Saturday, November 15, 2008

Freedom of Choice Act

UPDATE: A FEW CONCRETE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT CAN BE FOUND HERE. I BELIEVE THAT MOST PRO-LIFE AND PRO-CHOICE AMERICANS WOULD LIKELY WANT TO ENSURE THAT PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION REMAINS ILLEGAL. IF FOR NOTHING ELSE BUT TO ENSURE THAT PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION REMAINS ILLEGAL, PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION TO FIGHT THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT AT www.fightfoca.com.

Okay, hopefully I'm not oversimplifying, but the Freedom of Choice Act is a law that is not on the books that President-elect Barack Obama at one point said would be his first order of legal business as President. It is a piece of legislation that abolishes all State level laws regarding abortion. It may do more than that, but that's all of which I'm aware. This means that abortions would become much easier to have regardless of the reason. So, if you want to take action to put pressure on the President-elect not to sign this piece of legislation (or to keep others from signing it [I'm not politician, so I don't even know who all would need to sign the piece of legislation first] - bottom line: I want nobody to sign it into law) then go to www.fightfoca.com and add your name to those opposed to this law.

If you are pro-choice to any degree, please consider signing it as this law may be more destructive to the rights of human infants than you might have first thought, as it would abolish all State laws regarding abortion.

Feel free to comment if I've mis-represented FOCA in any way and I will edit it.

10 comments:

Guevarafam said...

Here's a link to the actual bill, for those who might want to see it:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2020:

Guevarafam said...

It does specifically say that govt will not interfere with a woman's right to bear a child.

Todd said...

Thanks for the link Burly. This does seem to be a very sweeping piece of legislation that needs to be opposed.

B-U-R-L-Y said...

BethAnn - What does it mean that gov't won't interfere with a woman's right to bear a child? Does it mean that it wouldn't force a woman to have an abortion? I wouldn't expect anyone to take this stance anyway. Maybe I misunderstand it. Thanks for the link to the bill!

Saintly Nurse said...

Burly - I am guessing it means that they (fed or state govt) can't force abortion on anyone. I guess I pointed that out in the interest of saying that, well, it's not like they are going to be limiting how many kids one can have and making us abort the rest, for example.

Definitely a hot potato.

Saintly Nurse said...

btw - saintly nurse is BethAnn. ;) I changed my moniker. I do believe women in several other countries have been forced into abortions by their governments. That is despicable.

Saintly Nurse said...

Ok, call me dense, but I have read both the House and the Senate version of this bill and just don't see that it's going to lead to any of the things stated. Can someone please enlighten me?

B-U-R-L-Y said...

What the Federal action would do would be to say that the Federal Freedom of Choice act would ostensibly trump all State laws. It doesn't state that explicity, but that is what the Federal law (FOCA) would do.

Saintly Nurse said...

Thanks for putting it that way. Does make things a bit clearer. But I still don't see that it's going to increase PBA - which is no question a bad thing.

I'm also for pre and post counseling in any case. Where does it say that that would be taken away? I'm not trying to argue w/ anyone here.

I'm trying to understand why this is so radically different than what's already in place. The only difference I see (which I don't like) is the clause about aborting after viability when mom's health is in danger. That could be left open to a pretty wide interpretation, which I'm not for.

I am leaning toward not being for this, but am really trying to think critically before saying one way or the other.

But would it not have to pass House and Senate first before Obama signs it?

B-U-R-L-Y said...

BethAnn,

What FOCA is explicitly trying to do is legislate Roe v. Wade on the Federal level to eliminate State rulings. So, it's no different than the broad scope of Roe v. Wade, but it's power is greater.

You asked " ... would it not have to pass House and Senate first before Obama signs it?"

Yes, indeed. So, to sign it is to fight FOCA early so that it becomes (or remains - if there's really not enough support for it - I don't know) a non-issue and never goes to Obama's hand to sign. If it did, he would either a.) have to sign it to be an "agent of change" by actually sticking to his word - which would be disasterous,
b.) not sign it as a sign that he had either truly changed his mind or that he said he would sign it for the sake of political expediencey.

But, I think this is really about letting more children pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ...