How People Voted
 |
 |
18% For, 82% Against
Take Action
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
S. 1173, The Freedom of Choice Act
- This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
Revision History 
Below is the revision history of this article.
(Learn how to edit the WashingtonWatch.com wiki.)
(Latest | Earliest)
To look at a past version, click on its date. To compare any two versions, select their radio buttons and click on "Compare Selected Versions." To compare a past version with the current version, click on (cur). To compare a version with the preceding version, click on (last).
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
shortstuff
August 10, 2007, 12:54pm (report abuse)Abortion is against the fifth commandment given to us by Yahweh.
rita
October 7, 2007, 10:06pm (report abuse)I believe a woman should have the right to choose if she has intercourse or not. Once she gets pregnant than her babies rights should also be protected under the United States of America Law. PLEASE DO NOT PASS THIS BILL
Charles Moore
November 1, 2007, 11:16pm (report abuse)Wow. What a horrible bill. When did congress stop protection the lives of all Americans, from conception to the grave. Or did they forget that life begins at conception not at deliverance. I feel so sorry for those trying to enact such a henious act into law. Rather they should be spending their collective times together finding ways to encourage women to carry their childern to full term rather than carry out the full scall exterimation of the next generation of Americans. I would rather see birthing centers with viable parents standing in line to receive the new borns with open loving arms than to try and protect what they claim is just mere commerece. When did the whole sale or should I say for sale slaughter of children, babies, become commerce in American?
CHARLES MOORE
November 1, 2007, 11:20pm (report abuse)I pray for this land of ours that we not become a people so far removed from the idea and pure principle of life, liberty and justice for all, that somehow we have moved toward and not only moved but in many ways as is now apparent with this group of Congress that those ideals of purity and preciousness and righteousness have some far left them with nothing more than a cold hard and a blackend consienceness. So darkened have their hearts become that they can not longer see the simple differences between what is right and what is wrong. And my heart goes out to them.
Frank
November 22, 2007, 10:18am (report abuse)This is a political, not a religious, issue. Stop praying to remove another's rights. Keep your nose out of other's business. Your hypocrisy is showing!
Robert
November 24, 2007, 3:31pm (report abuse)This is not a religious issue, it's a moral issue. Murder of an innocent is immoral, no matter how many fancy words you try to hid it under.
John
December 26, 2007, 6:27pm (report abuse)Thankfully this country is not governed by the laws of the Koran, the Torah, or the Bible. Our species appears to finally be evolving out of the era of superstition and hocus pocus of religious dogmatism. Unfortunately the species is not yet free of biological forces that left unchecked can lead to our own extinction. So just as we need a government of checks and balances, we need checks and balances on our all too primitive behaviors of uncontrolled reproduction and sexual coercion of less powerful individuals in our society by those that wield more power. I will hope for and work toward the day when Roe V Wade will no longer be necessary to control reproduction and I will continue to support such legislation until that day.
Deb
March 25, 2008, 1:17am (report abuse)Religion and state are separate. It's a women's right to choose, and no one's *RIGHT* to enforce their thinking onto others, as it states in the constitution. It is not a 'human being" as covered under the constitution until birth and viable. Religious people are so confused, and profess to be religious identifying themselves with the body too much. The soul (which is actually the thinking person), comes to a complete/viable body, not an incomplete one, just before, during or after birth. NOW, it's a human being. BUT - Regardless of anyone's religion, it's not right to take away a woman's constitutional right to her own body, even if it's not rape or incest. Her body is her property and no one owns her nor has the *right* to dictate her life. Not the gov't, not the neighbors. Once a woman's rights are gone, so are the man's. So are everyone's. NEVER give the gov't the *rights* over your lives on ANY issue.
Crispy
March 25, 2008, 3:19pm (report abuse)Sorry, Deb. It is one of the government's roles to protect its citizens. You may view that as "enforcing their thinking onto others". Well, some people used to think that people of color were not protected by the Constitution. The 14th Amendment made that clear. Establishment of religion has NOTHING to do with it. You seem to have a dogmatic belief that a person's not a person until they're born. There is no question that an unborn child is a human being, distinct from, but dependent upon the mother. They are able to react to stimuli and appear to be able to feel pain. We prosecute cruelty to animals, yet still allow a child to be killed up to, and sometimes after delivery. It's a government's duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
Deb
March 27, 2008, 8:14pm (report abuse)The gov't, nor a person's neighbors have the *right* to force people to live the way they wish them to live. I am not your slave, and you have no *right* to dictate how I, or anyone else must live. No, it's not a 'human being' yet. The definitions of *rights*, and 'human being' are at fault here. I am a trained midwife. I know. Banning right to choice, will not stop it.
Deb
March 27, 2008, 8:17pm (report abuse)"The essential POLITICAL (not religious) question is:
does the fetus have a *right* to be in the body of the woman
- against the will of the woman?
OR
does the woman's body belong to her,
OR
to the government to FORCIBLY dispose of [her rights]
in favor of the fetus?
- Lenard Peikoff
Lee
March 27, 2008, 8:47pm (report abuse)Fetal rights, are a gimmick to destroy a woman's indiv CONSTITUTIONAL rights. If a woman has no rights to decide what to do with HER own body, then she has no rights at all-then neither do the rest of us. It is a woman's constitutional *RIGHT* to HER LIFE that gives HER the right to terminate her pregnancy, from HER body. It is a woman's indiv const right to HER life,HER liberty,& the pursuit of HER happiness that sanctions HER right to have an abortion. Anti attitude is, the actual life of the parents be damned! Give up your life, liberty, property and the pursuit of your own happiness. Sentencing a woman to sacrifice HER LIFE to an embryo is not upholding the "right-to-life." Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life-lovers of tissue, maybe. But their stand marks them as haters of real human beings. They have created the specter of communist Chinese-like gov't coercion -L. Peikoff
Crispy
March 29, 2008, 11:00am (report abuse)Deb, Lee, and Leonard: In your Objectivist utopia, it's your right to do anything you want in order to pursue YOUR happiness. In the US of A, the government DOES "force people to live the way they wish them to live". At 18 you are required to register for Selective Service, so that you are available in case the "master" in Washington decides to have a war. You are required (in most places) to pay a portion of the price of what you buy to the gov't. You are required to pay a portion of all that you earn. If you want to drive a car, you have to get permission from the government. If not an actual slave, you're at best a sharecropper. The rationale for this "slavery" is that you do have obligations to others, and the gov't will FORCIBLY dispose of your rights if you do not meet them.
wombat
March 29, 2008, 8:44pm (report abuse)Isn't it funny that most laws tell you what you can't do, or what you must do, and then list penalties for not complying. Perhaps they've gotten tired of that and are now just going to list the things that you ARE allowed to do.
TMO
June 24, 2008, 3:24pm (report abuse)You who disagree with this bill are brainwashed. Nothing is going to stop a woman from aborting when she feels threatened, not your laws or your opinions, women were having abortions before Roev Wade made it legal and if you take it away they will still sekk abortions. The reason RoevWade must remain in legislation is to protect women and girls from seeking unsafe abortions, we must keep abortion safe and available from certified doctors, otherwise women will die from doing things like they did in the 50's, sticking metal hangers into themselves to perform it at home. Keep it legal, and keep opinions to yourself. Noone wants to kill a baby, but noone wants women to loose their lives over pregnancy either.
Crispy
June 26, 2008, 12:07pm (report abuse)Excuse me, TMO, but who made you dictator?! You seem to enjoy using your 1st Amendment freedom of speech, but want others to "keep opinions to yourself". First, Roe v Wade did not suddenly make abortions legal, it just took away the right of states to determine their own laws on the subject. Abortions were legal in many states before Roe, and whether legal, quasi-legal, or illegal, most abortions were performed by doctors anyway. Second, there are still unsafe abortions, even from doctors, even today. Just google "Cemetery of choice" to inform yourself. Third, you claim that "[n]oone wants to kill a baby", yet Barack Obama voted down a law to give live babies born after an abortion attempt the same right to be kept alive as other babies. Fourth, very few of the women seeking abortion are in danger of losing their lives from pregnancy. If this were the case, Roe would not have created a "right to privacy", but would have addressed it as a right to life.
RLE
July 10, 2008, 8:43am (report abuse)Here's a quote for TMO: "We fed the public a line of deceit, dishonesty, a fabrication of statistics and figures. We succeeded(in breaking down the laws limiting abortions)becasue the time was right and the news media cooperated. We sensationalized the effects of illegal abortions and fabricated polls which indicated that 85 percent of the public favored unrestricted abortion, when we knew it was only 5 percent. We unashamedly lied, and yet our statements were quoted(by the media) as though they had been written in law." Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson, one of the origianl members of the National Association for Repeal of Abortion Laws. I think it's time for the people of the U.S. of A. to go back to reading and stop being fed by the media!
John
July 18, 2008, 4:02pm (report abuse)If this bill passes, it will be a tragic day for America.
There is no such thing as a "safe abortion". All abortions are unsafe for the child.
Andrew
July 18, 2008, 4:04pm (report abuse)Abortion ends the life of a human being. No woman has the right to end the life of her child.
Still have questions
September 15, 2008, 11:17pm (report abuse)I adamantly support ending abortion. If we make it illegal:
How will we track and monitor success in reducing the number of abortions?
How will we enforce it? How would anyone know an abortion had happened? At least we can see silos of 1% Rape, 3% Medical - balance for poverty or just unwanted. Why not take the first two out of the equation for now and just focus on how to prevent unwanted pregnancy? Mother Teresa had better success with Natural Family Planning (preventing unwanted pregnancy)in India than any government ever had with legislation.
Dorothy
September 27, 2008, 12:29am (report abuse)Freedom of choice is a misnomer. If this was really about freedom of choice, hospitals and doctors who morally oppose abortion should have a choice not to perform this heinous procedure, but if this bill passes, they will not have that choice. This is a pro-abortion bill, not a freedom of "choice" bill.
Payday Loan Advocate
September 29, 2008, 6:22am (report abuse)If there are no problems, no solution is necessary. When it comes to the payday loan industry and the valuable assistance that they provide, there aren’t very many problems, if any at all. Many customers have nothing but good things to say, due to the fact that, if used properly, these loans provide a valuable service, and help a person out when they are in trouble. However, many of the people in high places don’t see the value behind short-term loans, and want to fix what isn’t broken. Some bipartisan fronts have outlawed the industry outright in several states, and even candidate Barack Obama wants to take a shot as well. We aren’t going to tell you how to vote, but remember that you have to make the right choice for the people right to financial independence.
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/
paula
October 3, 2008, 4:51pm (report abuse)I feel that young women are pushed into haveing abortions,and the government is making it taboo for thier own interests. Babys have body parts that can be used for various science testing and the medical industry is the problem and these baby parts are important to them. We should be going after and turning the stones and finding who the culprits are and take their body parts for testing and literily take an eye for an eye. These scientist are considering these babys are spieces, it is down right evil. we should stop the slotering of little babys.
John
October 5, 2008, 1:20am (report abuse)I've seen estimates of the number of Catholics in this country as high as 67 million (of approximately 300 million) Where is the Catholic voice?
Barack Obama strongly favors this bill. I would love to see it brought up in a debate before this year's election. People who support LIFE (and ALL Catholics) should get informed, and vote according to their conscience. They should also let their congressional representatives know that this bill which favors DEATH over LIFE should not be passed.
Jason
October 6, 2008, 11:33am (report abuse)The bottom line is that this legislation is both ethically and morally wrong. There is no arguement, there is no gray area, it's wrong period and anybody with half a brian realizes that.
Although abortion was legalized (by the biggest mistake in Supreme Court history) in 1973, this act as well as abortion itself, shows just how backward we have gone as a society over the last 4 or 5 decades.
If we have any regard for life whatsoever, we CANNOT allow this to happen.
Laura
October 10, 2008, 4:00pm (report abuse)As an RN where is my right to choose? My right to choose to conscienciously object to being part of such a procedure. This bill says I have no right!
Mary
October 10, 2008, 11:00pm (report abuse)According to this bill, the only ones who have rights are those who chose to kill. Anyone who wants the child to live isn't allowed to "interfere." I do not want this law to pass because it is immoral. Killing is wrong.
Alex
October 15, 2008, 4:56pm (report abuse)That is a great point Laura. I think Dr. and RNs and other medical professionals should be able to refuse to give an abortion if they are morally opposed. A woman could still get an abortion but to force someone into killing is wrong.
Is our nation going to force Conscientious objectors in to combat next too?
HUMBERTO GIL
October 17, 2008, 3:21pm (report abuse)ANYBODY WHO WOULD VOTE FOR THIS SHOULD BE PUT IN JAIL FOR MURDER. WHAT ALL YOU PRO BABY KILLERS ARE FOR KILLING BABIES JUST BECAUSE OF THE IRRESPONSIBILITY OF A WOMAN. SLAVERY WAS LEGAL AT ONE TIME, DID THAT MAKE IT O.K ? OF COURSE NOT. REMEMBER WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS STATED, "LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINES" YOU CANT HAVE LIBERTY AND THE PURSIUTOF HAPPINESS WITHOUT LIFE. STOP THIS GENOCIDE, THESE ARE HUMAN BEINGS THAT ARE BEING KILLED. YOU HAVE NO MORAL OR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO KILL A INOCENT BABY. AND YOU HEARD ME CORRECTLY, THE CONSITUTION GIVES US NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO KILL OUR BABIES. YOU CALL IT CHOICE THE REALITY IS ITS MURDER!!! CHOICE MY FOOT, AND YOU FOOLS WHO BELEIVE IN THE LIE OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE NEED TO STOP DRINKING COOLAIDE AND READ THE WRITINGS OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. WHAT A SHOCK WHEN YOU STAND BEFORE THE ALL MIGHTY LOOKING STUPID AND WICKED IN HIS EYES.IT WILL BE TO LATE FOR YOU.
Dan
October 20, 2008, 1:10pm (report abuse)Just another step on the road towards treating human beings as someone else's property, to be destroyed when they are not 'convenient' and cannot stand up for themselves. Where is the logic behind this? If a human being is 'viable', which is code for 'able to live for some time on the outside', why is not 'termination of the pregnancy', actually considered a birth? That happens thousands of times every day as healthy babies are delivered at the hospital to loving arms. In this case, the euphamisms spring up again! In this case, again (as it has always been), 'terminating a pregnancy' is not about the mother. It is about the baby. In this case specifically, it is preventing a viable baby the opportunity to live 'on the outside', it is about killing him/her, so that they do not. Wake up! What are we becoming?
Jackie
October 22, 2008, 9:30pm (report abuse)when did we start getting so concerned about what is legal and illegal? when did we stop worrying about what is simply the right thing to do? if you choose to have sex you should be fully aware of the consequences. personal responsibility is the quickly eroding in this country. we can see it on wall street in washington, in our own credit card debt. lets WAKE UP! and say "i alone am responsible for the consequences of my actions- good or bad. and i won't pass them off the the government or to taxpayers or to my child.
Jeff
October 25, 2008, 7:50pm (report abuse)You can not legislate morality. Stop Trying. The 4th Amendment gives us the right to privacy. Deal with it.
Leigh
October 26, 2008, 10:59am (report abuse)Jackie hit the nail on the head, what has become of being responsible for your own actions. That is the biggest problem today. This bill will only further regress our country and especially our young people in understanding that we are responsible for our actions and actions have consequences.
MLB
October 26, 2008, 11:02am (report abuse)I have one question to anyone who wants to pass this bill. Do you have children? If you answered yes, how can you pass this bill!?!
Melissa
October 26, 2008, 5:40pm (report abuse)Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sangar a known racist. Her views are clearly stated as to rid the world of an inferior race(her thoughts were based on Hitler's view of eugenic. More Black babies are killed than white every year since 1973- a reason why the black population is only 12% in America.
frank md
October 27, 2008, 10:55am (report abuse)jeff:
if we cannot legislate morality why is rape illegal? It may surprise you but in spite of rape being illegal it still occurs. However the law discourages some rapes from occurring.
Robert
October 27, 2008, 4:46pm (report abuse)Jeff....just how does the 4th amendment give us the right to privacy sir?
Pat
October 30, 2008, 11:29pm (report abuse)Black population have a higher percentage of low income citizens and if unmarried might consider a baby a heavy burden and favor abortion for their own sake and well being.
White population because of their status are less likely to be low income, more likely to believe that
a living baby could be human and more likely to be considered to have right to life and would consider adoption rather than abortion.
Citizen Chloe
October 31, 2008, 4:38pm (report abuse)"shortstuff: Abortion is against the fifth commandment given to us by Yahweh."
And it really pisses Zeus off, as well.
Max
October 31, 2008, 5:08pm (report abuse)Abortion is the worst genocide in the history of the world, nothing will ever come close except a possible future world nuclear war. Over 300,000,000+ babies have been murdered worldwide in this genocide in the last 60 years alone.
Juan
October 31, 2008, 7:19pm (report abuse)Note to the author of comment 7:
If our society is "advancing" beyond religion, how come they can't "advance" beyond their wanton lust, which is the root cause of this issue in the first place???
Abortion has ended more lives than the Iraq war, Gulf war, and both World Wars put together. End the slaughter of countless human beings. Give unborn people their right to "choice". End abortion.
Jenny
November 1, 2008, 9:45pm (report abuse)"We cannot legislate morality?" Are you serious? It shocks me how brainwashed people have become by the "pro-choice" movement. We absolutely CAN legislate morality and we always have. We say that murder is wrong -- that is a moral assessment. Murder is against the law. Stealing is wrong -- another moral assessment. Stealing is against the law.
This proposed Act could not be any more evil as far as I am concerned.
I encourage everyone to look at the website for nonpartisan Feminists for Life and read about the group's positions and work, particularly their advocacy for giving women REAL choice -- the choice not to end the life of her child. Watch the video of a survivor of an abortion attempt and tell me that that woman does not deserve to live.
Crystal
November 1, 2008, 11:53pm (report abuse)Abortion is murder. Plain and simple. This bill would take away all rights of anyone or any entity opposed to Abortion. Nurses, Doctors, Pharmacists, Hospitals will all have to participate in this horribly crime against ourselves. No one will be immune from the oppression of being FORCED to participate.
Most abortions in the US are not to victims of rape or incest. They are purely because a baby is considered "an accident" or "inconvenient."
This despicable bill will even destroy the ban on Partial Birth Abortions, the most brutal and unnecessary procedure ever!
Tell the mother of the 25 week old babies in NICU that their little ones are "just tissue" and aren't really alive. That's what these abortionists are telling these people to get them to kill their babies.
It's wrong, plain and simple.
Jenny
November 2, 2008, 3:26pm (report abuse)Crystal, Let's not forget how often babies are aborted because they are perceived as "not perfect," e.g., if a prenatal screening reveals a higher chance that the baby will have Down Syndrome. I've had friends say that they would "terminate their pregnancies" if they learned their babies might be disabled because it would be "too much to handle" or a "strain on their marital relationship." It boggles the mind that the same people who are excited to hear they are pregnant have taken on the "choice" mantra and are willing to kill their own children if they turn out potentially to be less than what they had hoped. What a sin.
I plan on having another child (I now have two) and will actively seek out doctors and nurses who refuse to perform an adoption. I pray that their "choice" -- the choice not murder the innocent -- is never taken away from them.
Jessica
November 4, 2008, 1:28pm (report abuse)Wow... I didn't realize that "baby" became synonymous with "choice". The choice comes when a woman decides to have sex with another individual with the full realization that it can result in conception. What has happened to our ideas of personal responsibilty? Our unborn children cannot fight for themselves... they are completely innocent. Are we saying that it is OK to kill a baby in-utero because they can't defend themselves? We need to defend them, we need to be their voice. Make it known that bills such as this are not OK.
Jenny
November 4, 2008, 4:09pm (report abuse)Re: my comment above -- a typo appears. Penultimate sentence should read "refuse to perform an abortion."
Michael
November 5, 2008, 1:23pm (report abuse)I have to laugh at all the people that say you cannot legislate morality or that the US cannot make laws based on religous tenets. So, should we then cancel laws against murder, rape, pedophilia, theft, arson, etc. It is only moral (or religous) codes that say those are wrong. The murder of an innocent child is a moral AND religous issue. No society has survived after abandoning its belief in the sanctity of life. Look at history.
Sarah
November 5, 2008, 6:57pm (report abuse)What so many of you are ignoring in your arguments is accountability and taking ownership for your actions. If you have sex, you may get pregnant. If you don't want a baby, don't have sex. For those that wish to abort I say this, you had sex, you got pregnant now take responsibility.
Korry
November 6, 2008, 5:19pm (report abuse)Sarah, what you're ignoring is that other people's choices are none of your business.
Prenatal life is not a PERSON. Is not a CITIZEN and has no rights.
And you have no right to impose your will on anyone else.
Kyle
November 7, 2008, 12:53pm (report abuse)Listen to someone who survived abortion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg_zhEIpTjs
Jenny
November 9, 2008, 2:03pm (report abuse)Prior to 1863, African-Americans were not considered "persons" or "citizens" and had no rights. They were slaves -- free labor. And it was legal to treat them as such. Luckily, slavery in America was abolished by people who had the guts to stand up for what is right. And those gutsy people, many of whom sacrificed their lives, were guided by morality (and, yes, sometimes even by religion, perish the thought!). That morality was "thrust upon" those who selfishly wished to continue to treat other human beings as less than human, because it suited them to do so.
It is equally horrific to treat an unborn human being as less than human and something that should be considered so worthless, so easy to dispose of. Beware the slippery slope -- when will infantcide be legal? When will it be legal to "euthanize" any child under the age of 18 if he or she becomes inconvenient or unhealthy or burdensome in some other way?
Eric
November 11, 2008, 1:33pm (report abuse)I can't believe some people would say "mind your own business." Whenever a child is in danger in this country it is everyone's business. We have laws that protect children from abuse and neglect, FOCA would destroy what little protection the unborn already have. FOCA must be stopped.
Paula
November 12, 2008, 10:39am (report abuse)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!!
Loren
November 14, 2008, 1:32pm (report abuse)Why should tax payers directly Fund abortion???? Why should Catholic Hospitals be FORCED to perform abortions????
TR
November 14, 2008, 5:07pm (report abuse)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.
Amanda
November 14, 2008, 11:13pm (report abuse)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.
Kelalo
November 16, 2008, 10:48pm (report abuse)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.
Partner
November 17, 2008, 9:25am (report abuse)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.
Joel
November 18, 2008, 7:33am (report abuse)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.
BNH
November 18, 2008, 3:01pm (report abuse)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.
j.e.h.
November 20, 2008, 8:09pm (report abuse)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.
VOnDC
November 24, 2008, 3:55pm (report abuse)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!
Amy
November 25, 2008, 10:15pm (report abuse)God have mercy on our country.
KW
November 27, 2008, 1:11am (report abuse)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?
KW
November 27, 2008, 1:20am (report abuse)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!
Crispy
November 29, 2008, 11:42am (report abuse)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.
KW
December 6, 2008, 3:05am (report abuse)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!
KW
December 6, 2008, 3:10am (report abuse)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?
Crispy
December 8, 2008, 11:29am (report abuse)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!
Crispy
December 8, 2008, 11:48am (report abuse)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.
KDP
December 10, 2008, 9:27pm (report abuse)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.
lance
December 11, 2008, 2:47pm (report abuse)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.
Ferde
December 11, 2008, 5:17pm (report abuse)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"?
Doodle
December 16, 2008, 9:22am (report abuse)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?
KW
December 18, 2008, 11:04pm (report abuse)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.
KW
December 18, 2008, 11:12pm (report abuse)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!
Bill
January 4, 2009, 6:11pm (report abuse)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.