Author Topic: The Freedom of Choice Act  (Read 594 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
The Freedom of Choice Act
« on: October 15, 2008, 10:30:59 PM »
They finally talked about abortion and supreme court appointments in debate no. 3.  They both lied (like every other president) about there being no litmus tests.  In any event, one of the pundits said after the debate that McCain should have called Obama on the proposed Freedom of Choice Act.  Here is a discussion about the Act and Obama's comments about the Act:

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)
 
What is the Freedom of Choice Act?
If you've been paying attention to our presidential candidates -- at least those beholden to Planned Parenthood and NARAL and supporting a "right to choice" in the matter of abortion, you may have encountered the phrase "Freedom of Choice Act." This is what they are referring to:


According to the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC):

The promoters of the FOCA sometimes claim that its purpose is to "codify Roe v. Wade," the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand. But the key binding provisions of the bill would go further than Roe, invalidating all of the major types of pro-life laws that have been upheld by the Supreme Court in the decades since Roe.

"The claim that the bill would ‘codify Roe' is just a marketing gimmick by the proponents," explained Johnson. "The sponsors hope that journalists and legislators will lazily accept that vague shorthand phrase – but it is very misleading. The references to Roe in the bill are in non-binding, discursive clauses. The heart of the bill is a ban that would nullify all of the major types of pro-life laws that the Supreme Court has said are permissible under Roe v. Wade, including the ban on partial-birth abortions and bans on government funding of abortion."


The bill flatly invalidates any "statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action" of any federal, state, or local government or governmental official (or any person acting under government authority) that would "deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose" abortion, or that would "discriminate against the exercise of the right . . . in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information."


This no-restriction policy would establish, in Senator Boxer's words, "the absolute right to choose" prior to fetal "viability."


The no-restriction policy would also apply after "viability" to any abortion sought on grounds of "health."


According to the National Right to Life Committee's Legislative Action Center, the FOCA was introduced by Democrats in response to the April 18, 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Gonzales v. Carhart) upholding the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
Among the types of laws that the FOCA would invalidate are:

-- The Hyde Amendment, which prohibits most federal funding of abortion, and the laws of many states that restrict state funding of abortion.


-- Laws in effect in some jurisdictions that bar abortions in government-operated hospitals.


-- Laws requiring parental notification or consent, or judicial authorization, before an abortion can be performed on a minor daughter.


-- Laws requiring that girls and women seeking abortion receive certain information on matters such as fetal development and alternatives to abortion, and then wait a specified period before the abortion is actually performed, usually 24 or 48 hours.


-- "Conscience" laws, allowing doctors, nurses, or other state-licensed professionals, and hospitals or other health-care providers, to decline to provide or pay for abortions.

The House bill, H.R. 1964, was introduced by Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who in the new Democratic-majority Congress is the chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee that has jurisdiction over such legislation. To view an always-current list of co-sponsors, arranged by state, click here.

The Senate bill, S. 1173, introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.), had 13 Democratic cosponsors, including presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (NY), plus independent Joseph Lieberman (Ct.). (To view an always-current list of co-sponsors, arranged by state, click here.)

Where do Democratic candidates stand on the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)?

Barack Obama (in his Statement on 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Decision):
"Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.

Senator Obama is a co-sponsor of the FOCA.

. . . .

http://thepublicsquare.blogspot.com/2008/01/freedom-of-choice-act-foca.html

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: The Freedom of Choice Act
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2008, 09:29:03 AM »
 >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(   This will strip every anti-abortion or regulatory law that their is on the books right now.    >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: The Freedom of Choice Act
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2008, 02:54:00 PM »
BUMP

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: The Freedom of Choice Act
« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2008, 03:21:58 PM »
Seems a bit extreme but I blame the RTL movement for not minding their own business. Probably can't pass under any circumstances because it would give healthcare providers no choice but there's no reason abortion should continue being a political distraction forever. Economy sucks ass, we're at war, homes are being foreclosed on and people are more worried about inbred babies being aborted.

It would be kind of interesting to see how people would like being in a hospital without having the right to choose their own care or of loved ones would be. Without the Roe v. Wade decision there would be no patient/parent choice, health care proxy, advanced directive, etc... the doctor would be in total control.


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: The Freedom of Choice Act
« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2008, 03:29:53 PM »
Hard to minimize this issue.  If a person believes unborn babies have a right to life and that abortion is murder, this would have to be a central issue for them.  It's probably the most important issue that has been all but ignored during the campaign.  Just wait till Stevens or Ginsberg steps down.  I think if and when that happens abortion will be the most talked about issue for the next supreme court justice nominee(s).   

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: The Freedom of Choice Act
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2008, 04:03:26 PM »
Hard to minimize this issue.  If a person believes unborn babies have a right to life and that abortion is murder, this would have to be a central issue for them.  It's probably the most important issue that has been all but ignored during the campaign.  Just wait till Stevens or Ginsberg steps down.  I think if and when that happens abortion will be the most talked about issue for the next supreme court justice nominee(s).   

Beliefs and rights aren't the same thing, though. I get it being a central personal issue but it's been used as a political issue against people for too long. It will continue being an issue until we learn to respect individual beliefs/rights or our culture starts to recognize boundaries better.

In our area, most of the teenage girls who end up with abortions are poor rural whites that are victims of incest or sexual abuse. I'd rather they be in safer homes to begin with but that's not possible. Find ways to take her out of that home and put her into yours and get people willing to adopt crack babies or whatever disaster might pop out of her cooter after 9 months and we'll talk.

I'm against abortion as a primary means of birth control and wish there would be fewer performed. In the same vein, the US adoption process is pretty bad and forcing someone to be a parent might spread more misery.

Stopping abortion with no realistic plan for the children isn't going to work. The birthmother isn't going to magically be able to afford, want or love the baby.

Not trying to minimize the issue. Merely saying that if someone wants the right to say no, they have to accept responsibility for that child as well.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: The Freedom of Choice Act
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2008, 04:58:37 PM »
Beliefs and rights aren't the same thing, though. I get it being a central personal issue but it's been used as a political issue against people for too long. It will continue being an issue until we learn to respect individual beliefs/rights or our culture starts to recognize boundaries better.

In our area, most of the teenage girls who end up with abortions are poor rural whites that are victims of incest or sexual abuse. I'd rather they be in safer homes to begin with but that's not possible. Find ways to take her out of that home and put her into yours and get people willing to adopt crack babies or whatever disaster might pop out of her cooter after 9 months and we'll talk.

I'm against abortion as a primary means of birth control and wish there would be fewer performed. In the same vein, the US adoption process is pretty bad and forcing someone to be a parent might spread more misery.

Stopping abortion with no realistic plan for the children isn't going to work. The birthmother isn't going to magically be able to afford, want or love the baby.

Not trying to minimize the issue. Merely saying that if someone wants the right to say no, they have to accept responsibility for that child as well.

I agree beliefs and rights aren't always the same, but in the abortion context a lot of people believe unborn babies do have a right to life. 

Your area sounds like a statistical anomaly, because the numbers I've seen in the past indicate abortions due to rape or incest are a very small percentage of abortions. 

I understand the concern about unwanted children, problems with adoption, etc., and those are legitimate concerns, but that assumes women who cannot have abortions will abandon their babies.  I doubt that would happen on a large scale. 

I'm not sure there is a political or legal answer that will solve this problem, but in terms of framing the issue, it really comes down to how we view unborn babies.  If you take the position that an unborn child is not a person/human, then it can make sense to consider things like what happens to unwanted children after they are born.  If, on the other hand, you take the position that an unborn baby is a person, then it really doesn't matter what could potentially happen after birth, because those circumstances cannot be used to justify killing the baby. 

Glad I don't have to make any of these decisions. 

big L dawg

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5729
  • i always tell the truth even when i lie...
Re: The Freedom of Choice Act
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2008, 05:05:11 PM »
world war 3 could be going on,the economy could be collapsing,the unemployment rate could be at 80%.
and these bible beaters would still be yakin about abortion and gay marriage.
DAWG

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: The Freedom of Choice Act
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2008, 05:08:09 PM »
I agree beliefs and rights aren't always the same, but in the abortion context a lot of people believe unborn babies do have a right to life. 

Your area sounds like a statistical anomaly, because the numbers I've seen in the past indicate abortions due to rape or incest are a very small percentage of abortions. 

I understand the concern about unwanted children, problems with adoption, etc., and those are legitimate concerns, but that assumes women who cannot have abortions will abandon their babies.  I doubt that would happen on a large scale. 

I'm not sure there is a political or legal answer that will solve this problem, but in terms of framing the issue, it really comes down to how we view unborn babies.  If you take the position that an unborn child is not a person/human, then it can make sense to consider things like what happens to unwanted children after they are born.  If, on the other hand, you take the position that an unborn baby is a person, then it really doesn't matter what could potentially happen after birth, because those circumstances cannot be used to justify killing the baby. 

Glad I don't have to make any of these decisions. 


No point playing half God.