What Is the Freedom of Choice Act?

We all know that Barack Obama promised that his first act as president would be to sign the Freedom Of Choice Act. He clearly states it in this video:





But what exactly is the Freedom Of Choice Act, besides one of the many reasons that I voted against Obama? This paragraph sums it up nicely:

So to summarize this act--which again, Barack Obama has promised to sign as his first order of business in the White House--abortion on demand will become codified, all regulations and restrictions will be stripped away, Christian hospitals and physicians will not have a choice regarding the performance of abortion (since their accrediting agencies are approved by the federal government), teenagers will not have to tell their parents about an abortion, and prolife taxpayers will be forced to pay for abortions at any stage of the pregnancy for any reason.

theologica.blogspot.com...

Partial birth abortion will be permitted. Parents do not have to be notified. Doctors and hospitals will be forced to perform these hideous procedures.

And you and I will have to pay for it.

And future generations of orphans don't have to sit and wonder "why" and We won't have half as many wards of the state resulting from unwanted pregnancies.

Why should your opinion be the deciding factor on if a woman is allowed to abort a pregnancy?

Shouldn't it be her choice?

reply to post by nj2day

Originally posted by nj2day
And future generations of orphans don't have to sit and wonder "why" and We won't have half as many wards of the state resulting from unwanted pregnancies.

That is encouraging irresponsible sex.

Why should your opinion be the deciding factor on if a woman is allowed to abort a pregnancy?

Not my opinion alone. It should be a states rights matter, voted on by the people of that state. Let the people decide.

It shouldn't be legal to force doctors and hospitals to participate in it.

There is no way you can convince me that parental notification should be eliminated.

And it shouldn't be my money that has to pay for it.

Im pro choice i guess. to be really dark about it, there are a few people out there whos moms should have thought harder when faced with the choice. the less people there are means less people will be populating, meaning more air for us. is it better to have one hungry child or three starving ones?

government regulation is never the right choice. It should be up to the mother and the doctor; and the dad, if he is man enough to stick around.

Originally posted by jsobecky
That is encouraging irresponsible sex.

Are you suggesting that having children should be a punishment for irresponsible sex?

Irresponsibility happens... its always going to happen... but now, the child doesn't have to be a living punishment for the parents.

Not my opinion alone. It should be a states rights matter, voted on by the people of that state. Let the people decide.

Nah, it shouldn't... That would be considered a tyranny of the majority...
How about instead, we don't legislate morality... and let people make a few decisions on their own.

It shouldn't be legal to force doctors and hospitals to participate in it.

Erm, maybe doctors shouldn't be required to treat Black people either... or Catholics! maybe they shouldn't be required to treat catholics!

There is no way you can convince me that parental notification should be eliminated.

Why not? In most states women can get treatment for STD's without parental notification... Maybe there should be an age cap... like younger than 16 requires notification... Thats not for me to decide.

And it shouldn't be my money that has to pay for it.

I don't see why not... I just discovered through your earlier post that my money is paying for catholic and faith based medical care facilities... is this any different?




[edit on 25-11-2008 by nj2day]

Freedom of Choice Act - Declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to: (1) bear a child; (2) terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or (3) terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.
Prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from: (1) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or (2) discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively.
Authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to obtain appropriate relief, including relief against a governmental entity, in a civil action.

Link

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.

Link

There doesn't seem to be much of what you said in there...

And I think if you're under 16 they still notify your parents because 16 and over is considered legally an adult, or the age of consent rather, in most states.

[edit on 25-11-2008 by Shocka]

[edit on 25-11-2008 by Shocka]

reply to post by nj2day

Originally posted by nj2day

Originally posted by jsobecky
That is encouraging irresponsible sex.

Are you suggesting that having children should be a punishment for irresponsible sex?

I'm suggesting irresponsible sex should be discouraged.

Irresponsibility happens... its always going to happen... but now, the child doesn't have to be a living punishment for the parents.

Not everyone thinks a baby is a "punishment".

Not my opinion alone. It should be a states rights matter, voted on by the people of that state. Let the people decide.

Nah, it shouldn't... That would be considered a tyranny of the majority...
How about instead, we don't legislate morality... and let people make a few decisions on their own.

So you don't think the people should have any say in the formation of their society, their culture, or how their money should be spent?

So you're saying Big Brother should tell us how to think and live?

It shouldn't be legal to force doctors and hospitals to participate in it.

Erm, maybe doctors shouldn't be required to treat Black people either... or Catholics! maybe they shouldn't be required to treat catholics!

Why on earth are you injecting race or religion into this? Sounds like you're trolling. If you want to continue this conversation, stay on topic.

There is no way you can convince me that parental notification should be eliminated.

Why not? In most states women can get treatment for STD's without parental notification... Maybe there should be an age cap... like younger than 16 requires notification... Thats not for me to decide.

It's not for you to decide, but someone has to make these decisions.

And it shouldn't be my money that has to pay for it.

I don't see why not... I just discovered through your earlier post that my money is paying for catholic and faith based medical care facilities... is this any different?

One is a charity, one is gov't sanctioned murder of innocents. If you cannot see the difference, I cannot explain it to you.

reply to post by Shocka

Originally posted by Shocka

Freedom of Choice Act - Declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to: (1) bear a child; (2) terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or (3) terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.
Prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from: (1) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or (2) discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively.
Authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to obtain appropriate relief, including relief against a governmental entity, in a civil action.

Link

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.

Link

There doesn't seem to be much of what you said in there...

And I think if you're under 16 they still notify your parents because 16 and over is considered legally an adult, or the age of consent rather, in most states.

[edit on 25-11-2008 by Shocka]

[edit on 25-11-2008 by Shocka]

The FOCA, if passed, would do 2 things:

1. it would invalidate all current and future statutes, ordinances, regulations, administrative orders, decisions, policies, or practices--at any level of government--that regulate or restrict abortion in any way;
2. it would mandate taxpayer funds to be used at the state and federal level for abortion services (not to do so would discriminate against the "rights" of abortion set forth in the bill).

You highlighted "prior to fetal viability". You ignored the effect on cases "after fetal viability".

Obama has been a strong supporter of laws promoting infanticide:

As a state legislator, Obama spoke out against, and voted down, a bill that would have explicitly extended legal protections to born-alive premature infants. In other words, he cast a vote against banning infanticide. Making matters worse — if such a thing is possible — the explanation Obama has peddled over the years to justify his vote has recently been exposed as untrue.

theologica.blogspot.com...

In other words, if a baby survived an abortion, Obama's position was "let it die". Offer it no protections.

The measure also allows the hideous procedure known as Partial Birth Abortion.

It forces doctors and hospitals to participate in these practices.

It forces me to pay for it.

So this is encouraging irresponsible sex? Not teaching teenagers about the dangers of sex and how to protect themselves? Because last time I checked irresponsible sex meant not using a condom. It would be irresponsible to teach abstinence, especially when you consider just a few centuries ago people used to marry and do the deed just past the age of 10.

More and more I look at history the more and more you Republicans emulate the Nazi's.

In 1935 Nazi Germany, a law was passed permitting abortions for those deemed "hereditarily ill," while women considered of German stock were specifically prohibited from having abortions.

Clearly, this issue is going to get ugly and will ignite one hell of an inferno.

If my daughters had an abortion without my knowledge and permission, there will be hell to pay.

This is just providing another method of "birth control" for irresponsible people. Don't worry about it, I'll just get an abortion. This attitude totally fits the culture of immediate gratification and lack of responsibility and accountability that has taken over this country.

I do believe however, that there are extreme medical circumstances that warrant an abortion but this FOCA is just over the top.

reply to post by jsobecky


So you would rather force someone to bring a child into the world, who may have been raped, or they may not have the mental capacity to raise a child and therefore that child could suffer a lifetime of abuse as a result. The parent could be a drug addict thus leading the child to be born addicted.

It could be a young girl who knew no better and is to be stuck raising a child she did not want, there are many circumstances which lends credence to the person making their own choice. You also stated it is taxpayer's who would foot the bill, well Im sure taxpayer's would foot the bill for all these unwanted children as well.

You have no right dictating a decision over someone else's body, it's absolutely none of your concern.

[edit on 26-11-2008 by Horus12]

reply to post by Horus12

Originally posted by Horus12
reply to post by jsobecky

 

So you would rather force someone to bring a child into the world, who may have been raped, or they may not have the mental capacity to raise a child and therefore that child could suffer a lifetime of abuse as a result. The parent could be a drug addict thus leading the child to be born addicted.

The topic of rape has not yet been brought into the discussion. But the way to introduce it is not to accuse someone of supporting it. Ask the person what their stance is on it, before applying labels.

You have no right dictating a decision over someone else's body, it's absolutely none of your concern.

And you have no right reaching into my wallet to pay for it, or to force a doctor who objects to it to perform it.

reply to post by jsobecky


Well for starters the stance you've took on abortion, it would be quite contradictory to say it's ok in situations of rape but not in other situations.

But feel free to state your opinion on the matter.


On your other point Im sure it would be more of a cost to the taxpayer to pay for the upbringing of unwanted children than it would be for abortion.

[edit on 26-11-2008 by Horus12]

reply to post by jsobecky


I agree with you. Although I don't care what other people do, for me an abortion would never be an option unless my life or the baby's life is in danger.

If other people want to kill an unborn child, that is their legal option. I just don't think that I should have to pay for it. And how does killing an unborn or partially born child fit in with "First do no harm?"

Sex is not a right, it is a responsibility.

Let me state my position on this clearly.

I do not care if you support abortion. You can support it in any degree, including the whim of the mother female to have it for whatever reason.

But the people should have a say in whether they want to support it in their communities.

They should have a say in whether they want to fund it.

They should have a say in whether they want to participate it.

They should have a say in whether to care for a baby that survives abortion.

So, while it is none of my business whether you support abortion, it is not your right to force me to participate in it.

reply to post by Horus12

Originally posted by Horus12
reply to post by jsobecky

 

Well for starters the stance you've took on abortion, it would be quite contradictory to say it's ok in situations of rape but not in other situations.

You haven't heard my complete position, so how can you say that?

But feel free to state your opinion on the matter.

There are always special cases. Rape is a special case. So is incest.

On your other point Im sure it would be more of a cost to the taxpayer to pay for the upbringing of unwanted children than it would be for abortion.

[edit on 26-11-2008 by Horus12]

Not necessarily. Adoptive parents still have to wait for years, or go abroad to adopt.

And what if the child turns out to be the person that finds a cure for cancer?

reply to post by jsobecky



"Not necessarily. Adoptive parents still have to wait for years, or go abroad to adopt. "

Im sure there are no childen in care or out on the streets at the moment, what with all those adoptive parents lining up to take them in.

And what if the child turns out to be the person that finds a cure for cancer? "

And what if the child turns out to be the biggest mass murderer in history, its rediculous to even make assumptions like that.


[edit on 26-11-2008 by Horus12]

Originally posted by jsobecky
But the people should have a say in whether they want to support it in their communities.

Actually there was this case back in the 70's called Roe Vs. Wade. It said you did actually.

They should have a say in whether they want to fund it.

Congress has barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman’s life would be endangered by a full-term pregnancy, or in cases of rape or incest. As of November 2006, 17 states used their own funds to subsidize abortion for poor women.

They should have a say in whether they want to participate it.

you're re-iterating your point twice? Or is there some sort of forced abortions I have been missing out on?

They should have a say in whether to care for a baby that survives abortion.

Considering an abortion is only permitted in the first trimester. Isn't the odds of that happening like 1 in a billion.

So, while it is none of my business whether you support abortion, it is not your right to force me to participate in it.

Again with these forced abortions. When has anyone in united states been FORCED into an abortion? Last time I checked it was the womans right to choose not the people around her.

[edit on 26-11-2008 by djpaec]

[edit on 26-11-2008 by djpaec]

reply to post by djpaec

Originally posted by djpaec
Congress has barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman’s life would be endangered by a full-term pregnancy, or in cases of rape or incest. As of November 2006, 17 states used their own funds to subsidize abortion for poor women.

Oh really?

A government may not

(1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose –

(A) to bear a child;
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

What do you think that means?

They should have a say in whether they want to participate it.

you're re-iterating your point twice? Or is there some sort of forced abortions I have been missing out on?

No. One instance is forcing the doctors and hospitals to perform abortions. The other is forcing me to participate by paying for it.

Considering an abortion is only permitted in the first trimester. Isn't the odds of that happening like 1 in a billion.

You need to do some research:

Some people reading the Freedom of Choice Act notice that is says a woman has a "right to choose" "to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman" (my emphasis).

A surface-reading of FOCA (which is seeking to codify Roe v. Wade) might suggest that there is a meaningful, legitimate restriction on late-term, post-viable abortions, namely that abortions are allowed only in cases where a woman would die or be physically harmed. But this simply isn't true.

Roe v. Wade was handed down on the same day as Doe v. Bolton, and Justice Blackmun said they were to be read together. Doe defines maternal health to include virtually any factor: "emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age." The effect is abortion on demand--abortion for any reason.

So, while it is none of my business whether you support abortion, it is not your right to force me to participate in it.

Again with these forced abortions. When has anyone in united states been FORCED into an abortion? Last time I checked it was the womans right to choose not the people around her.

Again, you're totally misinterpreting what I mean. Funding is participating. And when you use my tax dollars, that is forced participation.

[edit on 26-11-2008 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky
But the people should have a say in whether they want to support it in their communities.

No? It should be the choice of the mother... NOT the community... we are not Salem circa 1600... Exactly how does it affect you personally if the teenager down the street gets an abortion... I'm willing to bet you'd never know.

They should have a say in whether they want to fund it.

Funding it? Who's funding it? I still stick to my original argument on this... Why is my money going to pay for catholic hospitals and faith based organizations?

They should have a say in whether they want to participate it.

By this I think you mean the doctors? Its against the Hyppocratic oath to refuse care... Doctors do take an oath you know... I would suggest that any doctor who doesn't agree with abortion, not work in an abortion clinic... that would make sense for starters...

They should have a say in whether to care for a baby that survives abortion.

Can you give me 1 case where this has happened?

So, while it is none of my business whether you support abortion, it is not your right to force me to participate in it.

Nor is it your right to force your beliefs on other people. If you don't agree with abortion, than don't get one... simple as that.

Here's an idea... next time you know someone who wants to get an abortion, why don't you adopt the kid?