The Notre Dame Speech

[tim huntzinger]

ODS again.

Actually, the mainstream's policies on abortion I share.  I don't like abortion, wouldn't suggest it, have made mention of it here before.  But the law of the land remains to allow a woman a choice to decide.  I could care less if it's repealed or not.  But the fringe right-wingers have made it their cross to bear.  Catholics are not exclusive to this group, but they always seem to be the most vocal about it.

Next time, you might try searching to see what my beliefs on abortion are.  My problem with your claims is that the FOCA you claim to hear about isn't the same FOCA.  You're spreading FUD.

ESAD! LMAO! FI! DYDI?

Here some more crazay right wingers from that bastion of right-wingedness 'Slate'.

http://www.slate.com/id/2205326/

'If the Freedom of Choice Act passes Congress, and that's a big if, Obama has promised to sign it the second it hits his desk. (Here he is at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event in 2007, vowing, "The first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do.") Though it's often referred to as a mere codification of Roe, FOCA, as currently drafted, actually goes well beyond that: According to the Senate sponsor of the bill, Barbara Boxer, in a statement on her Web site, FOCA would nullify all existing laws and regulations that limit abortion in any way, up to the time of fetal viability. [emph added] Laws requiring parental notification and informed consent would be tossed out. While there is strenuous debate among legal experts on the matter, many believe the act would invalidate the freedom-of-conscience laws on the books in 46 states. These are the laws that allow Catholic hospitals and health providers that receive public funds through Medicaid and Medicare to opt out of performing abortions. Without public funds, these health centers couldn't stay open; if forced to do abortions, they would sooner close their doors. Even the prospect of selling the institutions to other providers wouldn't be an option, the bishops have said, because that would constitute "material cooperation with an intrinsic evil."

[Hoss]

ESAD! LMAO! FI! DYDI?

Here some more crazay right wingers from that bastion of right-wingedness 'Slate'.

http://www.slate.com/id/2205326/

'If the Freedom of Choice Act passes Congress, and that's a big if, Obama has promised to sign it the second it hits his desk. (Here he is at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event in 2007, vowing, "The first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do.") Though it's often referred to as a mere codification of Roe, FOCA, as currently drafted, actually goes well beyond that: According to the Senate sponsor of the bill, Barbara Boxer, in a statement on her Web site, FOCA would nullify all existing laws and regulations that limit abortion in any way, up to the time of fetal viability. Laws requiring parental notification and informed consent would be tossed out. While there is strenuous debate among legal experts on the matter, many believe the act would invalidate the freedom-of-conscience laws on the books in 46 states. These are the laws that allow Catholic hospitals and health providers that receive public funds through Medicaid and Medicare to opt out of performing abortions. Without public funds, these health centers couldn't stay open; if forced to do abortions, they would sooner close their doors. Even the prospect of selling the institutions to other providers wouldn't be an option, the bishops have said, because that would constitute "material cooperation with an intrinsic evil."

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_are_the_facts_on_the_freedom.html

So the way I read this is that it would only apply to government institutions, not Catholic Hospitals or anyone who might have a problem with performing said procedures.

Update: A reporter asked Obama about FOCA at a news conference on April 29, 2009. The president said that signing FOCA was not his method of choice for resolving abortion disputes: "Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose, but I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's where I'm going to focus."

Like I said, FUD...

[tim huntzinger]

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_are_the_facts_on_the_freedom.html

So the way I read this is that it would only apply to government institutions, not Catholic Hospitals or anyone who might have a problem with performing said procedures.

Update: A reporter asked Obama about FOCA at a news conference on April 29, 2009. The president said that signing FOCA was not his method of choice for resolving abortion disputes: "Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose, but I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's where I'm going to focus."

Like I said, FUD...

BFD, DA. YASAJA! Read your stupid article stupid: 'Some claims about this proposal's impact are unfounded; others contain some truth. But the bill's vague wording makes it hard to pin down what it actually would or wouldn't do.'

Even O's in-the-pocket org does not know what the FOCA does, but YOU DO! Wow!

[Conan71]

I don't think it's really worth getting in a huge lather over it right now, as there's a whole lot of mis-information being pumped on this.  Let's say this FOCA were to usurp state laws as was claimed in the email that was circulating (and was asked about on the factcheck link Hoss provided), you can bet conservative state AG's would be lining up to tie this up for a long time up at SCOTUS.  Even more liberal AG's would likely sue over state's rights.

[guido911]

I don't think it's really worth getting in a huge lather over it right now, as there's a whole lot of mis-information being pumped on this.  Let's say this FOCA were to usurp state laws as was claimed in the email that was circulating (and was asked about on the factcheck link Hoss provided), you can bet conservative state AG's would be lining up to tie this up for a long time up at SCOTUS.  Even more liberal AG's would likely sue over state's rights.

I agree. Injunctive relief would be sought by AGs in states like Oklahoma, Utah and other "red" states, which would finally allow the very conservative northern district judges a crack at the issue. I think the Supremes would find FOCA unconstitutional under the first and fourteenth amendments. Also, this would probably be enough for J. Kennedy to finally let Scalia write the opinion (and himself join) I sense Scalia wants to write--overturning Roe and throwing the abortion question back where it belongs...to the states. Roberts, Thomas, and Alito would of course join as well

[Hoss]

BFD, DA. YASAJA! Read your stupid article stupid: 'Some claims about this proposal's impact are unfounded; others contain some truth. But the bill's vague wording makes it hard to pin down what it actually would or wouldn't do.'

Even O's in-the-pocket org does not know what the FOCA does, but YOU DO! Wow!

Wow, love the ad-hominem.  Someone posts a dissenting opinion...sheesh.  Get over yourself.

[tim huntzinger]

Wow, love the ad-hominem.  Someone posts a dissenting opinion...sheesh.  Get over yourself.

Ha ha!  Ok! There! Over myself!!  But your adoration of the O required a response, so get over y'self, too, H-bomb!  OOOHHHHH NOOOOOO! CAPS!!!! RUN!!