK ABOUT PUBLIX AND EVERY PROVIDER I WALK INTO A STORE AND I MAY ACCIDENTALLY JUST BUMP A LITTLE BIT AND THEN A MONTH LATER I LOSE MY PREGNANCY. I COULD HAVE GROUNDS TO GO BACK TO PUBLIX AND SAY THAT IS BECAUSE OF THAT BUMP IN THAT I'LL AND IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT PUBLIX WINS THE LAWSUIT THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR THE LITIGATION OF THE LAWSUIT. I'M SPEAKING OF THE FATHER NOT THE MOTHER I APOLOGIZE. THE FATHER SAYS IT BUT THE MAN WHO IMPREGNATED HER. I JUST FEEL LIKE THIS IF YOU LOOK WHEN THIS BILL HAS BEEN PASSED IN OTHER STATES IF YOU LOOK AT THE CASES YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA. IT HAS TO HAVE GUARDRAILS. IT HAS TO BE SMART. THIS IS OPENING UP PANDORA'S BOX AND YOU WILL IMPACT EVERY COMPANY, EVERY MEDICAL PROVIDER, AND FOR THE RURAL COUNTIES IN THE ROOM WE HAVE ALREADY LOST OBS, GYN, NO ONE WANTS TO PRACTICE IN THE STATE. YOU OPEN UP AND THIS AND WE WILL LOSE MORE AND MORE OF THE DOCTORS AND I HAVE TWO DAUGHTERS WHO LIVE IN THE STATE WHO NEED MEDICAL CARE. I URGE YOU TO VOTE UP ON THIS AMENDMENT THANK YOU. >> Speaker: FURTHER DEBATE? REPRESENTATIVE MILLER. >> Rep. Miller: THIS AMENDMENT WOULD GIVE BLANKET IMMUNITY TO ANYONE INVOLVED IN AN ABORTION. EVEN ANY LEGAL ONE. OR ONE WHERE THE PHYSICIAN OR UNLICENSED PERSON WAS NEGLIGENT OR RECKLESS. ADDITIONALLY, THIS AMENDMENT PRIORITIZES SURROGATE OVER THE MOTHER IN A CASE OF GESTATIONAL SURROGACY THE PROTECT THE SURROGATE WHO WAS NEGLIGENT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTIONS AND FOR THAT REASON I ASK YOU TO VOTE NO ON THIS AMENDMENT. >> Speaker: FURTHER DEBATE? REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS YOU MAY CLOSE. >> Rep. Harris: MR. SPEAKER THERE ARE ALREADY CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR ILLEGAL ACTS SO THIS AMENDMENT ISN'T TO PROTECT ILLEGAL ACTORS. I DID NOT FILE THIS TO BE SMART OR TO PLAY GAME. I FILED THIS AMENDMENT BECAUSE I HAVE A DAUGHTER AND SHE IS 28 YEARS AND BEING A WOMAN IN THIS WORLD IS DANGEROUS. AND SHE CAN TAKE ALL THE PRECAUTIONS AND DO ALL THE THINGS AND SHE CAN WATCH WHERE SHE IS AT NIGHT AND SHE CAN CARRY MACE AND PEPPER SPRAY AND SHE CAN TAKE A MILLION SELF DEFENSE CLASSES BUT THE REALITY IS THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT SHE COULD BE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED AND SHE COULD BECOME PREGNANT. AND IF THAT HAPPENED AND SHE WANTED TO END THE PREGNANCY OR EVEN IF SHE WANTED TO CONTINUE THE PREGNANCY BUT SOMETHING CATASTROPHIC HAPPENED AND SHE NEEDED MEDICAL CARE THAT WOULD AND THAT PREGNANCY I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE SHE TRUSTS AND THE PEOPLE SHE LOVES AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE PROVIDING HER HEALTH CARE HAVE A PATHWAY TO SAVE HER LIFE OR HELP HER OUT. THAT IS ALL THIS IS. THIS AMENDMENT IS TO PROTECT PEOPLE LIKE MY DAUGHTER. THAT IS MY INTENTION WITH THIS AMENDMENT AND I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE WHETHER YOU HAVE A DAUGHTER OR NOT ON THIS GOOD AMENDMENT. THIS PROTECTIVE AMENDMENT. THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. >> Speaker: THOSE IN FAVOR? THOSE OPPOSED? SHOW THE AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED. READ THE NEXT AMENDMENT. >> REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI BARCODE 609 60 1709 REMOVE LINE 65 THROUGH 71 AND INSERT AMENDMENT. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI YOU MAY EXPLAIN. >> Rep. Eskamani: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. MEMBERS, WE JUST HEARD SOME COMMENTARY ON THE HOUSE FLOOR PERTAINING TO ABORTION CARE YET I HAVE HEARD THE BILL SPONSOR SAY IN COMMITTEE MANY TIMES THIS IS NOT SUPPOSED IMPACT ABORTION CARE. WE PROVIDED A CARVEOUT IN THE LEGISLATION AS IT PERTAINS TO FERTILITY TREATMENTS BECAUSE OF THE CONCERN THAT IT COULD IMPACT FERTILITY TREATMENTS AND ALL THIS A MINUTE DOES IS MIMIC THAT EFFORT TO SAY LET'S ALSO ENSURE THAT ABORTION IS CARVED OUT HEARD STORIES ABOUT HOW BILLS LIKE THIS HAVE LED TO ABUSERS AND FRIENDS AND FAMILY MEMBERS WHO HELP AN EX PARTNER ACTS AS AN ABORTION AND SO AGAIN IF WE THIS BODY ACTUALLY INTEND THIS BILL AS NOT MEANT TO DEAL WITH ABORTION ACCESS THAT WE SHOULD EXPLICITLY CARVE THAT OUT. AND THAT IS THE AMENDMENT MR. SPEAKER. >> Speaker: QUESTIONS OF THE SPONSOR? REPRESENTATIVE GANTT? >> Rep. Gantt: THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI WOULD YOUR AMENDMENT LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF BAD ACTORS WHO ABUSE THIS BILL? >> Rep. Eskamani: THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. SPEAKER. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. YES THAT IS THE GOAL IT IS TO PREVENT FRIVOLOUS HARM LOSSES AND TO PREVENT HARM BEING BORN OUT OF THIS BILL WHEN IT COMES TO THIS. WOMEN MAKING PERSONAL DECISIONS UNDER THE LAW WHICH IS RESTRICTIVE IN OUR STATE. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE DRISKELL. >> Rep. Driskell: ARE YOU WORRIED THAT IF THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT PASS IT COULD IMPACT ABORTION ACCESS? >> Rep. Eskamani: THANK YOU. YES, WE HAVE SEEN THIS A THIRD TIME. WE HAVE SEEN THIS AND WE KNOW BACK IN 2024 THE LEGISLATION WAS STALLED FOLLOWING THE ALABAMA RULING THAT IMPACTED IVF ACCESS IN THEIR STATE. AND IT WAS DUE TO LEGAL LANGUAGE THAT IS SIMILAR TO THIS BILL AND, SO, WE MUST REMEMBER THAT THE LEGISLATION EXIST IN ISOLATION SO I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL USE OF THIS BILL KNOWING OUR STATE SUPREME COURT AND SOME OF THEIR PAST POSITIONS ON ABORTION CARE AND ALSO I WOULD BE REMISS TO ACKNOWLEDGE OVERWHELMINGLY FLORIDIANS DON'T WANT US TO CONTINUE TO DO THIS. FOLKS MAY REMEMBER THAT NEARLY 57 PERCENT OF FLORIDIANS VOTED YES WHICH WOULD HAVE REPEALED THE STATES NEAR TOTAL OF PORTIONS IT'S IMPORTANT TO RESPECT THE WILL THE VOTERS AND TO STOP GOING DOWN THIS PATH. >> Speaker: MEMBER DRISKELL. >> Rep. Driskell: YOU'VE TOUCHED ON THIS A BIT BUT MORE SPECIFICALLY. >> Rep. Eskamani: IT IS VERY VAGUE. THE VAGUENESS AND THE BROADNESS OF THIS POLICY BEING PROPOSED COULD ABSOLUTELY CREATE UNCERTAINTY WHEN IT COMES TO DOCTORS AND NURSES WHO WERE ALREADY FACING A LEGAL LANDSCAPE CONSULTING WITH LAWYERS BEFORE THEY CAN PROVIDE LIFE SAVING CARE TO PATIENTS. SO WE ALREADY HAVE AN ECOSYSTEM THAT I WOULD ARGUE IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF DELIVERING PATIENT CARE RESPECTING THE PRIVACY OF THE PATIENT AND SO I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A BAD SITUATION WORSE AND WE HAVE ALREADY CARVED OUT IVF FERTILITY TREATMENTS BECAUSE OF THE RISK. SO WE SHOULD DO THE SAME THING FOR ABORTION CARE. >> Speaker: FURTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE ARE THERE AMENDMENTS TO THE AMENDMENT? >> NONE THE DESK. >> Speaker: SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENT? >> NONE ON THE DESK. >> Speaker: WE ARE IN DEBATE. REPRESENTATIVE GANTT IN DEBATE. >> Rep. Gantt: REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI THANK YOU FOR ALWAYS BEING A TIRELESS ADVOCATE FOR BODILY SOVEREIGNTY FOR WOMEN. AND THE FACT THAT WE SIT HERE AND WE CONTINUOUSLY HAVE TO HUMANIZE WOMEN AS INDIVIDUALS AND AS PEOPLE WITH BRAINS THAT CAN MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS IS ACTUALLY REALLY INSANE. BUT WHAT IS MORE INSANE IS AGAIN HERE AND TALK BUT UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE IS ALL THE TIME WHEN JUST LIKE WITH THE VOUCHERS RIGHT WE SAID WE NEED ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES AND WE SEE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS UNACCOUNTED FOR. THIS IS ALSO GOING TO CAUSE A VERY MUCH UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. AND, SO, IT FRUSTRATES ME AND MANY OF US THAT THERE IS NO PROCESS REALLY BECAUSE A GOOD IDEA SHOULD BE A GOOD IDEA. AND A GOOD IDEA AND POLICY SHOULD BE POLICY THAT HELPS FLORIDIANS AND IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THEM. THIS AMENDMENT IS A GREAT IDEA. AND THIS AMENDMENT IS ACTUALLY GOOD POLICY. THANK YOU FOR THIS GOOD POLICY. AND, FOR ACTUALLY ENGAGING IN THE PROCESS THAT I WISH WAS ACTUALLY A PROCESS. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: THIS ALSO ADDRESSES LAWFUL MEDICAL CARE THIS JUST ENCOURAGES SUB STANDARD MEDICAL CARE BUT MORE TROUBLING IS THIS AMENDMENT ACTUALLY REMOVES LANGUAGE FROM THE BILL THAT SAYS YOU CANNOT BRING AN ACTION AGAINST THE MOTHER. THIS AMENDMENT EXPOSES THE MOM'S TO LIABILITY IF THE CHILD IS LOST DUE TO THE MOTHERS' NEGLIGENT ACT AND IT WASN'T CONNECTED TO AN ABORTION OR REPRODUCTIVE CARE. MEMBERS, JOIN WITH ME IN VOTING AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT. >> Speaker: LEADER DRISKELL. >> Rep. Driskell: I WILL VOTE UP ON THIS AMENDMENT AND ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO DO THE SAME. AS I READ THE AMENDMENT AND DO NOT SEE WHERE IT OPENS UP LIABILITY TO THE MOTHERS AS IS BEING DEBATED BUT WHAT CONCERN I DO HAVE IS WHEN I SPEAK WITH OB/GYN'S FROM AROUND THE STATE IF YOU HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO THEM I DO ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO THAT TO HEAR WHAT IS GOING ON IN THEIR EXAM ROOMS AND WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE ER AND IN DELIVERY ROOMS. THERE IS A LOT OF CONFUSION THAT WAS CAUSED BY PRIOR ABORTION ACCESS BILLS THAT THIS BODY PASSED. A LOT OF CONFUSION. WOMEN WERE BEING TURNED AWAY BECAUSE THEY CANNOT GET CARE FOR MISCARRIAGES BECAUSE THE DOCTORS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT LIABILITY BUT WHAT I DO SEE IN THIS BILL IS THAT ABORTION ACCESS COULD BE LIMITED OR HARMED IF WE ARE NOT CLEAR AND CARVE OUT WHAT REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI IS TRYING TO DO IN THIS BILL. I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO YES THINK ABOUT WOMEN AND THE LIVES OF THE MOTHER AND LET'S DO SOMETHING THAT COULD MAKE THIS BILL WILL TO DISAGREE WITH BUT MADE WE COULD MAKE IT JUST A LITTLE BIT BETTER AND MORE CLEAR FOR THE PROVIDERS AND SAVE SOME LIVES. I WILL BE UP ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE HINSON. >> Rep. Hinson: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR, MR. SPEAKER, REPRESENTATIVES I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION AND YOUR COLLEAGUES ATTENTION THAT THE U.S. CONGRESS WOMAN THAT REPRESENTS MY DISTRICT WENT TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM AND GAINESVILLE FLORIDA BECAUSE SHE HAD A SYSTEMIC OR SEPTIC. WHAT IS IT CALLED? AN ECTOPIC PREGNANCY AND SHE WAS TURNED AWAY BECAUSE OF THIS FEAR AND SHE ALMOST DIED. SHE HAD HOPED THAT SHE HAD TO CALL THE GOVERNOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO GET MEDICAL CARE. BECAUSE OF THIS FEAR. SHE IS A BABY NOW PRAISE THE LORD SO SHE WANTS TO BE A MOTHER. BUT SHE DOES NOT WANT TO DIE TRYING TO BE A MOTHER. AND WHAT YOU ARE CREATING WITH THIS BILL IS THE FEAR THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE BARTLEMAN. >> Rep. Bartleman: I THINK IT IS INTERESTING THAT YOU CARVED OUT IVF BECAUSE WHEN THE LAWSUIT HAPPENED IN THE ONE STATE AND SHUT DOWN ALL THE IVF PROVIDERS THE STATE FLIPPED OUT. BUT YOU ARE NOT GOING TO CARVE OUT ABORTION WHEN IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA IT IS CURRENTLY LEGAL TO GET THE ABORTION BEFORE SIX WEEKS. WHAT YOU ARE CREATING AND I WILL SAY THIS AGAIN. IT IS NOT ABOUT WINNING THE LAWSUIT IT IS ABOUT THE LIABILITY. THE INSURANCE. HAVING TO DEFEND IT. IF I GO TO AN ABORTION CLINIC AT WEEK THREE AND GET AN ABORTION AND THE PERSON WHO IMPREGNATED ME NOW WANTS TO FILE A LAWSUIT I WOULD NOT KNOW I WAS PREGNANT WEEK THREE. I’LL SAY WEEK FOUR. OR FIVE OR SIX OR WHATEVER IT IS. IF THEY GO AND FILE A THEN THE PROVIDER HAS TO CONTACT THEIR INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE DOCTOR HAS A DATING AND THE CLINIC HAS TO CONTACT THEIR INSURANCE COMPANY AND THAT'S A DATING. THEY HAVE A SONOGRAM THAT SHOWS IT WAS A LEGAL ABORTION. THEY HAVE TO GO TO COURT. THEY HAVE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. THEY HAVE TO HIRE A LAWYER. THEY'RE WE THAT WOULD TAKE A CHANCE FOR A COUPLE DOLLARS TO SETTLE FOR THE GUY WHO IMPREGNATED THE WOMAN. YOU ARE OPENING UP PANDORA'S BOX FOR A LAWSUIT IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. AND I AM SERIOUS, THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH OB/GYN'S HERE. THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH. THEY ARE LEAVING. THEY CLOSED A BIRTHING CENTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI IN JACKSON WHICH IS ASSOCIATED WITH JACKSON HEALTH. WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO WORK IN THE STATE. I WILL BE AFRAID TO DO ANYTHING IF I'M AN OB/GYN PROVIDER. NOW I'M GETTING GIVE A LAWFUL ABORTION TO A WOMAN BUT THE GUY WHO IMPREGNATED HER CAN STILL PUT THAT DING ON MY RECORD AND ACTIVATE MY MALPRACTICE INSURANCE. IT IS RIDICULOUS CARVE IT OUT IF IT'S LEGAL AND THEY'RE DOING IT RIGHT. >> Speaker: TIME EXPIRED. WRAP IT UP. >> I WILL WRAP IT UP. YOU ARE A LAWYER. YOU KNOW HOW LAWSUITS GO. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO CLOSE. >> Rep. Eskamani: THANK YOU FOR THIS POWERFUL DEBATE AND I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THIS POINT. IT'S NOT SO MUCH LAW WHO WILL BE SUCCESSFUL BUT THE FACT THAT YOUR FILING IN THE FIRST PLACE AND I'M SURE FOLKS HERE HAVE BEEN SUED. I HAD TO SIGN FOR LAWSUITS AND I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THEM IT'S COSTLY AND CHALLENGING AND IT IS DESIGNED TO QUELL PEOPLE AND PUSH PEOPLE OUT AND FORCE A DOCTOR TO NOT PROVIDE CARE TO LEAVE THE STATE TO BASE THEIR DECISION ON WHAT THE LAWYERS DOWNSTAIRS THINK NOT WITH THEIR EDUCATION TELLS THEM TO DO. ULTIMATELY IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THIS LEGISLATION IT IS EXPANDING FLORIDA'S WRONGFUL DEATH ACT TO APPLY TO FERTILIZED THERE IS NO WAY IT DOES NOT IMPACT ABORTION ACCESS AND REPRESENTATIVE MILLER IN THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENTS AT THE QUIET PART OUT LOUD TO REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS AND HER CONCERNS ABOUT HER AMENDMENT IMPACTING ABORTION PROVIDERS. JUST BECAUSE THE BILL SPONSORS A THE WORD ABORTION DOESN'T MEAN IT IS AN IMPACT ABORTION. AN ABORTION IS HEALTHCARE AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO RESPECT DOCTORS THIS IS A STATE ECOSYSTEM WHERE THEY'RE ALREADY RESTRICTED AND DON'T MAKE A BAD SITUATION WORSE. WE GAVE A CARVE OUT FOR IVF AND FERTILITY TREATMENTS FOR GOOD REASON WE SHOULD DO THE SAME THING FOR ABORTION ACCESS THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. >> Speaker: THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT? THOSE OPPOSED TO THIS AMENDMENT? SHOW THE AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED. MEMBERS, LET'S PAUSE BRIEFLY. REPRESENTATIVE OVERDORF AND TRABULSY ARE RECOGNIZED FOR RECOGNITION. >> Rep. Overdorf: GOOD MORNING ON BEHALF OF REPRESENTATIVE TRABULSY AND MYSELF WE WANT TO RECOGNIZE IN THE EAST TO GALLERY THE FIRE CHIEFS FROM THE ABSOLUTE BEST FIRE DISTRICT IN THE ENTIRE STATE OF FLORIDA FROM ST. LUCIE COUNTY THE FIRE CHIEFS WELCOME THEM. [APPLAUSE] THANK YOU GENTLEMEN FOR YOUR SERVICE. >> Speaker: WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA HOUSE. MEMBERS WE’RE OUT OF PRACTICE PLEASE DO NOT FORGET TO PUT THE PAGES TO WORK. READ THE NEXT AMENDMENT. >> REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT BARCODE BY 57409 MOVE LINE 65 TO 71 INSERT AMENDMENT. >> Speaker: YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO EXPLAIN THIS AMENDMENT. >> Rep. Eskamani: IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT ONE MAY BE LIKE THIS ONE. THIS AMENDMENT SPECIFIES THAT BECAUSE CANNOT BE BROUGHT WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF A MOTHER AND CANNOT BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE HEALTHCARE PROVIDER WHO HAS AGAIN NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME IN CONNECTION WITH THE CARE THEY PROVIDE BASICALLY TRYING TO ELIMINATE FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS AND PROTECT DOCTORS WHO ARE FOLLOWING THE LAW NOT BEING CAUGHT UP IN LITIGATION. >> Speaker: QUESTIONS OF SPONSOR? AMENDMENTS? >> NONE. >> Speaker: SUBSTITUTE? >> NONE. >> Speaker: DEBATE ON THE AMENDMENT? REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS MULICKA IN DEBATE. >> Rep. Persons-Mulicka: MEMBERS, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE AGAINST THIS AS WELL. THE BILL ALREADY PROHIBITS THE CAUSE OF ACTION OF UNLAWFUL MEDICAL CARE BEING PROVIDED. THIS AMENDMENT GIVES A PASS FOR ANY MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE COMMITTED AND REQUIRE RESPONSIBILITY ONLY WHEN A CRIME IS COMMITTED. THAT IS A DIFFERENT STANDARD. THESE ARE CIVIL LAWSUITS AND SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THAT HEIGHTENED CRIMINAL STANDARD. PLEASE JOIN ME IN VOTING AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT. >> Speaker: FURTHER DEBATE? FURTHER DEBATE? REPRESENTATIVE BARTLEMAN. >> Rep. Bartleman: AGAIN, THANK YOU. IF THE MOTHER BELIEVES SHE HAS MEDICAL STANDING UP BECAUSE OF SOMETHING HAPPENING LIKE YOU ARE IN A CAR ACCIDENT OR THERE IS MALPRACTICE THE MOTHER WILL SUE. THIS GIVES THE PERSON WHO IMPREGNATED HER THE ABILITY TO SUE EVEN IF SHE IS NOT FILING A LAWSUIT AND SHE DOES NOT CONSENT TO IT AND ONCE AGAIN ALL OF THIS IS DETERMINED IN A COURT OF I WISH YOU KNOW, YOU NEED TO SIT DOWN WITH YOUR DOCTORS AND TALK ABOUT THE REAL IMPLICATIONS OF THIS AND THEIR LIABILITY INSURANCE. WHAT I AM ALSO AFRAID OF IS THAT IF MY DAUGHTER IS PREGNANT AND SHE BREAKS HER WRIST AND GOES TO THE HOSPITAL AND NOW AND GOES TO SEE JUST A GENERAL DOCTOR THAT DOCTOR WILL BE AFRAID TO TREAT HER BECAUSE IF THREE WEEKS FROM A THE WRIST INCIDENT SHE LOSES HER PREGNANCY THE FATHER OR THE PERSON WHO IMPREGNATED HER CAN SAY IT IS BECAUSE OF THE WRIST LIKE IT REALLY I DON'T UNDERSTAND. WE ARE SO, OUR PHILOSOPHY IN THIS HOUSE HAS BEEN WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE A WAY FOR FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS OR TO INCREASE INSURANCE CARRIERS COSTS AND THEY VOTED FOR ONE OF THOSE BILLS. NOT ALL OF THEM. SOME OF YOU DID. BUT YOU'RE OPENING UP SUCH LIABILITY FOR THE DOCTORS. SO, I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE DOING THIS. I URGE YOU TO VOTE UP ON THIS BECAUSE IT IS A FREE FOR ALL. PEOPLE ARE JUST GOING TO SUE. AND NOT ONLY THAT BUT THE DOCTORS ARE GOING TO LEAVE THE STATE. THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. >> Speaker: FURTHER DEBATE ON THE AMENDMENT? SEEING NONE REPRESENTATIVE ESKAMANI YOU MAY CLOSE. >> Rep. Eskamani: I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE REASON WHY THIS AMENDMENT CARRIES SO MUCH VALUE IS BECAUSE THE WAY THE BILL IS WRITTEN IT DISCUSSES PROVIDERS OF LAWFUL MEDICAL CARE BUT THE REALITY IS THAT LAWSUITS FOR LIMITED DAMAGES CAN BE BROUGHT BY SIMPLY ALLEGING WRONGDOING AND ALTHOUGH I DO APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS MADE WHEN IT COMES TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD AND OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS TO MAKING THE AMENDMENT BETTER BUT ULTIMATELY THE WAY THE BILL IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN IS THAT IT CREATES AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE ERS AND MEDICAL DOCTORS AND NURSES ARE GOING TO BE EXPOSED TO FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS. AND WHO KNOWS WHAT THE MALPRACTICE INSURANCE RATES OR COST FOR OB/GYN'S. THERE HAVE SOME OF THE HIGHEST COSTS IN THE STATES. IT'S AN ECOSYSTEM WHERE THOSE DIFFERENT PROVIDERS ARE GOING TO LEAVE AND THEY ALREADY ARE LEAVING. I CANNOT EVEN BEGIN TO TELL YOU WHO MAY MEDICAL STUDENTS I TALK TO WHO ARE NOT PLANNING TO PRACTICE AS AN OBSTETRICIAN IN FLORIDA BECAUSE THEY DO NOT SEE A SAFE WAY TO DO IT. AND THE NUMBER OF FAMILIES AND PARENTS THAT I MEET WHO DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE RAISING CHILDREN IN FLORIDA OR GIVING BIRTH IN FLORIDA BECAUSE OF OUR LEGAL LANDSCAPE AND HOW WE INTERSECTED POLITICS INTO SENSITIVE TOPICS LIKE REPRODUCTIVE CARE. SO FOR THOSE REASONS AND MORE I ENCOURAGE MEMBERS TO GO UP ON THIS AMENDMENT. THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. >> Speaker: THOSE IN FAVOR? THOSE OPPOSED? SHOW THIS IS NOT ADOPTED. READ THE NEXT AMENDMENT. >> REPRESENTATIVE CAMPBELL FOLLOWING AMENDMENT WITH TITLE AMENDMENT BARCODE 800927 REMOVE LINE 66 THROUGH 71 AND INSERT AMENDMENT. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE CAMPBELL YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR THE AMENDMENT. >> Rep. Campbell: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. MEMBERS, MY AMENDMENT IS AS FOLLOWS. ADDS A PROFESSIONAL TO THE LIST OF INDIVIDUALS AGAINST WHOM WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AND UNBORN CHILD MAY NOT BE BROUGHT WHEN CARE IS PROVIDED WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MOTHER. THIS AMENDMENT SIMPLY ENSURES THAT PROFESSIONALS WHO PROVIDE A SUPPORTIVE AND COMMUNITY BASED CARE DURING PREGNANCY AND POSTPARTUM OFTEN TO THE MOST VULNERABLE FAMILIES ARE NOT EXPOSED TO CIVIL LAWSUITS FOR DOING THE WORK FOR WHICH THEY ARE NEEDED. THIS AMENDMENT PROTECTS THE PEOPLE WHO HELP MAKE PREGNANCY MORE SAFE, HEALTHY, AND MORE EQUITABLE. THAT IS THE AMENDMENT. >> Speaker: QUESTIONS? AMENDMENTS? >> NONE. >> Speaker: IS THERE DEBATE? REPRESENTATIVE ABBOTT IN DEBATE. >> Rep. Abbott: THIS OPENS UP THE MOTHER TO RE CARE BUT IT PROVIDES A BLANKET EXEMPTION FOR PERINATAL PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION. IT LOOKS LIKE DULA'S LIMITATIONS, DIETITIANS, MENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST, ANY LICENSE AND NON LICENSED PROFESSIONALS BUT WHAT THIS DOES BECAUSE THE MOTHER SIGNED A LETTER OF CONSENT IT ALLOWS THEM TO PROVIDE ANY TYPE OF CARE AND EVEN IF THEY PROVIDE NEGLIGENT CARE BECAUSE OF THIS BLANKET EXEMPT, THERE IS NO RECOURSE FOR THE MOTHER. THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL DID A GREAT JOB PROTECTING MOTHERS AND I'M AFRAID THAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD PUT MOTHERS IN HARMS WAY BECAUSE THERE BE NO RECOURSE FOR ANY TYPE OF ACTIVITY BEYOND STANDARD CARE. MEMBERS, I WOULD ASK FOR A NO VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT. >> Speaker: FURTHER DEBATE? REPRESENTATIVE CAMPBELL YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR THE AMENDMENT. >> Rep. Campbell: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. MEMBERS, THIS AMENDMENT ASKS A SIMPLE QUESTION. WHO DO WE WANT STANDING BESIDE WOMEN DURING PREGNANCY? MORE SUPPORT? OR FEWER PEOPLE WILLING TO HELP? AND PERINEAL PROFESSIONALS ARE ALLIES. AND THEY SHOW UP IN OUR HOMES AND IN CLINICS AND IN COMMUNITIES LONG BEFORE A CRISIS OCCURS. THEY REDUCE THE RISK AND SAVE LIVES. THIS BILL EXPOSES THEM TO LAWSUITS THEY CANNOT CONTROL. IT SAYS HELP AT YOUR OWN RISK. WHEN THE HELP DISAPPEARS IT'S NOT LAWYERS WHO FEEL THE LOSS BUT IT IS MOTHERS AND BABIES AND FAMILIES. THIS STRENGTHENS CARE AND PRESERVES COMMON SENSE. A NOBLE CONCEPT. OUR JOB HERE IS TO DO NO HARM. THIS AMENDMENT ENSURES THAT AT LEAST ONE GROUP WON'T TO BE HARMED BY THIS BILL. MEMBERS, SUPPORTING WOMEN AND FAMILIES THROUGH PREGNANCY SHOULD NEVER BE A LEGAL LIABILITY. I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS GREAT AMENDMENT. >> Speaker: THOSE IN FAVOR? THOSE OPPOSED? SHOW THE AMENDMENT NOT ADOPTED. READ THE NEXT AMENDMENT. >> Speaker: REPRESENTATIVE NIXON FOLLOWING AMENDMENT WITH TITLE AMENDMENT BARCODE 443711 REMOVE LINE 66 AND INSERT AMENDMENT. REPRESENTATIVE