FOCA: Freedom of Choice or A Radical Measure?

[Priestley]

Ixor-san

Mein Kulturkampf

Propaganda indeed.

The Freedom of Choice act is exactly that; freedom of choice. It allows women, regardless of age, to get abortions (so that parents can't force their teenage daughters to have children), it allows women to get abortions without being bombarded by religious propaganda minutes before the procedure, and it allows women to get abortions at any point in the pregnancy up to viability (at which point a woman can request labour-inducing drugs), thereby securing full rights to women of their own body, while protecting fetii that have passed the age of viability by only allowing abortions past that landmark if they endanger the woman's health. However, it says nothing about requiring religious institutions to perform abortions, and to claim such is downright misleading.

I fully support FOCA, I feel it is EXACTLY what is needed- full bodily freedom for the entirety of pregnancy.

And forces us who have such horribly offensive opinions to keep it to ourselves, as the first amendment dies a little bit more.

Keeps parents out of their children's lives. 'Cause who REALLY needs to be raised with discipline and be taught to live with the consequences of our own actions. Why allow parents to raise their kids when people who know so much better can do it?

And, apparently, forces some people to compromise their own beliefs and perform a procedure they are wholly against.

But who cares as long as YOUR rights aren't stomped on. rolleyes

I'm all for a person's right to choose but this is giving one group of people that right at the expense of another's. How is that right?

I hope you realise that the www.fightfoca.com website misrepresents FOCA.  

[zz1000zz]

Priestly, I think your wording is hardly sufficient. The criticisms presented regarding FOCA are lies. Anyone who knowingly repeats them is lying as well.  

[zz1000zz]

Fushigi na Butterfly

While I understand the point FOCA is trying to make and what it's trying to protect, somewhat along Priestley's confusion is my own: WHY do we need this if Roe v. Wade already states these things (or at least I thought it did)? I mean, everything stated in FOCA is already being enforced without it. It seems rather redundant to me. That's really my only qualm with it.

Quoted from Section Two:

Quote:

(8 Even though the Roe v. Wade decision has stood for more than 30 years, there are increasing threats to reproductive health and freedom emerging from all branches and levels of government. In 2006, South Dakota became the first State in more than 15 years to enact a ban on abortion in nearly all circumstances. Supporters of this ban have admitted it is an attempt to directly challenge Roe in the courts. Other States are considering similar bans.

(9) Further threatening Roe, the Supreme Court recently upheld the first-ever Federal ban on abortion, which has no exception to protect a woman's health. The majority decision in Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America permits the government to interfere with a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy and effectively overturns a core tenet of Roe v. Wade by abandoning more than 30 years of protection for women's health. Dissenting in that case, Justice Ginsburg called the majority's opinion `alarming,' and stated that, `[f]or the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health.' Further, she said, the Federal ban `and the Court's defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court.'.

(10) Legal and practical barriers to the full range of reproductive services endanger women's health and lives. Incremental restrictions on the right to choose imposed by Congress and State legislatures have made access to abortion care extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many women across the country. Currently, 87 percent of the counties in the United States have no abortion provider.

(11) While abortion should remain safe and legal, women should also have more meaningful access to family planning services that prevent unintended pregnancies, thereby reducing the need for abortion.

(12) To guarantee the protections of Roe v. Wade, Federal legislation is necessary.

I think the law makes itself clear as to why it would be needed.  

[Ixor Firebadger]

Priestley

Ixor-san

Mein Kulturkampf

Propaganda indeed.

The Freedom of Choice act is exactly that; freedom of choice. It allows women, regardless of age, to get abortions (so that parents can't force their teenage daughters to have children), it allows women to get abortions without being bombarded by religious propaganda minutes before the procedure, and it allows women to get abortions at any point in the pregnancy up to viability (at which point a woman can request labour-inducing drugs), thereby securing full rights to women of their own body, while protecting fetii that have passed the age of viability by only allowing abortions past that landmark if they endanger the woman's health. However, it says nothing about requiring religious institutions to perform abortions, and to claim such is downright misleading.

I fully support FOCA, I feel it is EXACTLY what is needed- full bodily freedom for the entirety of pregnancy.

And forces us who have such horribly offensive opinions to keep it to ourselves, as the first amendment dies a little bit more.

Keeps parents out of their children's lives. 'Cause who REALLY needs to be raised with discipline and be taught to live with the consequences of our own actions. Why allow parents to raise their kids when people who know so much better can do it?

And, apparently, forces some people to compromise their own beliefs and perform a procedure they are wholly against.

But who cares as long as YOUR rights aren't stomped on. rolleyes

I'm all for a person's right to choose but this is giving one group of people that right at the expense of another's. How is that right?

I hope you realise that the www.fightfoca.com website misrepresents FOCA.

I didn't, actually. Thank you for clearing that up.  

[Priestley]

Oh, I see. So, with FOCA, a woman's legal right to have an abortion even when not medically necessary is protected by obligating medial facilities to provide the procedure? stare  

[zz1000zz]

Priestley

Oh, I see. So, with FOCA, a woman's legal right to have an abortion even when not medically necessary is protected by obligating medial facilities to provide the procedure? stare

I have no idea what gave you that impression. Certainly nothing in the bill would do what you described.  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

Rosary16

When a bill is written, there is certain information that cannot be revealed; information that would hurt the bill's chances of getting passed. Do you think congress would pass a bill that made it possible for unlicensed physicians to perform surgery? No because if you go to perform surgery without the proper training, you're going to threaten someone's life.
The point is if the information I presented was on the bill, it most likely wouldn't pass because of the fact that it would force faith-based hospitals to perform abortions, allow even unlicensed abortionists to perform abortions, witholding info about alternatives, as well as the risks of abortion and every American, pro-life or not, has to pay for it.

Forcing faith-based hospitals to go against their morals is unconstitutional because that would be compromising the rights of one group (the religious community) to benefit another group.
Allowing abortionists without training to perform abortions is very dangerous to women's health. So is witholding information about the risks of abortion.
Not giving women alternatives other than abortion doesn't sound very "pro-choice", does it? I mean, why is abortion is only alternative? What about women who don't want or are unsure about having an abortion?

Making pro-life Americans pay for abortions whether they want to or not is, again, compromising the rights of one group to benefit the other.
If that's not unconstitutional, then what is?

So how is it that you have access to this conveniently undisclosed information?  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

zz1000zz

Fushigi na Butterfly

While I understand the point FOCA is trying to make and what it's trying to protect, somewhat along Priestley's confusion is my own: WHY do we need this if Roe v. Wade already states these things (or at least I thought it did)? I mean, everything stated in FOCA is already being enforced without it. It seems rather redundant to me. That's really my only qualm with it.

Quoted from Section Two:

Quote:

(8 Even though the Roe v. Wade decision has stood for more than 30 years, there are increasing threats to reproductive health and freedom emerging from all branches and levels of government. In 2006, South Dakota became the first State in more than 15 years to enact a ban on abortion in nearly all circumstances. Supporters of this ban have admitted it is an attempt to directly challenge Roe in the courts. Other States are considering similar bans.

(9) Further threatening Roe, the Supreme Court recently upheld the first-ever Federal ban on abortion, which has no exception to protect a woman's health. The majority decision in Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America permits the government to interfere with a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy and effectively overturns a core tenet of Roe v. Wade by abandoning more than 30 years of protection for women's health. Dissenting in that case, Justice Ginsburg called the majority's opinion `alarming,' and stated that, `[f]or the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health.' Further, she said, the Federal ban `and the Court's defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court.'.

(10) Legal and practical barriers to the full range of reproductive services endanger women's health and lives. Incremental restrictions on the right to choose imposed by Congress and State legislatures have made access to abortion care extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many women across the country. Currently, 87 percent of the counties in the United States have no abortion provider.

(11) While abortion should remain safe and legal, women should also have more meaningful access to family planning services that prevent unintended pregnancies, thereby reducing the need for abortion.

(12) To guarantee the protections of Roe v. Wade, Federal legislation is necessary.

I think the law makes itself clear as to why it would be needed.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Making another Bill that says the exact same thing is redundant. "Maybe if we make another law that repeats what Roe v. Wade says, people will take it more seriously"? Really?? rolleyes It might be necessary, but the reasoning behind it is still stupid. People are kinda stupid though so ...  

[DustNymph]

Fushigi na Butterfly

zz1000zz

Fushigi na Butterfly

While I understand the point FOCA is trying to make and what it's trying to protect, somewhat along Priestley's confusion is my own: WHY do we need this if Roe v. Wade already states these things (or at least I thought it did)? I mean, everything stated in FOCA is already being enforced without it. It seems rather redundant to me. That's really my only qualm with it.

Quoted from Section Two:

Quote:

(8 Even though the Roe v. Wade decision has stood for more than 30 years, there are increasing threats to reproductive health and freedom emerging from all branches and levels of government. In 2006, South Dakota became the first State in more than 15 years to enact a ban on abortion in nearly all circumstances. Supporters of this ban have admitted it is an attempt to directly challenge Roe in the courts. Other States are considering similar bans.

(9) Further threatening Roe, the Supreme Court recently upheld the first-ever Federal ban on abortion, which has no exception to protect a woman's health. The majority decision in Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America permits the government to interfere with a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy and effectively overturns a core tenet of Roe v. Wade by abandoning more than 30 years of protection for women's health. Dissenting in that case, Justice Ginsburg called the majority's opinion `alarming,' and stated that, `[f]or the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health.' Further, she said, the Federal ban `and the Court's defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court.'.

(10) Legal and practical barriers to the full range of reproductive services endanger women's health and lives. Incremental restrictions on the right to choose imposed by Congress and State legislatures have made access to abortion care extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many women across the country. Currently, 87 percent of the counties in the United States have no abortion provider.

(11) While abortion should remain safe and legal, women should also have more meaningful access to family planning services that prevent unintended pregnancies, thereby reducing the need for abortion.

(12) To guarantee the protections of Roe v. Wade, Federal legislation is necessary.

I think the law makes itself clear as to why it would be needed.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Making another Bill that says the exact same thing is redundant. "Maybe if we make another law that repeats what Roe v. Wade says, people will take it more seriously"? Really?? rolleyes It might be necessary, but the reasoning behind it is still stupid. People are kinda stupid though so ...

Note the bolded phrase.

Yes, the law is redundant. Yes, it is necessary. Roe vs Wade was significant in that it set a precedent for a woman's right to choose. However, the power of this precedent has been eroded by the passage of laws contradicting it. If this trend continues, Roe vs Wade will be as good as overturned for all practical purposes. By passing legislation reinforcing that landmark decision, it would be strengthened. The thing that comes to my mind is adding additional support structures to a crumbling building.

And I have to say, knowing that everything on the Fight FOCA website is propaganda yet is still believed by many boils my blood. *growls* It reminds me of a news story I read about a woman who had been raped whose doctor refused to give her the Morning After pill to prevent a pregnancy because it was against his beliefs. You know, I can understand a doctor refusing to perform an abortion, but that's not what this was. As a doctor, he should have known that even if the woman had conceived, she wouldn't have even been carrying a fully-formed zygote let alone a human fetus! And if she hadn't managed to find a doctor who would give her emergency contraception, she could very well have wound up actually getting an abortion, thus defeating the purpose of the doctor's refusal. *headdesk*

I know some people may disagree with my stance here, but I just had to get that out.  

[Mein Kulturkampf]

Priestley

Oh, I see. So, with FOCA, a woman's legal right to have an abortion even when not medically necessary is protected by obligating medial facilities to provide the procedure? stare

If the medical facility is owned by the state, yes. It's not a new concept that government-run organizations must remain separate from religious organizations.

Quote:

And forces us who have such horribly offensive opinions to keep it to ourselves, as the first amendment dies a little bit more.

...Are you claiming that this bill intrudes on your right to free speech? You might want to read the bill again, because you obviously looked at the wrong one.

Quote:

Keeps parents out of their children's lives. 'Cause who REALLY needs to be raised with discipline and be taught to live with the consequences of our own actions. Why allow parents to raise their kids when people who know so much better can do it?

Because it is immoral for one person to assume rights over another person's body, no matter what age. For this reason, I also oppose non-medically necessary circumcision in infancy.

Quote:

And, apparently, forces some people to compromise their own beliefs and perform a procedure they are wholly against.

If you want to work in a faith-based organization, you can. If you work in a state-run facility, you must expect that the state will not match your beliefs.

Quote:

But who cares as long as YOUR rights aren't stomped on.

I'm all for a person's right to choose but this is giving one group of people that right at the expense of another's. How is that right?

Whose rights are being taken away?  

[Mein Kulturkampf]

Rosary16

When a bill is written, there is certain information that cannot be revealed; information that would hurt the bill's chances of getting passed. Do you think congress would pass a bill that made it possible for unlicensed physicians to perform surgery? No because if you go to perform surgery without the proper training, you're going to threaten someone's life.
The point is if the information I presented was on the bill, it most likely wouldn't pass because of the fact that it would force faith-based hospitals to perform abortions, allow even unlicensed abortionists to perform abortions, witholding info about alternatives, as well as the risks of abortion and every American, pro-life or not, has to pay for it.

...Which is why it isn't on the bill, which is why it doesn't go into law. Are you insane?

Quote:

Forcing faith-based hospitals to go against their morals is unconstitutional because that would be compromising the rights of one group (the religious community) to benefit another group.

Which is why faith-based hospitals are not affected. State hospitals are.

Quote:

Allowing abortionists without training to perform abortions is very dangerous to women's health. So is witholding information about the risks of abortion.

Which is why the bill says nothing about untrained "abortionists" performing abortions. Perhaps you don't get it, but if something is not ON a piece of legislation, it's not written into law by that piece of legislation.

Quote:

Not giving women alternatives other than abortion doesn't sound very "pro-choice", does it? I mean, why is abortion is only alternative? What about women who don't want or are unsure about having an abortion?

There are three options:

1. Giving birth, keeping baby
2. Giving birth, baby in dumpster or adoption center
3. Fetus in dumpster

All three of these options are common knowledge. I would challenge you to find me a woman who knows what abortion is, but not adoption or birth. Really!

Quote:

Making pro-life Americans pay for abortions whether they want to or not is, again, compromising the rights of one group to benefit the other.
If that's not unconstitutional, then what is?

I think open-heart surgery is immoral. I refuse to let my taxes go to your open-heart surgery. Pay for it on your own.  

[Priestley]

zz1000zz

Priestley

Oh, I see. So, with FOCA, a woman's legal right to have an abortion even when not medically necessary is protected by obligating medial facilities to provide the procedure? stare

I have no idea what gave you that impression. Certainly nothing in the bill would do what you described.

It would prevent anyone working in a state-run facility from refusing to perform an abortion on moral grounds, effectively meaning that any woman who wants an abortion will always get one.

In fact, wouldn't the act indiscriminately cover all facilities providing the procedure?  

[Priestley]

Mein Kulturkampf

Priestley

Oh, I see. So, with FOCA, a woman's legal right to have an abortion even when not medically necessary is protected by obligating medial facilities to provide the procedure? stare

If the medical facility is owned by the state, yes. It's not a new concept that government-run organizations must remain separate from religious organizations.

Actually, I don't think the act discriminates between government and faith-based facilities. If the act of law is passed, it applies to all.  

[Mein Kulturkampf]

Priestley

Mein Kulturkampf

Priestley

Oh, I see. So, with FOCA, a woman's legal right to have an abortion even when not medically necessary is protected by obligating medial facilities to provide the procedure? stare

If the medical facility is owned by the state, yes. It's not a new concept that government-run organizations must remain separate from religious organizations.

Actually, I don't think the act discriminates between government and faith-based facilities. If the act of law is passed, it applies to all.

If you read the text of the act, you will see that it applies to facilities that are an extension of government.  

[The Amazing Ryuu]

First of all, I don't understand why anyone would GO to a faith-based hospital for ANY sort of contraception, emergency or otherwise. Most of them are Catholic-run, and Catholics typically frown upon so much as condom use. Anyway. As those hospitals are usually funded by something other than federal money, they can usually take laws that would force them to go against their beliefs and tell the people that made said laws to go stick it.

So... my big issues with the information in this thread: Where is this 'undisclosed' information coming from? A propaganda site? Don't trust it. Secondly, if it's not ON THE BILL, there's NO way for it to get put into law.

Then again... Congress only READS about 10% of the bills that come through. Otherwise 'the process would take too long for anything to get done.' stare