Florida is one of 25 states that, along with the District of Columbia, make public financing available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. Those are the same restrictions the federal Hyde Amendment imposes on the state-federal Medicaid insurance program for the poor. Those same restrictions will apply to abortion coverage provided through the insurance exchanges that states create under the Patient Affordability and Protection Act. The new federal law clearly states that women cannot use government subsidies to purchase abortion coverage.

Backers of HB 1143 insist that Florida needs a law prohibiting publicly financed abortions. In fact, the state has a long-standing policy to that effect. This bill began as legislation about licensing and staffing for nursing homes, but late in the session - with no committee debate - became a vehicle for partisan statements about abortion and the new health care law, designed to improve election prospects for Republicans, not health care for Floridians.

To reduce the number of abortions and the cost of health care, Florida should begin a bipartisan effort to reduce unwanted pregnancies. HB 1143 would force procedures on women who don't want or need them.

This proposed law clearly violates the undue burden standard established in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the last time the SCOTUS fully revisited the issue of a woman's right to choose. One would hope that the courts would quickly strike down such a law if Crist chooses to sign it.

In any event, one expects that Crist's decision will be a political one rather than a legal one. The politics would seem to point to his vetoing this plainly unconstitutional bill.

Speaking for me only