Maybe this a dumb question, but why do we need FOCA when we already have Roe V. Wade? Is it to nullify the Partial Birth Abortion Ban?

Nice fireworks, Jill!
Happy Independence Day!

VIDEO: "Face The Truth"

http://prolifeaction.org/truth/index.htm

Mike

While I oppose Senator Obama for the same essential reason you do Jill, I don't believe it is really accurate to say that the unborn child is an American.

This is why partial birth abortion was so particularly heinous. Once you are born within the U.S. you are a citizen. The unborn child has no legal status as a citizen.

Maybe this a dumb question, but why do we need FOCA when we already have Roe V. Wade? Is it to nullify the Partial Birth Abortion Ban?

Yes, and every other restriction on abortion, from what I've read.

Actually, Janet's question is very good.

Like most everything Jill writes, this article is false and extremely misleading. Obviously no president can sign FOCA unless it is passed by both the House and the Senate. The statement that Obama "could immediately sign it" is laughable. It has not even gotten out of committee.

If FOCA were to be passed, as a statute FOCA cannot, and is not intended to, reverse or modify Roe, which is based in the US Constitution. The intent is to codify the rights in Roe v. Wade.

If FOCA were to be passed, its effect on numbers of abortions, if any, is entirely speculative, just as whether McCain's election would in any way affect numbers of abortions, since it is very unlikely anything would change concerning abortion during a McCain administration

Just chalk it up as another unsubstantiated smear against Obama, as Jill cannot let more than 24 hours go by without an Obama hate-o-rama.

Uh, Bystander, Obama is the one who said "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act". If you've got a problem with his own words, take it up with him.

Prolifers have been incrementally making abortion less desirable. It's been hurting the profits of surg-abort and pharm-abort. These industries fund Obama and he will deliver to them. Like the Clintons, this will be the only campaign promise to which he adheres faithfully.

The liberal media has been been giving free advertising to the manufacturer and retailers of the morning after pill. This abysmally ineffective form of birth control is successful in creating an increased demand for abortion wherever it is sold over the counter. This pharma-abort product is the major non-governmental support for surg-abort. Obama will be sure to place this product in the hands of child molesters everywhere, and allow them the most free and easy access to the subsequent abortion services for their victims for whom this product will inevitably fail.

Prolifers have not really taken their job seriously enough. There has been a good effort to support women and give them options other than abortion. But there needs to be a more multipronged effort to reduce the demand for abortion.

Those who foster and support the abortion industry need to lose funding and social access. People who really are opposed to violence need to use every peaceful means at their disposal to remove influence and money from the pro-aborts. Your own financial resources need to be diverted to those businesses and service providers who share your pro-life ideology. Some construction firms have shown real commitment by refusing to build for abortionists. All other business owners need to do the same by refusing services to abortionists and those who support their presence. (Imagine, for example, ACLU lawyers unable to have their cars towed or repaired.)

Janet, you wrote: "Maybe this a dumb question, but why do we need FOCA when we already have Roe V. Wade?"

Let's say it's a poorly-informed question. Are you really unaware that there is a significant probability Roe/Wade will soon be overturned? Also, Roe/Wade is very good abortion policy but questionable (at least) constitutional interpretation. It will always be at risk. A Federal law would be better.

As I said before I'm not sure which laws would be nullified by FOCA. But I'm quite sure that making reproductive freedom independent of the Supreme Court is a much stronger motivating reason for FOCA than any desire to nullify laws like the PBA ban that currently place almost entirely symbolic limits on abortion.

Bystander, SoMG, Thanks for your comments.

If I understand this correctly:
Roe v. Wade interpreted the Constitution to take personhood away from an unborn baby.

FOCA will make abortion rights Federal Law.

So if R.v.W. is ever overturned (made unconstitutional) and there is no FOCA, the states will be able to write their own laws on abortion?

If R.v.W. is overturned (made unconstitutional) and FOCA is law,
then the states will have no power to enforce their own abortion laws and the right to abortion will be the law of the land?

Janet, I don't think R/W says anything about the personhood or not of the unborn.

But everything you said about FOCA in the immediately previous post is correct.

The main purpose of FOCA is to make reproductive freedom--which includes the right to abortion and the right not to have an abortion--independent from the Supreme Court.

Obama supports restrictions on abortion: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080703/D91MKQ681.html

do you agree with him SoMG? he's getting alot of flak for that statement by the left-wingers..

when is Obama going to decide who he is...

Two words on FoCA actually getting passed: "I wish."

Obama would need overwhelming support in the House and Senate to get this one done. I believe that Obama's support for the idea of such a law is more an act of rhetoric than anything else.

17.4%? Let's assume that the Heritage Foundation's stats can be trusted 100%. It only says that the abortion rate was "impacted" by anti-abortion laws. It doesn't seem to be claiming that all of the reduction was due to these laws.

I remember Guttmacher stats attributing the decline in the abortion rate to mostly increased use of contraception and partially to changed sexual behaviors, but I don't think they were looking at the same year span. Ah, here we are:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/opinion/26sat2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This NY Times writeup makes a good point: The Guttmacher stats, which cover 2000 to 2005, show that two-thirds of the decline in the abortion rate came from states that had few or no restrictions on abortion.

Perhaps the Heritage stats should be run through this lens. That might give everyone a better idea of what effect the FoCA might have.

Jasper, you wrote: "do you agree with him SoMG?"

Yes.

You wrote: "he's getting alot of flak for that statement by the left-wingers.."

It's all part of the plan.

DRF, you wrote: "Obama would need overwhelming support in the House and Senate to get this one done."

In the House he just needs a majority. In the Senate he needs sixty votes. There will not be sixty Democrats, but there may well be sixty pro-choice votes.

I think Senator Bob Casey (D-Pa) will vote against the bill but I wouldn't be surprised if he voted to end the filibuster, which is all we will need him to do.

Good SoMG, I didn't think you would prohibit late-term abortions for mental duress....

Obama supports restrictions on abortion: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080703/D91MKQ681.html

Posted by: SoMG at July 4, 2008 9:23 PM

SoMG:

I wouldn't believe anything a murdering abortionist like you would say about anything your savior Obama would do. And I though you weresure Hillary was going to take it all? Wrong again Captain Hook.

Abortion is murder and nothing but a complete ban is the right thing to do. None of you who come to this site browsing should believe anything this SoMG says. She's a murdering liar.

"Obama supports restrictions on abortion" as if that is supposed to be a good thing? Well I suggest we just legalize murder with restrictionz of course. You sick moral relatavist puppy.

HisMan, sure. The point is some RTLs like to say things like "Obama opposes all restrictions on abortion", and that's not true.

You wrote: "And I though you weresure Hillary was going to take it all? "

My correct prediction that the Kansas grand jury would not indict Dr. Tiller and that it would be because the laws he is supposed to have broken were of doubtful constitutionality, made up for that.

SoMG: 9:23: Obama supports restrictions on abortion: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080703/D91MKQ681.html

From the article you linked to:

A leading abortion opponent, however, said Obama's rhetoric does not match his voting record and his previously stated views on abortion rights.
David N. O'Steen, the executive director of National Right to Life, said Obama's remarks to the magazine "are either quite disingenuous or they reflect that Obama does not know what he is talking about."
"You cannot believe that abortion should not be allowed for mental health reasons and support Roe v Wade,"

O'Steen's got it right. Obama apparently doesn't know what he is talking about.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says "mental distress" should not qualify as a health exception for late term-abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights.

Isn't it ironic that Obama seems to be distancing himself from abortionist Dr. Tiller in Kansas where a grand jury recently voted NOT to indict Tiller????? Tiller's home state of Kansas allows partial birth abortions due to risks to the mental health of the pregnant mother.

Bystander @ 6:44 PM said Just chalk it up as another unsubstantiated smear against Obama, as Jill cannot let more than 24 hours go by without an Obama hate-o-rama.

Jill didn't write the article. Look at the by-line.

I didn't say Jill wrote the article. She will publish any smear against Obama that she can find.

Bystander, and you'll publish any smear against Jill you can invent.

Bystander @ 8:35 AM

Okay, so you labeled the article with your opinion, and you pointed out inaccuracies. Apparently you understand FOCA is an attempt to "codify" or cement abortion in a particular way. Obviously, there are many that feel that is wrong - both morally with abortion as an act, but additionally, as a political maneuver for various reasons.

Looking at the data -
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html

there's a very strong relationship between the legality of abortion and it's usage - meaning it's subjective and quite elective when the legal grounds are there.

I'd say combining Obama's defense of Induced labor abortion, with his advocating of FOCA, the writer of the article has a point - it has some merit.

I'd also agree - it's inaccurate that one can draw a direct correlation numbers-wise between such legislation and the results. That number is speculative.

Because there is some merit, to characterize this as a smear job is also inaccurate and doing so could rightly be characterized as a "smear" in itself, using the same standards.

I didn't always agree with Amanda, and at times I teased her terribly to make a point, but I did (and still do) respect her desire to see the level of discussion become more decent and respectful.

I also believe we need to see more of that here in these comments.

Bystander, you're banned for 2 weeks.

Janet, you quoted: ""You cannot believe that abortion should not be allowed for mental health reasons and support Roe v Wade,"

But Obama never said he believed that abortion should not be allowed for "mental health reasons". He said that he believed that abortion should not be allowed for "mental distress". That does not exclude mental health reasons other than distress.

Helena, Montana - Opponents of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban abortion by defining a fertilized human egg as a “person” announced Tuesday the measure has failed to gain enough support to qualify for the November ballot.

Constitutional Initiative 100 would have changed the constitution to define a “person” as a fertilized egg and conferred to them all the rights and responsibilities of citizens.

Supporters of the effort needed more than 44,000 signatures from Montana voters to qualify the proposed change for the November ballot. Opponents, led by a group of 25 organizations, said Tuesday that according to their research, proponents only gathered 21,280 signatures.

“We were able to educate Montanans about the real dangers of CI-100 before its extremist supporters crafted a unified message,” said Travis McAdam of the Montana Human Rights Network, one of the groups opposing.

Also, Obama was talking about abortion after viability, not abortion generally.

Wildman: FOCA would nullify the... ban on partial birth abortion. Infanticide would again be the law of the land.

Well, some people think that infanticide is legal now, since they think the conceptus, etc., is an "infant." Farfetched I know, but still...

The argument over D & X abortion is a valid one, IMO. Understood that lots of people don't like the idea of it, but the reason for it is that in an abortion the baby is going to die, and D & X is sometimes the best procedure, presenting less risk for the woman.

If there were no reasons for using the procedure, it wouldn't be an issue in the first place.
.....

Years of voter-approved limits to unlimited abortion-on-demand would be swept away by the stroke of then President Obama's pen.

As far as I know, that is not true. FOCA would merely give us what the Roe decision did, i.e. things would be little changed from what is now true, and as before the states could still restrict abortion past viability, just as they can now. FOCA is not about going beyond Roe, from what I've seen, but rather about protecting women's rights coming from the Roe decision that some have been seeking to chip away at.

SoMG:

The grand jury, the government, the legal system and all other man-made systems of the world are not the last word as you so erroneously believe, assume, hope for, and base your life on.

Tiller, like you, will both have to answer to a much, much higher authority for the destruction you have wrought on His Creation.

Like I said, "your full of yourself and of all the BS you promote".

She (Jill) will publish any smear against Obama that she can find.

Perhaps, but it's Jill's desire to have several topics each day.

I remember her saying that one of the ways to have a popular blog is to "blog a lot" - something to that effect.

Hey, Jill is our host here, and I wouldn't want to have to come up with multiple things every day, with other people helping or not.

We're free to agree or disagree to any extent, and free to read or not and respond or not, all at our leisure.

There's a lot of good discussion here, regardless of how "good" we think a given topic is, and heck - we're not going to agree anyway.

Doug, thanks for the good news about Montana. I doubt the law defining a fetus as a person would have passed Constitutional muster anyway.

SoMG, yeah - it was certainly doomed to be struck down as unconstitutional, just one more of those loony attempts by misguided legislators.

Same deal as why some states don't have restrictions on post-viability abortions - clownish, grandstanding "lawmakers" who think they can be sneaky and leech away people's rights.

HisMan, I'm sure your imaginary friend is very big and powerful.

Doug, I passed your 3:17 comment on to Jill. I am sure she will appreciate it very much.

SoMG: 1:44; Janet, you quoted: ""You cannot believe that abortion should not be allowed for mental health reasons and support Roe v Wade," See: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080703/D91MKQ681.html

But Obama never said he believed that abortion should not be allowed for "mental health reasons". He said that he believed that abortion should not be allowed for "mental distress". That does not exclude mental health reasons other than distress.

Why am I not surprised?

Bystander:

If FOCA were to be passed

Oh, and you want to take that chance?

If FOCA were to be passed, its effect on numbers of abortions, if any, is entirely speculative

Oh, and you want to take that chance?

Life's really cheap with you, no?

SoMG:

But I'm quite sure that making reproductive freedom independent of the Supreme Court is a much stronger motivating reason for FOCA than any desire to nullify laws like the PBA ban that currently place almost entirely symbolic limits on abortion.

IOW, Six of one and half a dozen of the other. And BTW, in this subject, for the sake of clarity, "reproductive freedom" is axed.

SoMG:

The main purpose of FOCA is to make reproductive freedom--which includes the right to abortion and the right not to have an abortion

So, by your definition it has nothing to do with reproduction! Rather, it's "unbridled freedom" without relationship. Whadda country!

SoMG:

Also, Obama was talking about abortion after viability, not abortion generally.

And could you give us the exact moment when that viability occurs? I don't believe little baby fearer Mr. Obama has that info either. Or, for that matter, does anyone else...especially these days when each day gives the scientific community a different result!

KC, so far your posts display an intelligence level typical of RTLs in the USA.

Yes, that's an insult. But to whom--KC, or other RTLs in the USA? I insult, you decide.

IOW, SoMG, you can't refute the facts or come up with any further factual explanations of your shell game generalities. That's usually the case with ad hominem replies. They're cover ups for reality check fears.

KC, I don't know who you are, but I like you!

There are relatively few things that the prophet Obama has spoken and written about with passion and conviction. One of them is abortion rights. That he has recently opined that mental distress should not be considered a justification for a late term abortion means absolutely nothing. Everyone knows he said that in an attempt to soften his image as a pro-abortion absolutist. It's worth trolling the pro-life waters for the voter or two that might be caught unawares of his otherwise extremist pro-abortion advocacy.

Furthermore, he is on record as saying the justices he would appoint to the SC will have to pass the "choice" litmus test. Couple this with the rah-rah session with his friends at Planned Parenthood that Jill cites and we have an acccurate picture of what Obama is all about.

Another thing about Obama's recent statement is that it really shows him to be calculating and opportunistic. If he feels there is an intrinsic value to life within the womb, enough so that he would deny the right to an abortion even in the most rare of occasions, he should be doing all within his power to protect that unborn life in every situation.

SoMG:

Also, Obama was talking about abortion after viability, not abortion generally.

And could you give us the exact moment when that viability occurs? I don't believe little baby fearer Mr. Obama has that info either. Or, for that matter, does anyone else...especially these days when each day gives the scientific community a different result!

Posted by: KC at July 5, 2008 6:33 PM
..............................

Science has yet to replicate gestational development and the women's role in such. When they do, you PL women will be unecessary any longer for the agenda.
When a man can simply ejaculate and have a scientist create a new human being with an artificially replicated ovum, all women are history.
How's that for a conspiracy theory?

Sally, the opposite is more likely. Soon women will be able to fertilize each other without men. I think we will learn how to transfer chromosomes from ova into denucleated sperm before we ever create a functional artificial uterus capable of sustaining zygotic, embryonic, and fetal life without the rest of the woman's body. Remember, early pregnancies have a pretty strong tendency to abort themselves even in biological wombs.

I think we will grow genetically-programmed mind-free humans for parts before we learn to create functional artificial biochemical organs (as opposed to organs of primarily mechanical function like the heart). But you wouldn't do that for the womb--you'd do it in order to save a loved one with a liver transplant or something like that.

KC you wrote: "you can't refute the facts "

What assertions of fact have you posted so far?

I find three: "This abysmally ineffective form of birth control [the morning-after pill] is successful in creating an increased demand for abortion wherever it is sold over the counter."

Taking the morning-after pill makes you between 75% and 90% less likely to conceive. You are seriously suggesting this increases the demand for abortion? How? What's the mechanism? Has this effect ever been measured?

Your second assertion of fact was that science doesn't know exactly when viability occurs. So what? And BTW the ability to push back viability with premie life-sustaining technology has just about reached its limit. We're going to need to do a lot of basic science before we will be able to make significant further progress in that direction.

Your third was an incoherent objection to the term "reproductive freedom". Well then what would YOU call a composite right that includes both the right to abortion and the right to keep a pregnancy?

Obama supports restrictions on abortion: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080703/D91MKQ681.html
Posted by: SoMG at July 4, 2008 9:23 PM

Actions speak louder than words. He has never cast a voted to restrict abortion, but he has shown on many occasions he is nwilling to say whatever he thinks will gain him the vote of the people he speaks to. HE was talking to a group of "Christians" so he figured it might get him some votes. Oh wait, Obama's a pro-abort Christian. Why doesn't he just try honesty. lol

SoMG:

KC you wrote: "you can't refute the facts "

What assertions of fact have you posted so far?

I find three: "This abysmally ineffective form of birth control [the morning-after pill] is successful in creating an increased demand for abortion wherever it is sold over the counter."

Taking the morning-after pill makes you between 75% and 90% less likely to conceive. You are seriously suggesting this increases the demand for abortion? How? What's the mechanism? Has this effect ever been measured?

Ooookay, SoMG, let's start with your first "fact" here...I didn't post it! Better be a bit more careful, as I mentioned, with the "facts" yourself.

Your second assertion of fact was that science doesn't know exactly when viability occurs. So what?

I rest my case!

And BTW the ability to push back viability with premie life-sustaining technology has just about reached its limit. We're going to need to do a lot of basic science before we will be able to make significant further progress in that direction.

Oh, and your "we" is on the cutting edge of current science??? Well, doctor, you don't know then about the science now working on "outside" wombs for cloned human life?? The gay agenda would benefit - wouldn't need a surrogate womb. That "life" then is intended to be controlled outside the natural womb...at every stage.

Your third was an incoherent objection to the term "reproductive freedom". Well then what would YOU call a composite right that includes both the right to abortion and the right to keep a pregnancy?

On the contrary, it was quite coherent... to the actual statement you made previously and which was responded to!! And even though you now change your original wording here your new expression keeps the same agenda of a shell game attempting to somehow equate abortion with some form of "reproduction". There is no foundation for it in logic. Don't be duped.

KC, you didn't answer my question: Since you don't like the appellation "reproductive freedom", what would YOU call a composite right that includes both the right to abortion and the right to keep a pregnancy?

Since you don't like the appellation "reproductive freedom", what would YOU call a composite right that includes both the right to abortion and the right to keep a pregnancy?

A license to kill.

That covers the abortion. What about the right to keep a pregnancy and have a baby?

What about the right to keep a pregnancy and have a baby?

You really want to go ahead and ask the obvious there? No embarrassing twitch even?

God's no brainer.

and you've gone and divided your original "right" argument so it's now moot. Flip flopper!

If the FOCA would outlaw all restrictions on abortion, does that include restrictions on forced or coerced abortions? Would it suddenly be legal to tie a woman down, or involuntarily inject her with a drug so that she can't fight back or resist, then forcibly give her an abortion? Couldn't the abortion industry claim that laws forbidding them to deal with women in this manner constitute a restriction on abortion, which is now illegal to restrict? What about women forcibly brought in, kicking and screaming, by husbands, boyfriends, or family members? Would forcibly giving them abortions be legal? I can easily see the abortion industry using the FOCA to take away women's right to choose life, because laws against forced abortion constitute a limitation on abortion and all such limitations are illegal now that the FOCA is in place.
What would they care? They just want the money they get selling abortions. The money they get from a forced abortion is just as green as the money they get from a voluntary one. I'm sure some of them would appreciate a policy like the one they have in China.

Ceecee, the opposite is true--FOCA would for the first time provide federal protection for the right to keep a pregnancy and have a baby.

How appropriate the onsie is black.

These used to be available on the Babies for Barack website, but pro-lifers have anticipated his election and bought them all.

That covers the abortion. What about the right to keep a pregnancy and have a baby?

Somg,

Nature.

Your question is like asking "What about the right to breathe?"

Patricia: BTW, glad you think that natural law is "imagined". [snicker]

It's not just "thinking," it's fact that some people imagine it, just as it's fact that there's no proof it's anything but imagination.

That was weird - the above comment is from the next oldest thread, but it posted here...