Freedom Of Choice Act

Pocono Joe

It is anticipated that Obama will sign the Freedom of Choice Act. It will severely limit the ability of those who oppose abortion on moral principles to avoid performing abortions, or have to make referrals for the procedure.

So should Catholic hospitals be forced to provide abortion services, or should there be respect for the religious beliefs of those hospitals?

Ludo

I disagree with this act but this article is interesting:

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/11/25/what-would-foca-really-do

This is one of the MANY policy areas in which I would be on the Republican side of the table.

Pocono Joe

Ludo wrote: »

This is one of the MANY policy areas in which I would be on the Republican side of the table.

Holy Crap... I don't believe it. There is hope for you yet Ludo.

Overheal

The Act is rather ironically worded isnt it?

oscarBravo

Pocono Joe wrote: »

It will severely limit the ability of those who oppose abortion on moral principles to avoid performing abortions, or have to make referrals for the procedure.

No, it won't.

mumhaabu

Obama 2 -1

Closes Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility (not the base) good for a positive US Reputation.

The first ever Embryonic stem cell research has been approved by the FDA and Dr. Okarma (:eek: Big conspiracy :rolleyes:) has spoken about it and the hope it may deliver.

This act by President Obama is lunacy, he should adopt a status quo to the Abortion problem and forcing hospitals to perform Abortions depite this being against their moral code is downright disgusting and something Communists would come up with. The Roman Catholic Church in America will pull the plug on their contribution to health care if this happens and then he will see the mess he has made of health care which he has promised to "fix". The Catholic Church is dying to get out of the health care business and liquididate the assets worth several billions.

So three days on and it two - one to obama, oh hang on!, I hear the opposition is togging out Biffo, now we are doomed :eek:

oscarBravo

mumhaabu wrote: »

...forcing hospitals to perform Abortions depite this being against their moral code is downright disgusting and something Communists would come up with.

Can you explain how this new act overrides any of the provisions contained in the existing legislation I linked to?

sceptre

Like oB, having read the proposed Act, I can't see how you're contending that this will result in Catholic hospitals being forced to provide abortions.

Some dot drawing would be nice. It's fine and dandy to rabbit on about it but you've got to explain exactly how you got to that conclusion as it's not there in black and white.

Overheal

Having read it I too dont understand where you got this from, as it doesnt mention hospitals at all.

It will severely limit the ability of those who oppose abortion on moral principles to avoid performing abortions, or have to make referrals for the procedure.

It actualy says

Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--

(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

Where The term `government' includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official (or other individual acting under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State.

Matt Holck

so if the US wanted to help a devastated population,
they are now able to do so by assisting local hospital
regardless of whether or not they perform abortions?

Ponster

Matt Holck wrote: »

so if the US wanted to help a devastated population,
they are now able to do so by assisting local hospital
regardless of whether or not they perform abortions?

yes

Overheal

Matt Holck wrote: »

so if the US wanted to help a devastated population,
they are now able to do so by assisting local hospital
regardless of whether or not they perform abortions?

?

Has there actually been a situation where this occurred?

Matt Holck

I don't know

The dilemma faced by health organizations like Movimiento Manuela Ramos is devastating, says Susan Cohen, deputy director of governmental affairs at the pro-choice Alan Guttmacher Institute. Under the gag rule, they must "either give up the [USAID] funding needed for services essential to women's health care or give up the right to lobby and advocate for changes in the reproductive-rights laws of their own country." Yet, as in Peru, reform of abortion laws may be just as essential to women's health.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Women/Sound_Silence.html

Pocono Joe

Yeah, arguments on both sides can be made. But knowing how these things work... So either you do the abortions or offer referrals for the procedure, or loose public funding which will force you to close HAHA.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/choice.asp


And how about the fact that a 13 year old girl must have parental consent to get an aspirin at school, but can get an abortion without any parental consent. Something is rotten in Congress. Next Pelosi will be touting how “green” abortions can be... sticking the fetuses in your garden will be classified as homegrown fertilizer. Maybe she'll even get you some government funds for the process.

Ludo

To me , the fact that the consequences of the act are unclear is a big flashing warning light. There seems to be disagreement for example over whether catholic hospitals will be forced to provide abortions or not. This is crap legislation. It reeks of someone trying to force something through slyly and trying to obscure the real intent of the legislation.

Call me paranoid, but laws like that (and the people who write them) make me very uncomfortable. Call me simple, but to me laws should be easily understood and you should be able to determine easily, in the vast majority of cases, exactly what it will mean for a given scenario without having to go to the supreme court.

The Mad Hatter

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And how about the fact that a 13 year old girl must have parental consent to get an aspirin at school, but can get an abortion without any parental consent.

An underage girl who doesn't want her parents to find out that she's pregnant may well try to self-abort, which is obviously a highly dangerous process. It's better to err on the side of patient safety.

There's not too much danger of a child being too afraid to tell her parents she has a headache and trying to self-analgese.

oscarBravo

Pocono Joe wrote: »

So either you do the abortions or offer referrals for the procedure, or loose public funding which will force you to close HAHA.

I refer you to post #5 in this thread.

Ludo wrote: »

To me , the fact that the consequences of the act are unclear is a big flashing warning light. There seems to be disagreement for example over whether catholic hospitals will be forced to provide abortions or not. This is crap legislation. It reeks of someone trying to force something through slyly and trying to obscure the real intent of the legislation.

Only if you don't, y'know, read the legislation in question. It's actually pretty clear. There's disagreement over whether Catholic hospitals will be forced to provide abortions, only because it suits certain vested interests to claim that they will be forced to do so, and because lots of people will take such claims at face value.

So I'll ask again: what provision in the nice short bill (as linked by sceptre above) could possibly be used to force anyone to perform an abortion?

Pocono Joe

I am not a lawyer, so I can’t professionally argue to the legalities of the bill. I listen to people far smarter than me, lawyers and experts regarding their interpretation of the bill. And my argument on the bill can be found looking at opinions by quite a few experts on the matter.

oscarBravo

Dude. It's in English. It's actually in pretty straightforward English. Have you read it?

GuanYin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I am not a lawyer, so I can’t professionally argue to the legalities of the bill. I listen to people far smarter than me, lawyers and experts regarding their interpretation of the bill. And my argument on the bill can be found looking at opinions by quite a few experts on the matter.

We've had meetings with our hospital legislation team over this and the actual facts of the bill are being wildly mis-represented by anti-abortion campaigners. No patient, doctor or medical facility will be forced to perform or provide abortions.

As for who to listen to, our lawyers are all about us not getting sued, so I'm more inclined to listen to them then lawyers representing pro-life or pro-choice. I've found with lawyers that they tend to argue in favor of whoever is paying them, so they're not always a good source of unbiased truth.

Ludo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I refer you to post #5 in this thread.

Only if you don't, y'know, read the legislation in question. It's actually pretty clear. There's disagreement over whether Catholic hospitals will be forced to provide abortions, only because it suits certain vested interests to claim that they will be forced to do so, and because lots of people will take such claims at face value.

So I'll ask again: what provision in the nice short bill (as linked by sceptre above) could possibly be used to force anyone to perform an abortion?

Not being a lawyer, I can't really haven't a clue what that act means.

For example,

(c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.

Does this mean a person can sue a hospital which refuses to provide an abortion because the hospital receives government funding and is therefore regarded as a government entity and bound by this act to provide it?
I don't know but to me that actually is not that large a stretch.

IF this is the case, then the hospital has a choice to make...provide abortions, risk lawsuits or shut. Why can't the legislators spell out what it means EXACTLY. Researching this on the internet is a waste of time as you don't know what/who to believe.

sceptre

Ludo wrote: »

Does this mean a person can sue a hospital which refuses to provide an abortion because the hospital receives government funding and is therefore regarded as a government entity and bound by this act to provide it?

No, it defines "government":

The term `government' includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official (or other individual acting under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State.

This bill is simple. It's stopping individual States from screwing around with Roe v Wade. You can argue against it on that basis at your whim but arguing against it on the basis that religious private hospitals are suddenly going to be forced to offer abortions where they didn't previously could only be done by someone who hasn't read the bill.

OK, I have something of a legal background[1]. I'm familiar with the nuances of all the court decisions mentioned in the bill (Roe, Doe, Griswold, PP v Casey, Gonzales v Carhart, Gonzales v PPFoA) because once upon a tie I used to take a particular interest in constitutional law and US constitutional law is more fun than Irish constitutional law. But even so the bill is written in surprisingly simple English and it's nice and short - apart from the usual "Findings" bumpf that the US Congress likes to insert, there's a very short definition section (it's only three definitions) followed by a short section 4 (which is the meat of the bill), section 5 and 6 which is basically hammering home its scope. All the meat is in section 4, that's certainly worth reading carefully.

Basically, the real point of the bill is to repeal the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. That's why it exists, that's why it's been proposed in Congress. There's no question if making it compulsory for Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. At best, what this discussion should be about is whether repealing the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion ban Act is a good thing or not. And the funny thing is, that if the conservative wing of the Republican Party did that in the US, they might have more support from people, rather than opposing something that isn't even being proposed.


[1]Having said that, i read through the bill to nationalise Anglo-Irish bank and just got lost. It was six in the morning but I honestly couldn't make sense of half of it on first reading (and second)

Overheal

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Yeah, arguments on both sides can be made. But knowing how these things work... So either you do the abortions or offer referrals for the procedure, or loose public funding which will force you to close HAHA.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/choice.asp

That interpretation of the act is still much a matter of Legal Debate according to your article (read: this is my interpretation that nobody has confirmed or denied yet, probably because i havent asked). I would highly doubt a religious hospital which does not service abortions would magically lose its sources of public funding. I have a family member working in the administrative offices of a Lutheran Hospital at the moment.

As mentioned by Bravo, the text of the Act is very Short, and Concise. You do not need to be a lawyer to understand it. You dont even need to be particularly good at Engrish.

And how about the fact that a 13 year old girl must have parental consent to get an aspirin at school, but can get an abortion without any parental consent. Something is rotten in Congress. Next Pelosi will be touting how “green” abortions can be... sticking the fetuses in your garden will be classified as homegrown fertilizer. Maybe she'll even get you some government funds for the process.

Besides the fact that aspirin can be abused, and concealed on your person? Or that some people have allergies to aspirin? Friend of mine did - anything more than a few Mg, and his skin would turn a deep yellow and he would need to head off to the emergency room. Also as mentioned above, the lack of parental consent for an abortion protects the girl from feeling like they have to opt for an illegal and unsafe abortion instead of a certified one. As mentioned in the text of the act itself, the death ratio in underground abortions is unacceptably high.

Ludo

sceptre wrote: »

Basically, the real point of the bill is to repeal the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. That's why it exists, that's why it's been proposed in Congress. There's no question if making it compulsory for Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. At best, what this discussion should be about is whether repealing the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion ban Act is a good thing or not. And the funny thing is, that if the conservative wing of the Republican Party did that in the US, they might have more support from people, rather than opposing something that isn't even being proposed.

Thanks you Sceptre for that explanation. Sorry, but I was not sure what the definition of Government meant exactly even though it is defined there. To me, a publicly funded doctor could be regarded as an agent of the government. I don't know the legalities of it so I will take your word for it.

Ya see, to me your last paragraph sums up my feelings on laws. IF this law is in essence meant to repeal the 2003 Partial-birth abortion act, then why not just repeal the damn thing in public. This kind of obcsurity and doing things in a roundabout way to hide what you are actually up to really pisses me off. As a non-lawyer I would never have made the connection (not that I thought about it much anyway).

I am still totally against it...now just for a different reason

Overheal: you say it is still a matter of legal debate yet you claim it to be simple, concise and that you don't even need good english to understand it. I will assume that you are smarter than the lawyers debating it so and I wish I was as trusting of the (any) government as you appear to be

Overheal

Ludo wrote: »

Thanks you Sceptre for that explanation. Sorry, but I was not sure what the definition of Government meant exactly even though it is defined there. To me, a publicly funded doctor could be regarded as an agent of the government. I don't know the legalities of it so I will take your word for it.

Im not sure about a Public hospital but a doctor employed by a Private (eg. Catholic) hospital would not be considered a civil servant afaik.

Overheal: you say it is still a matter of legal debate yet you claim it to be simple, concise and that you don't even need good english to understand it. I will assume that you are smarter than the lawyers debating it so and I wish I was as trusting of the (any) government as you appear to be

The bill is only 2 pages long, and explains any of the terms that may be up to interpretation. I didnt see what was so confusing about it. I'll refer you to Post #9. My reading of the document is that the Department of Health can't ban abortion; not that it can force an unwilling doctor to perform one, either before or after viability, depending on their beleifs.

Ludo

Overheal wrote: »

The bill is only 2 pages long, and explains any of the terms that may be up to interpretation. I didnt see what was so confusing about it. I'll refer you to Post #9. My reading of the document is that the Department of Health can't ban abortion; not that it can force an unwilling doctor to perform one, either before or after viability, depending on their beleifs.

Did you realise from reading it that if effectively repeals the partial birth abortion ban? If you did, then good on you. I certainly didn't. Does it alter any other laws we don't know about?

Overheal

Ludo wrote: »

Did you realise from reading it that if effectively repeals the partial birth abortion ban? If you did, then good on you. I certainly didn't. Does it alter any other laws we don't know about?

No need to be hostile.
I had, and good for them. The purpose of the bill is to keep government out of the woman's choice. If she wants to terminate after viability thats her call, not the DoH's.

Ludo

Overheal wrote: »

No need to be hostile.
I had, and good for them. The purpose of the bill is to keep government out of the woman's choice. If she wants to terminate after viability thats her call, not the DoH's.

Not being hostile at all...sorry if it came out that way.

Anyway, we are heading into a whole other kettle of fish now if it where we will end up discussing the whole abortion issue...nooooooo

Overheal

well, the act is about abortion.. but no, lets keep the humanities out of it.

ChocolateSauce

If a person opposes abortion, they shouldn't enter a profession where they might be called upon to do it.

I support this act unequivocally and without reservation.

Matt Holck

A California biotechnology company plans to launch the first government-approved clinical trial testing human embryonic stem cells on people by next summer after receiving federal approval yesterday.

Government Approves Study Using Human Embryonic Stem Cells

the new study will mark the first authorized use of those(stem cells) derived from embryos, which have been highly controversial because the embryos are destroyed in the process.
. . .
President Obama is expected to lift restrictions on federal funding for such research imposed by his predecessor.