The Lee County Board of County Commissioners has taken a position in opposition to Amendment 4.

The statewide referendum on the November ballot would “limit government interference with abortion,” and so overturn recently passed legislation limiting abortions in Florida to within six weeks of pregnancy.

The 4-1 vote followed more than two hours of public comment from a sharply divided public.

Lee County Board of County Commissioners Chairman Mike Greenwell said the resolution was intended to oppose language in the amendment “because it is very vague.”

Greenwell said the resolution is meant to encourage voters to read the language of the amendment, which will need at least 60% of the vote to pass.

“I think the language is vague for a reason,” Greenwell said. “There is something wrong here and I think it’s important that we bring that up.”

Though he said the vote by the county commissioners was not meant to oppose the right of the voters to weigh in on abortion, Greenwell said “It’s a very hot subject, obviously. There is no right answer. We are a divided country but we should always understand that we can always help the unborn.”

The ballot title is “Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion”

The ballot summary states: “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.”

Lee County resident Melissa Isley accused the county commissioners of using their political positions to influence a statewide voter referendum.

“You are using your seats to grandstand about a personal medical issue. This is a disappointing misuse of your power,” Isley said.

Opponents suggested that the Republican county commissioners were voting at the bequest of state Republican party leaders. Isley said she believed State Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, who shepherded the state’s six-week abortion ban through the State House, was holding influence over the county commissioners.

Persons-Mulicka and State Sen. Jonathan Martin appeared in front of the county commissioners Tuesday to urge a vote against Amendment 4.

Persons-Mulicka called Amendment 4 “deceptive” and “extreme.”

“If you don’t believe that our Constitution should enshrine the right to taxpayer-funded abortions on demand without parental consent up to birth you should vote no,” Persons-Mulicka said. “It will tie our hands in the legislature.”

Martin, who stood next to Persons-Mulicka during her comments, said “I echo those words.”

Rick Carter, a self-described born-again Christian, compared the voting on Amendment 4 to a bill that would re-introduce slavery and compared abortion to the Holocaust.

“You can not be neutral on this,” Carter said.

The debate from the public often veered into religious opinions where some cited their religion as reasons to oppose Amendment 4.

Those who supported Amendment 4 included speakers who shared emotional personal stories of being victims of abuse that led them to seek an abortion.

Under the abortion law approved by the state legislature and signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis last year, abortions are now limited in Florida to within six weeks of pregnancy. Opponents have argued that most women are not aware of their own pregnancies until a month or longer, leaving little time for the procedure.

District 4 Commissioner Brian Hamman called some of the stories of speakers who spoke in favor of pro-choice were “heartbreaking” and “gut-wrenching” as he cited personal religious feelings and said he expressed “empathy” for those he disagreed with.

“This language is very broad. It is very open to interpretation,” Hamman said. “I think voters need to be aware that this is something that deserved a second look.”

District 1 Commissioner Kevin Ruane said he was asked recently why the county commissioners were weighing in on the matter.

“I think the language is far too vague,” Ruane said. “It’s opposing the vagueness in the wording (of Amendment 4).”

District 2 Commissioner Cecil Pendergrass said he thinks Democrats were using “an emotional issue” through Amendment 4 “to drive people to the polls.”

District 3 Commissioner Ray Sandelli said he was personally “pro-life” and said the subject was personal in nature. He said he has “taken back” when he was asked why the county commissioners were taking part in the vote.

“In the end, this will be decided by all of us at election time,” Sandelli said. “My constituency is all of Lee County whether it is a yes vote or a no vote.” Sandelli said he would not adopt the resolution.

The commissioners voted 4-1 on the resolution, with Sandelli the lone dissenter.

A couple members of the public yelled at the commissioners after the vote that “You should be ashamed of yourselves. It has nothing to do with voting and everything to do with controlling women and you know it.”

The ballot summary language has not been the only source of controversy.

Proponents of the amendment legally contested what they say is misleading and inaccurate language concerning the amendment’s financial impact to the state. The Florida Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that the language, revised by a state panel, could appear on the ballot.

The Financial and State Budget Impact Statements reads: The proposed amendment would result in significantly more abortions and fewer live births per year in Florida. The increase in abortions could be even greater if the amendment invalidates laws requiring parental consent before minors undergo abortions and those ensuring only licensed physicians perform abortions. There is also uncertainty about whether the amendment will require the state to subsidize abortions with public funds. Litigation to resolve those and other uncertainties will result in additional costs to the government and state courts that will negatively impact the state budget. An increase in abortions may negatively affect the growth of state and local revenues over time. Because the fiscal impact of increased abortions on state and local revenues and costs cannot be estimated with precision, the total impact of the proposed amendment is indeterminate. THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THIS AMENDMENT CANNOT BE DETERMINED DUE TO AMBIGUITIES AND UNCERTAINTIES SURROUNDING THE AMENDMENT’S IMPACT.”