Welcome to Gaia! ::

Reply Pro-Life/Pro-Choice Discussion
FOCA: Freedom of Choice or A Radical Measure?

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

Will FOCA Actually Take Away Religious And Pro-Life Americans' Right To Refuse Promoting Abortion?
Yes. No one should be forced to compromise their beliefs.
77%
 77%  [ 7 ]
No. It's just meant to give a woman more alternatives.
11%
 11%  [ 1 ]
I'm Not Sure. I'll have to read more on it.
11%
 11%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 9


Rosary16

PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:43 pm


FOCA, or The Freedom Of Choice Act, is a bill that would lift all restrictions on abortion. But here's what the media won't tell you (courtesy of www.fightfoca.com):

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. Pro-lifers' tax money would fund abortions, whether they like it or not.
FOCA will force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions.


But wait, there's more:

FOCA Would Wipe Away Every Restriction on Abortion Nationwide
This 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 this is just Roe. vs Wade the sequel or would this bill actually strip faith-based hospitals, religious and pro-life Americans the right to refuse paying for or providing abortions? Is it actually compromising freedom?
Debate is to begin in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...Blast off!
PostPosted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:24 pm


Here's the thing: The freedom of choice act is a carbon copy of the way abortion laws are approached in Canada; so as far as my seeing any 'radicalism' in FOCA, it is completely null and void.

I wish America would have kept on being as pro-life as it was, but it's the way the country is going. Pro-life viewpoints are seen as de-humanizing to the woman, and shunned in society.

All I can say is, when it comes down to what you really want from life, people always will chose the option that offers more convience, if their means allow it. This act will probably get passed, and some of that is probably the fault of your northern neighbour, and influence.

McPhee
Crew

Friendly Elocutionist

8,150 Points
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Flatterer 200
  • Popular Thread 100

rweghrheh

PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:58 pm


I find that horrible! That is what they are spending our money on? Why not use it to help improve and save lives and give people a better education (like better sex education to help prevent unplanned pregnancies in the first place)? Or at least gives us a CHOICE .

And hospitals shouldn't be forced to preform abortions if they don't want to (that's not pro-choice). Hospitals are there to help save lives, not end them and most don't preform abortions unless it's a life or death situation (most are done in separate clinics) and I can't help but think that it goes against the being a doctor is all about.
If the baby is old enough to live outside of the womb, I don't see how partial birth abortion is necessary (do you know how it's preformed?). And if the mother is in danger, wouldn't a better option for both be C-section? If she can't deliver it then why have them deliver it part way and then kill it? Don't make sense.

Parents have the right to know about it at least, what if there was a serious complication and they didn't know about it? How would they help their daughter? If minors can't take aspirin at school or getting piercings without permission, how can they have an abortion without parental consent or notification?

And people should know about the risks (people had died from complications from the anesthesia, perferated uterus and bowls, hemorrhaging and losing a lot of blood, and pulmonary embolisms, infections, etc. Also from complications and reactions to chemical abortion, all surgeries and medications carry some risks).
Allowing non-licensed doctors to be able to preform abortion? What happened to the safe and caring about women part? That would just do more harm.

Also people claim that not allowing a choice dehumanize the woman but many don't seem to think or care about the fact the unborn is also a human-a developing one.

I think this is horrible and pretty much strips the rights and choice of others as well as potentially dangerous to the women involved. How can he sign such a thing?
I can't see anything good coming out of this and just disappoints me greatly.

Well that is my view and say on the matter.
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:29 pm


McPhee
Here's the thing: The freedom of choice act is a carbon copy of the way abortion laws are approached in Canada; so as far as my seeing any 'radicalism' in FOCA, it is completely null and void.

I wish America would have kept on being as pro-life as it was, but it's the way the country is going. Pro-life viewpoints are seen as de-humanizing to the woman, and shunned in society.

All I can say is, when it comes down to what you really want from life, people always will chose the option that offers more convience, if their means allow it. This act will probably get passed, and some of that is probably the fault of your northern neighbour, and influence.
Except that it's not.

It's getting more pro-life. Especially younger generations; we're much more pro-life than our parents were. Partly because we never lived in pre-Roe times, and partly because we grew up with ultrasound technology. It's so normal to think of a fetus as a person because we've been able to see a little baby in the womb, especially with the advent of 3D ultrasounds.

The problem with weighing is that if you're for abortion in the case of rape or incest you're put into the pro-choice category; that's the only way to make pro-choice outweigh pro-life in polls. That's something that the pro-life community is pretty divided on.

If it's passed, it will be because most people don't realize what can be done with it. And that's the thing, it CAN be done, it doesn't mean it will be done. But it will be, we know it will be, and it'll be fiercely fought on a state level. Also I mean some of it is stuff some pro-choice people even agree with. Informed consent, for instance. Knowing the risks and alternatives is something everyone should know before any medical procedure, in my opinion, and I know several pro-choice people who agree with me on that bit of "anti-abortion" legislation.

Law school's looking better and better.

lymelady
Vice Captain


rweghrheh

PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:41 pm


I have a question. Does anyone have the original document? People are asking questions to see if what people been saying about it (like unlicensed doctors) is true and I don't even know myself I don't have proof to show them if it is or isn't.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:12 am


lolwut

Seriously, I can't agree with all the conditions on there. I mean, I think faith-based hospitals are stupid regardless, but they shouldn't be forced into something they disagree with, and if "catholic hospital" isn't a big enough warning sign for anybody wanting an abortion, I don't know what is. Also, what sort of license are they referring to with these physicians? I don't want random doctors who don't know what they're doing touching any part of my body. As for the part about risks - everyone should be told the risks about every surgical procedure, no matter what. Pregnant women should be given ALL the options and told roughly what ALL will entail, and then further detail should be given once they've decided.

I agree with some of it, but not all of it.

McPhee: America's getting more pro-life. UK is staying pretty much the same as it has since the Abortion Act in the 60s, which is pretty pro-choice.

Fran Salaska


lymelady
Vice Captain

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:24 pm


http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s1173/text

Which is not that scary (besides them using biased, incomplete, and incorrect data...) until you recall the legislation that is called "anti-choice" legislation, which is the stuff mentioned by Rosary16.

This is why I say the important word is can, not will. There is no guarantee that anyone will go after laws like that. But the language of the bill allows for it, and I honestly think they would given the opposition to that legislation.

Fran, the license they're referring to is just a medical license. Most states only allow for physicians to perform abortions, but some allow for nurse practitioners. A year or so ago there were a few clinics under investigation because the doctors had lost their licenses, which some argue is a bad reason to keep the doctor from doing the job because the license loss wasn't always related to medical practice. But that can be bad too, in one case it was a doctor who had sexually assaulted his patients in a clinic, which is just a horrible thought.
PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:46 am


lymelady
Most states only allow for physicians to perform abortions, but some allow for nurse practitioners.


NPs are allowed to do nearly everything physicians do, and they do go through some pretty rigorous training. They're not clueless assistants.

Quote:
But that can be bad too, in one case it was a doctor who had sexually assaulted his patients in a clinic, which is just a horrible thought.


Well, at least he wasn't one of those evil pro-life misogynists.... rolleyes

La Veuve Zin

Rainbow Smoker

5,650 Points
  • Mega Tipsy 100
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Ultimate Player 200

lymelady
Vice Captain

PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:34 pm


La Veuve Zin
lymelady
Most states only allow for physicians to perform abortions, but some allow for nurse practitioners.


NPs are allowed to do nearly everything physicians do, and they do go through some pretty rigorous training. They're not clueless assistants.

Quote:
But that can be bad too, in one case it was a doctor who had sexually assaulted his patients in a clinic, which is just a horrible thought.


Well, at least he wasn't one of those evil pro-life misogynists.... rolleyes
Where did I say they're clueless assistants? I've considered being a nurse practitioner myself. I'm just explaining what the current battle is.

I think the argument has to do with how big an operation abortion is considered to be. It's a minor surgical medical procedure, so I'm not quite sure how that applies; I know nurse practitioners assist with surgeries and do some minor surgical procedures themselves, but the argument falls under where abortion fits in the spectrum. It depends on the state, since different states set the rules.
PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:50 pm


There is a way to protest FOCA:
There is a website called Fight FOCA (www.fightfoca.com) and on it, you can sign an anti-FOCA petiton that will sent to key members of Congress on Jan 21, which is in 4 days. This petition will at least give the people a voice while we still have it. So far the petition has 449,518 signatures and the numbers are still growing!
This isn't a cure-all, but at least we will know that we took a stand. If we go down, we went down swinging. If FOCA is defeated, it will be because of us.

Rosary16


La Veuve Zin

Rainbow Smoker

5,650 Points
  • Mega Tipsy 100
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Ultimate Player 200
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:59 pm


lymelady
Where did I say they're clueless assistants? I've considered being a nurse practitioner myself.


D'oh sweatdrop I didn't say you said that....now that I reread what I posted, it kind of came out wrong.... gonk
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:37 pm


Sorry Zin, I can totally see that now sweatdrop I suck, I'm very nerve-y lately.

lymelady
Vice Captain


WatersMoon110
Crew

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:18 am


I know, I haven't been on in forever.

I'm confused. So, looking for slightly more information, I went to Wikipedia.

The Freedom of Choice Act was first introduced in 1989, then it was reintroduced in 1993, and now it is being reintroduced again.

I found the following information about the Act here:
Quote:
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The United States was founded on core principles, such as liberty, personal privacy, and equality, which ensure that individuals are free to make their most intimate decisions without governmental interference and discrimination.

(2) One of the most private and difficult decisions an individual makes is whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy. Those reproductive health decisions are best made by women, in consultation with their loved ones and health care providers.

(3) In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479), and in 1973, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) and Doe v. Bolton (410 U.S. 179), the Supreme Court recognized that the right to privacy protected by the Constitution encompasses the right of every woman to weigh the personal, moral, and religious considerations involved in deciding whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy.

(4) The Roe v. Wade decision carefully balances the rights of women to make important reproductive decisions with the State's interest in potential life. Under Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the right to privacy protects a woman's decision to choose to terminate her pregnancy prior to fetal viability, with the State permitted to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to protect a woman's life or health.

(5) These decisions have protected the health and lives of women in the United States. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, an estimated 1,200,000 women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortions, despite the risk of unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration, and death. Before Roe, it is estimated that thousands of women died annually in the United States as a result of illegal abortions.

(6) In countries in which abortion remains illegal, the risk of maternal mortality is high. According to the World Health Organization, of the approximately 600,000 pregnancy-related deaths occurring annually around the world, 80,000 are associated with unsafe abortions.

(7) The Roe v. Wade decision also expanded the opportunities for women to participate equally in society. In 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833), the Supreme Court observed that, `[t]he ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.'.

( cool 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.

(13) Although Congress may not create constitutional rights without amending the Constitution, Congress may, where authorized by its enumerated powers and not prohibited by the Constitution, enact legislation to create and secure statutory rights in areas of legitimate national concern.

(14) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I of the Constitution and section 5 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution to enact legislation to facilitate interstate commerce and to prevent State interference with interstate commerce, liberty, or equal protection of the laws.

(15) Federal protection of a woman's right to choose to prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this affirmative power of Congress, in part, because--

(A) many women cross State lines to obtain abortions and many more would be forced to do so absent a constitutional right or Federal protection;

(B) reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and

(C) reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and other personnel who travel across State lines in order to provide reproductive health services to patients.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) GOVERNMENT- The term `government' includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official (or other individual acting under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State.

(2) STATE- The term `State' means each of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory or possession of the United States.

(3) VIABILITY- The term `viability' means that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--

(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which the provision is held to be unconstitutional, shall not be affected thereby.

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.


The opposition to this Act, I think, is that the language of this Act is vague enough to overturn some previous legislation, like the Hyde Amendment (which prohibits Federal tax money funding abortion). I don't think it would actually allow for Federal funding of abortion (since it should only effect legislation that makes abortion illegal before viability). It would, obviously, overturn the Partcial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. And it is, very obviously, intended to prevent Roe v. Wade from ever being overturned.

I am unsure what effect it would have on waiting periods and parental consent laws. Those simply modify the actions a pregnant couple/woman must do before getting an abortion - but do not (necessarily) prevent them from getting an abortion. Section 4 states: "A government may not...discriminate against [the proposed right to elective abortion until viability] in the regulations or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information." And I am not really sure if this is intended to overturn the regulations that States have put on elective abortion - or just more to make sure that Roe v. Wade can't be overturned.

Personally, I have to say that I agree with what the current Freedom of Choice Act proposes. But I don't really think it is necessary to pass a Federal Act about it. I guess I'm trying to say that I also agree with how laws are currently, for the most part. I don't see the need to try and prevent Roe v. Wade from ever being overturned. I guess I don't really see the point in trying to pass this. Maybe just to give Congress something to debate about (other than Gay Marriage - so they don't have to deal with that).
Reply
Pro-Life/Pro-Choice Discussion

 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum