It is a great ad and Charlie Crist is not misrepresenting anything.

September 9, 2022
By Brea Jones of FactCheck.org

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (click here) wants to eliminate state permit requirements for carrying concealed firearms, and he supports banning abortion, with limited exceptions, after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

But political ads from former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist’s campaign misleadingly claim that DeSantis opposes “any background checks” on gun buyers and “wants to ban abortion” in all cases....

When Ron DeSantis states he wants to eliminate state permit requirements that is an elimination of background checks.

Here are the current requirements which are bare bones requirements:

To be eligible for a Florida concealed weapon or firearm license: (click here)

You must be 21 years of age or older.

You must be able to demonstrate competency with a firearm.

Unless you are serving overseas in the United States Armed Forces, you must currently reside in the United States and be a U.S. citizen or deemed a lawful permanent resident alien by Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. If you are serving overseas in the U.S. Armed Forces, submit a copy of your deployment documentation with your application. Those who are Resident Aliens must provide a valid Permanent Resident Alien card.

There are NO SAFEGUARDS NOW!

There are absolutely no requirements by the State of Florida for ANY background checks. The requirements for current background checks are due to federal requirements. 

Gun buyers are required to submit to a background check (click here) through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

A prospective buyer fills out ATF Form 4473 and the federally licensed firearms dealers relays this information to the NICS. NICS staff perform a background check to verify the prospective buyer does not have a criminal record and is not otherwise ineligible to purchase a firearm.

The NICS has conducted more than 300 million checks since launching in 1998, leading to over 3 million denials.

I believe President Biden has updated requirements for a gun purchase. so this may be outdated. 

States can have their own requirements that are much tighter than the federal laws, the example is Connecticut (click here). There is also every reason for background checks to be more stringent, the example is Dylann Roof (click here) who found a loophole that allowed him to obtain a gun purchase before his background check was completed. 

...Mr. Roof exploited the three-day waiting time that has allowed thousands of prohibited buyers to legally purchase firearms over the past decade — and some of those weapons were ultimately used in crimes, according to court records and government documents....

As far as abortion goes, the government needs to get out of the way completely. Abortions are a private decision between a doctor and the woman. The Republicans are touting 15 weeks as the end of legal abortions. The majority probably fall in that category, but, not all and certainly if a woman's life is in danger no matter when the pregnancy was conceived she should be able to get a procedure to save her life.

The current ability to allow a fetus to survive an abortion is 23 weeks or later. There are an occasional infant that will survive in a neo-natal critical care unit, but, that is very rare.

Results: (click here) Termination of pregnancy accounted for 33% of deliveries at 20–23 weeks; these were excluded from further analysis. Spontaneous delivery occurred at a frequency of 2.5/1000 deliveries; 30% died before the onset of labour, 27% died during labour, and 35% showed signs of life at birth. Of the latter, 8% were not registered as statutory live births. Of the live born infants, the largest group (39%) had a heart beat but no other signs of life. There was no trend for infants of lower gestation to show fewer signs of life. Duration of survival varied widely (median 60 minutes at 20–22 weeks), and this did not increase with gestation until 23 weeks (median six hours), probably because of selective treatment. Survival curves are presented for each gestation group. At 23 weeks, 4.5% survived to 1 year of age; all were > 500 g birth weight. Below 23 weeks gestation, none survived, and 94% had died within 4 hours of age.

Conclusions: This information on surviving labour, signs of life at birth, duration of survival, and birth weight at 20–23 weeks gestation should help decision making in the management of pre-viable delivery.

The viability of the fetus to maintain life can only be determined by a neonatologist. Viability is rare in fetus less than 500 grams of body weight.

This is from Kaiser.

Reasons individuals seek abortions later in pregnancy include medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion.

Abortions occurring at or after 21 weeks gestational age are rare. (click here) They are often difficult to obtain, as they are typically costly, time-intensive and only performed by a small subset of abortion providers. Yet these abortions receive a disproportionate amount of attention in the news, policy and the law, and discussions on this topic are often fraught with misinformation; for example, intense public discussions have been sparked after several policymakers have theorized about abortions occurring “moments before birth” or even “after birth.” In reality, these scenarios do not occur, nor are they legal, in the U.S. Discussion of this topic is further obscured due to the terms sometimes used to describe abortions later in pregnancy– including “late-term,” “post-viability,” “partial birth,” “dismemberment” and “born-alive” abortions—despite many medical professionals criticizing and opposing their use. This fact sheet explains why individuals may seek abortions later in pregnancy, how often these procedures occur, how the concepts of viability and fetal pain play into this topic, and the various laws which regulate access to abortions later in pregnancy....

No one will say this besides me, but, politicians that invade a woman's right to privacy and control of her own body are moralizing to attract votes and not protections for babies. It is a rare occurrence in the USA that any late term abortions are conducted and when they are it is to save the life of the woman. 

When a politician states he or she opposes abortion after 15 weeks is saying women that seek abortion after that are wrong and immoral. That is the furthest from the truth. Women have a right to privacy and the advise of their doctors uninterrupted by government.

In my opinion, the Republican Party is hoping the 15 week bill will make everyone unhappy with them to now become happy with them to vote them into office. I don't think so. The Republican Party did not expect the uproar of women across the USA to the wrongful nullification of Roe v. Wade. Believe it or not, it is legal and correct to have case law in the USA. The Robert's Court doesn't  believe in case law. It is a convenient belief that allows them to play politics with existing case law. By overturning every case law the Evangelical funding sources don't like and returning it to the states as State's Rights is ridiculous and gross malpractice.

States Rights is an allowance in the USA Constitution when states are best left to decide if the Colorado River Compact is a good idea or not. The States Rights issue is about PARTICULAR decisions that are unique to that state. In the case of abortion, a woman is a woman. Every woman that once fell under the case law of Roe v. Wade was allowed to decide about their own bodies and the future of a pregnancy and to do so with the guidance of her doctor(s). There was absolutely nothing wrong with case law of Roe v. Wade. Nothing. It was a protection for all women and there were no States Rights that applied as far as I am concerned. The Robert's Court began to allow this provision or that provision because they premeditated the end of Roe v. Wade. Just that simple. There is no magic in what the Robert's Court has been up to all these years since Bush placed right wing conservatives on the court that came as a favor to the Federalist Society and it's treasury and members bank accounts.

Pregnancy is an intimate issue between the persons involved. There is no place for government in that decision. Just imagine the impact of anti-abortion laws and the havoc is reeks on adult lives. I do not in any way approve of a child giving birth to a child. It is harmful.

So, when Charlie Christ states he believes in the right for a woman to choose, he is simply putting back the protections of women and their doctors. He is getting out of the way of privacy and allowing good and informed decisions to exist. He is also not dictating any religion will have sway over the USA Constitution.

The fifteen week ban is not necessary and is pure politics without any regard to a woman's ability to make her own decisions and a physicians right to protect the life of his patient, a woman.