They'll find any reason and latch onto any argument to justify the "conservative" thing. If the Florida Constitution had no privacy right, they would say there is no right to an abortion because there is no privacy right. However, we have an explicit privacy right, and they may justify upholding the abortion bans by saying that although we have a privacy right, it doesn't include the right to an abortion.
They found a disgusting loophole in the wording of the felon reenfranchisement amendment. IIRC, they interpreted "sentence" to include their fees and fines they may owe to the state, rather than just no longer being incarcerated.
The proposed abortion amendment doesn't leave much room for reinterpretation. However, I don't doubt their ability to be imaginative when they need to be and wrap that up in legal jargon and citations.
If they were honest justices of the Court, the existing privacy clause in the state constitution should be a sufficient enough foundation for the right to choose an abortion. The state argument fails, and their own evidence disproves their argument in my view. I'm not hopeful they'll give a fuck about that.
Separately, as of right now, I'm not confident that an abortion amendment on the ballot would reach the 60% threshold. That's a really high threshold.
= new reply since forum marked as read