Byron Donalds and David Jolly’s Stances on Reproductive Rights
Edited by Jaden Shir
The Abortion Issue on College Campuses
The highest rate of unwanted pregnancies in the U.S. occurs in college-aged women, making access to abortion an important resource for students (Center for Reproductive Rights). According to Planned Parenthood in 2023, about 3 in 4 students considered access to reproductive care when deciding on their college. After the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, which left abortion regulations up to state governments, Florida took immediate action to limit access to abortion. Before its overturning, the Reducing Fetal and Infant Mortality Bill was introduced. It officially took effect in Florida on July 1, 2022. This bill prevented abortions past 15 weeks, with exceptions if the birth posed a major risk to the pregnant woman’s health or if the fetus had a “fatal fetal abnormality” (Florida Senate, Health Policy Committee). On May 1, 2024, the Heartbeat Protection Act placed tighter restrictions by preventing abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. Governor Ron DeSantis signed these two bills, and they gained support from various pro-life and Republican politicians, including Florida’s Republican gubernatorial candidate Byron Donalds (Schecker). As Florida gubernatorial candidates, Byron Donalds and David Jolly hold opposing views on reproductive rights; examining their past actions and proposed policy reforms offers insight into how their administrations might approach abortion. Their positions also raise questions about governors' roles in broader reproductive rights legislation and the legal implications of expanding or restricting such policies in Florida.
Byron Donalds: Previous Actions and Positions
Republican candidate and FSU alumnus Byron Donalds has advanced pro-life ideas since he was elected to the Florida House of Representatives in 2016. Serving in the United States House as a representative for Florida’s 19th congressional district, Donalds has repeatedly rejected possible legislation that could increase women’s reproductive rights since before Roe v. Wade was overturned. He has voted against legislation such as the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 and 2022, the Ensuring Women’s Right to Reproductive Freedom Act (H.R. 8297), and the Right to Contraception Act (“Roll Call 295”; “Roll Call 360”; “Roll Call 362”; “Roll Call 385”). These measures addressed access to distinct aspects of reproductive health, such as providing women with accessible modes of abortion and contraception. He explicitly states that the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022 goes against the Court’s ruling to make abortion policies state-specific (“Rep. Donalds Votes”). He also disapproved of former President Biden’s plan to overturn the Hyde Amendment, claiming that it has actually “saved over 2.5 million lives from abortion” (Donalds). The Hyde Amendment—while subject to exceptions—generally restricts federal funding for abortions. Additionally, Donalds has advocated for pro-life policies. He signed a letter asking former President Biden to reinstate the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) policy (“Congressman Donalds Signs”). This policy would allow funding for non-governmental foreign organizations as long as they did not promote or perform abortions. Beyond abortion legislation, Byron’s votes also concern the actual protections given to mothers and their children. He voted against the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, both of which are policies that provide workplace accommodations for mothers (“Roll Call 143”; “Roll Call 331”). He also voted against the Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act, which would have helped provide mothers with resources such as formula (“Roll Call 220”; “H.R. 7790”). However, his record also shows support for other pregnancy-related measures. For example, he voted for the Pregnant Students’ Rights Act and the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act. These two acts sought to clarify the resources available to pregnant women, such as federal funding allocation. His positions on these policies reflect his strong opposition to federal attempts to expand access to abortion, alongside support for certain pregnancy-related measures. Examining both aspects would provide a more comprehensive understanding of his policy priorities and how they could influence his approach to reproductive health as governor of Florida.
David Jolly: Previous Actions and Positions
Former Republican David Jolly became a Democrat just before he entered the 2025 Florida gubernatorial race. He claims that his former anti-abortion beliefs were shaped by the “faith teachings” he was brought up on (Peddie). His actions and votes as a United States Representative from 2014 to 2017 clearly demonstrate his alignment with Republican and pro-life ideas. For example, he co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act in 2015, which sought to give any “preborn human” full protection under the 14th Amendment (“H.R. 816”). The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that he also co-sponsored would have banned abortions after the fetus’ age was 20 weeks post-fertilization (“Roll Call 223”; “H.R. 36”). He also voted in favor of the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015, which would have banned federal funding to all Planned Parenthoods for one year unless they could certify that they were not performing abortions (“Roll Call 505”; “H.R. 3134”). Contrastingly, his gubernatorial campaign predominantly focuses on being pro-choice, going as far as to support the implementation of Amendment 4 to limit the government’s role in abortion (Peddie). His support for Amendment 4 suggests a perspective that views abortion as an individual matter, not an issue that requires state interference. He repeatedly mentions restoring the Roe v. Wade/Planned Parenthood v. Casey framework, which would make abortion legal until about 23 or 24 weeks, allowing for state regulations with medical exceptions post-viability (Peddie; Jolly). Jolly has explained that his initial ideas came from a religious upbringing, but now recognizes the “constitutional liberty of everyone to have bodily autonomy” as separate from his personal faith (Jolly). His current plans place the choice in the hands of pregnant women, imposing slight state restrictions as a mediator for the issues at hand. His shift in perspective demonstrates how his current policy priorities differ from his earlier legislative record. If elected, his proposed approach could involve advocating for the expansion of reproductive rights and reimplementing the pro-choice framework that the nation held until Roe v. Wade was overturned.
Implications
The contrasting positions of Byron Donalds and David Jolly show the extent to which Florida’s reproductive policies can be affected by its next governor. Donalds’ prospective administration might favor maintaining current restrictions, while Jolly would require legislative reform that goes beyond executive proposals. Potential changes to abortion policies would need to undergo judicial review, being subject to Florida’s majority conservative courts. Beyond political disagreement, limited access to abortion also raises concerns about appropriate medical care. Since the general overturning of Roe v. Wade, increases in “preventable deaths” have been observed in states that have severely restricted abortion (Yeskey). The limiting of reproductive rights has also inadvertently impacted college-aged women, decreasing the number of women who applied to schools in states with abortion restrictions (Kane). Public opinion ultimately also provides context for these policy debates. A study conducted in 2026 by Pew Research Center found that 66% of people ages 18-29 agreed that abortion should be legal. Although this statistic is not representative of Florida specifically, it shows the generational perspectives that could shape future debates on reproductive policy.