FOCA: Freedom of Choice or A Radical Measure?

[Priestley]

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.

Please highlight the particular text to which you are referring, because I cannot see where it explicitly states that it only applies to government facilities or that faith-based institutions are excluded from this act.  

[Knatalie9]

Well... As I've said before I am pro-life. And firm in it. However, I do think it is a choice.... an option lets say... I don't think that having a baby is always the best option for a teenage girl.. And I don't think all parents need to know about it... Because most teens aren't ready. i do however, firmly believe that a woman should know about the risks of having an abortion. She should be knowledgeable about the danger.. because it is still there.. ya know? just like any other health procedure.  

[The_Cursed_Phoenix]

Sorry but im Pro-Life and feel i must say something about this. Abortion is the murder of a inocent child and should be banned for that reason its murder and the fifth commandment says

Though Shalt not Murder

What does this mean?We should fear and love God so that we do not hurt or harm our neighbor in his body but help and support him in every physical need

 

[zz1000zz]

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 ...

What is ridiculous about making a law to guarantee a decision by the Supreme Court is maintained? Why is it "the most ridiculous thing [you've] ever heard" for Congress to actually put this a law on the books, so that there is more than a single court ruling to determine such an important issue?

Actually, since you said "another Bill," do you understand Roe v. Wade was a court case, not a law?  

[zz1000zz]

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?

No and no. Nothing in the law would do what you say.  

[Priestley]

zz1000zz

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?

No and no. Nothing in the law would do what you say.

Freedom of Choice Act SEC. 4. (b)(1)(B)

Prohibition of Interference- A government may not deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability.

What would happen if a family planning clinic did not provide abortion facilities? Would that not be interfering with or denying a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy? What about if an employee at such a clinic were to provide literature about the risks of abortion or to object on personal grounds not to discuss abortion as an option? Would that not also be interfering/denying?  

[The Amazing Ryuu]

Priestley

Freedom of Choice Act SEC. 4. (b)(1)(B)

Prohibition of Interference- A government may not deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability.

What would happen if a family planning clinic did not provide abortion facilities? Would that not be interfering with or denying a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy? What about if an employee at such a clinic were to provide literature about the risks of abortion or to object on personal grounds not to discuss abortion as an option? Would that not also be interfering/denying?

Well, technically, those facilities are not a government. And, obviously, a woman looking for these services would go somewhere where she KNEW they were offered. Just because the planned pregnancy clinic down the street doesn't offer abortion as an option, I'm sure that she knows about the one another 10 minutes' drive away. I think that even an employee working at such an establishment that objects to or refuses to do the procedure usually isn't brought to court over the matter. There's always someone willing to do it. And handing out information is just making sure that the woman is making an informed decision: if she decides to go ahead, she'll know that it's not risk-free.  

[Priestley]

I'm still concerned that there will never be enough legislation because there will never be an end to the demands of the public to have what they want when they want it.  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

Mein Kulturkampf

Because it is immoral for one person to assume rights over another person's body, no matter what age.

So there should be no law against adults having sex with minors, right? Cuz, you know, the government has no right to say what any person can and can't do with their body. rolleyes  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

zz1000zz

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 ...

What is ridiculous about making a law to guarantee a decision by the Supreme Court is maintained? Why is it "the most ridiculous thing [you've] ever heard" for Congress to actually put this a law on the books, so that there is more than a single court ruling to determine such an important issue?

Actually, since you said "another Bill," do you understand Roe v. Wade was a court case, not a law?

Yes, but wasn't it a court case that led to the legalization of abortion? There's a law that came as a result. If we already have a law about it, why do we need another one that says the exact same thing?? It just seems redundant and unnecessary. Unless I'm mistaken and there is no such law that actually legalizes abortion and our government has just been allowing pro-lifers to make a huge deal out of something that actually isn't legal. eek I totally can't imagine that. rolleyes  

[Priestley]

Fushigi na Butterfly

zz1000zz

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 ...

What is ridiculous about making a law to guarantee a decision by the Supreme Court is maintained? Why is it "the most ridiculous thing [you've] ever heard" for Congress to actually put this a law on the books, so that there is more than a single court ruling to determine such an important issue?

Actually, since you said "another Bill," do you understand Roe v. Wade was a court case, not a law?

Yes, but wasn't it a court case that led to the legalization of abortion? There's a law that came as a result. If we already have a law about it, why do we need another one that says the exact same thing?? It just seems redundant and unnecessary. Unless I'm mistaken and there is no such law that actually legalizes abortion and our government has just been allowing pro-lifers to make a huge deal out of something that actually isn't legal. eek I totally can't imagine that. rolleyes

I'm not up on my American law but I think the main issue is really that Roe vs Wade set a legal precedent rather than created a law. Legal precedents apply only to cases with similar facts within the same line of appeal under the court that set it (paraphrased the Wikipedia article). Acts of Congress, however, have permanence and apply to pretty much all legal cases.  

[zz1000zz]

Fushigi na Butterfly

Yes, but wasn't it a court case that led to the legalization of abortion? There's a law that came as a result. If we already have a law about it, why do we need another one that says the exact same thing?? It just seems redundant and unnecessary. Unless I'm mistaken and there is no such law that actually legalizes abortion and our government has just been allowing pro-lifers to make a huge deal out of something that actually isn't legal. eek I totally can't imagine that. rolleyes

There is no federal law doing what you mentioned. The Supreme Court said the right to an abortion was a constitutional right, meaning abortion was legal. No law was passed.

Your criticism, and the sarcasm found with it, is baseless and incorrect.

Edit: Incidentally, a law is not needed for something to be legal.  

[zz1000zz]

Priestley

zz1000zz

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?

No and no. Nothing in the law would do what you say.

Freedom of Choice Act SEC. 4. (b)(1)(B)

Prohibition of Interference- A government may not deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability.

What would happen if a family planning clinic did not provide abortion facilities? Would that not be interfering with or denying a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy? What about if an employee at such a clinic were to provide literature about the risks of abortion or to object on personal grounds not to discuss abortion as an option? Would that not also be interfering/denying?

How could you possibly go from a restriction of the government to a restriction of businesses and/or individuals? That doesn't even make sense.  

[Priestley]

zz1000zz

Priestley

zz1000zz

Priestley

zz1000zz

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?

No and no. Nothing in the law would do what you say.

Freedom of Choice Act SEC. 4. (b)(1)(B)

Prohibition of Interference- A government may not deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability.

What would happen if a family planning clinic did not provide abortion facilities? Would that not be interfering with or denying a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy? What about if an employee at such a clinic were to provide literature about the risks of abortion or to object on personal grounds not to discuss abortion as an option? Would that not also be interfering/denying?

How could you possibly go from a restriction of the government to a restriction of businesses and/or individuals? That doesn't even make sense.

Because I forget that medical facilities are not an extension of government in your country.  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

zz1000zz

Fushigi na Butterfly

Yes, but wasn't it a court case that led to the legalization of abortion? There's a law that came as a result. If we already have a law about it, why do we need another one that says the exact same thing?? It just seems redundant and unnecessary. Unless I'm mistaken and there is no such law that actually legalizes abortion and our government has just been allowing pro-lifers to make a huge deal out of something that actually isn't legal. eek I totally can't imagine that. rolleyes

There is no federal law doing what you mentioned. The Supreme Court said the right to an abortion was a constitutional right, meaning abortion was legal. No law was passed.

Your criticism, and the sarcasm found with it, is baseless and incorrect.

Edit: Incidentally, a law is not needed for something to be legal.

Ah, okay. I was mistaken then. Thank you for clearing that up. However, I think (and this is totally my opinion) that there should be laws necessary in order to make things legal. I mean, how can you determine if something is legal or not if no one's written it down? Especially something like abortion. Just because high officials say something is legal should not make that thing legal. In any case, I suppose it makes FOCA necessary then. Now there's a law saying abortion is legal and we can all stop fighting about it (in theory).

I just am starting to hate the government right now. Actually, I'm kinda starting to hate America and Americans right now. I've been dealing with so many idiots recently that I'm just thinking I should move to North Korea where at least idiots are shot for their opinions (I jest, of course). There's alot of mess that needs to be cleaned up, and I really hope the new administration can figure out a way to do it without putting too much strain on Americans. confused