One Law, One Election… Millions of Lives at Stake

In 1993, then President Clinton promised to sign into law a bill introduced by the Congress, the so-called Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). Thanks to a campaign to defeat the Freedom of Choice Act, mounted by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and its 50 state affiliates, the FOCA never received a vote and Bill Clinton never had the opportunity to follow through on his promise. Fast forward to 2007, the U. S. Supreme Court upholds the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and the immediate response by Senator Barbara Boxer (D) from California and Congressman Joseph Nadler (D) from New York is to reintroduce the Freedom of Choice Act. Douglas Johnson, Director of Federal Legislation at NRLC, states that the FOCA “in the interests of truth in advertising….should be renamed the ‘Freedom for Partial-Birth Abortionists Act.'”

In order to understand the accuracy of Doug Johnson’s statement, one needs only to look at the statements of those who introduced the legislation and those who support it. Congressman Joseph Nadler (D-NY) stated that the bill he introduced H. R. 1964, the FOCA, “would bar government — at any level — from interfering with a woman’s fundamental right to choose to bear a child, or to terminate a pregnancy.”

NRLC reported on its website that Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the sponsor of the Senate version of FOCA, S. 1173, issued a press release in 2004 in which she outlined the kinds of laws that the FOCA would nullify. According to NRLC, the laws that would be nullified include:

-“Laws restricting government funding of abortion. (The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding of most abortions, and many states have similar laws. The U. S. Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that these laws do not violate Roe v. Wade. ” (Roe v. Wade is the 1973 U. S. Supreme Court decision which effectively legalized abortion on demand during all nine months of pregnancy.)

-“Laws prohibiting abortions in public hospitals.” (The Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that such policies do not violate Roe v. Wade.)

-“Laws requiring that girls and women seeking abortion receive certain information on matters such as fetal development and alternatives to abortion, and then wait a specified period before an abortion is actually performed, usually 24 to 48 hours. In her press release, Boxer referred to these as ‘antichoice propaganda lectures.’ (The Supreme Court said in its 1992 Casey ruling that such regulations are constitutional as long as they do not impose an ‘undue burden’ on obtaining an abortion.)”

Doug Johnson listed other types of laws that would be nullified if the FOCA became law:

-“All laws allowing doctors, nurses, or other state licensed professionals, and hospitals or other health-care providers, to decline to provide or pay for abortions.” (Such ‘conscience rights’ with respect to abortion are generally protected by certain federal laws, and by the laws in many states. Supporters of the laws usually call them ‘conscience laws,’ but pro-abortion groups refer to them as ‘refusal clauses.’)

-“All laws prohibiting medical personnel other than licensed physicians from performing abortions would be invalid because they may ‘interfere with’ access to abortion.” (All but a handful of states currently enforce such ‘doctor-only’ laws, which are specifically authorized in Roe v. Wade itself. North Carolina has “doctor-only” laws.)

-“The provision of the FOCA that prohibits any government agency or official from taking any action that would ‘discriminate against the exercise of’ FOCA-created legal rights, with respect to any ‘benefits, facilities, services, or information,’ would leave government officials open to lawsuits for anything that anybody thought ‘discriminate(s)’ against abortion.” Doug Johnson went on to state, “This sweeping mandate could cover everything from rural health clinics, to health education programs in public schools — and even to prolife speeches by public officials.”

vote_protest.jpgThe pro abortion groups have weighed with their thoughts of FOCA and their observations represent a chilling assessment of the damage the FOCA would do. NRLC explained: “In a factsheet posted on its website, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) explains, ‘FOCA will supercede anti-choice laws that restrict the right to choose, including laws that prohibit the public funding of abortions for poor women or counseling and referrals for abortions. Additionally FOCA will prohibit onerous restrictions on a woman’s right to choose, such as mandated delays and targeted and medically unnecessary regulations.'” PPFA went on to say, “Parental consent or notification statutes have been used as a tool to deny access to abortion services for minors. When such laws deny or interfere with the ability of minors to access abortion services, they would violate FOCA.” North Carolina has a one-parent consent law and does limit abortion funding through the State Budget to $50,000 for life, rape, and incest reasons.

The National Organization for Women (NOW), headed by Kim Gandy, weighed in by stating in an email alert that the FOCA “would legislatively reverse the Court’s damaging decision [Gonzalez v. Carhart] and will enshrine in federal law our right to safe, legal abortion… Our ultimate success depends on electing a president who will sign the legislation and electing a Congress that can withstand any challenge or filibuster.” The pro-abortion groups are well aware that so long as there is a pro-life president in the White House that they will be unable to enact such an extreme abortion on demand, no restrictions allowed, piece of legislation that the FOCA is.

Those who support the FOCA have tried to say that FOCA would “codify Roe v. Wade.” Doug Johnson warned the public not to be fooled and called the language “a marketing gimmick.” He went on to explain, “The sponsors hope that journalists and legislators will lazily accept that vague shorthand phrase — but it is very misleading. The references to Roe in the bill are in non-binding, discursive clauses. The heart of the bill is a ban that would nullify all of the major types of pro-life laws that the Supreme Court has said are permissible under Roe v. Wade, including the ban on partial-birth abortions and bans on government funding of abortion.”

NRLC also cautioned that the “no-restriction policy would establish, in Senator Boxer’s words, ‘the absolute right to choose’ prior to fetal ‘viability’.” NRLC said that in the FOCA, “the no-restriction policy would also apply after ‘viability’ to any abortion sought on grounds of ‘health.'” In Doe v. Bolton, the 1973 companion case to Roe v. Wade, health was defined very broadly by the courts. They said, “Medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”

The FOCA does not contain any objective criteria for “viability.” In fact the FOCA requires that the judgment regarding “viability” be left entirely in the hands of “the attending physician” — meaning, the abortionist.

All of this discussion about the FOCA goes to the heart of what is at stake in the upcoming presidential election. It underscores just how much the presidential election means to the pro-life movement and to the unborn whose lives the movement is trying to defend and protect. Who we elect as the next president really does make a difference to these tiny unborn human members of our family. The FOCA is but one important life or death change that can happen if we elect a pro-abortion president. Let us consider just what else a pro-abortion president can do during his four-year term of office.

The first executive order he would rescind would probably be the Mexico City Policy, which prevents tax dollars from going to organizations, which promote or provide abortions or work to overturn the laws of pro-life countries.

The pro-abortion president also is expected to force us to pay for abortions through a national health care program.

The next president will have the opportunity to nominate justices to the U. S. Supreme Court. The current court voted in a 5-4 decision in Gonzalez v. Carhart to uphold the ban on partial birth abortions. A pro-abortion president nominating and having the U. S. Senate confirm just one justice to the U. S. can make a dramatic shift in how the court makes future abortion decisions. It is estimated that the next president could name 2-3 individuals to the U. S. Supreme Court. If we elect a pro-abortion president, it could be at another 35 years before we have another chance at a Supreme Court that will vote to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. How many more unborn children will die because of that one newly appointed justice?

But the U. S. Supreme Court is not the only court the pro-abortion president will affect. A pro-abortion president will name individuals for all the federal courts, including the courts of appeal. Many pro-life cases like the “Choose Life” special registration plate and parental consent or notification cases have been struck down at the court of appeals level.

Finally, a pro-abortion president will name individuals to cabinet posts, ambassadorships and other levels of the government who will share his pro-abortion views. Those individuals will promote abortion policies.

Now that you know what is at stake, you need to take a close look at the views and voting records of the two major presidential candidates. One of these two men will be our next president and you will have the opportunity to decide which. Only you can reach certain voters who need this information in order to make an informed choice about how to vote. I hope you will use this information to educate the many others that you know or come into contact with between now and that time. Remember, the lives of millions depend on how you and others vote on November 4.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

MENU