News-Record.com

Freedom of Choice Act - Declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to: (1) bear a child; (2) terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or (3) terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.

Prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from: (1) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or (2) discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively.

Authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to obtain appropriate relief, including relief against a governmental entity, in a civil action.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1173&tab=summary

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:s1173:

FOCA will be interpreted to mean that if I don't pay for somebody's abortion, I am "interfering with her rights." Just like RICO, meant for organized crime, was used against peaceful, unarmed protesters. These laws have nice-sounding words, but they are scary things in the the hands of judges who do as they please.

My LTE that - apparently - the N-R editors felt not good enough to waste ink upon:

=

The N-R has printed several LTE’s about abortions, resulting in the predictable “killing unborn children” opposite “abortion on demand” arguments and equally predictable lack of mind movement.

I’ve been trying to understand the high rate of abortions, well over a million every year, and recently heard an interview featuring Susan Hill of the National Women's Health Organization. She told how her life’s work was inspired decades ago by a Dr. who “got into the business” after trying to save a woman who suffered a back-alley abortion. He did his best yet the woman died because of the back alley butcher.

The NWHO directed me to the CDC: The abortion rate is 20 per 1,000 women, mostly under 25, white, and unmarried. Eighty eight percent were within 13 weeks; constitutional according to 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices, with 5 of the 7 nominated by Republican Presidents.

I have personally known several young women - including friends of my teenage children - who had an abortion. None of their parents ever found out. Overturning Rowe v. Wade will stunt all discussion with independent people that could offer help, of which only one of many options is ending the pregnancy. More “girls in trouble” will make the rash decision to return the back alley.

for the record - I am literally pro-life but also pragmatic, meaning let this be a very tough and difficult decision made very early on with great thought and discourse.

What I find dis-ingenuous is the chant of "KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES .. unless it is about something we are concerned about, in which case the draconian g-man prevails."

I, too, am pro life. However, I think this difficult decision lies with the person who is pregnant. Therefore, I support pro choice.

I also support teaching birth control in schools, beginning in middle school. Knowledge of birth control will not cause young people to have sex. Lack of knowledge will not prevent them from having sex. Hormones rule at this age.

Quote from Obama:

On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.

Quote from Obama:

"That's above my pay grade".

He can't decide WHEN the murder should take place, but He's all FOR it taking place.

"Prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from...."

That basically wipes out any state laws that exist and creates one national abortion law, or lack thereof you might say. This includes eliminating parental notification and bans on partial birth abortion, both of which are prevalent in most states. The ultimate dream of the pro-abortion lobby.

Notice the wording uses the term 'woman'. Is a 14 year old considered a woman who can make these choices on her own?

"What I find dis-ingenuous is the chant of "KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES .. unless it is about something we are concerned about, in which case the draconian g-man prevails."

Abortion is different in that regard because many see it as murder. Arguably the vast majority of people would agree with the existing laws against murder of born people right? Well some consider the unborn to be people as well.

Republicans are not going to outlaw abortion, otherwise Reagan and/or two Bush presidents would have attempted it. The most they will do is allow states to have some control over the issue but not outright bans on common abortions, i.e. not late term/partial birth.

Democrats, as witnessed under FOCA, seek one national law permitting unfettered abortion, period, meanwhile denying the states and their citizens any 'choice' in the matter.

"...discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information."

Hmmm, what does that mean? A woman (or a girl) cannot be denied benefits, facilities or services?

Democrats will likely argue under the above that govt. should pay for abortions of lower income women under Medicaid and that insurance companies should pay as well. Just a guess, but I forsee taxpayer funded abortions with an Obama presidency and Democratic controlled Congress.

This is where I diverge from Obama, et al. I note what Dan says, that Citizens who oppose abortion as contraception have no voice. We are accused of trying to force unwanted pregnancies on unwilling women, which is an absurd argument unless one were to personally participate in the conception.

Abortion to save the life of the mother is valid, and I would cede rape, as well. But to just kill a baby because one is too lazy or what? to use contraception? I can't condone it, it is not "choice". And this late term/partial birth stuff is just undeniably barbaric and unreasonable. There simply is no valid argument to be made for it except as medical emergency to save the life of the mother.

I would be happy to see BILLIONS of dollars poured into government-FUNDED contraception, adoption and education programs. I am willing to contribute taxes to this fund. I also support collection of costs from the slack or lazy father who was unwilling to wrap it up. Parental notification should be a requirement except in cases that would be inappropriate, such as parental rape, etc.

Pregnancy is a choice made by two people. It is a not a "risk" it is a result of a choice then action.

This cycle the right doesn't like what I am saying and next cycle I doubt the left will. Yet it will be the exact same thing.

"it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to: (1) bear a child"

That's a touch of genius for the bill to state that a woman has the right to bear a child. Absolutely brilliant. Who can argue with that? You vote against that bill, and you will be accused of being against a woman wanting to bear her own child.

This bill sounds so reasonable, but once you remove the individual state's ability to place any reasonable limits upon abortion, it will become a free fire zone on the unborn.

Consider that this law would strip out any safeguards reserved for the states to regulate in Roe vs. Wade. There will be nothing to prevent open murder of the unborn. Roe vs. Wade stated: Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life. The court specified that state's could regulate some aspects of abortion.

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.

Clarification :
"I am willing to contribute taxes to this fund."
should read "I am willing to contribute my taxes to this fund.'

Dan,

If you think tax-funded abortions are not happening under the Bush administration, you are naive. Just as euthanasia exists in states where it is illegal. We simply do not call it abortion or euthanasia. So you can eliminate that scare tactic from your repertoire.

It simply amazes me that people who oppose abortion are the same one's who scream about their taxes going to support those children who are born to poor mothers. I am in total agreement people should not be having children if they cannot afford to care (feed, clothe, take them to the doctor, house them, nurture them) for them but am pragmatic enough to know we cannot control that. We cannot legislate morality.

It seems (to me anyway) that the pro-life stance is a contradiction of itself. You (all) want to prevent a woman from making her own choice, thus forcing her to birth a baby, a baby that she can't (or doesn't want to) care for, but then you (all) don't want to care for it either. It seems your goal is to interfere with a woman's right to terminate said baby only. There is no thought or concern for said baby's life after he/she is brought into an environment that is not conducive to his/her growth or nurturing.

BTW, I have stated many, many times I am NOT pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. It is my opinion most of the people who believe in a woman's right to speak for herself feel this way. I, for one, would appreciate the respect of acknowledgment that pro-choice and pro-abortion are not one and the same (as almost all of you suggest).

Clarification: You (all) should read "most all of you)

verelse said "This cycle the right doesn't like what I am saying and next cycle I doubt the left will. Yet it will be the exact same thing."

Good for you--that means you always say the some thing based on your principles, no matter what others say about you. Guess that means you aren't a politician : )

MamaB,

Vereise is an exception to the typical pro-life stance as he is willing to spend his money to support the care of babies once they are born, educate kids and adults so as to prevent the pregnancy to begin with and support exceptions for the health of the mother. Although he is clearly against abortion (as are most of us), he is not hard-nosed and close-minded. It is not an all black or all white issue with him, or should I say, it doesn't seem to be based on his posts.

Thank you for the sentiment, mamab and Yvonne.
I have met a lot of pro-lifers that give their time and their money to helping mothers keep their children.

Dole is now toast!

Her ad portraying Kay Hagan as "Godless" took her down to the Jesse Helms' level of campaigning.

The Republican party is not worthy of being on the ballot with that type of crap.

NORTH CAROLINA SENATOR KAY HAGAN....has a nice ring to it.

P.S. I've known the Hagan family for years, and Dole's latest ad is an abomination----not an anomaly for the GOP though.

Please enlighten me regarding tax payer funded abortions under the Bush admin. Yvonne.

We've been down this road many many times before. I too am pragmatic and realize that abortion isn't going to be outlawed. That is a scare tactic from the pro-abortion lobby.

Likewise you don't find me picketing in front of abortion clinics trying to prevent women from entering. Women can go have their abortions all day long, they can answer to God later.

What I do support is states having some say so in the matter based upon the desires of their citizens, namely including parental notification for minors and banning late term and partial birth abortions unless the mother clearly WILL DIE without it.

As stated prior, I don't support a federal law that allows unfettered abortion on a national level, thus depriving states and their citizens of any input.

As for your other argument regarding pro-life people not wanting care for babies and children who are lucky enough to be born, pure BS. There are many organizations who help with adoption and care of these children in addition to govt. support. I want these children helped, but there should be a balance to discourage people to have children they cannot care for. That could include contraception as verelse notes.

Your argument sounds as if once a child is born then pro-life people want him/her to die in the street. Nonsense.

Bottom line of this letter, there should not be a national law allowing unfettered abortion for anyone at any time during a pregnancy, including partial birth with the one exception noted.

Dan said: “... wipes out any state laws that exist and creates one national abortion law … ”

As I understand things, that was the basic purpose of R v Wade. Each state had its own law, and girls (at least one was a personal friend but not a lover) would either travel hundreds of miles out of state to an unknown Dr. or slip into some back alley to obtain the services of an unknown Doctor or non-Doctor.

“Well some consider the unborn to be people as well” ... fine. Some also consider the mentally-gone homeless to be people as well ... which must include some of the 200,000 “patriotic veterans” … but for the good of mankind apparently we can let them live under the overpass and diss’ them as we walk past to providing a tip to the waiter ... so I find that whole argument inconsistent. For what it’s worth “but they’re people too” is the classic liberal whine.

Sorry .. as I read FOCA .. it clearly does not say “permitting unfettered abortion”. Please show me where that is written.

FOCA may denying each State the draconian option of “Not on my soil”, but it clearly does not deny citizen 'choice' in the matter. Please show me where that is written.

"What I do support is ... parental notification for minors ... "

That's a tricky one my wife an I often grapple with. You involve the parents thay may "force" the child one way or the other - a way that may or may not be best. Interprate (sp) that as you wish .. that' why it's a tricky one my wife an I often grapple with.

"What I do support is ... and banning late term abortions unless the mother clearly WILL DIE without it." See Below -re: Mother Superior ...

“Citizens who oppose abortion as contraception have no voice” = Total BS, verelse.

Citizens who oppose abortion – or anything else – have all the voice they need. How about community outreach? How about church? How about responsible parenting? How about … the list is limited only by your imagination. You think those who are “too lazy” to use contraception should carry to full term .. I agree .. but use the bully pulpit not the bully stick, which is simply wanting g-man intervention to solve a problem the generic you cannot solve by persuasive argument.

Let me suggest if one cannot solve by persuasive argument one may not have a strong case.

… this late term/partial birth stuff ... is also relatively rare - several thousand a year - and much of that is “as medical emergency to save the life of the mother” … but the law as it currently stands (Bushy signed, November 2003) interjects g-men between the Dr. and the patient ... EXACTLY the BS intervention the anti-universal health care people speak so LOUDLY against .. so they want it both ways: g-men when they want them, no g-men when they don’t.

It is aften portrayed as more common than calling Roto-Rooter. Sure there are the rare jerks – we all know the true story of the girl who delivered her baby during the prom and dumped “it” in the trash can.

The sad part is most “pro-lifers” are LOUD about not granting any exception for medical emergencies that would save the life of the mother .. because that opens the lid door on the can of abortion-worms. This includes the traditional catholic church view which gives authority to the Mother Superior: Does she let the slut die [unwed + pregnant = slut] if the life of an innocent can be saved? Hell yes is the obvious answer.

ORR – I’m not a lawyer, but as you say – “This bill sounds so reasonable”.

Reading your stuff - do you not find ironic your whine about “remov[al of] the individual state's ability to place any reasonable limits upon abortion … “ ... but you certainly supported the law Bushy signed in November 2003 that interjects g-men between the Dr. and the patient - defacto removing the individual states righta to place reasonable limits upon abortion … ??

The rest of your stuff seems hyperbolic: “ … it will become a free fire zone on the unborn … There will be nothing to prevent open murder of the unborn”. Whatever and Whatever. See above: “Citizens who oppose abortion as contraception have no voice.

"Sorry .. as I read FOCA .. it clearly does not say “permitting unfettered abortion”. Please show me where that is written."

Looks pretty clear to me, it doesn't say permit but it says not govt. can prohibit it. That means permit.

Prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from: (1) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices;

No govt. can deny nor interfere.....

How do you interpret it?

Also as I said, it uses the term woman. Who is a woman? 18 years or older?

Do do do....

...the important part of FOCA as introduced in the Senate...

"(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."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2020::

Makes abortions legal before viability as determined by a Doctor...not a Washington suit, and after viability only if the life or health of the mother is at risk.

I don't know if that fits your definition of unfettered or not...but it seems fettered to me.

Still waiting on the definition of a woman.

"in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information."

I asked earlier what that means and don't remember a response. Information I can understand but the others?

Generally a woman is a human being with, what does Oprah call it? A Va-Jay-Jay? Generally, Dan that's a woman.

So my six year old daughter is a woman? She's got one of them thangs you mentioned.

I think it's two issues, Dan.

One is "females" rights - herein labled "woman".

The other is the age of majority, which varies from state to state and issue to issue (driving, drinking, voting, etc.).

Regardless .. it's a bit irrelevant to the general topic, or at least only tangent. After all, if that's the only isuue holding up global acceptance of my arguments, I'll gladly call Mrs. Boxer and have it included in the legislation.

I have to take issue with this term "pro-abortion". Is anyone REALLY pro-abortion? So you honestly think that there is a group of people actively looking for pregnant females (to include both those over and under the age of consent) and encouraging them to terminate their pregnancies?

No one believes that abortion is a GOOD idea, but there are times that it is the best idea for that individual. And that is not up to the government nor is it up to you and me unless we are directly involved. It is up to the female (still staying away from that contaversial word "woman") and her physician. Personally, I believe that she should involve her partner and/or her family, but each situation is different that may not always be safe.

Granted, the best choice is to prevent the preganacy, but even some of the best birth control methods fail. Not all females who are physically able to reproduce are mentally or emotionally capable of doing so. The term "pro-choice" means exactly what it says ... giving those in a difficult situation a choice.

"So you honestly think that there is a group of people actively looking for pregnant females (to include both those over and under the age of consent) and encouraging them to terminate their pregnancies?"

Of course not, TG ... but there are several hundred thousand each year that have sex with the sole intent of getting pregnant so they can then enjoy the thrill of abortion. Some even do it several times a year .. the rush becomes addictive.

Well said, TG...I hope your last paragraph was in jest, JDR, but it seems that some think this is true.

An unwanted pregnancy is a tragedy to the mother and sometimes the father. There is no easy solution. And it is the female who must either abort or give birth. Neither is easy.

Interesting points TG. It prompted something I'd never thought much about.

47% of the 2% (total) of women who have abortions every year have had one before.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

With the average time between the two (or more) abortions being 27 months, and with 7% of the 47% having 4+ abortions.

Wow.

TGordon wrote
"Granted, the best choice is to prevent the preganacy, but even some of the best birth control methods fail. "

Are you suggesting that these abortions are all the result of failed birth control? I would suggest that they are primarily used *as* birth control.

The availability of cheap abortions has increased unwanted pregnancy.

Roger's stats are frightening and confirm my point.

" … 7% of the 47% having 4+ abortions … "

... told ya it was a rush!

Seriously: assume a million a year, that’s about 500,000 multiples .. and 7% is about 35,000.

So of the 150,000,000 women in the USA, 35,000 arguably use abortion as an easy fix for easy sex .. that’s 150,000,000 / 35,000 or 1 in 4285 women who are skanky-hoe qualified.

Greensboro has a population of 250,000, half or 125,000 are women so 125,000 / 4285 means there are 30 skanky whores in Greensboro.

Anyone surprised at that number? On any given night you can see that many walking bow-legged into any given Wal-Mart.

With the average time between the two (or more) abortions being 27 months – let’s call it 2 years .. that’s 15 a year.

And who will be the children of these skanky whore’s? Darn few Rocket Scientists … assume none

... so here’s your choice:

You can force them to have their 15 babies per year, paying for the maternity hospitals and not including the added costs of medically difficult births .. then waste 8 to 10 years of de-facto day-care in a public school … then be not surprised as the population of lazy crack-head gangsta’s steadily increases so you can later pay also for more police and more prisons … or ... you can simply let them have their abortions and be done.

=

… and even I am not sure how much I am kidding

"I have to take issue with this term "pro-abortion".

From the NOW website:

"Reversing Roe is only one of several parallel long-term strategies of the anti-abortion movement."

http://www.now.org/nnt/winter-2007/viewpoint.html

Using the terminology of NOW, the opposite of anti-abortion is pro-abortion.

BTW, read the bit about 'fetal personhood'. They are fighting tooth and nail to prevent a fetus from being considered a person despite what modern science and especially ultrasound clearly reveal as the truth.

NARAL uses a different term for 'pro-life', they call it 'anti-choice'. It's all a matter of terminology.

FWIW, I'm fine with multiple abortions, and, the more I think about it, the abortion ideal in general. Self-selecting themselves and their traits out of the gene pool *at their own choosing* is probably socially helpful overall.

Heck, perhaps we should encourage it.

Obama '08

... kinda funny ... I agree with one "ultimate goal [of the anti-abortion movement, which is] to end abortion ... use entirely, by any woman in any state .. "

I just do not understand why this has to have g-man involvement vs. a universally personal understanding it is the right thing to do.

... it's modern day Darwinism, roger!

"They are fighting tooth and nail to prevent a fetus from being considered a person despite what modern science and especially ultrasound clearly reveal as the truth."

.. not until the well into the first trimester, Dan ... with over half in under 8 weeks - before your fabled heartbeat - and 88% within 11 weeks.

"They are fighting tooth and nail to prevent a fetus from being considered a person despite what modern science and especially ultrasound clearly reveal as the truth."

.. not until the well into the first trimester, Dan ... with over half in under 8 weeks - before your fabled heartbeat - and 88% within 11 weeks.