Some of the political proponents of FOCA have said that it will "only" codify at the federal level Roe vs. Wade. This is bad enough; however the reality is that pro-abortion interest groups have emphatically stated that it is designed to go even beyond Roe and the companion case Doe vs. Bolton (which made the "health exception" for abortion in the third trimester include emotional, social and even economic factors!) and the abortion on demand legal environment which they created.
We are not making this up; here is a study from the Family Research Council quoting the various pro-abortion interest groups. we excerpt from it below the link; the full report prints out at five pages and includes 17 footnotes. See the second paragraph below, quoting the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
... let's review the history of FOCA. The Freedom of Choice Act was first introduced in November 1989 by Representative Don Edwards (D-Calif.) and Senator Alan Cranston (D-Calif.). The legislation seemed to be a response to the Webster decision [6] from February of that year. Webster was the first Supreme Court decision that broadened the restrictions that could be put on the use of tax money to pay for abortions. FOCA quickly became a tool for pro-abortion politicians to declare their fealty to the abortion cause. When pro-abortion President Bill Clinton took office in 1993, Planned Parenthood had high hopes for the passage of FOCA. [7] The bill ended up being stuck in the Senate with the opposition led by Senator Obama's predecessor, Carol Moseley Braun (D-Ill.), [8] based on concerns that it did not go far enough. The opposition argued that "the bill allows the states to discriminate against young and poor women seeking an abortion"[9] by ensuring conscience protections for health care personnel, not requiring states to fund abortions and allowing for parental consent in cases of minors seeking an abortion. The Senate version of the bill, S.25, explicitly stated that, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent a State from protecting unwilling individuals or private health care institutions from having to participate in the performance of abortions to which they are conscientiously opposed; prevent a State from declining to pay for the performance of abortions; or prevent a State from requiring a minor to involve a parent, guardian, or other responsible adult before terminating a pregnancy."[10] At the time, both NARAL and The New York Times, two strong supporters of abortion on demand, supported the Senate "compromise." It comes as no surprise, though, that they seem to have no problem with the current bill omitting the "compromise" language of 1993 and, instead, inserting a provision that says state and federal governments may not "discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information."[11] Thus, the state and federal government must use taxpayer funds to pay for abortions at all stages of pregnancy. Not to do so would be discriminatory toward abortion "rights" as stated in the legislation.
Some of the supporters of the "Freedom of Choice Act" state that it merely codifies Roe v. Wade. This could not be further from the truth. As the American Civil Liberties Union said in its Reproductive Rights Update from December 20, 1991, "This [FOCA] bill prohibits such restrictions as parental notification and consent, as well as the requirement that all abortions be performed in a hospital, spousal consent, waiting periods ..."
Maryland has had a Freedom of Choice-like law on their books since 1991. Here is what has happened to the Maryland abotion rate since then -
Since that time, Maryland law has provided for abortion on demand even late in pregnancy, granted abortionists immunity from legal action, allowed abortionists the discretion to perform abortions on minors without notifying a parent, and denied health care workers the right to refuse to make abortion referrals as a matter of conscience.[13] ... According to Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute, the abortion rate in the United States has declined nine percent since 2000 to 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age in 2005. By contrast, the state of Maryland produced a rate of 31.5 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age, an increase of eight percent since 1991.[14] Pro-abortion advocates argue that eliminating laws designed to protect women, parents, children and health care providers will make abortion "safe, legal and rare." While it is highly questionable whether such actions make abortion safer, allowing for unrestricted abortions only increases the likelihood of abortion, certainly not making it rarer.
In 1991, Maryland 's abortion rate was similar to the national average of 26.3 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. As seen in the Guttmacher Institute's own chart (see below), while Maryland 's abortion rate has steadily increased since the enactment of its FOCA-type law in 1991, the national abortion rate has had an equally steady decrease.
The table speaks for itself. See our prior posting LifeNet: Letter from Knights of Columbus - the Freedom of Choice Act for a summary of the state laws that will be invalidated by FOCA.
An abortionist's dream come true.
Comments