Dear Bishops, We Need You Now! (Focus on the election and possibility of FOCA)

CatholicExchange.com ^ | 10-23-08 | Mary Kochan

[Salvation]

Dear Bishops, We Need You Now!

October 23rd, 2008 by Mary Kochan ·

I believe that the outcome of the coming election, a mere 12 days away, and every implication that it has for the pro-life movement in this country lies in the domain of the Catholic Bishops of the United States.

Democrats have installed the strongest abortion plank to date in their platform and their candidate Barack Obama has promised to make the signing of FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) a priority of his administration. When we pro-life Catholics read on the website of our bishops a description of FOCA here and here, our hearts quail. We have worked so hard for small pro-life gains that to see them all overturned would be very hard. 

Like sheep that crowd around their shepherd for protection from a rampaging predator, we must crowd round our bishops now and beg them to help us.

I believe they can. I believe that we have been brought to a situation where we need their voices more desperately than we ever have before. Where the unborn need their voices. Where our nation needs their voices. 

What specifically do we need? What is the message that has to get out? Who is the target audience? Where and how can that audience be reached?

The target audience has to be those millions of Catholics who are still of the “seamless garment” mentality. Who in “good,” but ill-formed, conscience still vote for pro-abortion politicians when there is another alternative.

That audience has to be reached immediately through every medium — at weekend homilies, through diocesan organs, by mass-mailing, by television and radio spots, newspaper pages, and Catholic websites.

The message has two components and both of them are perfectly legal, meaning that neither one of them violates the rules regarding the kind of communications allowed to tax-exempt organizations.

The first component of the message is a repudiation of the “seamless garment” policy as popularly understood, that is, as a “loophole” for voting for pro-abortion politicians. A perfect example of how to communicate this clearly and unequivocally was the Joint Statement by Bishops Vann and Farrell.

Among the bishops who have so encouraged us by being similarly outspoken on this are: Bishop Joseph F. Martino of Scranton,  Bishops Paul Loverde and Francis DiLorenzo of Arlington and Richmond, Virginia, Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of Rhode Island and oustandingly, Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput. But we need all our shepherds now! We need clear and unequivocal statements — by every bishop to every parish.

The second component is voter education. Voter education is perfectly legal. It is not endorsement of one candidate or another. It is abundantly clear that the campaign of Barak Obama has been engaging in subterfuge regarding his position on abortion. Out of the millions of Catholic votes to be cast a week from Tuesday are many that will be made by voters knowing neither how extreme the views of Barak Obama are on the issue of abortion nor the danger the pro-life movement faces from FOCA.

FOCA is on the bishops’ radar and the information about it on the USCCB website is extensive, but so far that website is not connecting the dots for Catholic voters. A vote for Obama is a vote for FOCA. What FOCA is and Obama’s promise to sign it into law should be part of the voter education. Archbishop Chaput has been making it very clear and we need more such exposure of Obama’s extremism.

Triggered by Pelosi and Biden, a number of bishops spoke up this campaign to give abortion the unique priority it deserves in our discourse about national policy and to correct “pro-choice” Catholic politicians who misrepresented Catholic teaching. Among others, we have to thank Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, PA, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, CO and Bishop James Conley, his auxiliary, Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, WI, Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC, Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa, OK, Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, CT, Bishop Fran Malooly of Wilmington, DL, Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo, ND, and Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston, MA. You have lifted our spirits by speaking the truth!

And with great directness the USCCB has responded both last week and this week to the argument that overturning Roe v. Wade is a “lost cause.” Thank God for the steadiness of Cardinal Justin Rigali, another shepherd who gives us heart.

We have just days left. Will we look back four years hence at the unraveling of every pro-life gain, at pro-abortion and anti-family judicial tyranny entrenched for another generation, and perhaps even at legal persecution of faithful Catholics and any other Christian who resists the culture of death? We pray not!

Please Shepherds, Fathers, help us!

 

© Copyright 2008 Catholic Exchange

Mary Kochan, Senior Editor of Catholic Exchange, writes from Douglasville, Georgia. Her lectures are available from Saint Joseph Communications.

[Salvation]

I am posting this on the news forum because I want to reach Catholics and others who do not post regularly on the Religion Forum.

Please check out FOCA.

Comments?

[Salvation]

S.1173
Title: A bill to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 4/19/2007)      Cosponsors (19)
Related Bills: H.R.1964
Latest Major Action: 4/19/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

---

Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments

---

SUMMARY AS OF:
4/19/2007--Introduced.

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.

---

MAJOR ACTIONS:

***NONE***

---

ALL ACTIONS:

4/19/2007:

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

---

TITLE(S):  (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)

• SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
  Freedom of Choice Act

• OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
  A bill to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.

---

COSPONSORS(19), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)

Sen Baucus, Max [MT] - 4/19/2007
Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] - 4/19/2007
Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] - 5/2/2007
Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] - 4/19/2007
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 4/19/2007
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 4/19/2007
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 4/19/2007
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 6/13/2007
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 4/19/2007
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 4/23/2007
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 4/19/2007
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 4/19/2007
Sen Murray, Patty [WA] - 4/19/2007
Sen Obama, Barack [IL] - 5/11/2007
Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] - 4/25/2007
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 4/19/2007
Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] - 4/19/2007
Sen Tester, Jon [MT] - 4/23/2007
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 6/6/2007

---

COMMITTEE(S):

Committee/Subcommittee:		Activity:
Senate Judiciary		Referral, In Committee

---

RELATED BILL DETAILS:  (additional related bills may be indentified in Status)

Bill:	Relationship:
H.R.1964	Related bill identified by CRS

---

AMENDMENT(S):

***NONE***

The actual contents of the bill are as follows:

S 1173 IS

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1173

To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 19, 2007

Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mrs. MURRAY, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. CLINTON, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. BAUCUS, and Ms. CANTWELL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

A BILL

To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Freedom of Choice Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The United States was founded on core principles, such as liberty, personal privacy, and equality, which ensure that individuals are free to make their most intimate decisions without governmental interference and discrimination.

(2) One of the most private and difficult decisions an individual makes is whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy. Those reproductive health decisions are best made by women, in consultation with their loved ones and health care providers.

(3) In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479), and in 1973, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) and Doe v. Bolton (410 U.S. 179), the Supreme Court recognized that the right to privacy protected by the Constitution encompasses the right of every woman to weigh the personal, moral, and religious considerations involved in deciding whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy.

(4) The Roe v. Wade decision carefully balances the rights of women to make important reproductive decisions with the State's interest in potential life. Under Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the right to privacy protects a woman's decision to choose to terminate her pregnancy prior to fetal viability, with the State permitted to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to protect a woman's life or health.

(5) These decisions have protected the health and lives of women in the United States. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, an estimated 1,200,000 women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortions, despite the risk of unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration, and death. Before Roe, it is estimated that thousands of women died annually in the United States as a result of illegal abortions.

(6) In countries in which abortion remains illegal, the risk of maternal mortality is high. According to the World Health Organization, of the approximately 600,000 pregnancy-related deaths occurring annually around the world, 80,000 are associated with unsafe abortions.

(7) The Roe v. Wade decision also expanded the opportunities for women to participate equally in society. In 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833), the Supreme Court observed that, `[t]he ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.'.

(8) Even though the Roe v. Wade decision has stood for more than 34 years, there are increasing threats to reproductive health and freedom emerging from all branches and levels of government. In 2006, South Dakota became the first State in more than 15 years to enact a ban on abortion in nearly all circumstances. Supporters of this ban have admitted it is an attempt to directly challenge Roe in the courts. Other States are considering similar bans.

(9) Further threatening Roe, the Supreme Court recently upheld the first-ever Federal ban on an abortion procedure, which has no exception to protect a woman's health. The majority decision in Gonzales v. Carhart (05-380, slip op. April 18, 2007) and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America fails to protect a woman's health, a core tenet of Roe v. Wade. Dissenting in that case, Justice Ginsburg called the majority's opinion `alarming', and stated that, `[f]or the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health'. Further, she said, the Federal ban `and the Court's defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court'.

(10) Legal and practical barriers to the full range of reproductive services endanger women's health and lives. Incremental restrictions on the right to choose imposed by Congress and State legislatures have made access to reproductive care extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many women across the country. Currently, 87 percent of the counties in the United States have no abortion provider.

(11) While abortion should remain safe and legal, women should also have more meaningful access to family planning services that prevent unintended pregnancies, thereby reducing the need for abortion.

(12) To guarantee the protections of Roe v. Wade, Federal legislation is necessary.

(13) Although Congress may not create constitutional rights without amending the Constitution, Congress may, where authorized by its enumerated powers and not prohibited by the Constitution, enact legislation to create and secure statutory rights in areas of legitimate national concern.

(14) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I of the Constitution and section 5 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution to enact legislation to facilitate interstate commerce and to prevent State interference with interstate commerce, liberty, or equal protection of the laws.

(15) Federal protection of a woman's right to choose to prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this affirmative power of Congress, in part, because--

(A) many women cross State lines to obtain abortions and many more would be forced to do so absent a constitutional right or Federal protection;

(B) reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and

(C) reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and other personnel who travel across State lines in order to provide reproductive health services to patients.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) 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.

(2) STATE- The term `State' means each of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory or possession of the United States.

(3) VIABILITY- The term `viability' means that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) 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.

(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.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which the provision is held to be unconstitutional, shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.

This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.

ENDn

[Salvation]

Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.

[no dems]

Sad to say but if they have not “seen the light” by now, I don’t think a Bishop is going to be able to change their mind in 12 days.

[Salvation]

Bishops can still ask the priests to put a pro-life message out in front of congregations. Many Catholics do not realize that by supporting abortion, they are actually excommunicating themselves.

[Prokopton]

Bishops can still ask the priests to put a pro-life message out in front of congregations

The small percentage of Catholics who actually attend Mass and therefore would here a priest's sermon are mostly pro life already. The large percentage of those who call themselves Catholic but who do not practice their religion are where those apathetic to abortion come from. They only listen to the looniest of American Bishops which, unfortunately, there are quite a few.

[no dems]

Then, let’s Git ‘R done.

[BIOCHEMKY]

FOCA is the Freedom for Partial-Birth Abortionists Act.
Pro-Abortion Lawmakers have Proposed “FOCA” to Invalidate ALL Limits on Abortion.

[pgyanke]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2107271/posts

[pray4liberty]

If this passes, the "Rev." Wright will be right about one thing. God will damn America.

Pray for our nation, and pray that God acts quickly! Rely on the Lord and his miracles.

[Salvation]

Actually, to your encouragement and surprise, there are only a few of these Bernardin bishops areound. Most have retired.......and then the good news, Pope Benedict is replacing these lefties with orthodox, straight line with the Church bishops.

We are gaining in bishops and in heart.

Now, as to the CINOs, (Catholics in Name Only), they are excommunicating themselves by voting for Obama and any dimocrat who supports abortion — which FOCA does.

God knows what is going on whether we do or not.

I encourage you to talk with any of these Catholics you might know and ask them to look up abortion in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. They might not realize the consequences of supporting abortion.

[Salvation]

1:

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2271  (618 bytes )  preview document matches 1 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, URL: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2271.htm

97%

2:

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2272  (580 bytes )  preview document matches 2 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A URL: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2272.htm

96%

3:

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2322  (290 bytes )  preview document matches 2 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice (GS 27 § 3), URL: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2322.htm

96%

4:	CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2274  (554 bytes )  preview document matches gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent URL: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2274.htm

[Salvation]

We as REAL Catholics are encouraged.

I do believe we are witnessing the fruits of Pope Benedict's meeting with them (American Bishops) earlier this year. Following Vespers, he addressed all the bishops.

"Is it consistent to profess our beliefs in church on Sunday, and then during the week to promote business practices or medical procedures contrary to those beliefs? Is it consistent for practicing Catholics to ignore or exploit the poor and the marginalized, to promote sexual behavior contrary to Catholic moral teaching, or to adopt positions that contradict the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death? Any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted. Only when their faith permeates every aspect of their lives do Christians become truly open to the transforming power of the Gospel. "
FULL TEXT

[Salvation]

**Invalidate ALL Limits on Abortion.**

Including a child like my Down Syndrome grandchild. They would be aborted.

[Salvation]

There have been such predictions!

Pray for an end to abortion and the conversion of America to a culture of life!

[pray4liberty]

Many Catholics do not realize that by supporting abortion, they are actually excommunicating themselves.

Not to mention they are throwing their gift of salvation away and their souls into the pits of Hell.

Hell is not a reality for these people, even though Jesus Christ himself spoke clearly on the subject re: the rich man and Lazarus the beggar.

[Salvation]

You tell us what you really think, don’t you? Love it!

[pray4liberty]

Sad to say but if they have not “seen the light” by now, I don’t think a Bishop is going to be able to change their mind in 12 days.

Humanly speaking, perhaps not...but remember that nothing is impossible with God. Pray for an angel to be present in each and every voting booth this election.

Don't just believe in miracles, RELY on them!