Connect with us

Economics

Florida is the first state to reject an abortion-rights measure

Published

on

AMONG THE results that came early on election night was for a ballot measure in Florida to enshrine a constitutional right to an abortion. Though 57% of Floridians supported it (with 91% of the vote counted), it failed—falling short of the 60% majority required in the state. The defeat marks the first time state-level abortion-rights campaigners have lost such a ballot campaign since the Supreme Court overturned a national right to the procedure in 2022. Florida’s current law will stand: it bans abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy, with limited exceptions.

Nine other states also voted on abortion-related measures on November 5th (see map). Most, including those in Arizona and Nevada, are expected to pass. Tallies in Midwestern states—South Dakota, Nebraska and Missouri—may be the tightest. The ballot measures vary in scope, from New York’s expansive equal-rights amendment to South Dakota’s measure offering unfettered access to abortion only in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Only Florida required a 60% supermajority.

Map: The Economist

Florida’s proposed constitutional amendment would have made abortion accessible until a fetus’s viability, about 24 weeks from conception, and later if necessary to protect the health of the woman. Its failure will affect not only more than 4m women in Florida but millions more across America’s south-east. If the measure had passed, it would have offered relatively permissive access in a region blanketed with highly restrictive laws. None of the states bordering Florida have procedures for citizen-led ballot initiatives that might overturn their laws.

Florida’s abortion-rights activists had raised $110m, a record for such a campaign. Their messaging emphasised health care and freedom from government interference, hoping the Sunshine State’s social liberalism would help them reach a super-majority. While one famous Floridian, Donald Trump, said that he would be voting against the amendment, he did not join the opposition campaign. Instead Ron DeSantis, the state’s governor, became its figurehead. He labelled the amendment too extreme for Florida and defended the state’s six-week ban.

The campaign was contentious. The state agency that regulates medical providers published videos opposing the proposed change, and the Department of Health threatened criminal prosecutions against television stations airing supportive advertisements, claiming they could discourage women from seeking emergency care. (A federal judge rejected the threatened sanctions, saying: “It’s the First Amendment, stupid”).

More than two-fifths of Americans have now voted on abortion since 2022. The breakneck pace of ballot-measure campaigns will slow. Only two more states with bans—Oklahoma and Arkansas—have provisions for citizen-led ballot initiatives. America’s abortion environment is becoming calcified along regional lines, with little appetite for reform in states with restrictive laws. Given that a national law is unlikely to pass in Congress, many Americans will continue to be forced to travel to receive abortions, or receive posted pills. And harrowing accounts of women in restrictive states who have died from complications during miscarriages, or faced serious health risks because doctors were afraid to treat them, will continue to accumulate.

Economics

BOI Reporting and the impact of the recent Federal Injunction

Published

on

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is a legislative measure designed to enhance financial transparency

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is a legislative measure designed to enhance financial transparency and mitigate risks such as money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit financial activities. The CTA aims to close loopholes and create a fairer business environment by requiring certain entities to disclose their beneficial ownership information. However, recent legal developments have temporarily impacted compliance requirements, bringing attention to the act’s ongoing litigation and implementation.

Federal Court Decision and Its Implications

On December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al. (No. 4:24-cv-00478). This injunction temporarily halts the enforcement of the CTA, specifically its beneficial ownership reporting requirements. Additionally, the court order stays all deadlines for compliance.

As a result, reporting companies are currently not obligated to submit beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). During the injunction, these entities are also shielded from liability for non-compliance with CTA mandates.

Despite this pause, FinCEN has clarified that companies may still voluntarily submit their BOI reports. This voluntary reporting option remains available for businesses that wish to align with the CTA’s transparency goals.

Overview of the Corporate Transparency Act

The CTA mandates that certain entities provide information about their beneficial owners—individuals who own or control a business. The act is intended to increase transparency, enhance national security, and reduce the anonymity that can facilitate financial crimes.

While the CTA has garnered support for its objectives, it has also faced legal challenges questioning its constitutionality. Courts in different jurisdictions have issued varying rulings, with some upholding the law and others granting temporary injunctions. For example, district courts in Virginia and Oregon have ruled in favor of the Department of the Treasury, asserting the CTA’s alignment with constitutional principles.

Compliance During the Injunction

Currently, the federal injunction exempts businesses from mandatory BOI filing requirements nationwide. This temporary halt will remain in place until further developments, such as a decision by an appellate court or a reversal of the injunction.

In response to the ruling, the Department of Justice, representing the Department of the Treasury, has filed an appeal. While the case proceeds through the legal system, FinCEN has confirmed its compliance with the court order.

Looking Ahead

The legal proceedings surrounding the CTA highlight the evolving nature of financial regulation. As courts continue to deliberate, businesses should monitor updates to remain informed about their obligations. By staying informed and prepared, businesses can effectively manage their compliance responsibilities and contribute to efforts that promote financial integrity and transparency.

Continue Reading

Economics

After a chaotic scramble, Congress strikes a budget deal

Published

on

Donald Trump is the most powerful Republican politician in a generation, but the president-elect is still no match for the most nihilistic members of his own party. The budget chaos that unfolded on Capitol Hill as the Christmas break approached is only a preview of the difficult realities Mr Trump will face when he starts to govern next month.

Continue Reading

Economics

Why Congress is so dysfunctional

Published

on

Budgetary chaos is a sign that governing will be harder than Donald Trump might assume

Continue Reading

Trending