http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills info@washingtonwatch.com http://www.pjdoland.com/chai/?v=0.1 http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#47997 Ultrasound images showing the movement of a child inside the womb leave no doubt that this is a living human. Allowing someone the right to kill this living person is no different then taking a gun and killing your neighbor. Decisions to have or not have a baby should be made prior to having intercourse, not after. This is a bill that actually attacks the rights of humans to have a life. PLEASE DO NOT PASS THIS BILL.... 47997@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:11:09 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#47568 Ferde, you make a great point. They actually do not, that's the ethical dillema of it all. However, criminalizing a practice that has been traced back thousands of years, will not stop it. It's like the infamous "War on Drugs." We waged a war that we will never win. All that did was make the market more profitable for some criminals and raise the stakes. It has done nothing to stop drug abuse, addiction etc. If we criminalize abortion, it will open the door for criminally minded individuals to do them illegally and in the same back alley way they were performed before. Women will be subjected to dirty, unsafe, and unregulated options for abortion. If we examine stats and the History of this issue, no laws have ever been effective at stopping it. Perhaps there needs to be regulation, but not a criminalization. If we leave it the way it is, there will come a day when the original Roe v Wade decision will be overturned and that will be a sad sad day for women!... 47568@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:12:36 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#47567 I do not think that your analysis of this bill is quite correct. It does not seek to do away with "all" abortion regulations, only those that prove to be discriminatory. I have read this bill over and over and I have never read the part that states that all medical staff will be forced to provide abortions. The bill seeks to make abortion obtainable for all women without discriminatory practices that limit abortion for certain women, particularly women of color, women living in poverty and young girls. I have also read the original Roe v Wade decision in its entirety very carefully. FOCA would only codify this original decision. States would still have the option to ban abortion or restrict it after fetal viability, just like they do now. This legislation is being brought before Congress as a way to permanently legalize abortion up to fetal viablility. If you have other information that tells you otherwise, please cite your source as I would like to look it up.... 47567@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:04:51 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#47465 It is murder.At seven weeks you can see their heart beating that folks is life,think it isn't take yours out and see how long you make it.Women put themselves in the position and get pregnant and then OMG what did I do well you commited the sin now you pay for it.I don't want to hear no sad sob stories about how they can't take care of it i have three children and none where planned and i have had a hard time raising them but it has made me love them that much more.I have sold aluminium cans to buy diapers,worked for the local trash dumps picking up trash to clothe and diaper my daughter.I never asked for peoople's pitty or there money i done it on my own.when the Government raises young girls to not take responsibilty for their actions,then as adults they won't do it then either.If a man hits a pregnant woman and the baby dies they can charge him w/murder,if he is the dad does that give the right to kill it and go free?... 47465@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:22:37 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#47331 Who woulda thunk it?! It's about "the right to speak your mind"? Silly me! I thought this bill was about removing all restrictions from abortion! Do the abortees get to "live [their] life the way [they] see fit"?... 47331@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:17:43 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#47325 think about it the right to choice means the right speak your mind like your doing now live your life the way you see fit vote come people quit being stupid.... 47325@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:47:12 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#47297 The thing that makes me sick about this law is that it removes ALL regulations, laws, and court decisions on abortion. That includes the act that allows doctors to have the choice of whether or not they wish to perform the abortion. If this act is passed, it will allow patients to sue doctors for not performing a procedure that is immoral and unethical to them. The Catholic church has said that it will shut down all of its charity hospitals if the doctors are forced to perform just one abortion. Even worse, if the health care system is socialized, the doctors will be under the authority of the government. They will be required to perform abortions against their will otherwise they will lose their licenses. This worries me EXTREMELY because I am a med school student, and I have already made the moral decision never to perform an abortion. Thus, I will be sued for all my worth and I will lose my job if this act passes.... 47297@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:27:06 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#47211 Also KW, regarding mothers who decide after birth that they cannot care for the child, they've started programs in various states that the baby can be brought to the local hospital and given up for adoption. It's not easy for a mother to give up her infant, but regret for taking a life is worse. The children who go from foster home to foster home are generally those who have been taken away from their birth family due to drugs, alcohol, or abuse there. Generally, the children's services department tries to give the parent(s) ample opportunity to clean up and reclaim their children, though when unsuccessful, the child undergoes more trauma. By the time they "freed up" for adoption, many have endured a lot of pain, especially since this means the social workers have determined that the parents are not able to reform their lives in order to provide a safe home for the child. This has little to do with removing *all* limits to abortion, which is the purpose of this proposed law.... 47211@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 08 Dec 2008 11:48:57 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#47210 KW, I have researched adoption, due to sterility. There are regulations, yes, in order to make sure that potential adopters will provide a good home for the child. The main barrier, is that in the US, there are very few children available, particularly babies. This is why couples are willing to look at adoptions from overseas, which, believe me, involves much more restriction and regulation than adoption in the US, but at least has the possibility of finding a child. I *have* visited ghettos and worked with several children from unwanted pregnancies, following some all the way to adulthood. Some have had problems, but don't we all? At least these kids were allowed to live! Children who have been adopted have it even better: they were *wanted* by their parents. One proud father introduced his daughter, without hiding her "adopted" status by calling her is "chosen" daughter. Surely this would be better than to be scraped out into a steel bowl!... 47210@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 08 Dec 2008 11:29:12 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#47166 One last thing. If a woman does not have the means to care for a child,but is forced to keep that child, she may later realize for many different reasons, that she cannot care for the child. Then, the child is no longer a baby. It is a grown child (whatever age the child may be) that has been through many trials and tribulations, much trauma, and can remember their mother that did not want them. This child inevitably is moved from foster home to foster home, then ends up on a state adoptions waiting list. How many people are in line to adopt that child? Have you done any research about this?... 47166@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sat, 06 Dec 2008 03:10:01 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#47165 I have not extensively researched adoption, but I do know enough to know that it is extremenly difficult for many people to adopt children in the US. The regulations and restrictions applied to adoption create many barriers for suitable families to adopt children in this country. Other countries do not have the same strict laws and this is a primary reason for opting to adopt from other countries. And no I do not beleive that any cild is better off dead. I do feel though that with the current systems we have in place, making abortion illegal would be more detrimental than many pro-life activists would ever admit. Also, until you have visited a ghetto or worked with a child from an unwanted pregnancy you have no idea what the quality of life is or is not. Being better off dead is not the answer, but the reprocussions are so tremendous that I can guarantee our country is not ready to accept the responsibilty for that. We do not accept it now!... 47165@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sat, 06 Dec 2008 03:05:04 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#46993 KW, you bring up some interesting points. Perhaps you're not aware of the tremendous backlog of US couples wanting to adopt, particularly babies. Many of them are not able to find children to adopt in the US, and adopt from overseas. You would know this if you had done any research on adoption. Digging a little deeper, though, your question exposes an interesting assumption: that if the baby is "unwanted", at least by the mother, he or she is better off dead.... 46993@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:42:27 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#46960 Are you prepared to take responsibility for that life? Are you prepared to take the children in that are born to poor, oppressed women? Are you prepared to deal with the drug addicted baby? Or should we just force all these lives to be born to women that do not have the means or the abilty to support them and hope that they go live in some ghetto somewhere far away, so long as they are not in our neighborhoods huh? What have you done lately for unwanted children? Maybe we could just send them all to orphanages like we used to and like some other countries do. That shouldn't be so bad right, as long as those kids don't play with your children. I see all this talk about protecting the life of the child before it's born, what about after? The system we currently have is plain and simply horrible. In my opinion, it does nothing to help these children!... 46960@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:20:45 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#46959 All you people that argue against abortion: Are you in line to be foster parents? Are you in line to adopt children? What do you say to the children of unwanted pregnancies. Do you sit in your posh little houses with white picket fences and feel good about yourself because you said a prayer for all the unwanted children of our country? Making something illegal will not make it go away! You talk about responsibility. I agree, people should be responsible. And if it is your responsibility to protect the unborn, the nit is also your responsibility to protect the unwanted born. What are you doing about that? And why aren't we talking about that here? If we force women to take responsibilty and keep the baby, what happens to that baby when it goes home with a mother that does not want it?... 46959@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:11:03 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#46914 God have mercy on our country.... 46914@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:15:39 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#46872 I am totally in favor of pro-choice. The freedom for a women to decide whether she should have intercourse, with whom and when. The freedom to choose to use birth control when having intercouse. Why isn't that discussed here!? How about a little responsibility for your actions! Abortion as a "true medical procedure" i.e. mother's health is in question, etc. is one thing, but as a method of birth control it is an aboration!... 46872@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:55:29 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#46710 The only thing worse than abortion are the lies the pro-life and pro-choice lobbies both throw out to support their positions. If there were more intellectual honesty and less self-righteous nonsense we would have been able to establish rational and acceptable policy on this issue for the 90% of Americans who aren't extremist lunatics (at either end of the spectrum) Despite the desires of the pro-life lobby, abortion will always be with us. It's been with us, in some form, since ancient times and will be regardless of its legal status. Despite the best wishes of the pro-choice lobby, it is a practice that requires monitoring and regulation.... 46710@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:09:10 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#46444 I happen to be a mother to a baby delivered at 25 weeks gestation. My blob of tissue looked and acted remarkably like a BABY. She was perfect. She cried when they did heel pricks and recognized our voices. It makes me sick that the FOCA was ever created. I grieve for my baby (I mean blob of tissue) every day. I know what she looked like at 10 weeks. Yes, my husband and I created her, yes I carried her in my body, but she was always her own person. I know she could feel pain and comfort. I know she suffered during her death. You can't imagine how strong these babies fight to live. It amazed me. If everyone would take responsibility for their actions this wouldn't even be a discussion.... 46444@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:01:39 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#46400 This is an issue where politics coincide with morality, and one's moral or religious beliefs simply cannot be compromised. Do not ask someone to "get over it"; whether you are aware or not, you are asking someone to abandon their most deep-rooted principles to conform to a policy which stands for exactly the opposite. In my personal opinion, we have chosen to concede to the culture of death, and we will most definitely be punished.... 46400@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:33:00 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#46290 If you buy a preganant cow, dog, horse, etc., it is not uncommon to pay double the normal price, because it is obvious it has a value, even in its earliest stages of pregnancy. Yet, you try to tell me a woman has the RIGHT to decide if her baby has value? And she has the RIGHT because it is not human? You try to justify what you KNOW is wrong! It would be better to have a mill-stone hung around your neck and be pushed into the sea that it would be to hurn one of my innocent children.... 46290@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:25:13 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#46283 I really don't understand why pro-life can't mind their own business. You don't know why a woman might choose to have an abortion, but it is her personal business. I can honestly say that you are not going to take care of that baby, despite what ever situation the mother is in. So leave it alone.... 46283@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sun, 16 Nov 2008 22:48:53 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#46219 I would have to agree. This Freedom of Choice Act should have never been released in the first place nor introduced. I don't believe in abortion one bit and can not believe that Obama would sign this bill to make it legal for all hospitals to permit abortions. This is the most rediculous thing ever.... 46219@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:13:57 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#46207 As has been stated several times several diffrent ways...once there is conception and there is a new DNA structure there is a new person. The woman has the right to choose what happens to HER body but not to choose what happens to the PERSON she is now carrying. Just like I don't have the chance to choose if I am going to murder someone she can not and should not have the "right" to choose to kill this new unborn person.... 46207@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:07:57 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#46201 Why should tax payers directly Fund abortion???? Why should Catholic Hospitals be FORCED to perform abortions????... 46201@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:32:05 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1173.html#46077 Anyone who cannot understand that a child, before or after birth, is a seperate human being from the mother, perhaps should not support any laws that prevent child abuse, I mean as long as it is just the mother who is the abuser, as she conceived this child, it's part of her body, right? The notion that a woman's right to decide what to do with her body, after she decided what to do with her body that got her pregnant in the first place, is a flawed philosophy...America will never prosper until we protect ALL citizens of this country!!... 46077@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:39:07 EST