Fight FOCA!!!

[92bDad]

http://www.fightfoca.com/

This website speaks enough without my own voice cluttering the mission...

[Mavdog]

maybe a website of www.fightdisinformationaboutfoca.com should be set up.....
here's the whole bill. pretty straightforward, just as the title of the bill says.
----------------------------------------------------
108th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2020
To prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman's right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 22, 2004
Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. CORZINE, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mrs. CLINTON, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. SARBANES, and Ms. MIKULSKI) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman's right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Freedom of Choice Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The United States was founded on the principles of individual liberty, personal privacy, and equality. Such principles ensure that each individual is free to make the most intimate decisions free from governmental interference and discrimination.

(2) A woman's decision to commence, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy is one of the most intimate decisions an individual ever faces. As such, reproductive health decisions are best made by the woman, in consultation with her medical provider or loved ones, without governmental interference.

(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 the right to privacy protected by the Constitution and that such right encompassed the right of every woman to weigh the personal, moral, and religious considerations involved in deciding whether to commence, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy.

(4) The Roe v. Wade decision carefully balanced 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, a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy is absolute only prior to fetal viability, with the state permitted to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to protect the life or health of a woman.

(5) These decisions have protected the health and lives of women in the United States. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision, an estimated 1,200,000 women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortions, despite the known hazards that included unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration, and death.

(6) According to one estimate, prior to 1973, as many as 5,000 women died each year in the United States as a result of having an illegal abortion.

(7) In countries where abortion remains illegal, the risk of complications and 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.

(8) The Roe v. Wade decision 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.'.

(9) Even though the Roe v. Wade decision guaranteed a constitutional right to choose whether to terminate or continue a pregnancy, threats to that right remain, including possible reversal or further erosion by the Supreme Court of the right, and legislative and administrative policies at all levels of government that make abortion more difficult and dangerous to obtain.

(10) 87 percent of the counties in the United States have no abortion provider.

(11) Legal barriers to the full range of reproductive services endanger the health and lives of women.

(12) Women should have meaningful access to reproductive health services to prevent unintended pregnancies, thereby reducing the need for abortions.

(13) To ensure that a woman's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy is available to all women in the United States, Federal protection for that right is necessary.

(14) 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.

(15) 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.

(16) 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 50 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.
END

[92bDad]

So you support the murder of innocent children.

Funny I always thought that Liberals fought for minorities and their rights...why do they ignore millions of innocent children?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

So you support the murder of innocent children.

Funny I always thought that Liberals fought for minorities and their rights...why do they ignore millions of innocent children?

the act does not support "the murder of innocent children".

it protects the right of a woman to choose if she wants to bear children.

that is the title. "freedom of choice act".

apparently you want to take rights away from women.

I thought that you proclaimed yourself as an advocate of individual rights.

apparently you were dishonest.

[mavsgirl4134]

Normally I tend to stay out of political discussions because I'm just not a good enough debater.. ha

But anyway,I believe it's an EXTREMELY stupid decision if a chick decides to go out and sleep with a bunch of guys without using her head and gets pregnant, decides that she made a mistake and then has an abortion because of it. But on the other hand, if a woman gets raped, I don't believe she should be forced to keep that baby. And I know people will say that she could give it up for adoption. First of all, there are WAY too many children living in foster homes wanting a family that will never have one. Second, could you imagine having to carry around a baby for 9 months that was a product of an event that you didn't have any control over? I would never want to be put in that situation. EVER. Sometimes I think people are too concerned about what other people do. Let us women have a right to choose.

Just for the record, I would never have an abortion no matter the circumstance.

[GermanDunk]

If i wouldn´t watch so many basketball-games, i´d probably get in touch with a woman and produce some new germans. So i have to stick with Dirk and Yao. wtf

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by mavsgirl4134

Normally I tend to stay out of political discussions because I'm just not a good enough debater.. ha

But anyway,I believe it's an EXTREMELY stupid decision if a chick decides to go out and sleep with a bunch of guys without using her head and gets pregnant, decides that she made a mistake and then has an abortion because of it. But on the other hand, if a woman gets raped, I don't believe she should be forced to keep that baby. And I know people will say that she could give it up for adoption. First of all, there are WAY too many children living in foster homes wanting a family that will never have one. Second, could you imagine having to carry around a baby for 9 months that was a product of an event that you didn't have any control over? I would never want to be put in that situation. EVER. Sometimes I think people are too concerned about what other people do. Let us women have a right to choose.

Just for the record, I would never have an abortion no matter the circumstance.

a very rational position on the issue.

[DirkFTW]

What if the woman can't pay for it?
What if the doctor doesn't want to do it?

Must those who disagree with the choice be forced to participate in it?

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the act does not support "the murder of innocent children".

it protects the right of a woman to choose if she wants to bear children.

that is the title. "freedom of choice act".

apparently you want to take rights away from women.

I thought that you proclaimed yourself as an advocate of individual rights.

apparently you were dishonest.

What about the choice of the child? Do you support their choice?

What about the choice of doctors? What if for their own reasons they choose NOT to participate in abortion...do you support their choice?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

What about the choice of the child? Do you support their choice?

there is no such ability to make this "choice". the bill specifically mentions the fetus' "viability".

What about the choice of doctors? What if for their own reasons they choose NOT to participate in abortion...do you support their choice?

the bill does not mention the doctor and does not force any doctor to perform an abortion.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the stimulus bill does not mention our children and does not force any of our children to pay for it.

Sometimes, things don't have to be said to be true.

[Mavdog]

and sometimes things that are said are not true.

oh, what a dilemma....

[wmbwinn]

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
_____________________________________________

First, I would ask: does this add anything to the legal issue of abortion which did not already exist?

I cannot find anything in the document that is not already the legal situation as it is. Perhaps I don't understand what is new here.

Second, we come back to a discussion we have had before on other threads about abortion which is this:
what does the phrase "when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman" mean.

Legally, that phrase is used to approve all abortions. All doctors performing abortions have a statement in their medical record that states that the procedure was/is necessary for the health of the patient. However, the great majority of time, the medical record phrase is (or is similar to) "necessary for the psychological health of the woman". Any woman upset about being pregnant for any reason apparently fits the definition of medically necessary.

This is where the problem is...

[Dirkadirkastan]

When the hell are we going to expand this "right to choose" to babies and small children? I don't really see any difference.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

When the hell are we going to expand this "right to choose" to babies and small children? I don't really see any difference.

Add teenagers as well. I have a few of those right now, and question if I should have the right to abort them at times.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Add teenagers as well. I have a few of those right now, and question if I should have the right to abort them at times.

Now that I think about it, if it is just about the right to choose, why can't neighbors, in-laws, people of other ethnic backgrounds, different religions, different races, etc be included in this right to choose group. It makes the same sense as killing unborn children, and used to be OK to do back in some older cultures. Females could be killed after birth, etc. As long as I pass it as law, that must make it OK.

[jthig32]

I don't understand how anyone, pro-choice or not, can support the ability to abort a viable "fetus". You can say "for the health of the mother" but that has already been twisted into an auto-abortion for pre-viability. It will become just that for post-viability.

It's shameful.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

First, I would ask: does this add anything to the legal issue of abortion which did not already exist?

I cannot find anything in the document that is not already the legal situation as it is. Perhaps I don't understand what is new here.

What it does is remove the ability of states to enforce such things as waiting periods, parental notification, etc.

Also removes the ability of states to ban things like partial birth abortions. And I would imagine it makes it very difficult to pass legislation against things like allowing viable babies to be born alive and left to die, legislation that Obama spoke against before his campaign.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

and sometimes things that are said are not true.

oh, what a dilemma....

Yay, the Catholic Church will be so happy once you tell them!

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I don't understand how anyone, pro-choice or not, can support the ability to abort a viable "fetus". You can say "for the health of the mother" but that has already been twisted into an auto-abortion for pre-viability. It will become just that for post-viability.

It's shameful.

Neither do I. Fortunately, that is not what this discussion is about. Please stay on topic.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

First, I would ask: does this add anything to the legal issue of abortion which did not already exist?

I cannot find anything in the document that is not already the legal situation as it is. Perhaps I don't understand what is new here.

there is nothing new. just as the language in the act says, the act is to place into law what rights have been established in the courts.

Second, we come back to a discussion we have had before on other threads about abortion which is this:
what does the phrase "when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman" mean.

Legally, that phrase is used to approve all abortions. All doctors performing abortions have a statement in their medical record that states that the procedure was/is necessary for the health of the patient. However, the great majority of time, the medical record phrase is (or is similar to) "necessary for the psychological health of the woman". Any woman upset about being pregnant for any reason apparently fits the definition of medically necessary.

This is where the problem is...

so "the problem" is that you feel there should not be a right of the woman to terminate unless her life is truly at risk?

the right of a woman to make her own decision does not rest solely upon her health. there are many considerations each woman must consider.

I'm certain that most doctors are straightforward, honest individuals who follow the law and their sense of right and wrong.

I'm also certain that there are some doctors who don't, just like there are doctors who write fraudualent prescriptions for people who shop for scripts. and there are some doctors who are themselves corrupt or criminal.

that really does not result in there being a justification for removing the right of a woman to make her own choice on having a child.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by jthig32

What it does is remove the ability of states to enforce such things as waiting periods, parental notification, etc.

Also removes the ability of states to ban things like partial birth abortions. And I would imagine it makes it very difficult to pass legislation against things like allowing viable babies to be born alive and left to die, legislation that Obama spoke against before his campaign.

the act says nothing about prohibiting such things as waiting periods, notification, etc. in fact in referencing the roe and other cases, it merely establishes just what the judicial opinions of those cases produced. the opinions do allow such things as waiting periods and parental notification.

the procedure called "partial birth abortion" is a medical procedure that is used in rare cases to protect the health of the mother. to outlaw such a procedure is subjecting the mother to a very high risk, possibly death. imho the decision of what procedure is needed should not be made by a legislator, but by a medical professional.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Yay, the Catholic Church will be so happy once you tell them!

"tell them" what exactly? that people can be dishonest? don't you believe they already know this fact?

[wmbwinn]

Mavdog, in response to me above:

so "the problem" is that you feel there should not be a right of the woman to terminate unless her life is truly at risk?

the right of a woman to make her own decision does not rest solely upon her health. there are many considerations each woman must consider.

I'm certain that most doctors are straightforward, honest individuals who follow the law and their sense of right and wrong.

I'm also certain that there are some doctors who don't, just like there are doctors who write fraudualent prescriptions for people who shop for scripts. and there are some doctors who are themselves corrupt or criminal.

that really does not result in there being a justification for removing the right of a woman to make her own choice on having a child.

You have missed the point. The legislation document you posted indicates that a fetus which is viable cannot be aborted unless it is medically necessary.

But, since all abortions are "medically necessary" according to the doctor performing the abortion (as he/she would be legally liable for performing an illegal abortion) and since the reason they are "medically necessary" is due to the psychological stress of the pregnant female who no longer wants to be pregnant for whatever psychological/other reason, then the whole issue of whether the fetus is viable or not is not even really in the document.

Since all abortions are medically necessary (and if you read the doctor's notes, then every abortion procedure doctor note will say that it was medically necessary), then viability doesn't matter.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Mavdog, in response to me above:

You have missed the point. The legislation document you posted indicates that a fetus which is viable cannot be aborted unless it is medically necessary.

But, since all abortions are "medically necessary" according to the doctor performing the abortion (as he/she would be legally liable for performing an illegal abortion) and since the reason they are "medically necessary" is due to the psychological stress of the pregnant female who no longer wants to be pregnant for whatever psychological/other reason, then the whole issue of whether the fetus is viable or not is not even really in the document.

Since all abortions are medically necessary (and if you read the doctor's notes, then every abortion procedure doctor note will say that it was medically necessary), then viability doesn't matter.

there is no requirement of medical necessity in the first trimester, the only requirement for medical necessity is later trimesters and also when medicaid is involved.

viability is and has been a "matter", it has been addressed in court cases and limitations on a woman's right allowed by the courts.

[wmbwinn]

Mavdog:

there is no requirement of medical necessity in the first trimester, the only requirement for medical necessity is later trimesters and also when medicaid is involved.

viability is and has been a "matter", it has been addressed in court cases and limitations on a woman's right allowed by the courts.

Exactly. And, so we agree on the facts (although we disagree on what is correct/ethical/moral/etc.).

The facts:
1)viability does not matter in the first trimester. Abortion is wide open in its availability unless it is medicaid who is paying and then viability technically matters but no first trimester fetus is considered viable so the viability is a procedural technicality with no force.

2)viability never matters because all abortions are "medically necessary" according to the abortion doc's record which always states that the "abortion procedure was medically necessary for the psychological health of the woman" or something very similar. Therefore, viability never matters.

3)The courts to date have sided with the doctor as it is convenient to push the issue to the doctor. The court is not going to argue with the doctor about what is or what is not medically necessary. So, all you have to do is find a doctor who agrees in principle with the pro choice movement and who is an OB/Gyn and you are set. That doctor's record will always read that abortion is medically necessary.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Exactly. And, so we agree on the facts (although we disagree on what is correct/ethical/moral/etc.).

The facts:
1)viability does not matter in the first trimester. Abortion is wide open in its availability unless it is medicaid who is paying and then viability technically matters but no first trimester fetus is considered viable so the viability is a procedural technicality with no force.

2)viability never matters because all abortions are "medically necessary" according to the abortion doc's record which always states that the "abortion procedure was medically necessary for the psychological health of the woman" or something very similar. Therefore, viability never matters.

3)The courts to date have sided with the doctor as it is convenient to push the issue to the doctor. The court is not going to argue with the doctor about what is or what is not medically necessary. So, all you have to do is find a doctor who agrees in principle with the pro choice movement and who is an OB/Gyn and you are set. That doctor's record will always read that abortion is medically necessary.

no, the courts have not "sided with the doctor" and have gradually removed the doctor's judgement as determination.

many recent state statutes have made the doctor more and more an agent of the state in mandating what they say to the patient, how the patient is handled, and how the doctor can treat the patient.

the courts have consistently upheld law that determines when the fetus is viable.

long and short, this bill does not change anything but one critical matter: it establishes a woman's right in law (as opposed to judicial ruling) to decide if she will or will not conceive.

it does not change the fact that a medical doctor can decide for themselves if they want to perform an abortion or not, it does not invalidate statutes that mandate a waiting period, or parental consent.

[wmbwinn]

Mavdog:

many recent state statutes have made the doctor more and more an agent of the state in mandating what they say to the patient, how the patient is handled, and how the doctor can treat the patient.

This ought to fix healthcare...

no matter how you argue it, viability is a fake arguement. Viability does not matter because all abortions are "medically necessary" if the woman is upset (psychological health)

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

This ought to fix healthcare...

these laws are a bad idea.

no matter how you argue it, viability is a fake arguement. Viability does not matter because all abortions are "medically necessary" if the woman is upset (psychological health)

it seems that you're the one "arguing viability".

[wmbwinn]

all I have said is that the viability of the fetus/infant does not matter at all because of the "medically necessary" clause since any upset woman who is pregnant has a psychological necessity to have an abortion in the current system.

[wmbwinn]

if you want to know what I would argue, it is the definition of the "medically necessary" clause.