Tuesday, December 16, 2008

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.

8 comments:

**Heidi** said...

Still wondering what your thoughts are on tubal pregnancies?

**Heidi** said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kristy said...

I'm not Chris and I don't know how he feels about this, but I can throw in my two cents. I'm going to respond for myself and what I think I would do in this situation. Eptopic pregnancies are all different. Some of these pregnancies have resulted in healthy viable babies, but that is very rare. Some come to an end on their own without any harm to the mother. Other times it can cause death of both the baby and the mother. If it were me, I'd want to know where the baby was, what the chances were. If the baby is going to die and it would spare my life, I would end the pregnancy. But it's not something that would be easy and I can't imagine ever getting over such a thing. This is the ONLY time I feel there should be that choice. If one life can be saved while the other option is two lives lost. If losing the baby naturally would cause my death...that's the only way I would do that. Years ago there were a couple of surgeries done to save eptopic pregnancies. Doctors moved the babies to the uterus and the babies survived. I wonder why these surgeries aren't more common? I wonder why more time and money isn't put into this? I wonder if it's because getting rid of the problem has become so widely accepted? People forget that what they are getting rid of has a heartbeat, and very soon after conception, hands, feet, a nose, mouth, a soul. Shouldn't every possible measure be taken to save a human life? Maybe not today when millions of human lives are disposed of for a woman's convenience....

In the case of rape or incest, I stand firmly behind my pro-life beliefs. I know this is not a popular opinion, but we do not punish innocent human life for the wrong doings of others. Bad things happen, but there must be a reason God allows things to happen. Is it traumatic for the mother? Yes. Is it a horrible thing she went through? Yes and no one should have to suffer through these crimes. But her life is NOT more important than the life of the baby she is carrying. I do not feel women's rights are more important than human rights and that life inside of her is just as human as she is. The baby has just as much right to life as she does, as any of us do. It's horrible to think about, babies born as a result of a disgusting crime, but the solution shouldn't be taking human life. I'm not about to judge anyone who has an abortion. It's their right to do so as of now. But I will never say I think it's ok because morally it seems so wrong to me.

chros said...

I have said and will continue to say that to go and deliberately kill a unborn child is wrong. Thats how I feel and thats not going to change. I have been reading about tubal preganacies (ectopic pregnancies) from a nonbiased site and still agree that abortion of any kind is wrong. As in the case of tubal p's, most of the are aborted naturally, they don't survive long and many need surgery to stop the bleeding. Some women have caught them early before the baby died (naturally) and had prcedures that resulted in healthy babies. It's risky, yet they are doing the risk to save the baby, not intentionally killing it cause its a burden.

On 19 April 2008 an English woman, Jayne Jones (age 37) who had an ectopic pregnancy attached to the omentum, the fatty covering of her large bowel, gave birth. The baby was delivered by a laparotomy at 28 weeks gestation. The surgery, the first of its kind to be performed in the UK, was successful, and both mother and baby survived.

On May 29, 2008 an Australian woman, Meera Thangarajah (age 34), who had an ectopic pregnancy in the ovary, gave birth to a healthy full term 6 pound 3 ounce (2.8 kg) baby girl, Durga, via Caesarean section. She had no problems or complications during the 38 week pregnancy.

Both these women are not from America, here we just say kill it and try again. They apparently cared and were blessed with healthy babies. The fact is, if caught early, there is a possibility the baby can be saved. If it's later, the baby will die and the bleeding needs to be handled immediately. From wikipedia:"The most common complication is rupture with internal bleeding that leads to shock. Death from rupture is rare in women who have access to modern medical facilities. Infertility occurs in 10 - 15% of women who have had an ectopic pregnancy.

To answer your question, I DO NOT EVER think its right to kill a baby intentionally. Tubal pregnacies, I don't know why God allows them, but if the baby lives or dies should be put in His holy hands, not ours.

I am still wondering why so many Christians out there are taking such a liberal view on human life. Why is it we wanna be Christians yet also wanna do what is politically correct. The Bible is the ultimate word, not the supreme court, not congress, and not Barrak Obama. The greatest thing Jesus calls on us to do is be faithful. It's hard at times, but well worth it.
C.

Anonymous said...

thanks for the information and the link - I just signed it - we need to at least do all we can to try and stop this from happening. Aunt Fannie

chros said...

True that Fannie. True that. Can you beleive how insane this law would be? Really, if the Catholic Hospitals of the U.S. shut down, think of the negative effect that would have on jobs and low income and free healthcare for those in need of it. All because this law would say that those hospitals cannot refuse to give abortions. Timken mercy up by canton is one, they are everywhere.
C.

Karen said...

Hi Chros. Just peekin' in to say hi and see how you and yours are doing. I've really been slackin' on keeping up with things. Hope you and your lovely family are all doing well. Karen....

Cher said...

Hey, Chris. The sad thing about abortion is that the women I've talked to didn't get the psychological support they needed after making such a tough decision. Nor was that subject even approached. I wish that those that are pro would address THAT issue. Instead of being so all out "It's your right!"