“We knew that we were going to have to move forward and continue the legal battle,” he said, of his court loss in Leon County. “It was not unanticipated.”

Another explanation, which the governor appeared to allude to, was the way Florida’s constitution has been written and interpreted for decades, that forces any abortion restriction to climb an uphill battle the moment a law is passed.

READ: Judge rules Florida’s 15-week abortion ban unconstitutional

In 1980, voters approved the constitutional amendment that appears to be heavily conservative by today’s political standards, and yet stands in conservative groups’ path now. It’s known as Section 23.

“Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life,” it reads, under a bold title called “Right to Privacy.”

Florida is one of just 11 states with a right to privacy on its books, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. However, like the state’s modern choice of leaders, it is the unyielding language of the section that sets it apart from most of the rest.

READ: Central Florida reacts to the overturning of Roe v. Wade

Take Montana’s law, for example.

“The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest,” it reads.

That important caveat, also included on many of the other states’ laws, carves out a loophole that a legislature could use to enact a restriction on abortion by arguing that the state has an interest to protect the unborn, if a judge accepts it. Florida’s own attorneys attempted to use that argument this week.

READ: These laws go into effect in Florida on Friday

Some other state laws pertain more to property rights and physical invasions of privacy, which again create openings. On the other hand, Florida’s law is absolute, protecting residents from “governmental intrusion into the person’s private life.”

That was the language cited by Judge John Cooper when he made his ruling, saying he would issue a temporary injunction against DeSantis’ efforts to enact a 15-week limit on abortions instead of the current 24 weeks, which is typically when a fetus becomes viable outside the womb.

Cooper’s ruling will likely head to the Florida Supreme Court, which has decided on this matter before. In October 1989, the court struck down a parental consent law restricting a minor’s ability to get an abortion. While the 6-1 ruling included a few disputes and dissents over the child’s underage status, all of the justices agreed that the state’s right to privacy included an adult woman’s right to seek an abortion.

Read: With the overturning of Roe v. Wade, some worry women of color will be affected most

“The drafters of the amendment rejected the use of the words ‘unreasonable’ or ‘unwarranted’ before the phrase ‘governmental intrusion’ in order to make the privacy right as strong as possible,” the majority wrote. Despite the effects to the fetus, “We can conceive of few more personal or private decisions concerning one’s body that one can make in the course of a lifetime.”

However, the court’s makeup in 2022 is vastly different than it was in 1989. Stetson University Constitutional Law Professor Ciara Torres-Spelliscy said it wasn’t out of the question that a different result could emerge.

READ: Central Florida judge facing suspension for being threatening, using profanity

“If the Florida Supreme Court respects its own precedent, then they should rule in the same way that the Florida Constitution protects a woman’s right to choose,” she said, but added: “That language is very broad. So, if you have a more conservative Florida Supreme Court, they might read that language differently.”

DeSantis and his allies are hoping they do. In a statement earlier in the day, he said the old justices “misinterpreted” Florida’s constitution because the right to kill a fetus is not explicitly written into the law.

A ruling by the Supreme Court, if they take the case, could take months. In the event they uphold their precedent, Torres-Spelliscy confirmed the state’s only recourse would be to attempt to pass another constitutional amendment limiting Section 23.

Click here to download the free WFTV news and weather apps, click here to download the WFTV Now app for your smart TV and click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.