Freedom of choice act Please read it all

Freedom of Choice Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Freedom of Choice Act (H.R. 1964/S. 1173) is a bill in the United States Congress which, if enacted, would abolish all restrictions and limitations on women in the United States to have an abortion prior to fetal viability, whether at the State or Federal level, or after the point of viability when the life of the mother is endangered.

Findings
The bill states in its findings section that Congress has the affirmative power to legislate abortion based, in part, on the crossing of state lines by abortion providers, women seeking abortions, and medical supplies used in abortions.

Sponsorship
The Freedom of Choice Act was sponsored in the House of Representatives by Congressman Jerrold Nadler, and originally co-sponsored by Congressman James Greenwood, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, and Congresswoman Diana Degette. In the Senate, it was sponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer, and originally co-sponsored by Senators Jon Corzine, Patty Murray, Frank Lautenberg, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Maria Cantwell, Jim Jeffords, Joseph Lieberman, Diane Feinstein, Paul Sarbanes, and Barbara Mikulski. The bill was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on January 21, 2004, and in the United States Senate on January 22, 2004. Barack Obama promises to sign it if it is passed by Congress.

Status
The bills were referred to the Judiciary Committees of their respective Houses. Neither bill received further action in the 108th Congress. The bills were reintroduced in the 110th Congress, but like their predecessors, have been referred to committee without further action.

Description
The bill is described by NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan as a bill to "codify Roe v. Wade" which would "repeal the Bush-backed Federal Abortion Ban," referring to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, "and other federal restrictions," [1]. Similarly, opponents of the bill assert that[2] it would, if passed, invalidate every restriction on an abortion before the stage of viability, in every state, even those previously found consistent with Roe v. Wade by the United States Supreme Court, such as parental notification laws, waiting periods, requirements of full disclosure of the physical and emotional risks inherent in abortion, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Opponents further assert that it would challenge the right of religiously-based hospitals or clinics to refuse to perform abortions, and that it would force the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which restricts the use of Federal funding for abortions. Conservative legal scholar Douglas Kmiec disagrees with the latter assertion, noting that the Hyde Amendment is renewed annually by Congress and argues that this legislation would not supersede it [3].

Debate
President-elect Barack Obama became a co-sponsor of the 2007 Senate version of the bill (S. 1173). Responding to a question regarding how he would preserve reproductive rights in a speech given to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, he declared "The first thing I'd do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."[4] Although those who oppose the Act have interpreted it as an attempt to obligate religious hospitals to either "do abortions or close"[5], supporters point to conscience clause laws[6] that would protect religious hospitals.[7] Opponents counter that such conscience clauses are weak and easily reinterpreted, and do not explicitly allow religious hospitals to ban the abortion procedure within the hospital.[8]
Some opponents point out that the rationale for legislating abortion on a federal level could logically be extended to every act of commerce that may occur across state lines, and say that such a rationale is likely to be deemed unconstitutional.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has been vehemently opposed to the Freedom of Choice Act. According to the USCCB's Secretariat for Pro-Life Activites, FOCA would not only "codify the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade" but "in allowing and promoting abortion, FOCA goes far beyond even Roe."[9] On November 12, 2008, Francis Cardinal George, president of the USCCB, warned that FOCA would limit the right of Catholic hospitals and doctors to not offer abortions adding that, "those who support FOCA must realize that if Catholic hospitals are ever required to perform abortions, the bishops will close every one of them; no one would be hurt more than the poor."[10] Drawing on Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae, the Catholic apologist Frank M. Rega, S.F.O., writes[11]:
The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation co-sponsored by Barack Obama which would nullify all state laws that in any way attempt to limit or regulate abortion, including partial-birth abortion. Ironically, it specifies that government will not interfere with a woman’s choice to keep or to kill her unborn child. Nevertheless, FOCA would be a major move towards the dangerous precipice of government-mandated abortion, since it would consolidate all power over birth control into the hands of federal law and authorities. From there it would only be a small step to amend it in the light of overriding national health interests, environmental or population concerns, or any other reason deemed appropriate. Thus the FOCA clause in section 4.b.1.a, stating that a woman has the “right to choose to bear a child” could conveniently and easily be changed to, for example, that a woman has the right to choose to bear up to two children. More ominously, it could be amended to state that a woman has the right to bear a child, except in cases of rape, incest, Down syndrome, etc.

The pro-life organization Americans United for Life (AUL) began a petition called Fight FOCA to collect signatures to oppose FOCA. AUL also wrote an open letter to Senator Barack Obama on FOCA.[12] As of Friday, December 5, 2008, at 22:39:00 UT, the Fight FOCA petition has 311,013 signatures.

C.