What Is the Freedom of Choice Act?

Ok so by your logic, States can choose whether they want to pay into the Iraq War. Or how about how state and local governments subsidize Wal-Mart and give them millions every year to help them open up new shops, even though they clearly don't need the money. Sorry you don't dictate how congress gets to spend the money.

Just be glad Republicans didn't pass the Nuclear option and you still have the ability to Fillibuster.

As each generation is a bit more progressive than the next, Republicans really need to reconcile this issue, or they will never hold the majority position again.

The Christian right has co-opted the party and has muddied the meaning of "conservative" with their own religious beliefs. This country was founded by religious people seeking religious freedom who fought for the separation of Church and State.

You can't have it both ways - protection from state interference and state-mandated values.

I post this thought-provoking article as a very pro-life but very pro-choice, former Republican:

littlecog.com...

Abortion poses a very difficult question for real conservatives. It comes down to a split between two things. First, Abortion is morally wrong. Second, being a conservative means acknowledging that morality shouldn’t be dictated by the state. Where does that leave us? How do we resolve this dichotomy?

[edit on 26/11/2008 by kosmicjack]

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by nj2day

 

Let the people decide.

It is an individuals choice. We have been letting 'the people' decide far too much. I for one am sick of letting the 'majority' dictate what I can and can not do.

Originally posted by jsobecky
It shouldn't be legal to force doctors and hospitals to participate in it.

Agreed. However, if it is the only hospital in the area and there are no alternative places to have the procedure done, then yes they should honor the choice of the individual and perform the medical procedure. Because again, it is the individuals choice, not the choice of a doctor or 'the people'.

Originally posted by jsobecky
And it shouldn't be my money that has to pay for it.

Agreed.

Originally posted by nj2day
And future generations of orphans don't have to sit and wonder "why"...

There aren't that many 'orphans'.
The waiting list to adopt is years and years long.
And adopted children don't sit around wondering 'why'.
They are told 'why'.

And all the adopted children I know - including my own adopted daughter -are VERY glad to be alive and grateful that they weren't killed in the womb.

Originally posted by nj2day
Are you suggesting that having children should be a punishment for irresponsible sex?

Are you suggesting that innocent preborn children should be the ones punished by being painfully murdered by their mothers? That's what abortion for irresponsible sex is - punishing the innocent preborn child by killing him or her.

Originally posted by djpaec
It would be irresponsible to teach abstinence,

It would be irresponsible NOT to teach abstinence.
Do you know how often condoms break? A lot more then you think.
The only true 'safe sex' is no sex.
Parents have a right and a resonsiblity to teach them the safest way to get through their lives. Abstinence is the most responsible path.

Originally posted by Horus12
You have no right dictating a decision over someone else's body, it's absolutely none of your concern.

A woman committing abortion is the one dictating over someone else's body. She stops someone elses heart from beating. She isn't aborting herself She's killing someone else.

And murder is definately eveyrone's concern.

Originally posted by Horus12
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.

Adoption doesn't cost the taxpayer much at all. There is a very long waiting list for those who wish to adopt. AND if we used your logic - then it would be better to kill off all the 'useless eatters' on welfare and who suck on the system. Afterall - it would cost the taxpayer less to kill them then to help them ...

Originally posted by nj2day
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.

.. and I don't know when gangs shoot each other in the next city. But that doesn't mean that it's okay for them to do it.

I would suggest that any doctor who doesn't agree with abortion, not work in an abortion clinic...

FOCA would eventually make it impossible for a hospital to run that doesn't have abortions. Catholic hospitals would be put out of business. It would turn Christian and Catholic hospitals into abortuaries. The Bishops have stated that since abortion is an evil that they can't allow in Catholic hospitals, then the hospitals would be forced to close rather then commit the grave sin of murder of preborn children. MANY of us do not want to receive health care in the same building where human beings are painfully tortured and murdered so we utilize Catholic and Christian hospitals. FOCA would force us to use abortuaries. That's vile.

This is a Catholic video calling all Catholics in the USA to pray that the FOCA does not get signed in. I thought it was very well done.

reply to post by nj2day

Originally posted by nj2day

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.

By support it I mean fund it.

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?

Read the Act to see who has to fund it.

And stop deflecting this topic. If you want to discuss Faith Based Initiatives, start your own topic.

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...

You consider murder of innocents "care"?

And doctors who oppose abortion don't work in abortion mills. But your ACT would make every hospital an abortion mill, and force every doctor to become an abortionist.

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?

I'll do better than that. I'll give you THREE. And there are many more out there:

Miracle baby survived abortion bids

Abortion Survivor Sarah Smith

And, maybe the most dramatic:


Abortion Extremists to Protest Woman Who Survived 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.

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.

You obviously missed my post where I said I don't care if you have an abortion. Just don't ask me to participate in any way, shape, or form.



[edit on 26-11-2008 by jsobecky]

[edit on 26-11-2008 by jsobecky]

573 U.S. Catholic hospitals treated 84.7 million patients in 2005. That won't help the economy any when they close. That in itself would cause a health care crisis. Better look at the contents of the can before we open it and let the worms out.

reply to post by jsobecky


Interesting that the title of this thread is "What is the FOCA?" and there's no link to the FOCA. The thread should be titled, "Propaganda I got from a blog about the FOCA". (Thanks, Shocka, for the link).

Originally posted by jsobecky
Not everyone thinks a baby is a "punishment".

Not everyone thinks an unwanted child is a precious gift from God, either. That's just the way it is. We have to allow for differences of viewpoints. If you don't think of a baby as "punishment", then you probably shouldn't get an abortion. The fact remains, not everyone wants to breed. And they should have that choice.

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?

Ah... if only we could have more say in the way our money is spent, huh? I wouldn't be donating money to kill innocent Iraqi babies. I wouldn't be paying for this miserable excuse of a public school system. I wouldn't be funding the useless war against drugs and I sure as hell wouldn't be bailing out wall street or subsidizing the pharmaceutical and petroleum industries.

But alas... living in these United States, we don't always get to have much say in where our tax money goes.

One thing I WOULD support (and fund) is the ability for women to choose not to have a baby for whatever reason. I strongly feel it is a free choice, even though I wouldn't do it myself.

I hope Obama follows through and signs this Act. It's time the government stops interfering and discriminating based on religious or moral beliefs.

I don't see anything in the act about underage women, but I actually think that if a person is old enough to have sex and get pregnant, she is old enough to make an informed decision about what to do about it. If her parents are a source of fear, or if she thinks they might "make" her bear it when she doesn't want to, I fully support her right to have an abortion without their knowledge. In fact, if I had a daughter, I would make absolutely certain that she knew she could come to me in that situation and we would work together to help her make the decision. If she didn't want to come to me, as much as it would break my heart not to be there for her, I would like to know that she had another option and would be properly cared for.

Thr bottom line is Pro Lifers shouldn't be allowed to dictate to another person how to treat their body and Abortion advocates can't possibly expect Pro Lifers to contribute their taxes to support their ideals.

I don't support abortion but I'm not one to tell someone how they need to lead their life. At the same time I am not willing to pay for an immoral act of killing a child by contributing my tax money.

I'm all for "irresponsible sex" and such. I wish people would use condoms and/or birth control pills, but hey! It's their body. Thank goodness for the freedom of choice act.

Your religious rights end where my nose, er, pregnant stomach begins.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's time the government stops interfering and discriminating based on religious or moral beliefs.

Actually the FOCA WOULD interfere and discriminate based on moral beliefs. FOCA would be pushing the moral belief that all hospitals should abandon THEIR beliefs and provide abortions. Catholic and other Christian hospitals would be forced to close down rather then to commit abortions. This is the far left pushing their anti-religion religion on Christian hospitals and Christian patients who just want to give and receive medical care in a facitlity that isn't a abortuary.

FOCA interferes with their religious rights.

The anti-religion religion has their own sense of 'morality'.

And that 'morality' is intolerance of Christian hospitals that aren't abortuaries.

Catholic Bishops have said that they will shut down the hospitals rather then turn them into abortuaries where murders of unborn children are committed. They would be forced to do this because the government would be interfering and discriminating based on their 'moral' beliefs that everyone should be forced to get health care in a place that commits abortions.

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.

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

Shouldn't it be her choice?

OMG you're such a radical!!! (sarcasm) And what about abused boyfriends or husbands etc?

Originally posted by jsobecky
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.

What you call "irresponsible sex" someone else might not. Who decides what is irresponsible?

LOL states rights? So what if my state says no to abortions and I get raped by someone and don't want their baby and I can't go to a state near by to get an abortion? What about my right to privacy in the Constitution?

So what if the parents are abusive and would beat the girl who got pregnant?

You live in a society where you have to pay taxes. If you don't want to pay taxes for things then don't be a citizen.

Originally posted by jsobecky
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.

So don't have an abortion. Doy. And what about you taking away my right as a citizen to have that right?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by nj2day
And future generations of orphans don't have to sit and wonder "why"...

There aren't that many 'orphans'.
The waiting list to adopt is years and years long.
And adopted children don't sit around wondering 'why'.
They are told 'why'.

And all the adopted children I know - including my own adopted daughter -are VERY glad to be alive and grateful that they weren't killed in the womb.

Originally posted by nj2day
Are you suggesting that having children should be a punishment for irresponsible sex?

Are you suggesting that innocent preborn children should be the ones punished by being painfully murdered by their mothers? That's what abortion for irresponsible sex is - punishing the innocent preborn child by killing him or her.

Originally posted by djpaec
It would be irresponsible to teach abstinence,

It would be irresponsible NOT to teach abstinence.
Do you know how often condoms break? A lot more then you think.
The only true 'safe sex' is no sex.
Parents have a right and a resonsiblity to teach them the safest way to get through their lives. Abstinence is the most responsible path.

Originally posted by Horus12
You have no right dictating a decision over someone else's body, it's absolutely none of your concern.

A woman committing abortion is the one dictating over someone else's body. She stops someone elses heart from beating. She isn't aborting herself She's killing someone else.

And murder is definately eveyrone's concern.

Originally posted by Horus12
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.

Adoption doesn't cost the taxpayer much at all. There is a very long waiting list for those who wish to adopt. AND if we used your logic - then it would be better to kill off all the 'useless eatters' on welfare and who suck on the system. Afterall - it would cost the taxpayer less to kill them then to help them ...

Originally posted by nj2day
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.

.. and I don't know when gangs shoot each other in the next city. But that doesn't mean that it's okay for them to do it.

I would suggest that any doctor who doesn't agree with abortion, not work in an abortion clinic...

FOCA would eventually make it impossible for a hospital to run that doesn't have abortions. Catholic hospitals would be put out of business. It would turn Christian and Catholic hospitals into abortuaries. The Bishops have stated that since abortion is an evil that they can't allow in Catholic hospitals, then the hospitals would be forced to close rather then commit the grave sin of murder of preborn children. MANY of us do not want to receive health care in the same building where human beings are painfully tortured and murdered so we utilize Catholic and Christian hospitals. FOCA would force us to use abortuaries. That's vile.

Wow so you've met every single adopted person in the world? I hardly think so. Just because one person you know thinks that doesn't mean it's the same way. I know I would not want to bring a child into the world if I was irresponsible, having economic hardships etc. and couldn't properly take care of a child. Even going through birth itself and the pregnancy can be very expensive with checkups, vitamins and all that stuff. Especially if you don't have health care. I don't have health care now and the last time I visited my doctor for a lab test check up it was $250.

Why do you say it's murder? It's not murder if it's not a human. Do you even know if there is a soul there? People are still debating about that even today. And what about people like me who believe in reincarnation?

You can't say a gang shooting each other down the street is the same thing as a teenage girl having an abortion. How the hell did you get that #?

That's why you have Catholic hospitals that are private and rely on donations etc. I don't think it's going to kill you to go to a hospital where they have abortions. What about when someone dies during surgery? Do you ignore that hospital too? Please come to the 21st century.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Catholic and other Christian hospitals would be forced to close down rather then to commit abortions.

Where, in the FOCA, does it require hospitals to perform abortions? I can't find it. And they would not be "forced" to close down. They might make that choice.

Catholic Bishops have said that they will shut down the hospitals rather then turn them into abortuaries where murders of unborn children are committed. They would be forced to do this because the government would be interfering and discriminating based on their 'moral' beliefs that everyone should be forced to get health care in a place that commits abortions.

You're talking a lot about forcing, but I don't see anyone being forced to do anything.

Let's have a little Reality Check to balance out some of the drama.

Would FOCA do as Hennenberger says - force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions?

Unequivocally no, says Jill Morrison, senior counsel at the National Women's Law Center. Federal conscience clause law, such as the Church Amendment, states that simply receiving public funding does not turn a hospital into a "state actor," Morrison explains. "FOCA must be read consistently with existing federal law, unless the new law explicitly provides that it is intended to repeal existing law."

Morrison adds, "A hospital is not a state actor, and cannot be magically transformed into one due to its getting Federal funding, as set forth in the Church Amendment."

The FOCA does not force any hospital from performing abortions, and nowhere does it state that girls would be able to get abortions without their parent's consent or that the state would have to pay for them.


Here is the link to the Freedom of Choice Act

I'm all for it except for the last bit:

SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.

This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.

I think its cruddy to make a law and then make it retroactive.

Originally posted by LittlePinky82

Why do you say it's murder? It's not murder if it's not a human. Do you even know if there is a soul there?

I've always had an interesting question about abortion, its limits, and what constitutes a "human":

Why was Scott Peterson charged with two counts of murder, instead of one count of murder and one count of practicing medicine without a license and medical malpractice? The "murdered" non-human was still unborn, after all. Apparently, in the eyes of the law the unborn can be considered a person; despite that running contrary to the Roe v. Wade case where it was ruled the term 'person' does not apply to the unborn per the 14th Amendment.

If your logic holds then a person can maim a pregnant mother and kill the non-human without fearing the death penalty. But, as evident with the Peters case, it just isn't so.

So obviously, there are instances where the unborn is considered a person with full legal protection (i.e. Scott Peterson's unborn son).

By what means, then, is a mother entitled to supersede the state in determining the status of the unborn -either a person entitled to full legal protection whose violation is ground for prosecution by the courts, or something unwanted that can be disposed of? Or is Scott Peterson and others who kill pregnant mothers being railroaded, and should only charged with killing the host of the non-human?

reply to post by jsobecky


Why is abortion even an issue?

Seriously I am sick of hearing about Gay Rights and abortion.

We have banks ensnaring the American people with credit and loans while they illegally print our currency; which they then loan to our government with interest. So naturally we'll never be able to get rid of our debt. We have a private organization known as the IRS illegally STEALING income from hard working citizens. Our leaders and our military work for corporations, our medias lie to us, we are sent to fight in wars that have economic value for the banking cartels in our Country. These same men stage attacks to rile up our emotions to get us to fight.

Everyday that we live is another lie told to us to keep us perpetually blind, and all anyone wants to talk about is abortion and gay rights.

Talk about smoke screen issues.

Never mind the fact that our economy is about to collapse so severely that we'll never again be able to revive the American dollar. Leaving us all broke and open for attack...

But no, a woman can have an abortion if she chooses.

I say f#$k the media and these ridiculous "issues" that are merely used to keep a conservative Nation blind. America has REAL PROBLEMS and abortion is not one of them.

[edit on 11/26/2008 by dalan.]

Originally posted by dalan.
reply to post by jsobecky

 

Why is abortion eve an issue?

You are free to leave this thread and go discuss alien abductions or whatever. Nobody is forcing you to participate in this thread.