FOCA: Freedom of Choice or A Radical Measure?

[Rosary16]

At first glance, the Freedom Of Choice Act, a.k.a. FOCA, would seem like Roe vs. Wade the sequel. But this is what FOCA advocates won't tell you:

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would eliminate every restriction on abortion nationwide.
FOCA will do away with state laws on parental involvement, on partial birth abortion, and on all other protections.
FOCA will compel taxpayer funding of abortions.
FOCA will force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions.

Unfortunately, I'm not done yet:

FOCA would eradicate state and federal laws that the majority of Americans support, such as:

Bans on Partial Birth Abortion
Requirements that women be given information about the risks of getting an abortion
Only licensed physicians can perform abortions
Parents must be informed and give consent to their minor daughter's abortion
FOCA would erase these laws and prevent states from enacting similar protective measures in the future.

So is there freedom of choice in the Freedom Of Choice Act or is this is liberals' attempt to hold the country hostage with a radical agenda? Will this bill actually take away the fundemental freedom of faith-based hospitals and pharmacies, churches and pro-life Americans to refuse paying for and providing abortions, as well as an innocent baby's fundemental right to be born?

If you do oppose FOCA, there's a way to make your opposition heard: There is a website called www.fightfoca.com and on it, you can sign a petition against FOCA. Because no FOCA vote has been scheduled yet, you have time to sign the petition. There is no age limit. Just scroll to the bottom of the site and you will see a box where you have to sign your first and last name, your email, etc. So far, the petition has more than 5 million signatures and the numbers just keep growing. If you want to save the babies, go to the website and please, please, PLEASE with cherry on top, sign the petition! The babies and Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, will thank you!
God bless!  

[Priestley]

Is it just me or is this no easier to understand even when summarised?  

[Edith Puthie]

Priestley

Is it just me or is this no easier to understand even when summarised?

She basically means anyone under FOCA will be able to get abortions, parent consent or not, any person can do an abortion doctor or not, and every hospital has to have an abortion option.  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

And Americans have to pay for it, and women can't be given information about alternatives, or the risks involved in getting an abortion. I HATE AMERICA OMG. ><"

At any rate, I'd need to read more about what FOCA actually says to determine for myself if this is actually what the Act endorses. So I'll be getting back to you on this. 3nodding

EDIT I found the link that leads to the text of the Act, in case anyone wants to read what would actually be happening under it. FOCA  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

So I just read the Bill/Act, and it doesn't seem to mention any of the things mentioned in the TO's first post. confused It seems to uphold restrictions, rather than eliminate them. It says nothing about parental involvement, partial birth abortions, and nothing about taxpayer support of abortions. It also makes no mention of restricting womens' knowledge of alternatives or risks associated with abortion. Now, we may be reading separate things, but I don't see how this Act is bad. It sounds pretty good to me.  

[Ixor Firebadger]

Wow. That's. Just. Rediculous... confused  

[Priestley]

That's what I thought: pro-life propaganda.  

[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.  

[Priestley]

Mein Kulturkampf

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

Why does this need to be legislated, again? confused  

[Ixor Firebadger]

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?  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

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.

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.  

[Rosary16]

Fushigi na Butterfly

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.

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.

I was thinking the same thing. However, pro-choice activist liberals on Capitol Hill want to take their cause a step further.  

[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?  

[Rosary16]

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?

Thank you for understanding!  

[Priestley]

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.

But where is this information presented other than on that website? What way is there to verify the claims on that website?

Rosary16

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.

What rights of the religious community are being compromised?

Rosary16

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

Where does it say that medical practitioners without the proper qualifications will be able to perform abortions? Where does it say that information about the risks of abortion will be witheld from women?

Rosary16

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?

Where does it force women to abort other than when their health is at risk?

Rosary16

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?

Misrepresentation should be.