"The first thing I'd do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." ~ Barack Hussein Obama
In the comments of my last post, Father Gregori wrote, "Mark, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Obama signed the Freedom of Choice Act into law today (sometime this morning)".
You are wrong, Father, but you aren't far off. He hasn't signed it yet, because it hasn't been passed yet. According to the Library of Congress web site, The last major action is this:
"1/22/2004 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary".
If Democrats succeed (and they may already have, I'm not sure) in achieving a filibuster-proof Senate, that means it's only a matter of time before the FOCA becomes Federal law, and it will be signed by President Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.
But what does the passage of this law mean? How will it effect Americans?
Opponents of the law say it will, among other things, force health care providers to perform abortions even if they are opposed to abortion for moral and ethical reasons. While there is no direct reference to this in the bill, it does indirectly appear to make that particular provision.
Basically what the bill does, is remove all restrictions to all abortions in the United States of America.
All of them.
That would appear to give credence to the opponent's argument.
The bill prohibits any local, state. or federal government from restricting any woman from getting an abortion.
There are no exceptions.
Therefore, it is implied, but not specifically stated, underage girls can obtain an abortion without the knowledge or approval of their parents. After all, if, as the bill states emphatically, any woman anywhere, at any time, can obtain an abortion if she so desires, she can get one without her parents approval and knowledge with the blessings of the federal Government.
Women can cross state lines to get an abortion under this law, although, if all states and all localities have to provide abortions, there would be, of course, no reason to cross state lines.
Will Catholic hospitals and other health care providers who have moral and ethical objections to abortions be forced to abandon their principles to comply with this new law? Well, that question is not specifically addressed in this legislation, but, again, if any woman, anywhere, at any time, and for any reason will be legally allowed to abort her baby, it would appear that any and all health care providers will be federally mandated to provide the facilities and staff necessary.
Regardless of religious convictions and ethical concerns.
Does this sound like freedom or liberty to you? It doesn't to me.
Why not? You might well ask.
What of a parents right to raise her child as she sees fit? Doesn't a parent have the right to admonish and correct the child if such parent believes the child is preparing to do something that is, to the parent, morally reprehensible?
Has the federal government become the parent? What of the parents rights? Are they gone?
What of the health care providers? Never mind any moral or ethical objections. What if they simply don't want to perform abortions whatever the reason?
Is that Freedom of choice?
Don't Health care providers and Parents have the freedom to choose how they want to govern their lives?
And then there's the babies. Babies have no choice either way. They neither choose to be born or choose to live. If you were an unborn baby, how would you choose? Life or death?
As Trader Rick observed, The Freedom of Choice Act is a "mis-named piece of filth".
There is neither freedom or choice in this legislation.
It is contrary to the very freedoms upon which this country was founded.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Agreed, Mark, both with you and Trader Rick who calls it a piece of filth! But I'd be willing to bet that it will be signed. It breaks my heart!
I don't understand Obama. Doesn't he realize that Planned Parenthood kills mor black babies annually than it does whites? Does the man even read? I'm beginning to wonder!
There are so many things that bother me about FOCA. One of the most ludicrous is that a minor can't get a Tylenol at school without parental consent, but she can have a surgical proceedure which can cause:
infection
future sterility
hemorrahage
perforated uterus
perforated bowel
perforated bladder
cervical laceration
embolism
endotoxic shock
and does cause:
increases tubal pregnancy
doubles the chance of infertility
Raises her chance of breast cancer.
"A study of more than 1,800 women appearing in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 1994 found that overall, women having abortions increased their risk of getting breast cancer before age 45 by 50%. For women under 18 with no previous pregnancies, having an abortion after the 8th week increased the risk of breast cancer 800%."
It defies any explanation.
Gayle, he definitely will sign it. He has promised he will, and his record says he will. Our only hope is that Congress doesn't pass it, but that is a thin hope.
Krystal, the explanation for this is, Obama doesn't care about those things. He just wants to murder babies.
Father, there is no doubt Obama intends to sign the bill once it passes, and with a filibuster proof pro-abortion majority in Congress, I have little doubt that it will pass.
Ok. So, now after a mere 4 days in office, Obama has threatened the safety of every American, even Americans yet to be born. I can't imagine how he can make the next four years much worse, but if his words are any indication, he most certainly will.
BHO did sign some kind of bill which removes funding of overseas abortions. From this WaPo article today:
Funding Restored to Groups That Perform Abortions, Other Care
By Rob Stein and Michael Shear
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, January 24, 2009; A03
President Obama yesterday lifted a ban on U.S. funding for international health groups that perform abortions, promote legalizing the procedure or provide counseling about terminating pregnancies.
Obama issued a memorandum rescinding the Mexico City Policy, also known as the "global gag rule," which President Ronald Reagan originally instituted in 1984, President Bill Clinton reversed in 1993 and President George W. Bush revived in 2001.
The memorandum revokes Bush's order, calling the limitations on funding "excessively broad" and adding that "they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family programs in foreign nations." In an accompanying statement, Obama said he would also work with Congress to restore U.S. funding support for the United Nations Population Fund "to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries."...
AOW, He didn't remove funding for overseas abortions. He removed a ban on funding for overseas abortions.
It's right there in your copy:
"President Obama yesterday lifted a ban on U.S. funding for international health groups that perform abortions..."
That means he signed an order giving abortion providers limitless funding from the United States.
That means you and I, through payment of our taxes, will foot the bill to kill babies whether we like it or not.
That means he signed an order giving abortion providers limitless funding from the United States.
Limitless funding? No. Only the Iraq war under Bush got limitless funding.
And I think you may have your facts wrong. Bush stopped any funding to organizations that provided abortions. Our money does not specifically go for abortions. It can now provide pre-natal care, AIDs protection, contraceptives and more to agencies that may also provide abortions.
Yes, Jim. I know that's the line the pro baby murder people want us to swallow, but you and I both know it's all about killing babies.
I don't know why you bother comimg to this blog. You will never change my mind, and I will never change yours, and I won't even try.
Your buddies Geoffrey, Dan, and Feodor have gotten the hint. Why haven't you?
HEY! I think I might could make everyone happy:
We'll pay for limitless abortions, but ONLY in terrorist states.
How's that?!
**Please note tongue in cheek comment**
Obama is a fool and an arrogant jerk who is acting as if he knows what we the people want and pretending to be a President. He does not even deserve to walk in the shadow of Lincon much less pretend that he is the reincarnation of him.
You know I do have to wonder if Roe V Wade had hit the Supreme Court before 1961 and had been decided in the same manner as it was in the seventies, would Barack's mom had taken her, "free choice, " and prevented the possibility of a future 44th President ?
But then again what should he care because it is only the life of a baby that he is allowing to be killed by a stroke of a pen. Yet he wants to save the lives of terrorist scum bags by the stroke of the same pen. What an arrogant jerk!
At least we know our country will still be secure under Obama. He's protecting us from conservative speech and unborn possible terrorists.
Slavery, segregation, abortion. Trust the Democrats to always come down on the wrong side of the moral fence.
Well, Mark I though that maybe you'd like to have some dialog instead of simply a mutual masturbation society.
But you're right. Coming here is an utter waste of time.
FOCA will be signed..no doubt.
Funny, the left is HYSTERICAL over the loss of Roe v Wade, saying it protects women and this can't be knocked down or we're back in the dark ages for women........but we can't do a THING about OPEN SEASON on unborn children..here OR anywhere else. If we complain we're cretins and backwards and wish harm for women; NO thought given to the FACT that almost every woman who's had an abortion hasn't really gotten over it...YEARS later, too.
It's VERY important to the left to make sure those babies CAN die...Margaret Sanger wanted Black babies in particular to die, but the Left will never admit THAT, either. Hideous.
I'm wondering how anybody'd get solace from the fact that ALL the money we give isn't 'just for abortions'? odd
Dialog is one thing, Jim, being intentionally argumentative is quite another. You know what's right. You simply choose to ignore it for the sake of baing contrary.
Now, run along.
Z, welcome. You make a very good point:
How could anyone take solace from the fact that ALL the money we give isn't 'just for abortions'?
Let me field this one.
Because their deeds are evil and their hearts are black.
We can easily guess how God may judge the baby killers. But how will He judge those of us who stood by and did nothing?
Post a Comment