Let this be the beginning of a long list of Bishops to speak out against FOCA!
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COSPONSORS(19), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)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.
END
House Bill
H.R.1964
Title: 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: Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] (introduced 4/19/2007) Cosponsors (109)
Related Bills: S.1173
Latest Major Action: 5/4/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
COSPONSORS(109), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 4/19/2007 Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 4/19/2007 Rep Allen, Thomas H. [ME-1] - 4/19/2007 Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] - 4/19/2007 Rep Baird, Brian [WA-3] - 7/11/2007 Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 4/19/2007 Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 4/19/2007 Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 4/19/2007 Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 4/19/2007 Rep Boucher, Rick [VA-9] - 4/19/2007 Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 4/19/2007 Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 4/30/2007 Rep Carnahan, Russ [MO-3] - 7/16/2007 Rep Carson, Julia [IN-7] - 10/22/2007 Rep Castor, Kathy [FL-11] - 4/23/2007 Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 4/23/2007 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 4/20/2007 Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 4/19/2007 Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 4/19/2007 Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 12/5/2007 Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 4/19/2007 Rep Davis, Susan A. [CA-53] - 4/19/2007 Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 4/19/2007 Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 5/2/2007 Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] - 7/11/2007 Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 4/19/2007 Rep Emanuel, Rahm [IL-5] - 4/19/2007 Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 3/31/2008 Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - 5/10/2007 Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 4/19/2007 Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] - 4/19/2007 Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 4/19/2007 Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 4/19/2007 Rep Giffords, Gabrielle [AZ-8] - 6/21/2007 Rep Green, Al [TX-9] - 1/28/2008 Rep Green, Gene [TX-29] - 4/23/2007 Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 4/19/2007 Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 1/22/2008 Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 4/19/2007 Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 5/2/2007 Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 4/19/2007 Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 4/19/2007 Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 4/19/2007 Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] - 4/19/2007 Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] - 4/23/2007 Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 4/19/2007 Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 4/19/2007 Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 6/12/2007 Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs [OH-11] - 9/4/2007 Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] - 1/28/2008 Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 4/19/2007 Rep Lantos, Tom [CA-12] - 4/19/2007 Rep Larsen, Rick [WA-2] - 4/19/2007 Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 4/19/2007 Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 5/3/2007 Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] - 4/19/2007 Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 5/3/2007 Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 4/19/2007 Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 4/19/2007 Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5] - 4/19/2007 Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] - 4/23/2007 Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 4/19/2007 Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 4/19/2007 Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 4/23/2007 Rep McNerney, Jerry [CA-11] - 6/6/2007 Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5] - 6/14/2007 Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] - 4/19/2007 Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 5/2/2007 Rep Mitchell, Harry E. [AZ-5] - 5/23/2007 Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 4/23/2007 Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 4/19/2007 Rep Murphy, Christopher S. [CT-5] - 4/30/2007 Rep Murphy, Patrick J. [PA-8] - 9/9/2008 Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] - 6/21/2007 Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 4/20/2007 Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 4/19/2007 Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] - 1/22/2008 Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 4/24/2007 Rep Price, David E. [NC-4] - 6/6/2007 Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 4/23/2007 Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] - 4/30/2007 Rep Ruppersberger, C. A. Dutch [MD-2] - 1/29/2008 Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39] - 4/19/2007 Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-47] - 5/21/2007 Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 4/19/2007 Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. [PA-13] - 10/15/2007 Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] - 4/19/2007 Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] - 4/23/2007 Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 5/3/2007 Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] - 4/19/2007 Rep Solis, Hilda L. [CA-32] - 4/19/2007 Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 4/19/2007 Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] - 4/19/2007 Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] - 6/18/2007 Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] - 4/19/2007 Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 5/3/2007 Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 4/19/2007 Rep Tsongas, Niki [MA-5] - 2/12/2008 Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] - 5/2/2007 Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 6/6/2007 Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] - 4/23/2007 Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 4/19/2007 Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 4/19/2007 Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] - 4/19/2007 Rep Welch, Peter [VT] - 5/21/2007 Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 4/19/2007 Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 4/19/2007 Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 4/23/2007 Rep Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4] - 4/23/2007
Rep Porter, Jon C. [NV-3] - 4/19/2007(withdrawn - 4/23/2007)
Yeah, right. Meanwhile, Kerry, Pelosi, and heck, maybe even Obama will receive Communion at Ted Kennedy’s Catholic funeral.
All this talk of remote vs. direct, material vs. formal cooperation in abortion is IRRELEVANT. In fact, it is a sign that Cardinal George and others have not been thinking very hard about this at all. They haven’t evenn properly identified the species of the main sin that pro-abortion politicians are committing.
The issue, for politicians, is the sin of DISCRIMINATION. Laws which treat abortion is anything other than homicide are DISCRIMINATORY.
And voting for a law which discriminates is direct, formal cooperation in DISCRIMINATION.
And it’s a MORTAL SIN.
Therefore, refusing Communion to politicians who vote for FOCA is MANDATORY. (Cf. Canon 915.) This is NOT a decision that is “up to the bishop.” If the bishop OBEYS Canon 915, he is doing his job. If a bishop DISOBEYS Canon 915, then THE BISHOP IS COMMITTING A MORTAL SIN HIMSELF.
So, any bishop who disobeys Canon 915 SHOULD BE PREVENTED FROM RECEIVING COMMUNION until he repents publicly.
.
I remember reading those comments by his Eminence quite a while ago, before the election, but it’s certainly relevant for Mr. Hudson to go over them again now.
Do y’all know about the postcard campaign? For some reason the Bishops really are worried about FOCA, and I don’t believe it’s ONLY due to the horror of abortion. It’s part of overall trends that could lead to the suppression of the Catholic faith in America and to freedom of speech and religion. They are realizing the danger of the new regime. FOCA has been floating around Congress for years, but now they act.
Every parish pastor in the country should have received a packet of information from his bishop. My understanding is this is not “optional”. The priest is to appoint a member of the Parish Council to oversee the parish “postcard campaign.” We in the pews sign three postcards, one for each Senator and Congressman, to be mailed end of January. If this isn’t being discussed in your parish yet, you might ask the priest.
Some dioceses are gung-ho and positive, and others (like mine) are not exactly fighting the pro-life cause and we need to ask, not wait passively for their guidance.
Not only should the excommunications we announced but, the Church is serious, the Bishops should summon the Pope's help. When FOCA comes up for a vote in the House They should invite him to Washington and the Pope along with every American Bishop should stand on the steps of the US Capitol in testimony against the hideous goings on. They should also invite 6 million Catholics and others of like mind to join them stretched out behind them on the mall and reflecting pool.
Written by Papa
No point in drawing a gun unless the person is willing to use it.
bookmark
The Freedom of Choice Act showdown is coming; it will change everything
November 25th, 2008
By Kevin “Coach” Collins
collinsreport.net/
In April of 2007 the Democrats induced the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). This bill is exactly the kind of over-reach Pro Lifers predicted would come about. FOCA would compel all hospitals accepting public funds to provide abortion and birth control services to their patients or lose funding. There would be no exceptions for religious based hospitals. It says “Abort or close.” The nation’s Catholic Bishops are studying the close option. Moreover, FOCA would be retroactive. FOCA clearly tells Pro Lifers to shut up and start cutting.
Trouble for Catholic politicians
FOCA is coming back in January. When Catholic Democrats pass FOCA, it will bring about a crisis in the American Roman Catholic Church and American politics as well.
Cannon Law forbids “formal cooperation” with an evil such as abortion. By their vote, Catholic politicians will place themselves outside of the Church and into a state under which they could no longer receive Holy Communion.
This is the train wreck Barack Obama’s Democrats have been trying to avoid by their admittedly centrist appointments thus far. This issue will make one side a winner and one side a loser. The bishops can not back down. The fact that Catholics broke ranks and voted for Obama makes it more, not less, likely that the bishops will excommunicate violators and close Catholic hospitals rather than be forced to provide abortions.
Obama has promised to sign FOCA. The drunk with power Democrats will introduce it. It will be a major turning point in sobering up Catholics and other Pro Lifers who drank Obama’s Kool aid. That rank and file Catholics will be pulled into this fight is also inevitable. The moment this bill hits the floor, any “honeymoon” of good feeling will end and the real fighting will begin. I say bring it on.
Those who think the Roman Catholic Bishops are bluffing are wrong and are in for a big surprise. When secularists bring suit against the Bishops to try to force them to do abortions they ought to keep a recent statement by Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis. He said “… any of us [ Catholic Bishops] would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow - to die tomorrow – to bring about an end to abortion.”
Enough of this political double talk. The message to CINOs in Congress MUST be: “You fote for FOCA, you are excommunicated.” PERIOD!
No case by case study, no evaluation, no penumbras.
This is a time for action.Support the 1/22/09 pro-life march on Washington!