"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." -- Senator Barack Obama, speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007
WHAT IT IS:
Simply put, the Freedom of Choice Act (first introduced in 1989) would rid America of any laws on parental consent, partial-birth abortion, who can perform the abortions, etc. In a word, it will remove ALL abortion laws.
The wording of the bills in Congress (one in the Senate and one in the House) are the same and are as follows:
• (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 –
o (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.
o (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
The bill also states:
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.
WHAT IT WILL DO:
The bill will add approximately 125,000 more deaths to abortion yearly.
It will remove laws concerning parental involvement, late term abortions, protection laws on individual health care providers, protection laws for institutions, bans on partial-birth abortion, counseling requirements prior to abortions, and mandatory ultrasounds before abortions. In other words, by removing all restrictions, the Freedom of Choice Act will make abortion even more dangerous for the woman in a variety of ways.
The FOCA creates a new fundamental “right” to abortion, giving a person’s right to abortion at the same level as freedom of speech (although, as Denise Burke points out, freedom of speech is specifically mentioned in the Constitution and abortion rights are not).
The FOCA also destroys any government restrictions on financing abortions. Thus, your hard-earned money will go to fix others’ mistakes (sounds like the Bailout…).
WHAT THE PRO-CHOICE GROUP HAS TO SAY:
Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards stated on April 19, 2007:
"It's time for Congress to stand up for women's health, women's safety, and a woman's right to make her own medical decisions. American women deserve the protection of federal law to preserve their right to make personal health care decisions free of government intrusion. We call on Congress to pass the Freedom of Choice Act."
Obviously, Planned Parenthood hopes this bill will pass, regardless of its risks for women.
NARAL’s website also supports the bill, stating that this bill will guarantee the right to choose (although, in the process, it’ll hurt and kill many of the women who “choose” abortion).
The FOCA will destroy any laws helping women. Destroying laws on who can perform and where abortions can be preformed is not helping women’s health or safety. In addition, removing mandatory counseling makes abortion even more dangerous for women’s emotional health. Thus, the FOCA is not in the name of women’s rights. Instead, it will strip women of many basic rights, like knowing what is going on and having a certified doctor performing the surgery. Is it really in the name of women’s rights or is it in the name of money, that these pro-choice organizations are pushing FOCA?
Even Planned Parenthood admits that the FOCA will remove “targeted and medically unnecessary regulations”. Are these physician-only laws so horrible that they are ‘unnecessary?” I beg to differ. Many young women who have abortions are vulnerable and scared. Enacting laws to protect the women by regulating who can legally perform an abortion is in the woman’s best interest and out of love for her. By removing these laws, we are subjecting thousands of frightened girls to the terrors of unknown and likely to crooks who will take advantage of their vulnerability. The laws that will potentially be removed through FOCA are laws protecting women. We MUST stop FOCA.
WHAT THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT HAS TO SAY:
The pro-life movement is stressing the freedom of women and the unborn.
Cardinal Rigali wrote an excellent letter to Congress on behalf of the USCCB. In his letter, Cardinal Rigali wisely pointed out that some laws on abortion support women and that the Freedom of Choice Act will put women in danger. One of these dangers are “unscrupulous and dangerous abortionists” (in other words, abortionists without licenses). Another danger is taking away the parental rights. In the schools, parents must be notified before giving a child an aspirin. However, with these new laws, girls will be allowed to undergo life-threatening procedures without the parents even being aware of it! Thus, the Freedom of Choice Act does not support women’s rights.
Americans United for Life is also opposing the bill. Vice President of Legal Affairs, Denise Burke, states that the FOCA bill will not make abortions safe, but rather actively promotes abortion and does nothing to ensure the safety of the woman.
Various city and state pro-life groups are also speaking out in opposition to the Freedom of Choice Act.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, even those who are pro-choice should oppose the Freedom of Choice Act. If pro-choicers are really in it for the sake of women’s rights, then they need to recognize women’s rights to safety and knowledge. The pro-choice and pro-life movements should unite in opposing this bill that not only destroys thousands of innocent lives, but also destroys women’s rights. Thus, the Freedom of Choice Act does not please the true advocates of either party and receives two thumbs down.
Let your voice be heard. Sign a petition opposing the Freedom of Choice Act TODAY:
http://www.fightfoca.com/
Sources:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2020:
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issues/abortion/access-to-abortion/freed...
http://www.nrlc.org/foca/PPFAfoca-questions-12445.mht
http://www.nrlc.org/foca/index.html
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4359.html
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=29839
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=11682&search=foca
http://www.nrlc.org/foca/USCCBRigaliLetterOnFOCA.pdf
http://www.aul.org/foca
Pictures:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/images/ppobama270208.jpg
http://billarnold.typepad.com/photos/portraits/valliam.jpg
http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper877/stills/43d5d5ae9ff95-84...
http://monetslilies.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/21/narallog...
http://www.wcsg.org/graphics/ecards/life1_lg.jpg
http://www.christianshirts.net/images/designs/large/obamanationcr350.jpg
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumb_43/1141332730Y9Fo6r.jpg
Of all things to dispute, you find that irrelevant piece of info to dispute? Unless there are 100% of women who have had abortions develop breast cancer, "abortion causes breast cancer" IS a LIE. The bra I'm wearing might give me breast cancer. Answering my cellphone could give me brain cancer. Well, you get the idea. Everything causes cancer and true cause and effect take decades upon decades to figure out and even that isn't definitive.
You seem to have written your blog as though all of us social liberals are all about trying to get knocked up so we could get abortions. It's not something most women look forward to. It's not something most women just do on a whim. A woman goes through her emotional anguish just to get to the clinic. She might opt for more information, but she should not be forced to listen, and not be forced to wait. Why traumatize a woman by showing her an ultrasound? She's well aware of what she's doing at that clinic.
Some women don't find out until far into the pregnancy. These women oftentimes can't afford the time to think about it.
The FOCA also destroys any government restrictions on financing abortions. Thus, your hard-earned money will go to fix others’ mistakes (sounds like the Bailout…).
Mistakes? Abortion could now theoretically include most contraceptives. Most insurance companies don't pay much on birth control pills and very few for other methods. I fail to see your logic.
I am pro-life when it comes to the born. (And no one is pro-abortion, it's pro-choice, for each individual woman.) I'm anti-war. I don't like seeing tax money going so heavily into the current wars, and the majority of the population agrees with that. Yet, there is no choice in that matter.
As crude as it is, anti-abortion equals pro-coat hanger. Keep women as safe as possible; don't send them back to back alleys. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean that you can or should make the decision that each individual woman may have to make and live with..
Let's actually get to the real problem. We don't have true honest sex education. We all know how well Just Say No worked for drugs, and it isn't working with sex either. Give some true facts, not the slanted ones the abstinence-only programs preach. Teach young people how to deal with sex, and not just hormones and the physical act, but also the emotional side and safety when they decide they're ready.
-Sonja :)
"I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" ~ Peter Finch as Howard Beale, 1976, "Network"
1) I didn't mention breast cancer in my blog, so IDK where that came from. Fine. "Women who have had abortions have an increased risk of breast cancer, according to statistics and studies." Better?
2) No, she's not aware, and that's the problem. She's being fed lies, agrees with the lies, and regrets her decision later. No, it's not a fun decision and it's not made on a whim, but it's made 3000 times DAILY and it's not fair to the baby or to the woman. Women's rights includes knowledge, and most women don't have an adequate knowledge of what's happening and it's time that the PP and NOW and NARAL stood up for a woman's right to KNOWLEDGE.
3) For example, the FOCA would get rid of the Mexico City Policy, which states that any government funded organization (*cough* Planned Parenthood) cannot fund or promote abortions in other countries. If we get rid of that, not only will our tax dollars be going to PP for abortions in this country, but in other countries as well. We're already stealing from Peter to pay Paul...why does our money have to go to help people kill innocent human life?
4) I want women to be safe as long as abortion is legal (and if it's illegal, then people always have to suffer for illegal actions anyway). However, this FOCA will NOT keep women safe. It will hurt women more than anything, and I really hope it doesn't pass.
5) Sex ed is stupid...I can't think of any other word for it. We shouldn't be teaching our kids about stuff like that! Gosh, I was 12 before I knew what sex was. That's how things should be. Without the knowledge, there won't be the desire. Once the knowledge is there, knowledge about how important abstinence is should come. Then we'd see a lower teenage pregnancy rate.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
1) I didn't mention breast cancer in my blog, My blog post had nothing to do about it.
You didn't bring it up, but you DID defend the fraudulent claim that abortions cause breast cancer after it was mentioned.
Fine. "Women who have had abortions have an increased risk of breast cancer, according to statistics and studies." Better?
Better? Not really. Why? Because it still isn't true.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Simply put, the Freedom of Choice Act (first introduced in 1989) would rid America of any laws on parental consent, partial-birth abortion, who can perform the abortions, etc.
Bullshit. The Freedom of Choice Act will require governments to treat abortion just like any other similar medical procedure. It will still have to be performed by trained doctors, in licensed clinics or hospitals, in a safe and sanitary manner, just like any other legal medical procedure.
What it won't allow is for burdensome anti-choice restrictions (waiting periods, forced ultrasounds, lies about breast cancer, etc.) that do NOT help women and do NOT make abortion any safer.
The Freedom of Choice Act will also protect women's right to give birth when, where and how they choose. No more hospitals attempting to force c-sections and other interventions on unwilling women.
Is it really in the name of women’s rights or is it in the name of money, that these pro-choice organizations are pushing FOCA?
Planned Parenthood is a non-profit charity much like the Salvation Army, so obviously money has nothing to do with it. The Freedom of Choice Act will safeguard women's health and rights as human beings.
No, FOCA is going to make abortions even more difficult for women. In addition, the information about breast cancer is not a LIE. It's what you don't want to hear. I'm really getting sick of the liberals thinking that anything they don't agree with is automatically a lie. Sometimes, THE TRUTH HURTS.
PP is a billion dollar organization. Check their financial records o.O You can find them on their website. THEN tell me that money has nothing to do with it.
The Freedom of Choice Act will hurt women and take away the simplest rights of a human being: life.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
...but the fact is that the claim that having an abortion causes breat cancer is spurious and has been thoroughly refuted in the relevant literature.
This is just one more example of the frank dishonesty that pervades the anti-abortion movement.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
1) Karen Malec, President of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, had an article that appeared in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, making connections between abortions and breast cancer.
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no4/correspondence.pdf
2) Joel Brind, PhD wrote an article that appeared in forementioned journal (oh, and please note that JPS is a peer-reviewed journal) stating that ignoring the potential connection is ridiculous.
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no2/brind.pdf
3) "Dr. Janet Daling, an abortion supporter, and her colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center were commissioned by the National Cancer Institute to conduct a study to determine if induced abortion raises breast cancer risk. The study found that, "among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women.""
http://www.lifechoices4states.org/breastcancerabortionlink.htm
4) The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute states that the single most avoidable breast cancer risk factor is an elective abortion.
http://www.bcpinstitute.org/brochure.htm
5) Finally, there's the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer that has an entire website dedicated to the ABC link.
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/index.html
Still dishonest?
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
You can always find a few people who are willing to continue to perpetuate a conspiracy theory even after the facts come to light.
Karen Malec and Joel Brind are both pro-life activists who are noteable for their marked diagreement with the overwhelming consensus in the medical comminity regarding the falsity of these claims. Karen Malec founded the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. Joel Brind founded The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute along with Angela Lanfranchi, another pro-life activist. The only one of your sources who is not specifically a political pro-life activist is Dr. Janet Daling, who did raise concerns about the possibility of a breast cancer/abortion link back in the early nineties, but whose later research led her to conclude that her original claims were unfounded...
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
So you're saying that just because their views happen to differ from yours, that automatically makes them wrong, even though their works were published in a peer-reviewed journal? o.O
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
There was a legitimate question back in the early nineties about this issue. However, once that issue was studied, the proposed connection in Bind's article simply did not hold up under scrutiny. Just getting published in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't mean you're right. That's why I pointed out the fact that Dr. Daling had revised her opinion, based on the results of later research. This is a common practice among pro-lifers...i.e. to quote older research that has been debunked by later findings. Again...its dishonest.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
The articles by Brind and Malec are recent articles. o.O
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
...and it would be sad if you hadn't already earned such a reputation for posting inaccurate and biased source material in your blogs. These "articles" run contrary to the published research opinions of all the major medical associations, which isn't surprising when we consider the easily identifiable bais of your sources. Although this will not be likely to convince YOU, the research published by the American Medical Association should clear this up for our readers...
"Among this predominantly premenopausal population, neither induced nor spontaneous abortion was associated with the incidence of breast cancer."
"A comprehensive analysis of studies from around the world concludes there is no link between having an abortion and breast cancer (Lancet. 2004;363:1007-1016)."
I challenge you to provide an position statement from ANY major medical association that supports your position. You won't find EVEN ONE such organzation, and I would suggest that you would even have a hard time finding a minor organization that would agree that does not also have a pre-stated bias towards the pro-life movement.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
No, I'm just making sure you're aware that they are recent articles.
Secondly, I have already provided a source. You're real specific about peer-reviewed journals, so I provide one. Then you tell me it's still not good enough. My only conclusion is that you aren't going to change your mind, no matter what I say because my views and proof doesn't agree with your mentality.
Finally, EVERYTHING has a bias and just because someone is pro-life, that does not mean that they are WRONG.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Secondly, I have already provided a source. You're real specific about peer-reviewed journals, so I provide one.
Actually, no...you didn't. Something was bothering me about your reference to the "the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons," of whom I had never heard, so I looked up the organization. Formerly known of as the Medical Sentinel, this "journal" represents a small group (consisting of only about 4000 members) that is actually "a controversial politically conservative non-profit organization of physicians, medical professionals and students, patients and others founded in 1943." It actually has relatively few doctors on its rolls, and while it claims to be a peer-reviewed journal, it "is not listed in the major literature databases of MEDLINE/PubMed nor the Web of Science." Heck, even QuackWatch lists the "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (formerly Medical Sentinel)" as a "Fundamentally Flawed" publication.
So once again, your claims fall apart under close scrutiny. The pervasive dishonesty of the pro-life movement has become so ingrained, that even its advocates are often unaware of the lies that they spread. That excuse will only save an honest advocate one time. If you continue to cite these sources after that dishonesty has been revealed to you, then you become a part of the lie.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Fine, I'll find something else.
But I would SERIOUSLY appreciate it if you would stop labeling me dishonest. I couldn't lie to save my life and it's slander for you to keep calling me dishonest. Ignorant, naive, whatever, but the whole dishonest thing really bugs me because it's not true and it's stupid to throw it in there. We're on this site to progress and you're stalking my blogs and calling out "LIAR" just because my blogs don't agree with you and my proof doesn't meet your standards is really pointless because it doesn't help you grow and it doesn't help me grow. Just because science hasn't proved something doesn't mean it's not true. Secondly, what's up with bringing up breast cancer anyway? My blog post had nothing to do about it. I'm sick of the irrelevant attacks you do, as well. So please stop it with the pettiness or don't bother posting on my blogs (and if you do, I'm just going to start ignoring you) because I'm getting really sick and tired of arguing with a science and media puppet who's only defense is that it's not scientifically proven and that I'm being dishonest or lying or whatever.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Fine, I'll find something else.
Hopefully, this time you will try harder to find a credible source to support your claims.
But I would SERIOUSLY appreciate it if you would stop labeling me dishonest. I couldn't lie to save my life and it's slander for you to keep calling me dishonest. Ignorant, naive, whatever, but the whole dishonest thing really bugs me because it's not true and it's stupid to throw it in there.
Ahem...
When you threw out this statement, you opened yourself up to a valid criticism.
We're on this site to progress and you're stalking my blogs and calling out "LIAR" just because my blogs don't agree with you and my proof doesn't meet your standards is really pointless because it doesn't help you grow and it doesn't help me grow.
And as you also said...
You didn't have any problem taking a dismissive tone when you threw out your "sources," and I am not prone to pity you after your comments, above. And I notice that YOUR don't have a problem throwing around the word "lie" whenever you think you have the upper hand, as you have elsewhere in this very discussion.
So, to quote a common turn of phrase, "people who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones." I also have to point back to what I told you, earlier...
That being said, I have to also note that even after your "breast cancer causes abortion" claim (and yes, it became your claim when you insisted above that "the information about breast cancer is not a LIE.") was shown to have been thoroughly debunked in the scientific literature, and after your sources for that information were shown to be highly biased, that they were creating their own organzations simply to promote their own views after being rejected by the legitimate scientific community, and that even the one credible source that you cited had recanted her former concens after futher study of the issue, you AGAIN made the same claim in your comment below where you said...
After everthing that was presented to you, I simply cannot accept that you are simply being "ignorant, naive, whatever." At this point, you are knowingly perpetuating a claim that clearly isn't supported by the research. If that's not "dishonest," then I don't know what is.
As for the standards of "proof" that I apply to you, are the same ones to which you will be held if you embark upon a path of higher education. While ProU does not officially require you to be honest, we do warn contest newbies to...
We also say on our About ProgressiveU page that...
Just because science hasn't proved something doesn't mean it's not true.
Aside from the fact that this is a logical fallacy, the counter-point isn't valid because what the science has proved is that the apparent link between abortions and breast cancer is not supported by the data. And, we're not just talking about a few scientists...were talking about an overwhelming concensus in the respected associations of the relevant fields.
Secondly, what's up with bringing up breast cancer anyway? My blog post had nothing to do about it.
I didn't bring up the cancer claim. I merely responded to YOUR assertion that the "abortions cause cancer" claim was "not a LIE."
I'm sick of the irrelevant attacks you do, as well.
The establishment of the crediblity (or lack thereof) of statments used in a debate is hardly "irrelevant." In a rational discussion, one cannot just make shit up and then expect the other side to take your argument at face value.
So please stop it with the pettiness or don't bother posting on my blogs (and if you do, I'm just going to start ignoring you) because I'm getting really sick and tired of arguing with a science and media puppet who's only defense is that it's not scientifically proven and that I'm being dishonest or lying or whatever.
You may ignore me if you wish. I am not really concerned about changing YOUR mind, anyway. It would be nice, of course, but I am far more concerned with our other readers, who might read your blogs and subsequently form an opinion based on the false information you have provided. As for who is the "puppet" here, I will leave it to those same readers to judge for themselves who is making the more convincing case.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.