For those who haven't read FOCA w/o a republican twist...

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

below is an exert.  The link above is the bill.

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.

• For the record - - Amanda
  • Well said. That is the bottom line. I have already voted....sm - christian
    • You don't think you might hear the cries of aborted babies.... - sam
      • If I hear that (sm) - Just the big bad
        • I would expect that kind of answer from you.... - sam
          • So you just pretty much sent me to ... - Just the big bad
            • I didn't send you anywhere. Can't send you anywhere that... - sam
              • Forgive me for not being clear enough for you (sm) - Just the big bad
                • Well....the name big bad atheist.... - sam
                  • No, actually I'm not begging for discussion.. - Just the big bad
            • I think you pretty much did that all by yourself. nm - m
      • hallucinations - lets go there
        • One hopes that no one has absolute power one day... - sam
          • are you threatening me? - lets go there
            • ROFLMAO -- that struck me as funny - all4me
            • Geez. No. Get a grip. I was sincerely hoping... - sam
              • I am placing who where? - lets go there
                • I will say it slower so maybe you will get it. - sam
                  • I bet you step on bugs - lets go there
                    • Hmmm....I pose your question back to you.... - sam
                      • sober bug relocator - lets go there
  • It just seems to me to be wrong on a basic moral level.... - sam
    • Sam, to be honest, I don't think about it much at all either - - Amanda
      • Why should any human being have the right to decide... - sam
  • I could agree with your logic if - all4me
    • For those who haven't read FOCA w/o a republican twist... - Just the big bad

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

The Audacity of FOCA

BY The Editors

October 19-25, 2008 Issue | Posted 10/14/08 at 10:00 AM

As the election quickly approaches, the U.S. bishops are shining a harsh spotlight on one bill: the Freedom of Choice Act, commonly called FOCA. FOCA is again before Congress; its chief sponsor in the Senate is Barbara Boxer and one of its co-sponsors is presidential candidate Barack Obama.

In July 2007, Obama told a Planned Parenthood audience: “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” Search YouTube.com for the words “Obama” and “FOCA” to hear it for yourself. Since Obama has said that signing FOCA into law would be his first priority as a new president, summarizing the bill answers the question: For what change does Barack Obama have the audacity to hope?

The U.S. bishops’ summary of FOCA points out:

• It creates a “fundamental right” to abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy. No governmental body at any level would be able to “deny or interfere with” this right, or to “discriminate” against the exercise of this right “in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.” For the first time, abortion would become an entitlement the government must condone and promote.

• Some states require that women be told about the risks of abortion. FOCA would erase all informed-consent laws states have enacted.

• Many states require that parents be informed and sign off on their daughters’ abortions, just as they are informed and involved in every other surgical procedure. FOCA would override and end all parental-involvement laws.

• Some states have laws promoting maternal health. Obama’s FOCA wouldn’t allow them.

• Regulation on abortion “clinics” helps keep these businesses responding to health and safety concerns. FOCA would end these regulations.

• FOCA would disallow “government programs and facilities that pay for or promote childbirth and other health care without subsidizing abortion,” say the U.S. bishops.

• Conscience-protection laws would end. These currently allow Catholic and other pro-life hospitals, doctors, medical students and health-care workers to opt out of participating in abortion in many places.

• After FOCA, any laws that prohibit a particular abortion procedure, such as partial-birth abortion, will no longer be in force.

• FOCA would also strike laws requiring that abortions only be performed by a licensed physician.

For a careful legal analysis of FOCA by the U.S. bishops’ Office of General Counsel, or a summary fact sheet to distribute, see NCHLA.org.

In a Sept. 19 letter to members of Congress, Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, raised the bishops’ concerns about any possible consideration of FOCA.

“Despite its deceptive title, FOCA would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry,” wrote Cardinal Rigali. It would also “counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country.”

    Even as he was pledging to "change the way government does almost everything," the senator from Arizona announced his commitment to much, much more of the same.

    He pledged to maintain endless occupations of distant lands that empty the U.S. Treasury of precious resources that might pay for infrastructue renewal, housing and job creations initiatives for hurting Americans.

    He outlined trade and tax policies that would extend, rather than alter a failed economic status quo.

    He reintroduced flawed proposals for health care, education and entitlement reforms that Americans have wisely rejected.

    And he threatened to achieve "energy independence" by declaring:

    "We will drill..."

    "We'll drill..."

    "More drilling..."

    McCain's rhetoric was that of a liberated man declaring his independence from his party's failed president and corrupt Congresses.

    But his platform was that of Republican candidate who, for all of his talk of reform, offers the crudest continuity to a country that is crying out for change.

http://www.truthout.org/article/the-anti-republican-republican-who-is-really-a-republican

If you check the archives you will see multiple requests to folks to stick to their own boards.  I have no reason to lie about this but apparently you do.  And it is so very easily verified.  My advice to you is that if you continue to lie to not pick such obvious lies to tell.

As far as the other board, it seemed the liberals stayed off it for a while and there is still very little liberal activity on it.  Check it out.

That's the whole point.  Bush acts like a dictator in complete privacy.  Of course nobody can name names because this president thinks he can spy on whoever he wants without ever telling the person.

The sooner they impeach him, the safer this country will be.

Just to take the first point:  How about a speech he gave in 2008 which he criticized the US because most of us speak one measly language, while Europeans often speak 2 or 3?  There is actually a pretty good reason for that, by the way.  A person could drive in Europe a distance equal to the trip from Cincinnati to Chicago and pass through several countries.  Some countries even have several dialects. Many European countries are tiny.  Being multilingual in Europe is very practical.  America is huge and people a couple of thousand miles away can understand one another in a single language, from youse guys to y'all.

I don't remember ever hearing a US president or presidential candidate publicly criticize his country the way this one has (well, maybe Kerry).  And of course our foreign critics simply lap it up.  I think Michelle Obama has some foreign language skills, but I've got to wonder in what second and third languages Barack himself is fluent.  Surely he must be.....

I was unable to find the full text/location/date of the speech I am referring to, but here's a link to an article on it.  Sorry, it does seem to be an piece that is overall critical of the great man, but then the mainstream would probably not have mentioned this at all

http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/32918-obama-again-shows-how-out-touch.html

Oh, by the way, no spam file, I wrote it.  Whether or not you find it witty, it's the way I view O's public criticism of the US, as though we are a collection of bumpkins he's stuck with and trying desperately to fix up.

I have seen at least four conservatives express concerns about Bush on several occasions, and they even elucidated them. Of course, you would have to take off those blinders to see them but you aren't about to do that.  What a joke.  As far as your remarks about racisms, I consider your remarks extremely racist.  And never mind the fact that black Americans, one of whom was quoted here, are also defending Bennett.  Their voices don't count because they must be Uncle Tom's, right.  AGAIN, a racist way of thinking. 

but baby there will be a big, big party in Jan when they do!