Freedom of Choice Act

[snopes]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/choice.asp

[Dropbear]

Apart from the ludicrous hysteria and mis-information at least the planned action is quiet, keeps them out of the way and will have absolutely no effect whatsoever.

Fred Phelps could be encouraged to do the same thing - at home in his basement - perhaps indefinitely.

Dropbear

[Thing 1]

Well, the entire thing is awful, but these two stuck out in particular:

5) The number of abortions will increase by a minimum of
100,000 annually.

Yes! The government will drag unsuspecting women in to get abortions if we don't fulfill our quota!

Perhaps most importantly the government will now have
control in the issue of abortion.

Er, that is, the wrong kind of control. Not the kind of control where they would totally ban it, or even ban partial birth abortions, or require parental consent. The other kind of control, which is clearly different.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by Dropbear

Fred Phelps could be encouraged to do the same thing - at home in his basement - perhaps indefinitely.

I still prefer the whole autoerotic asphyxiation with gay porn while dressed in women's clothing...

Not as if there is any problem with that..

[Simply Madeline]

Why, this is nothing less than legislating from the legislature, and we can't have that! We will fight this all the way to the Supreme Court!

ETA: The actual act removes all restrictions up to the point of "fetal viability" so most late term abortion restrictions would not be impacted.

[Natalie]

Originally Posted by snopes

1) Pass this letter to 5 or more people

2) Do it in three days or less

3) Start the novena on January 11th and pray for nine
consecutive days.

(please also fast for at least two days during the novena)

That'll show 'em!

If you are against the senseless
killing of defenseless children then the time is now to do something
about it!

But not the time to do something that might, you know, actually have an effect.

[James G]

So they pray to God that things will work out as he (allegedly) wants? Is God a masochist without a bit of nagging?

[Jahungo]

Going off the Senate version of the bill, in which the legislative part of the bill states:

(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.

Originally Posted by Some Moron

1) All hospitals, including Catholic hospitals will be
required to perform abortions upon request. If this happens Bishops
vow to close down all Catholic hospitals, more then 30% of all
hospitals in the United States.

I don't see anything at all like this in the bill.

2) Partial birth abortions would be legal and have no
limitations.

That's not true - abortions past viability would only be required to be legal if the pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother.

3) All U.S. tax payers would be funding abortions.

Not part of the bill, but possible. It's also likely this is already happening, through medicaid etc, right?

4) Parental notification will no longer be required.

This is true.

5) The number of abortions will increase by a minimum of
100,000 annually.

This is ridiculous.

Perhaps most importantly the government will now have
control in the issue of abortion. This could result in a future
amendment that would force women by law to have abortions in certain
situations (rape, down syndrome babies, etc) and could even regulate
how many children women are allowed to have.

This part is even specifically not allowed in the bill, as it says "A government may not--(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--(A) to bear a child." If anything, the language of this bill would make such a thing even less likely.


I guess I shouldn't be looking for a whole lot of fact in a propaganda email, but there it is.

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by Jahungo

That's not true - abortions past viability would only be required to be legal if the pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother.

Even if it were true, the reality of the situation would make it pretty unlikely for anyone to choose on a whim. It is not a pleasant procedure. Any termination that late is not nice, and risky (I think the risk is not that dissimilar to continuing the pregnancy, assuming no complications.) These facts combined with the fact that by that stage the woman has been aware of the pregnancy for some time (maybe not in all cases, but in the vast majority) mean that not many women are going to go this route if they have any other option.

[MidgardDragon]

Only insane whackjobs could make the idea that someone could have the choice to do something with their own body legally sound like a bad thing....

[Canuckistan]

Originally Posted by MidgardDragon

Only insane whackjobs could make the idea that someone could have the choice to do something with their own body legally sound like a bad thing....

Jesus and the Bishops would never approve.

[Jay Temple]

Originally Posted by Canuckistan

Jesus and the Bishops would never approve.

Weren't they a 60's rock group?

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Jay Temple

Weren't they a 60's rock group?

I thought that was Buster Hyman and the Penetrators.

[Natalie]

Originally Posted by Jahungo

Not part of the bill, but possible. It's also likely this is already happening, through medicaid etc, right?

Nope, see the Hyde Amendment.

[One-Fang]

Originally Posted by MidgardDragon

Only insane whackjobs could make the idea that someone could have the choice to do something with their own body legally sound like a bad thing....

Well to be somewhat fair to them, it's not her body they're worried about.

[barbrainey]

I could never understand why any woman would allow her seven to nine month fetus to be killed. Yes, KILLED! That's the problem with the second Supreme Court ruling on abortion rights. It was called Doe vs. Bolton. It originally involved a Georgia woman who claimed that her estranged or ex-husband was abusive or threatening her. She was pregnant and a woman doctor--who is now deceased--encouraged her to have a late trimester abortion which was illegal and even looked upon as infanticide.

That court decision should never have been handed down. Why should the fetus be killed if it is viable outside the womb, even if the mother's health or life is endangered? Why not induce an early labor and delivery and place the premature baby in an incubator? The government should not make infanticide legal. In fact, Doe vs. Bolton should be overturned. Unlike Roe vs. Wade, Doe legalized infanticide.

Barb Rainey

[Spamamander]

... because the practice of inducing labor or performing a C-section may, in fact, kill or severely disable the woman? Those are the only reasons a post-viability abortion would ever be performed, or if the fetus was so severely malformed it would not survive outside the womb.

No matter how many pro-lifers yell and scream that it happens, there simply are NOT doctors performing post-viability abortions on a whim. Nor are there women lining up to get it done.

I'm not sure where you got your information regarding Doe v Bolton. The ruling overturned the Georgia abortion law not because there was an intention of permitting late-term abortions on viable fetuses, but because it only permitted abortion in the cases of rape, severe fetal deformity, or the possibility of severe or fatal injury to the woman. There also had to be three physicians approving the procedure in writing, and a special committee convened in the hospital where the abortion was to take place. It also prohibited any woman from out-of-state having the procedure done in Georgia. All of these restrictions went against the rulings of Roe v Wade.

The ruling DID establish a broader view of what constitutes the health of the woman than the original law allowed for, which extended to the extremely rare third trimester abortion. It was determined the physician should be the arbiter of this, not the legislature.

Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.

The woman later identified as the plaintiff in this proceeding was not a "nine months pregnant" woman... she was nine WEEKS pregnant.

This is not "legalized infanticide", it is permitting the DOCTORS to decide if the procedure is necessary, within the guidelines of protecting a woman's health. I'm not a doctor- I don't know if for a specific woman if inducing labor and delivering is the safest route for her in the extreme circumstances that would ever call for a late-term abortion. The legislators are not the woman's doctor either. This is an extremely rare occurrence, but it doesn't mean that any woman should be sacrificed because she could not get the operation necessary to save her life or health.

[lord_feldon]

Originally Posted by barbrainey

I could never understand why any woman would allow her seven to nine month fetus to be killed. Yes, KILLED!

I could never understand why any government would allow the rights of the fetus to overrule the mother's right not to be killed... Yes, KILLED!

Originally Posted by barbrainey

Why not induce an early labor and delivery and place the premature baby in an incubator?

Because, AFAIK, in most third trimester abortions, the fetus is already dead or will die soon.

Originally Posted by barbrainey

The government should not make infanticide legal.

It doesn't. Abortion is as much infanticide as it is murder. That is, not at all.

[Sister Ray]

Originally Posted by barbrainey

That court decision should never have been handed down. Why should the fetus be killed if it is viable outside the womb, even if the mother's health or life is endangered?

Edwards syndrome.

Patau syndrome.

Trisomy 9.

Anacephaly.

Hydranencepahly.

Holoprosencephaly.

Those conditions are the reality of late term abortion. They are all incompatible with life. While people may like to think it's about getting rid of an inconvienient baby, it is not.

Sister "and I'm never even having kids" Ray

[Spamamander]

I know for myself it is hard for me to be completely logical about these conditions, having one child with Down syndrome and then the potential for my son to have had Edwards syndrome. Thanks for being a rational voice.