Changing course, a Democratic Florida prosecutor suspended from office by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis said Tuesday he will seek reelection while a court battle continues over his 2022 removal from the post.

Andrew Warren had said in January he would not run this year. But that was before a federal appeals court ruled that a lower court should consider Warren's argument that statements he made about hot-button issues such as abortion were political advocacy protected by the First Amendment. That case remains pending.

DeSantis cited those statements in suspending Warren, contending he was improperly refusing to uphold and enforce certain laws. The governor appointed Republican Suzy Lopez to replace Warren, and she is running for the position that prosecutes cases in Tampa and surrounding Hillsborough County.

In his announcement in a video posted on social media, Warren said the governor “illegally forced me from office” and that he decided to seek a third term even as a judge in Tallahassee considers whether to order his reinstatement later this year. Qualifying for the election ends next week.

Changing course, a Democratic Florida prosecutor suspended from office by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis said Tuesday he will seek reelection while a court battle continues over his 2022 removal from the post.

Andrew Warren had said in January he would not run this year. But that was before a federal appeals court ruled that a lower court should consider Warren's argument that statements he made about hot-button issues such as abortion were political advocacy protected by the First Amendment. That case remains pending.

DeSantis cited those statements in suspending Warren, contending he was improperly refusing to uphold and enforce certain laws. The governor appointed Republican Suzy Lopez to replace Warren, and she is running for the position that prosecutes cases in Tampa and surrounding Hillsborough County.

In his announcement in a video posted on social media, Warren said the governor “illegally forced me from office” and that he decided to seek a third term even as a judge in Tallahassee considers whether to order his reinstatement later this year. Qualifying for the election ends next week.

Danielle Tallafuss spoke through tears Saturday afternoon as she recounted to hundreds of people the difficult decision to have an abortion.

The Oviedo resident had been counting down the days in 2020 until the birth of her son, Nathaniel. Then a scan around week 20 of her pregnancy revealed he had a genetic defect called hypoplastic left heart syndrome.

The condition would require three open heart surgeries within his first two years of life — with no guarantee her son would survive. Tallafuss had another child at home, as well. She didn’t want to split her time between him and a baby in the hospital, she said from the stage of Lake Eola Park’s Walt Disney Amphitheater.

“It was a decision we made out of love, compassion and doing what was best not just for the son we already had at home, but for Nathaniel, who would have had to suffer through treatments that most adults wouldn’t be able to handle before he could even take his first steps,” she said.

As she spoke, coordinated chants of “Abortion is murder” were heard from counter-protesters behind a nearby barricade. Some held signs bearing graphic pictures of aborted fetuses. Others dropped to their knees in prayer, holding rosaries toward the sky.

The event marked the official kickoff of the Yes On 4 campaign — an effort to enshrine the right to abortion in Florida’s Constitution and undo current restrictions if 60% of voters approve in November’s election. The changes would then go into effect in January.

Pro-choice demonstrators march on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 20, 1970. Among the visible signs is one that reads, “Defend Shirley Wheeler,” referencing the first woman prosecuted under Florida’s abortion laws (and possibly the first in the United States); she was convicted the following year. (Leif Skoogfors / Getty Images)


Florida’s Supreme Court recently upheld the state’s law banning abortion after 15 weeks of becoming pregnant. Not surprisingly, news coverage and commentary about the decision focused on abortion and the fact that the effect of that ruling was to allow a six-week ban to go into effect. Far from being a decision limited to abortion, however, it is one that should shock the conscience of anyone who believes that women, and all those with the capacity for pregnancy, have a right to privacy.

That right is specifically protected in Article 23 of Florida’s Constitution. Adopted by Florida voters in 1980, it states: “Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided herein.”

Nowhere is it “otherwise provided” that womanhood, pregnancy or the capacity for pregnancy are exceptions to protection from governmental intrusion into a “person’s private life.” Nevertheless, Florida’s Supreme Court concluded that the people who become pregnant have no right to be let alone from Florida’s laws banning abortion care.

Purporting to carry out an objective evaluation of the words used in Article 23 the court erases the experiences and ultimately the privacy rights of the all Floridians who have the capacity for pregnancy.

Pro-choice demonstrators march on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 20, 1970. Among the visible signs is one that reads, “Defend Shirley Wheeler,” referencing the first woman prosecuted under Florida’s abortion laws (and possibly the first in the United States); she was convicted the following year. (Leif Skoogfors / Getty Images)


Florida’s Supreme Court recently upheld the state’s law banning abortion after 15 weeks of becoming pregnant. Not surprisingly, news coverage and commentary about the decision focused on abortion and the fact that the effect of that ruling was to allow a six-week ban to go into effect. Far from being a decision limited to abortion, however, it is one that should shock the conscience of anyone who believes that women, and all those with the capacity for pregnancy, have a right to privacy.

That right is specifically protected in Article 23 of Florida’s Constitution. Adopted by Florida voters in 1980, it states: “Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided herein.”

Nowhere is it “otherwise provided” that womanhood, pregnancy or the capacity for pregnancy are exceptions to protection from governmental intrusion into a “person’s private life.” Nevertheless, Florida’s Supreme Court concluded that the people who become pregnant have no right to be let alone from Florida’s laws banning abortion care.

Purporting to carry out an objective evaluation of the words used in Article 23 the court erases the experiences and ultimately the privacy rights of the all Floridians who have the capacity for pregnancy.

Some surprising voices have joined the chorus of legal experts, physicians and activists weighing in on Idaho’s abortion ban: Tinder, Hinge, Bumble and Match.

The dating apps and several other high-profile businesses and national chamber of commerce organizations in a joint amicus brief urged the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret federal law to provide an emergency exception to Idaho’s abortion ban, and argued that the state’s strict abortion laws are bad for businesses and have already cost Idaho millions in economic losses.

The businesses join dozens of advocacy groups and medical and legal experts who have submitted amicus briefs to the court, which will hear arguments later this month to determine whether the federal Emergency Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) supercedes Idaho’s abortion ban. While most briefs argue on moral, religious, legal or medical grounds, the 10 business entities — which include the U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce, Lyft ridesharing, Levi Strauss, Yelp and various dating apps — focused instead on economics.

The brief cited a January study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research that, prior to the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022, estimated the economic impact of abortion restrictions in Idaho at about $1.2 billion per year on average. Idaho was among the top 10 states with the highest economic losses, the study found. It analyzed state abortion laws like mandatory pre-abortion counseling and waiting periods, both of which Idaho had.

Idaho passed its most stringent abortion law, called the Defense of Life Act, in 2020 with a “trigger” that would allow it to go into effect as soon as states regained authority over abortion laws, as they did in 2022. The amicus brief said the state can expect even more economic losses now that more stringent abortion laws are in place.

A right-wing think tank, a national conservative advocacy group and the Catholic Church in Oklahoma are behind the latest effort to change how state appellate judges and justices are appointed, The Oklahoman has learned.

Documents show the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, a right-wing think tank; the Judicial Crisis Network, a national conservative advocacy group; and the Catholic Church, through its arm, the Catholic Conference of Oklahoma, are working with several Republican lawmakers to eliminate the Judicial Nominating Commission and replace it with a process that parallels the federal system.

The federal system in Oklahoma would involve the governor nominating judges subject to Senate confirmation. The goal: Put more "conservative Republican" judges on the bench.

The effort is the latest attempt in a decade-long battle to rid the state of the Judicial Nominating Commission and move to a system that opponents say isn't about the rule of law but instead about finding judges who will pass a conservative litmus test. That test includes arguments about abortion, anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, public funding for religious schools and other issues.

This year, several pieces of legislation were filed that would dramatically change the way appellate judges and justices are appointed and would impose age and tenure limits on those justices.

Justices and judges in Arizona are currently subject to term limits, but a new amendment resolution proposed by state Republicans could allow for all members of the judiciary to serve lifetime terms.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 1044 (SCR 1044), which was introduced in the state Senate in early February, proposes a constitutional amendment that seeks to eliminate judicial retention elections in the Copper State.

Currently, superior — or trial — court judges serve four-year terms while appellate judges and Supreme Court justices serve six-year terms, but should SCR 1044 pass, all judges and justices could serve lifetime terms. The only exception is if a judge or justice does not exhibit “good behavior” — which the resolution describes as a felony conviction of any crime involving fraud, bankruptcy, foreclosure or dishonesty, or not meeting “judicial performance standards” — then they may be subject to a retention election.

Constitutional amendments can be placed on the ballot if approved by both legislative chambers and can only pass if a majority of voters sign off. The bill passed the state Senate in a 16-14 party line vote on March 6; it’s currently awaiting a full vote in the state House of Representatives before it can officially be on the November ballot.

The impetus to allow judges and justices to serve lifetime appointments stems from the 2022 midterm elections, when Arizona voters did not vote to retain three Maricopa Superior Court judges. The results of the election prompted a lawsuit from the right-wing Goldwater Institute, which alleges that it’s unconstitutional that only voters in the counties where the superior court judges reside can vote on their retention. Their lawsuit argued that all Arizona voters — not just the voters in the counties that the justices reside in — should vote in their retention elections, since the judges have statewide jurisdiction.

Conservatives spent a generation stacking the bench with anti-abortion judges. Donald Trump is now paying the price.

The former president is reckoning with high court rulings in Alabama, Florida and, most recently, Arizona, which have kept abortion and reproductive health care in the spotlight when he and much of the GOP would rather be talking about inflation or the border.

Taken together, they underscore the difficulty Trump and his campaign have in controlling a narrative that at any minute can be redefined by any judge in America.

Trump’s Monday announcement that abortion should be left to the states was supposed to neutralize an issue that has dogged Republican candidates since Roe v. Wade was overturned nearly two years ago. But by Tuesday — when an Arizona court ruled that an 1864 near-total abortion ban was enforceable — it was clear that it was futile to try to leave the issue behind.

Before Tuesday, “Arizona leaned Trump,” said Barrett Marson, an Arizona-based GOP strategist. “I would put Arizona now as lean Biden.”

Trump, sensing as much, tried Wednesday to distance himself from the decision.

“It’s all about state’s rights and it will be straightened out,” Trump said at a campaign event in Atlanta when asked if Arizona’s ruling went too far. “And I’m sure the governor and everybody else have got to bring it back into reason and that it will be taken care of.”

FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — Republican lawmakers in Kentucky on Friday removed the Democratic governor from any role filling future U.S. Senate vacancies — a move supporters said was unrelated to recent scrutiny about the health of the state's senior senator, Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

The GOP supermajority Legislature easily overrode Gov. Andy Beshear's veto of the measure. The legislation calls for a special election to fill any Senate vacancy from the Bluegrass State. The special election winner would hold the seat for the remainder of the unexpired term.

“The people should decide who a United States senator is by election always,” House Majority Floor Leader Steven Rudy, a Republican and the bill's lead sponsor, said during a brief House debate Friday.

The Senate succession bill moved through the Legislature at a time of pending transition for the 82-year-old McConnell. In February, the venerable Kentucky senator announced he will step down from his longtime Senate leadership position in November.

Aides said McConnell’s announcement was unrelated to his health. The senator had a concussion from a fall last year and two public episodes where his face briefly froze while he was speaking.