Will HB 63 be enough for women in Florida?

Photo Courtesy; politico (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

As Florida grapples with contentious debates over reproductive rights, a new piece of legislation, HB 63, stands at the intersection of pregnancy support and political ideology. 

The bill proposes enhanced oversight and accountability for the Florida Pregnancy Care Network (FPCN), requiring unannounced Department of Health visits and stricter financial audits. However, due to Florida’s Republican supermajority in the Legislature and with Amendment 4 failing this past election, how will HB 63 protect women’s reproductive healthcare?

HB 63 is sponsored by Democratic state Representatives Kelly Skidmore of Delray Beach and Anna Eskamani of Orlando, who are renewing an effort to better regulate the anti-abortion pregnancy centers, also known as crisis pregnancy centers, that the state program helps fund.

If passed this legislative session, the provisions include unannounced visits by the Department of Health, annual financial audits, and requirements for medically accurate informational materials. 

The bill states, “The department shall visit each organization within the network at least annually to determine compliance with the terms of the contract … during the organization’s regular business hours.”

The bill also insists that service providers exclusively promote childbirth and offer referrals to sexual assault crisis centers.

There have been multiple “anti-abortion” Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPC) opening up across the state. According to Planned Parenthood, “The three largest organizations funding anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers nationwide are Heartbeat International, Care Net and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates.”

This could become a problem as many of these “anti-abortion” CPCs are not licensed as medical clinics. 

A study done by the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics shows that many CPCs are deliberately located near legitimate reproductive health centers and have “purposefully used similar names or logos as abortion clinics to confuse pregnant people and lure them away from health centers that provide abortion care.”

Without access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare, including abortion services, women may be forced to seek care out of state or rely on inaccurate information —that could come with financial, emotional and health risks. The emphasis on promoting childbirth raises concerns about the impartiality of the information provided to pregnant women.

Under the proposal, organizations that receive state funds through the FPCN would be required to provide “medically accurate” information to their patients. 

The bill also says that CPC must “cite the reference source of any medical statement included … The contract must include fines as a penalty for noncompliance…”

Co-sponsor Eskamani told Orlandoweekly, “Crisis pregnancy centers receive millions of taxpayer dollars, so it’s only reasonable that they meet basic standards of financial transparency and operational compliance, just like any other publicly funded program.” 

Although HB 63 promises increased oversight of pregnancy support services, with the defeat of Amendment 4, there could be some uncertainty  where women’s healthcare options are increasingly limited.