Like Button

Thursday, October 16, 2008


Alright, I'm probably a late-comer to this issue, but I recently became aware of FOCA, the Freedom of Choice Act. It is an Act introduced by Barbara Boxer (along with Senators Corzine, Murray, Lautenberg, Clinton, Cantwell, Jeffords, Lieberman, Feinstein, Sarbanes, and Mikulski) in 2004. It is a somewhat rambling piece (okay, "rambling" in my view) that comes down to a very simple point:
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.
Other provisions in this "little" Act would include the requirement that this law would override "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." So ... if you want (like South Dakota did in 2006) to pass a law regarding limitations to this choice, you would be denied. If you wanted to make it a rule, for instance, that minors obtain parental permission, it would be denied. The will of the people is irrelevant. If a doctor has a personal belief that abortion is wrong, he or she would be operating against the law to refuse to do it. The will of the individual is irrelevant.

Another stunning thing about this Act is the length it goes to give permission. It first goes by "fetal viability." Now, fetal viability isn't a preset value. Medical science today sees 24 weeks as "fetal viability," the point at which a fetus can survive outside of the womb. However, there have been cases of babies surviving outside the womb as early as 20 weeks (and, of course, those that don't survive outside of the womb as late as, say, 36 weeks). So ... where is the line? And if medical science improves, does it move? Nonetheless, this Act goes beyond "fetal viability." It says that abortion is allowed "after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman." Now, try to define "the life or health of the woman." Is it the emotional health? Mental health? Is the woman's "life" endangered if it would be an extreme financial hardship? Who determines if something is a danger to a woman's life or health? What would prevent the abortion of a "viable fetus" -- a baby -- based purely on a woman's "right to choose"? (Don't be deceived. There are those that make that argument. "Carrying a fetus is a medical procedure. No one is obligated to undergo a medical procedure.")

There is, of course, the serious concern from the political arena today:
Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America. ... I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president. -- Senator Obama
Is it any surprise that Robert George would say "Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States"?


Jim Jordan said...

I was dumbfounded when McCain finally had a chance to mention this in a debate last night, and failed. The MSM has avoided Obama's abortion stance because they know he is not with the majority of Americans on this point. They recognize the battle is for the conservatives and independents disgruntled with the economy who are potential Obama voters. McCain needs to hammer BO on the abortion issue as well as Obama's "spread the wealth around" comment. Obama is horrible on social issues and will only aggravate our financial distress.

Stan said...


I would urge you to read the Robert George piece if you haven't already. It is really dumbfounding. I doubt that we can afford the Socialist "fixes" that Obama promises, but I know that killing more babies is not going to go well for us.