RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

What Would FOCA Really Do?

Emily Douglas's picture

Melinda Hennenberger has a few strong words for the President-Elect.  Sign the Freedom of Choice Act (which, any reproductive health advocate could tell you, Congress is a long way away from passing), and Barack Obama will be responsible for hobbling our entire, already-compromised health care system. Why? According to Hennenberger, FOCA would require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, and the church hierarchy would rather "turn off the lights" than provide comprehensive reproductive health care. 

FOCA targets state laws that limit abortion access, yes.  But FOCA would not have the conscience clause repercussions that Hennenberger suggests it might. 

Hennenberger writes, "While there is strenuous debate among legal experts on the matter, many believe the act would invalidate the freedom-of-conscience laws on the books in 46 states. These are the laws that allow Catholic hospitals and health providers that receive public funds through Medicaid and Medicare to opt out of performing abortions. Without public funds, these health centers couldn't stay open; if forced to do abortions, they would sooner close their doors. Even the prospect of selling the institutions to other providers wouldn't be an option, the bishops have said, because that would constitute 'material cooperation with an intrinsic evil.'"

Would FOCA do as Hennenberger says - force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions? 

Unequivocally no, says Jill Morrison, senior counsel at the National Women's Law Center. Federal conscience clause law, such as the Church Amendment, states that simply receiving public funding does not turn a hospital into a "state actor," Morrison explains.  "FOCA must be read consistently with existing federal law, unless the new law explicitly provides that it is intended to repeal existing law." 

Morrison adds, "A hospital is not a state actor, and cannot be magically transformed into one due to its getting Federal funding, as set forth in the Church Amendment." 

Hennenberger goes on to defend the Department of Health and Human Services's proposed new, expanded provider conscience regulations that would allow providers to refuse to refer women for critical medical care - like abortion in the case of life-threatening pregnancy, or emergency contraception after sexual assault - that a provider may opt out of providing him or herself.


. . . . .
67 comments
if given the right to chose between life or death to a human being under development, why does the unborn not have the same equal right? Why do people believe that is "ok" to kill some but not others? Seems that we have become a society that is picking up where Hitler left behind, the choice to kill or let some live. If you don't want a pregnancy, and you are not raped, be responsible and do not become sexually active or use contraceptive. The blod shed must stop, we are becoming an unethical people who choose to deny freedom to some but not others. Aren't we suppossed to be an equal persona, 'member our constitution, hello!
Submitted by Anonymous on January 6, 2009 - 9:14am.

If you don't want a pregnancy, and you are not raped, be responsible and do not become sexually active or use contraceptive

Women do become unintentionally pregnant when using contraception... over half of all women who became unintentionally pregnant were using some form of contraception during the month that they became pregnant.  So, it's okay to terminate a pregnancy if you were actively attempting to prevent the pregnancy?  So, it's okay to terminate a pregnancy if the sex was not consensual?  Are these zygotes, embryo's and/or fetus somehow different than others?
Submitted by Mellankelly1 on January 15, 2009 - 7:30pm.
... someone flagged this comment. Does asking legitimate questions make some anti-choice people feel threatened or something?
Submitted by TheRealistMom on January 27, 2009 - 4:35pm.

Women having the power to give or deny life threatens their very existence. 

The personal is political.

Submitted by Alex_M on January 29, 2009 - 10:40am.
anti-choice what a nice word for somthing so ugly. How about using the words that really apply Pro-Life and Pro-death
Submitted by Gerard on February 5, 2009 - 2:13pm.
What is the source of the over half if unintentional pregnancies statistic? Also, the previous post suggested only rape as a possible justification, not failure to take personal responsibility. I happen to disagree with the point, but at least be accurate in your argument. A separate soul is created at conception. Those of us who believe that have no logical option than to conclude all abortion to be wrong, except when the abortive result occurs ancillary to actions taken to save them mother.
Submitted by Jimh on February 9, 2009 - 6:45am.

What is the source of the over half if unintentional pregnancies statistic?

Oh, I got it from here... but you'll need to follow the references in order to properly find where all of the info came from.  You may also feel free to research this information yourself if you happen to have the time or the inclination to do so.

Also, the previous post suggested only rape as a possible justification, not failure to take personal responsibility

You may want to read over the quote that I was responding to as the author made the following statement: "If you don't want a pregnancy, and you are not raped, be responsible and do not become sexually active or use contraceptive" My response that over half of all women who became unintentionally pregnant were using some form of contraception during the month that they became pregnant (thus, acting responsibly) was spot on, my friend.
A separate soul is created at conception.
That is a fine belief, but it is not a Universal belief.  Your personal belief system does not suddenly trump the personal beliefs of the pregnant woman.  Further, your personal beliefs are not compelling enough to force gestation, childbirth and parenthood on another person.
Submitted by Mellankelly1 on February 10, 2009 - 10:22pm.
If a separate soul is created at conception, then explain what happens in the development stage where the fertilized egg splits up into 16 totipotent cells. Which twin gets the soul, by the way?
Submitted by Anonymous on February 22, 2009 - 2:52pm.
I supported Obama this year and I will feel saddened if he signs this bill. I honestly thought he was going to be fair to both sides- pro-life and pro-choice. I really thought he wanted to make sure women who were raped, were in incest situations, or their life was at stake do the pregnancy was the reason he was supporting this bill. Now I am seeing the bill is going to far. Abortions should not be funded by taxpayers money and Catholic hospitals should not be required to perform abortions. It is unfair to make Catholic hospitals perform abortions. There are plenty of places people can go to receive an abortion, but to infringe on a Catholic Hospital is wrong. I really respect Obama's legal mind. I remember Biden saying he did not want abortions being paid for by taxpayer money. Now I am feeling cheated. I campaigned for Obama, I changed parties for him and Biden, and now one of my most important issues is being compromised more than I expected. I hate having to face family and friends who say, "I told you so." Please Obama, the Senate, and Staff come up with a solution that will not place Catholics in an unethical situation. Aboriton is not the answer to poverty. Keep exceptions for the above mentioned issues only.
Submitted by Anonymous on January 27, 2009 - 12:48am.

"It is unfair to make Catholic hospitals perform abortions. There are plenty of places people can go to receive an abortion, but to infringe on a Catholic Hospital is wrong."

 

 had you actually read the article you would notice that nobody, much less Catholic hospitals can or will be forced to perform abortions. 

 

Submitted by colleen on January 27, 2009 - 1:17pm.
You wrote: "I supported Obama this year and I will feel saddened if he signs this bill. I honestly thought he was going to be fair to both sides" I wonder how many times we will hear people that voted for Obama come to the realization that they really did not know what they were getting when they voted for him?
He has almost no experience and very little track record to even know how he was going to govern. This is what all of us were screaming when we saw he was getting so many votes.
Well now you all can live with what you elected just like the rest of us have to.
Oh, and thanks a lot.
Submitted by Michelle on January 27, 2009 - 6:24pm.
Hopefully, far less than the people who realized how much of a screw up W. was.
Submitted by Anonymous on January 28, 2009 - 10:58pm.
If you really want to get an idea what you might be getting from your vote for Obama (or dare to find out what you are getting, even though you didn't vote for him) then, I suggest you TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE BOOKS HE'S WRITTEN, particularly the later one, "The Audacity of Hope." He discusses issues such as this fully & openly, and I find him to be intelligent, articulate, honest, & forthright. He understands how difficult these issues are & won't sign anything that forces Catholic churches to perform abortions against their will. Don't buy into the conservative right's definition of what the bill will do without actually reading it, or trying to look at unbiased sources for information on what it might do. Politics are never that simple, abortion is always a difficult issue, but until you do your own research, I suggest you reserve judgement. This bill, as I read & interpret it, WILL NOT FORCE institutions to perform abortions against their will. Perhaps, a change to the bill can be sought to make that more clear--which, in my opionion, would be a GREAT compromise. I'm pro-choice, but fully support anyone's right NOT TO BE MADE to perform an abortion. I doubt if there are many pro-choice supporters that would want that to happen....calm down regarding your fear of Obama & take the time to read his book. After reading it, I now have great faith in the man! I think that this country is really lucky to have elected a President of such intelligence and fairmindedness....he is the sort who is willing to look at both sides of an issue and to seek compromise. Please, read the book.....get to know the man that we have elected!
Submitted by Crystal Longdon on January 30, 2009 - 12:11pm.
Thanks for your insight. There is a lot of fear mongering even in my church. I heard the head of our local Catholic hospital say she was not afraid of FOCA ( if it resurfaces). I thought she was wise to keep her head and look at the reality involved. If anything, it would be a great opportunity for civil disobedience. Some people including some Bishops just want to scare people as a method to win a policy dilemma. For obvious reasons this is a very sensitive and passionate issue. Not easily resolved. I recommend that we all keep trying to put ourselves in the other persons shoes and be compassionate and understanding and ready and willing to step in and help when the opportunity arises. And now I await the passionate responses. John
Submitted by John on February 17, 2009 - 12:35pm.
oh please. he is going to do the best damn job of anyone who could fix any of the financial mess Bush created. You just wait and see. Women have the right to choose. If I was raped I would want the right to choose, as well as if my daughter was raped I would want her to be able to have an abortion so she isnt scarred for life by having to carry a baby for nine months, being reminded every day of the trauma, then having to keep it OR give it up is just beyond traumatic. Obama is the best thing thats come along in a long time and anyone who thinks otherwise will just have to deal, he has a nightmare to deal with now and Thank GOD he won last November. Its about time..............
Submitted by Erin Reemsnyder on February 5, 2009 - 1:13pm.
If your daughter was raped, wouldn't you want to KNOW what she was doing and KNOW she was going to have an abortion, because if this bill passes she won't have to tell you I also think it's pretty funny you thanked God for it, pretty ironic
Submitted by Anonymous on February 24, 2009 - 9:43am.

Dennis Kucinich would have been my choice. Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-war, anti-death penalty, pushed for impeachment of Cheney and Bush, pro-single payer health care, opposes exploitative 'free' trade agreements, and so on and so forth. He's even a vegan!

 

He would have kicked ass as a president, although in an entirely metaphorical sense, as he is a pacifist.  

Submitted by Emma on February 17, 2009 - 8:48am.
I agree with the original comment. I honestly haven't spent much time researching this topic. On THIS page, I think both sides have legitimate complaints, whether I agree or not... but here's a question: is instant gratification always good? It's nice, but is it good for society in the long run? My personal opinion is that it is not. How will we learn to deal with the consequences of our actions or if we can just fix everything the instant we make a mistake (or a condom fails)? I do agree that rape victims should have the choice, and that termination is legitimate if it threatens the mother, but, to me, abortion is NOT a means of birth control. This is not criticizing anyone or their beliefs... Please don't jump down MY throat for what other people say.
Submitted by concerned on February 13, 2009 - 4:33pm.
Great, no pre-natal medical treatments to override the consequences of ones actions.
Submitted by Anonymous on February 13, 2009 - 5:21pm.
And whats the difference between a fetus that results from rape and one that doesn't? That still remains un-answered.
Submitted by Anonymous on February 13, 2009 - 5:22pm.
How will we learn to deal with the consequences of our actions or if we can just fix everything the instant we make a mistake (or a condom fails)?
Who decides what "consequences" have to be dealt with, and which can be "fixed"? If you get a headache, do you "deal with it," or do you take an aspirin? If someone catches, say, syphilis, do they "deal with it" or do they take antibiotics, get cured, and get on with their life?
but, to me, abortion is NOT a means of birth control.
I doubt that anyone on this site considers abortion to be a means of birth control, let alone an option equivalent to a condom, Pill regimen, IUD, or the like.
This is not criticizing anyone or their beliefs...
Unfortunately, it is. You are critical of women who have abortions as "birth control" for their own "gratification." I suggest you read up on women's stories of their own abortion experiences (Aspen Baker has been doing some great work in this area) to gain a better understanding of why they underwent the procedure. Because the scenario that you have in mind when you reason about this is, basically, a cartoon that does not reflect reality.
Submitted by Anonymous on February 13, 2009 - 5:26pm.
I got an inspiration from the title of the Cornell link on FOCA in Wikipedia: "Sterilization or Abortion"--The article is about "conscience" exemptions, but what if STERILIZATION became the new CHOICE?? Rather than abortion! Planned Parenthood could remain the provider and continue its megabucks megabusiness, no human beings would be sacrificed on the altar of reproductive rights, and for another whopping fee (sit up and take notice blood suckers) the tubal ligation could be reversed by Planned Parenthood when/if the parents are ready to be parents. Women need a better choice. Given a choice, wouldn't women rather prevent a pregnancy than terminate one?? I think American ingenuity could come up with a reversible sterilization procedure, if they haven't already. Come on Planned Parenthood--step up to the plate--provide invaluable services with clean hands! Shift over, retool, make more money! What are the relative risks between the two procedures?--I betcha the ligation is less risky, or, at worst, as risky as abortion. Might even be able to use most of the same clinics and paraphernalia--clean, safe, local anesthetic. Come on women--step up to the plate--chose not to untimely conceive--without abstinence, without risky hormones (maybe just risky STD's but that's a different issue). You'd get a tatoo, wouldn't ya?? Isn't sterilization a lot more easily reversible than that? Hey, I realize this is not an ideal alternative, but it's way better than the slaughter. I don't think the pro-life community would oppose it--I wouldn't and, as may be obvious, I'm an evangelical pro-lifer.
Submitted by Anonymous on January 12, 2009 - 12:34am.
Planned Parenthood already provides many different forms of contraceptives. Or do you really so ignorant that you think all they do is perform abortions? That's only a very small part of their full range of reproductive health services.
Submitted by M on January 13, 2009 - 1:00pm.
Planned Parenthood already provides many different forms of contraceptives. Or are you really so ignorant that you think all they do is perform abortions? That's only a very small part of their full range of reproductive health services.
Submitted by M on January 13, 2009 - 1:01pm.
I agree with your points 100%. I keep trying to figure out what the difference is between killing an unborn child, and killing a born child. If we as a society, which knows full well, that upon conception what you have is a human being, continues to rationalize and sterilize this subject. Aborting a child, is murder, there is no other possible view. Others have talked about men and women being responsible by using contraceptives, I say, if you want to be sure, don't have sex. The idea about having a reveresible procedure to prevent pregnancy is I think a viable option. Abortion is never the answer. The damage being done to women is unconscienable. The CDC began tracking the results of legal abortions, and it is my understanding they stopped keeping data after only two years, because the statistics were so bad. Women are being premantly damaged, both physically and emotionally by abortions, woman are dying from legal abortions. I understand why atheists find no problem with abortions, because they believe we all crawled out of the primordial sludge so we are no different from a bug, but come on you who claim Christ as your Savior, can you truly read scripture and think Jesus would ever be accepting of the destroying the life He created? Wake up.
Submitted by Bill Scully on January 25, 2009 - 5:26pm.
Here is what I don't understand. Why do we need to GOD into this debate. I do not consider myself "pro-life" but rather "anti-abortion". The reason being is I believe in a separation of church and state. The fact is a baby is alive. They may not be able to live outside that womb anymore than if they were born and I choose not to feed them. In both cases they would die. I am currently 33 weeks pregnant and if I was hit by a drunk driver and killed, they would be charged with double homicide. I understand that parents can find out some pretty tough things in later ultrasounds that would make them consider a partial birth abortion. I believe people who choose a partial birth abortions are parents who wanted to give birth to a healthy baby and feel that they are sparing the child and themselves from pain. Does that mean that if my baby developed a fatal cancer that I have the right as a parent to end their life rather than see them suffer? No! If you want to help stop legislation then bring common sense into the debate and leave GOD at church. Medical Science is enough and it will get you further in this debate.
Submitted by Anonymous on January 25, 2009 - 9:08pm.
Abortion rights are not something that should be decided by the Federal Government. There are different feelings about this all across the United States and it makes more sense for the State Governments to determine what is legal. If the citizen's of the State disagree with the law they can change it, but why the Federal Government dictate this nationwide.
Submitted by Joe on January 13, 2009 - 9:12pm.
"Abortion rights are not something that should be decided by the Federal Government" In the same vain should they be decided by someone other then the parents themselves? What if the only doctor qualified in a given area is of the opposite position of the parents, what then? In reality the doctor would also be deciding for the patient in the same way.
Submitted by Antoine on January 15, 2009 - 7:13pm.
The parents can always go to a doctor that is of the same position as the parents. Are you suggesting that a doctor shouldn't have a choice of whether or not they perform abortions??
Submitted by Anonymous on January 18, 2009 - 1:05pm.
I heard somewhere that FOCA would require medical students to perform an abortion in order to be certified as an M.D. Is there any truth to this?
Submitted by Anonymous on January 20, 2009 - 1:50pm.
FoCA's purpose is to place into federal law the right of women to seek abortion care. It would have NO affect on what is required by universities to award a medical degree, nor does it change any requirements for doctor licensing on a state level.
Submitted by TheRealistMom on January 25, 2009 - 9:52pm.
"Women do become unintentionally pregnant when using contraception... over half of all women who became unintentionally pregnant were using some form of contraception during the month that they became pregnant." Mellankelly1 How many abortions were performed on women who did not use contraceptives? That's a more important statistic.
Submitted by Anonymous on January 20, 2009 - 1:49pm.

How many abortions were performed on women who did not use contraceptives? That's a more important statistic.

Why is that "more important?" I believe that both stats are equally important.  The most recent statistics reflect that 49% of all pregnancies are unintended and of those, 48% end in abortion.  Oh, and I found this information regarding pregnancies in 2001 - out of the 6.4 million pregnancies in the US, 3.1 million were unintended; approx. 1.4 million resulted in birth, 1.3 in abortion and 430,000 in miscarriage.

*

Regarding women who were not using contraception during the month that they became unintentionally pregnant:

Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex

~Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (Jones RK, Darroch JE and Henshaw SK)

 

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on January 20, 2009 - 4:03pm.
Why do so many look at abortion as a choice?? It is taking the life of an innocent child. Although many would disagree; you are killing a baby. There are so many different choices out there. So many people these days are unable to have children. For those that are not ready to be a parent you have the option to have the child adopted. In most cased the adoptive parents pay the medical expenses during the pregnancy so money should not be a problem to consider either. There are so many people that will go to the ends of the earth to help you during the pregnancy just so that you would not consider abortion. You just have to ask for help. It is always there! It is so hard to understand the fact that we as a nation fight harder for the rights of animals (PETA) than we do for the rights of a child.
Submitted by ChristianVoice on January 21, 2009 - 9:56am.
Only God and each person knows the motives of his own heart. Murderers choose to murder, rapists choose to rape, thieves choose to steal. So we make laws to protect the innocent. We shouldn't change that.
Submitted by Eddie on January 22, 2009 - 7:32pm.
The key is not to judge but to provide services and emotional support to women confronted with unwanted pregnancies for whatever reason. So much time and money is spent attempting to legislate against abortion where little money or time is spent supporting these women(children themselves often) and unborn children. No mention is ever made of the health consequences of abortion to the mother. The few shelters to house these women often come with strings attached, e.g. keep the baby, adopt a certain cultural or moral code. While private adoption seems like a monetary solution, babies cannot be sold in our culture for the obvious reason and certainly the emotional needs of the mother are not addressed. Having housed mothers with unintended pregnancies when told "there is no room at the inn" elsewhere,I see that little has changed for these women/girls paralyzed by a pregnancy. Unless some value is placed upon women/girls in these circumstances, the lives of babies will be lost. It takes a village of love and support.
Submitted by Anonymous on January 22, 2009 - 9:44pm.
Not that it's an excuse, but the most state systems already have too many abandoned or orphaned children then they know what to do with. The more realistic choice that women with unwanted pregnancies have is: abortion or have my child raised by the system that is full of abuse. The adoption system that we have today must truly be reevaluated. Although it can be strongly argued that a child would prefer to be alive and abused than dead, I think we, as a society, can do better.
Submitted by Anonymous on January 27, 2009 - 3:50pm.
I am currently 18 weeks pregnant and so happy that I am having this soon-to-be baby as a CHOICE. Since becoming pregnant I am even more pro-choice than I was before. Human life does not begin at conception. That's like saying my ovaries contain thousands of babies. They just don't. Miscarriage--whether intentional (abortion) or natural--is an everyday reality for millions of women across the world. Sometimes nature, or God, takes an embryo/fetus because it's not right for it to be born. Likewise, abortion enables women to choose what to do with their bodies. Until there's a way to remove an embryo safely from a woman's body and gestate it artificially, it is part of the woman's body. Period. I love this fetus in me, but I love him or her more knowing that I have the choice to nurture it, the choice to care for it. Because right now it's a part of me.
Submitted by Anonymous on January 25, 2009 - 6:26pm.
Umm, your ovaries contain eggs... not babies! Hence, the reason you must have a sperm to make a baby. Seriously people? Have you lost your minds? You're killing a life that has the right to be born... just like you were! Please get an education before posting. Thank you.
Submitted by Anonymous on January 29, 2009 - 9:23pm.
So you are saying women should hav the same powere as God?
Submitted by Anonymous on February 10, 2009 - 9:52pm.

So you are saying women should hav the same powere as God?

So, are you claiming that God menstruates, has sex and is capable of becoming unintentionally pregnant?
Submitted by Mellankelly1 on February 10, 2009 - 10:25pm.
I agree! A child should always be wanted and not merely tolerated.
Submitted by Anonymous on February 22, 2009 - 2:57pm.
Whe we think of the word, "right," it has a positive connotation-- something good as opposted to something bad. Something bad would be a wrong. Abortion, however, is never something good. It is a sad thing. No one really wants to have an abortion. Women don't grow up thinking, "Oh, yes, I'm going to have an abortion someday!" However, in calling it a "right," our society has whitewashed this hideous practice in the minds of our people. Girls grow up thinking that they have a nice, entitled little failsafe. Abortion is called a "procedure" and the unborn child, "products of conception." Many young girls have been led to believe that having an abortion is no less traumatic than having a tooth pulled. The reality is completely different. Having an abortion leaves scars-- physical, mental and emotional. A first time mother usually thinks in terms of "my condition" until she actually feels life. It is very hard to visualize the baby. The next pregnancy is very different. Many women have had abortions and have only realized the horror of what they have done when they carry their first child to term. Then they are devastated. A Right also should be for all people. The right of freedom of speech, due process, assembly, etc. However, the right to kill an unborn child is only given to women. Why should women have such a terrible right? If a man makes a woman pregnant, and she choses to carry to term, he has no choice but to pay some sort of child support. He can't say that he chooses abortion and wash his hands of his offspring. I am a woman, but I do not believe ANYONE should have the power of life or death.
Submitted by Anonymous on January 25, 2009 - 6:59pm.

to say you speak fo r all woman who've had an abortion. Some have no scars whatsoever and feel only relief.  The right to decide properly belongs only to women because we are the ones most affected by pregnancy, therefore women are better qualified than government to decide what is best for us.

 

Your grievance shall be avenged.

Submitted by otaku1960 on January 25, 2009 - 6:48pm.
In recent months having heard and being greatly concerned about the Caylee Anthony case in which a little girl was murdered possibly by accident or intentionally by a mother who maybe didn't want her it has made me more concerned for these babies. Because everyone is all up in arms about finding this baby's body and describing it as disturbing. Why is it not disturbing when what looks like a baby in a womb is also destoryed even more so ripped apart. Yes its not fare that the mother should have to take the brunt of this guilt and responsibility but thats what should change mens attitudes should change and they should respect and care for women in an appropriate manner. This can only happen through how women percieve themselves. The sexual revolution has done nothing but cast women into a system in which there bodies are more important than their souls.
Submitted by Anonymous on January 26, 2009 - 6:07pm.
In recent months having heard and being greatly concerned about the Caylee Anthony case in which a little girl was murdered possibly by accident or intentionally by a mother who maybe didn't want her it has made me more concerned for these babies. Because everyone is all up in arms about finding this baby's body and describing it as disturbing. Why is it not disturbing when what looks like a baby in a womb is also destoryed even more so ripped apart. Yes its not fare that the mother should have to take the brunt of this guilt and responsibility but thats what should change mens attitudes should change and they should respect and care for women in an appropriate manner. This can only happen through how women percieve themselves. The sexual revolution has done nothing but cast women into a system in which their bodies are more important than their souls.
Submitted by Anonymous on January 26, 2009 - 6:07pm.
In recent months having heard and being greatly concerned about the Caylee Anthony case in which a little girl was murdered possibly by accident or intentionally by a mother who maybe didn't want her it has made me more concerned for these babies. Because everyone is all up in arms about finding this baby's body and describing it as disturbing. Why is it not disturbing when what looks like a baby in a womb is also destoryed even more so ripped apart. Yes its not fare that the mother should have to take the brunt of this guilt and responsibility but thats what should change mens attitudes should change and they should respect and care for women in an appropriate manner. This can only happen through how women percieve themselves. The sexual revolution has done nothing but cast women into a system in which their bodies are more important than their souls.
Submitted by Anonymous on January 26, 2009 - 6:07pm.
The law deals with reality- not with whatever mythology an individual follows. The reality is a woman is an autonomous individual who needs to have the choice on whether to be pregnant or not. Any spiritual concerns are between the woman and her relationship with deity, should she have one. The "sexual revolution" is not to blame for abortion- it has always existed. What it has done is empowered women to make their own decisions, including being able to use contraception and not bear unwanted children. Those of us who don't buy into your sky-daddy mythos shouldn't have to be constrained by a misplaced sense of the "purpose" of sex, or by a specific idea of personhood not supported by scientific fact.
Submitted by TheRealistMom on January 26, 2009 - 6:41pm.
I have spent the afternoon researching this FOCA bill and have found that it does state abortions can only be performed in beginning pregnancy unless life issues are presented and it also states that hospitals and doctors can refuse to perform them due to their religous or moral convictions,so I do not understand what the differance now.I became pregnant in 1974 and was told by the school nurse that they could arrange an abortion for me without my parents knowing.That I would be taken to hospital in morning and be back by the time school was out and no one would ever know.I personally could not do that and have a 35 year old daughter today,but that was my choice.I don't feel that I have the right to make that choice for everyone.I do believe this bill will get more counseling and contraceptives to the ones that needs them;I also believe this will cut down on AIDS.Thus resulting in fewer abortions.I think this country needs to fight harder for the rights of women as my lovely daughter that I am so thankful for, has a job and health insurance,but her insurance won't cover birth control,but does cover viagra.Where is the rational thinking in this country?Health care for all is the bigger fight.
Submitted by Anonymous on January 27, 2009 - 4:18pm.
From my point of view, everyone just needs to worry about their own body and lives and stay out of others. I hate when people say, "Well if you don't want to have a baby then don't have sex." Umm, excuse me?? So because you are more financially stable or because you are in the point of your life where you want to have a baby that means that you are allowed to have sex and I am not?? Everyone goes through the same experiences and it is not fair to tell someone "JUST DON'T HAVE SEX" ESPECIALLY if you would never be willing to do the same. It is not practical to tell EVERY 20-something year old couple to not have sex! Sorry, but not everyone thinks it is necessary to wait until they are ready to have a kid to have sex--and that is a life fact. I am a biology major about to graduate school in a couple of months, and if I got pregnant by my boyfriend (of 3 years) I would NOT have the child. Are you going to pay my bills? Are you going to go to school for me? Is it okay that my absolute dream in life is to be a doctor yet pro-choice people would rather see me struggle in a low-wage 9-5 job while a babysitter takes care of my child? There are too many babies born out there to young kids who don't know how to raise them or cannot financially support them to give them proper education and life experiences. That's unfair to me.
Submitted by Pre-Med on January 28, 2009 - 12:00pm.