According to a leading anti-abortion activist, the Florida Supreme Court has become “the court of our dreams.”

So says John Stemberger, president of the Florida Family Policy Council. He’s quoted in a June 20 Washington Post article describing how Gov. Ron DeSantis, a candidate for president, has remade the Florida court with right-wing appointments.

Five of the justices owe their appointments to DeSantis, who signed Florida’s two newest anti-abortion laws, limiting abortions to the first 15 weeks after conception and then to just six weeks, essentially banning almost all abortions.

Stemberger’s dreams are virtually certain to be fulfilled in a historic abortion case that’s almost ready for the court to decide. It threatens to be a disaster for privacy rights far beyond abortion and also to undercut Florida’s public records law.

The questions are only how far the court will go and whether the court’s senior justice, Charles Canady, will nod to the appearance of impropriety and recuse himself.

Canady’s anti-abortion record as a legislator and member of Congress would not be disqualifying, experts say, but he also has two current issues. His daughter Julia Canady works for DeSantis. His legislator wife, state Rep. Jennifer Canady, R-Lakeland, co-sponsored a new, near-total abortion ban that depends upon the case before the court.

The anti-abortion forces have votes to spare at the court. They don’t really need Canady’s, except perhaps to pile on in a test case that is already of nationwide interest and significance. He has already voted once in the case, in solo opposition to accepting an appeal by Planned Parenthood and other challengers to Florida’s 15-week abortion ban.

As Section 23 of the Declaration of Rights, it says that everyone “has the right to be let alone and free from government intrusion…” It also guarantees the public’s right of access to public records and meetings.

In 1989, all seven justices then sitting on the case of In Re T. W., agreed that Section 23 protected an adult woman’s right to an abortion. They split 4-3 in applying that to overturn a law requiring parental consent for a minor’s abortion, which the Constitution was amended subsequently to allow.