The readers’ forum

Protect pregnant women against discrimination

 

The State of Florida through chapter 760 of the Florida Statutes provides vital protection against discrimination for individuals on the basis of several categories, including sex, color, and religion. One category of individuals noticeably missing from such beneficial protection is pregnant women. Federal law has afforded them protection since 1978. Over the last decade, there have been multiple attempts to amend Florida law to include pregnant women as a protected class; however to date, including this legislative session, all such attempts have failed.

The main issue preventing the amending of the statute is the apparent ambiguity within Florida’s Civil Rights Act. Legal opinions from lower courts throughout the state are far from conclusive in their interpretation of this Act and, in many instances, contradictory. While some courts afford pregnant women remedies for being victims of discrimination, other courts completely deny pregnant women any protection under the Act.

Recently, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that pregnancy is a covered basis for discrimination under Chapter 760, F.S. Because of this ruling, the Florida House decided that there was no need to bring to the House Floor clarifying legislation (CS/HB 105 and CS/SB 220). Both bills made substantial progress through this year’s legislative session — passing out of seven committees in both houses, and ultimately voted out by the full Senate, where it passed unanimously. The Senate version sat in Messages to the House, while its House companion languished in the House Rules Committee. All that needed to be done was for the House to take up the Senate bill out of Messages, vote on it and send it to the governor!

For clarification purposes, the provision needs to be codified in the Florida Statutes, especially given Justice Ricky Polston’s dissenting opinion stating that pregnancy is not specifically covered in current law. Case law is open to interpretation, so any decision made by the current court can be readily reversed by future courts as new judges are seated (four judges are retiring in the next five years and four judges constitute the majority of the Supreme Court). Such reversal or change of opinion would mean that the Florida Civil Rights Act would no longer include pregnancy as a basis for discrimination. Should this happen, the Florida Legislature will, once again, be considering legislation to clarify that Florida law includes pregnancy as a basis of discrimination.

While the judiciary exists to interpret, construe and apply the laws as written, the Legislature is the lawmaking branch of government. Chapter 760, F.S., as currently written, has been interpreted differently by various courts over the past several years with regard to the pregnancy issue. Does the Legislature really want the courts making the laws for our state?

Mario Valle, chair, Florida Commission on Human Relations, Tallahassee

Read more Letters to the Editor stories from the Miami Herald

  • Respect is missing

    I remember, 32 years ago, as a new wife and stepmother, saying to my new family: "You don't have to love me, but you are going to respect me in this house." Anything worthwhile takes time, patience and respect for others and their personal frame of reference. That is sorely absent in our world today, especially from those for whom they are of the utmost importance.

  • The readers’ forum

    The Americans with Disabilities Act opened doors

    July 26 marked the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a landmark law passed in 1990 that for the first time in our history created nationwide standards for combating discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation, communications, telecommunications relay services and government activities.

  • Lure of free money

    If Joy-Ann Reid were honest, she would tell folks that the ACA was written by Democrats specifically to prevent people who enroll in the federal exchange from receiving subsidies, as subsidies would be available only in the state run exchanges. The Democrats thought the lure of free money would encourage the states to set up their own exchanges. This was no drafting error, as plainly seen by the wording of the act, which in several sections clearly stated that subsidies would be for state exchanges only. Democrats wrote and passed this bill, apparently without reading it.

Miami Herald

Join the
Discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category