WashingtonWatch.com - H.R. 1964, The Freedom of Choice Act

Comment by Mary (October 16, 2008, 01:00:00)

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EDT

Yea Fred!!! Not only would a raped woman have to deal with the horriable trama of the rape the rest of her life but why add the guilt of murdering an inocent child on top of it. Giving up the child for adoption could help in the healing after such a tramatizing experience....

Comment by Ademantus (October 16, 2008, 01:00:00)

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EDT

(1) Abortion is the intentional killing of unborn human beings. (2) Intentionally killing unborn human beings is intrinsically evil. (3) Therefore, abortion is intrinsically evil. Human beings come into existence at the point of conception, for at that point a being with a unique DNA exists, and begins to develop. The person develops 'on his or her own' indicating an internal principle which directs its development. Unborn human beings are simply young human beings....

Comment by Jerry Frady (April 7, 2008, 01:00:00)

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EDT

Those supporters of that bill seem to be without consciences when it comes to slaughtering innocent babies. I wonder how many of them would go ballistic if someone killed their pet dogs or cats. Whether cannines or felines or the other, the pets are the same. Liberals love to talk about "feti- cide" rather than "infanticide, but pragmatically the result is the same. Pre-, partial- or post- birth abortion are frauds designed to cheat innocent babies out of their "right to life." Do I smell a noxious "sociopathic" ordor here? This bill & S-1173 will codify abortion and revoke any local and state laws prohibiting it....

Comment by Chad (March 19, 2008, 01:00:00)

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EDT

this act makes potential life sound like a hairstyle or just another dress to choose or not....

Comment by John (January 20, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:00:00 EST

I just can't understand why people fight so hard to have the so called "right" to kill a baby! You would think they would want to protect a child. Maybe they have never felt the joy of holding a newborn baby....

Comment by Fred (January 16, 2008, 01:00:00)

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:00:00 EST

Although pregnancy from rape is statistically rare, even in though cases putting the baby up for adoption has clear advantages for the baby while isolating the mother from the trauma associated with the child, should that trauma remain after the baby is born....

Comment by jessica (December 11, 2007, 01:00:00)

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:00:00 EST

i do agree with this act/bill. the first amendment of the U.S. constitution says FREEDOM. for example would if the women was raped, would she be wanting to have to at that child every day of the rest of her life and have that memory drawn up from the back of her head every day and remember the pain. not to rude but i sure as hell wouldn't....

Comment by jessica (December 11, 2007, 01:00:00)

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:00:00 EST

would she be wanting to have to look at that child...

Comment by Bill (December 6, 2007, 01:00:00)

Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:00:00 EST

Look it it this way (leaving religius beliefs out): At the moment of conception, the fertilized egg has a unique DNA (different from the mother or father) Therefore this is a NEW LIFE on a continuous path to birth. Abortion then is the kelling of a human life....

Comment by Troy (November 5, 2007, 01:00:00)

Mon, 05 Nov 2007 00:00:00 EST

Abortion is terrible. the person you kill might grow up to be a nice person that saves lives. Why would you kill?...

Comment by Jeane (November 1, 2007, 01:00:00)

Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:00:00 EDT

The democrats raise such a fuss about the war in Iraq where grown ups are getting killed trying to protect our nation, but they don't think anything about killing babies. I want Roe vs Wade abolished. Abortion needs to be abolished, done away with and never thought of again. Freedom of Choice - We can choose evil, murder, insanity, porno, drugs, wickedness. Does it ever stop?...

Comment by mark pullen (September 28, 2007, 01:00:00)

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:00:00 EDT

the freedom of choice act would bring back partial birth abortion which is exactly what the piece of crap barbara boxer wants because she will benefit from the tax dollars that would pay to blatantly kill babies at any stage of pregnancy. Her and Hillary Clinton belong on the same island to gether so they can get pregnant by pigmes and they can take turns spearing each other in the stomach so they can kill something. the only people that believe in this act are the ones that are alive. Why dont they ask thier kids if they would of cared if they were aborted at birth....

Comment by Mike (August 27, 2007, 01:00:00)

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:00:00 EDT

Ironically, when the national legality of abortions was established by Supreme Court decree, abortion proponents were happy to accept the Court's authority. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has the ability to prohibit one type of abortion, those same abortion proponents are NOT happy to accept the Court's authority - thus this bill....

Revision by webmaster (August 2, 2007, 01:00:00)

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:00:00 EDT

H.R. 1964 would protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy.

Detailed Summary

Freedom of Choice Act - Declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to: (1) bear a child; (2) terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or (3) terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.

Prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from: (1) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or (2) discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively.

Authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to obtain appropriate relief, including relief against a governmental entity, in a civil action.

Status of the Legislation

Latest Major Action: 5/4/2007: Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

Points in Favor

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)

Points Against

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)

Status as of August 2, 2007

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:00:00 EDT

8/2/2007: Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

Revision by webmaster (June 28, 2007, 01:00:00)

Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EDT

H.R. 1964 would protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy.

Detailed Summary

Prohibits a governmental entity from: (1) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or (2) discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively.

Authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to obtain appropriate relief, including relief against a governmental entity, in a civil action.

Status of the Legislation

Latest Major Action: 4/19/2007: Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Points in Favor

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)

Points Against

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)

Revision by webmaster (June 28, 2007, 01:00:00)

Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EDT

H.R. 1964 would protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy.

Detailed Summary

Authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to obtain appropriate relief, including relief against a governmental entity, in a civil action.

Status of the Legislation

Latest Major Action: 5/4/2007: Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

Points in Favor

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)

Points Against

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)

Comment by shawn (May 10, 2007, 01:00:00)

Thu, 10 May 2007 00:00:00 EDT

should be an amendment to the constitution! Like the life act is trying to do....

Status as of May 4, 2007

Fri, 04 May 2007 00:00:00 EDT

5/4/2007: Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

Status as of April 19, 2007

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:00:00 EDT

4/19/2007: Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.