NOW, NOW, NOW...THERE THOSE LEFTISTS GO AGAIN.
Posted on 09/20/2008 8:42:05 AM PDT by Graybeard58
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is part of a special series of stories focusing on the election that Baptist Press will run between now and Nov. 4. Stories will run on Wednesdays and Fridays.
WASHINGTON (BP)--For years, pro-lifers have set their sights on changing the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping that a conservative judicial lineup would overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.
But what if the Supreme Court someday overturns Roe, and abortion nevertheless remains legal?
That's the goal behind the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill in the House and Senate that would ensure abortion remains legal even if Roe someday is struck down by the nation's highest court. Just as problematic for the pro-life cause, the bill would lead to the overturning of nearly every abortion restriction on the books, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion as well as state parental notification laws and waiting periods. Additionally, it almost certainly would force the public to fund abortion on demand.
The bill may sound far-reaching and even far-fetched to social conservatives, but it nevertheless has a legitimate chance of passing -- if not in this session of Congress, then in the next one.
It first was introduced in Congress in 1989 and seemed on the verge of passing four years later when President Clinton -- who had backed it during the campaign -- took office. But it never made it out of Congress and for the past 15 years hasn't had a real chance of success until now.
The Senate bill (S. 1173) has 19 co-sponsors, while the House bill (H.R. 1964) has 109 co-sponsors. Both bills were re-introduced April 19, 2007 -- the day after the Supreme Court upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion.
"Attention always is focused on Supreme Court appointments and the likelihood of Roe being overturned," Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life, told Baptist Press. "But Congress, by adopting something like this, would short-circuit that whole process. Roe would become almost irrelevant."
Johnson calls it the most radical piece of pro-choice legislation he's seen.
The bill states that "every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child" and "to terminate a pregnancy" and that "a government" -- meaning the federal government or any state or local government -- may not "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."
Language in the bill that apparently would force taxpayers to pay for abortion on demand states that a government may not discriminate against women "in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information" regarding abortion. The language presumably would apply to Medicaid and military hospitals.
"It's a very extreme measure," Johnson said. "It's a bill that would make partial-birth abortion legal again, force taxpayers to pay for abortion on demand and invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion. These radical pro-abortion effects would continue even if Roe vs. Wade was overturned, because the bill really is entirely unconnected to Roe vs. Wade.
"'Interfere with' is about as broad of language as you could come up with. It doesn't just cover the prohibition of abortion -- it covers any kind of a barrier, any kind of impediment, any kind of delay. So, clearly, 'interfere' would be things that the court has upheld under Roe, such as brief waiting periods. There's no distinction between minors and adults, and clearly all of the procedural requirements for notifying parents with or without judicial bypass would be invalid under this."
Johnson's words may simply sound like the dire predictions of a pro-life advocate, but pro-choicers who support the bill acknowledge that it not only would "codify" Roe but also would lead to the striking down of state and federal abortion restrictions. Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, states on its website that the Freedom of Choice Act "would invalidate existing and future laws that interfere with or discriminate against" legalized abortion. The National Organization for Women -- which also supports the bill -- says on its website the bill "would override the Court's decision" in the partial-birth abortion ruling and would "supersede laws that restrict the right to abortion, including laws that prohibit the public funding of abortion" and laws that require a waiting period before obtaining an abortion.
Pro-lifers also say the abortion rate almost certainly will go up if the bill is adopted. That's happened in Maryland, which passed a state-level Freedom of Choice Act in the early 1990s and has seen a steady increase in the abortion rate. The abortion rate in Maryland in 1995 was 25.6 per 1,000 women of reproductive age, and in 2005 had risen to 31.5 per 1,000. During that same time period, the national abortion rate fell from 22.5 in 1995 to 19.4 in 2005.
"One explanation of the decline in the national rate for abortions is the increased number of incremental laws addressing the abortion issue in each state ... ," Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council wrote in an article examining the impact of the proposed bill. "The enactment of a federal Freedom of Choice Act would be a federalist's nightmare, overturning hundreds of state laws that have been enacted through legislation and statewide initiative and ballot referendums. ... Ironically, the Freedom of Choice Act would remove any concept of 'choice' from the equation, by eliminating the right of states and U.S. citizens to have a say in the debate."
A bill is just a bill and can be overturned unlike a Supreme Court ruling. Depending on how far-reaching the bill is, it would probably be ruled unconstitutional.
Thanks for the heads up on this!
Obama said in a speech to PP that his first act as president would be to get this bill passed.
Even if it got through congress, dubya would veto it. Next year, McCain wouldn’t have to veto one because we will have more republicans in the house and senate.
The XIVth Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to life of every innocent person in the United States at a federal level - the states do not get to decide if the innocent live or die.
Abortion is a blatant violation of the XIVth Amendment.
Legally, if Roe were overturned, then it would be up to each state to pass their own laws on abortion,unless this federal law gets passed. Assuming McCain would veto this freedom of choice act, then it would just be up to the states. But remember, liberal states would allow abortion on demand, while more socially conservative states would restrict abortion. Roe vs. Wade being overturned does not mean abortion is illegal again. I’m always surprised at how some of these idiot educated commentators on TV miss this simple point.
One more reason to hope and pray and vote so we don’t see an Obama presidency. A President Obama with backing from the Democrat congress may do some damage.
This should be a real wake-up call for all Americans who value life.
You’re optimistic about next year. Lots of people have been saying that Democrats will beef up their majorities in both the House and Senate in the November elections. I hope you are right and they are all wrong.
The worst combination of all would be a President Obama with backing from bigger Democrat majorities in the House and Senate.
Republicans in the Senate may be using the filibuster a lot with President Obama asking for legislation for this or that liberal cause.
The Federal Government can pass a national law to protect states from limiting abortion? Under what pretense? This is WHY the Left pushes for judical activism.
Based on what I’ve seen, I predict that the Dems will make gains in the Senate but that Repubs will make gains in the House, possibly even take it back. That said, the problem is that the Senate is what decides on SCOTUS nominees and that could still be a problem even if McCain wins.
"It's a very extreme measure," Johnson said. "It's a bill that would make partial-birth abortion legal again, force taxpayers to pay for abortion on demand and invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion. These radical pro-abortion effects would continue even if Roe vs. Wade was overturned, because the bill really is entirely unconnected to Roe vs. Wade.
You can always modify a bill. And you can bet your last dollar this one will be "modified"
Abortion due to rape? Abortion to save the life of the mother? Get real; going back to the states will slash the abortion rate. You gotta do what you gotta do, in the real world.
Life at Conception Act
Follows the High Court’s Instructions To Define When Life Begins
Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over. Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion by using the Constitution instead of amending it.
A simple majority vote is all that is needed to pass a Life at Conception Act as opposed to the two-thirds required to add a Constitutional amendment.
When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined “right of privacy” which it “discovered” in so-called “emanations” of “penumbrae” of the Constitution. Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster. But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a Constitutional right.
Instead the Supreme Court said:
“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
I believe the only way abortion would be destroyed would be by the hand of God. Too many women have convinced themselves that in order to be like a man she should NOT have children or have the same no responsibilities when it comes to sex without birth control. Too many women are abused by the abortion issue sexually,in other words they can just get rid of IT. Women take the risk rather they are wounded or die so really women have not put themselves on the same level as men. I pray through God women will wake up and embrace the gift God has given them,gift of life. That is the reason someone like Sarah Palin is such a threat after all she did give birth to a down syndrome baby. Even on the O’Reilly Factor with Laura Ingram both agreed that’s why the liberal left viciously hate Sarah,abortion issue. Pathetic and evil.As long as the liberal left is in power,democrats,abortion will always remain legal,someway,somehow. Look what the dems did to Hillary the strong pro-choice liberal woman,they dumped her.And now the democrats are telling women to be afraid be very afraid the GOP is going to take the right of women to have abortions.That’s how they keep their women in line to vote for them but when they had one to lead they said no.
Abortion is not a Federal matter; there is nothing in the
Constitution about it. It is clearly a State matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.