Let's take a look first at Planned Parenthood's political action committee, NARAL.
The majority of Americans believe in freedom and personal responsibility. We believe that women have the intelligence and thoughtfulness to make their own decisions about their reproductive health. And we believe that politicians should not interfere in our personal lives.
Younger Americans like you are committed to making a difference in the world and at home. Do your part to ensure that reproductive rights will not become a thing of the past.
Take action now
Prevention First Campaign
You can help promote commonsense policies to prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce the need for abortion.
Take action now
Be a leader in your community
Kick your activism up a notch. You'll become a pro at collecting petition signatures, posting flyers, holding a pro-choice pub crawl, writing a letter to the editor, and more! The PDFs below will tell you how!
* Learn how to "crowd canvass" to collect petition signatures.
* Become a flyering expert.
* Find out how to organize a pro-choice pub crawl.
* Learn how to hold a "honk and wave."
* Get the basics on writing a letter to the editor.
They advocate "pub crawl" (excellent example to set)
And now for NARAL's reasons why FOCA is good for women...do you see any reasons?
Freedom Of Choice Act (FOCA)
Following the Supreme Court’s closely divided decision to uphold the first‐ever federal ban on abortion, it is clear that the stakes have changed and the right to choose is facing a new level of assault. That’s why the pro‐choice community is working to guarantee the right to choose through the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) – a measure that will codify Roe v. Wade’s protections and guarantee the right to choose for future generations of women.
• Recognizing that a woman’s right to choose is being chipped away both by the courts and state lawmakers, the pro‐choice community – with the help of pro‐choice leaders in Congress like Sen. Barbara Boxer (D‐CA) and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D‐NY) – is working to enact a federal law that would restore the right to choose as expressed in 1973 in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
• Since Roe v. Wade was decided, a woman’s right to choose has been systematically eroded by anti‐choice legislators in states around the country. In fact, more than 500 anti‐choice measures have been enacted in the states since 1995, essentially rolling back this fundamental right for many women.
• With a woman’s right to choose already in a precarious state, President Bush’s appointment of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court further threatens the constitutional protection for reproductive rights – a threat immediately made evident in the Court’s ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
• In the Carhart decision, the newly reconfigured Court – with Bush’s appointees Roberts and Alito casting decisive votes – upheld the first‐ever federal ban on a safe abortion method – with criminal penalties for doctors. More troubling, the decision effectively reversed Supreme Court precedent and rolled back key protections that were guaranteed by Roe v. Wade, including the long‐standing exception safeguarding women’s health.
• Dissenting in Carhart, Justice Ginsburg called the majorityʹs opinion “alarming,” and stated that “[f]or the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a womanʹs health.” Further, she said, the federal ban “and the Courtʹs 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.”
• By enacting FOCA, we will establish a federal law guaranteeing reproductive freedom for future generations of American women. This guarantee will protect women’s rights even if President Bush and an anti‐choice Congress are successful in reversing Roe v. Wade or enacting even more restrictions on our right to choose.
January 1, 2008
More from NARAL
While it's critical to promote policies that help prevent unintended pregnancies and make abortion less necessary, NARAL Pro-Choice America also fights to protect the right to safe, legal abortion.
In 1973, the Supreme Court guaranteed American women the right to choose abortion in its landmark decision Roe v. Wade. In Roe, the Court issued a compromise between the state's ability to restrict abortion and a woman's right to choose.
Since that time, the anti-choice movement has worked furiously to dismantle it – with the ultimate goal of overturning the decision altogether. Anti-choice activists are working hard in state legislatures, the courts, and Congress to take away our rights.
Access to Abortion
Making abortion access more difficult and dangerous is a key tactic of the anti-choice movement. Even with Roe v. Wade's protections still in place, 87 percent of U.S. counties have no abortion provider. Yet anti-choice lawmakers continue to impose a broad range of restrictions on women and their doctors, making abortion difficult, and in some cases nearly impossible, to obtain.
The anti-choice movement's ultimate goal is to outlaw abortion in all circumstances. While some states still have laws on the books that would ban abortion throughout pregnancy, Roe v. Wade's protections prevent these bans' enforcement. However, state legislatures across the country continue to consider enacting new total bans in order to challenge Roe in the courts. In addition, in the majority of state legislatures and Congress, anti-choice lawmakers have passed unconstitutional laws that would ban safe and medically appropriate abortion as early as the 12th week of pregnancy.
RU 486 (Non-Surgical/Medical Abortion)
In 2000, the FDA approved RU 486 (also called mifepristone, non-surgical abortion, or medical abortion), giving American women the option to end an unintended pregnancy without surgery. Although millions of women have safely used RU 486 worldwide since 1981, anti-choice lawmakers and groups fought FDA approval every step of the way; having failed, they are now doing everything they can to make it difficult – or even impossible – to obtain. (RU 486 should not be confused with emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after" pill, which is a basic form of birth control that prevents pregnancy and does not cause abortion.)
(Excuse me but if you aren't pregnant, which means bearing the life of a child within you, why would you need any pill? Does not cause abortion? Look up the definition of "abortifacient." It does not prevent conception but rather gets rid of the baby already conceived. Ooops, NARAL, you fudged on this)
I have had enough so let's get to the truth, shall we? And just who is backing this FOCA? hmmm
FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT (H.R. 1964)
INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE ON APRIL 19, 2007 (110th CONGRESS)
Sponsored by Rep. Jerrod Nadler (NY-08, D)
Currently the Library of Congress has 109 cosponsors for this bill. The list below excludes those Members who have passed away since signing as cosponsors (Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11, D), Rep. Martin Meehan (MA-05, D), Rep. Julia Carson (IN-02, D), and Rep. Tom Lantos (CA-12, D)) and one Member who has resigned since signing as a cosponsor (Rep. Albert Russell Wynn (MD-04, D)).
104 Cosponsors listed by state: ARIZONA
05 Rep. Harry E. Mitchell (D)
07 Rep. Raul Grijalva (D)
08 Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) CALIFORNIA
01 Rep. Mike Thompson (D)
05 Rep. Doris O. Matsui (D)
06 Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D)
07 Rep. George Miller (D)
09 Rep. Barbara Lee (D)
10 Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D)
11 Rep. Jerry McNerney (D)
13 Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D)
14 Rep. Anna Eshoo (D)
15 Rep. Michael M. Honda (D)
16 Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D)
17 Rep. Sam Farr (D)
23 Rep. Lois Capps (D)
27 Rep. Brad Sherman (D)
28 Rep. Howard L. Berman (D)
30 Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D)
32 Rep. Hilda L. Solis (D)
33 Rep. Diane E. Watson (D)
36 Rep. Jane Harman (D)
38 Rep. Grace Napolitano (D)
39 Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D)
47 Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D)
51 Rep. Bob Filner (D)
53 Rep. Susan A. Davis (D) COLORADO
01 Rep Dianne DeGette (D) CONNECTICUT
03 Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (D)
04 Rep. Christopher Shays (D)
05 Rep. Chris Murphy (D) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AL Del. Eleanor Norton (D) FLORIDA
11 Rep. Kathy Castor (D)
19 Rep. Robert Wexler (D)
20 Rep. D. Wasserman Schultz (D)
23 Rep. Alcee Hastings (D) GEORGIA
04 Rep. Henry Johnson, Jr. (D)
05 Rep. John Lewis (D) HAWAII
01 Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D)
02 Rep. Mazie K. Hirono (D) ILLINOIS
02 Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D)
04 Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D)
05 Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D)
07 Rep. Danny Davis (D)
09 Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D) IOWA
02 Rep. David Loebsack (D) MAINE
01 Rep. Thomas H. Allen (D) MARYLAND
02 Rep. C. Ruppersberger (D)
08 Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D) MASSACHUSETTS
01 Rep. John W. Olver (D)
03 Rep. James McGovern (D)
04 Rep. Barney Frank (D) 05 Rep. Niki Tsongas (D)
06 Rep. John F. Tierney (D)
08 Rep. Michael Capuano (D) MICHIGAN
Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D) MINNESOTA
04 Rep. Betty McCollum (D)
05 Rep. Keith Ellison (D) MISSOURI
01 Rep. William Clay (D)
03 Rep. Russ Carnahan (D) NEVADA
01 Rep. Shelley Berkley (D) NEW HAMPSHIRE
01 Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D) NEW JERSEY
06 Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D)
09 Rep. Steven R. Rothman (D)
10 Rep. Donald M. Payne (D)
12 Rep. Rush D. Holt (D) NEW YORK
02 Rep. Steve Israel (D)
04 Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D)
05 Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D)
07 Rep. Joseph Crowley (D)
09 Rep. Anthony D. Weiner (D)
10 Rep. Edolphus Towns (D) NY CONTINUED
11 Rep. Yvette Clarke (D)
12 Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D)
14 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D)
15 Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D)
17 Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D)
18 Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D)
24 Rep. Michael A. Arcuri (D)
28 Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D) NORTH CAROLINA
04 Rep. David E. Price (D)
13 Rep. Brad Miller (D) OHIO
10 Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D)
13 Rep. Betty Sutton (D) OREGON
01 Rep. David Wu (D)
03 Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D)
04 Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D) PENNSYLVANIA
02 Rep. Chaka Fattah (D)
08 Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D)
13 Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D) RHODE ISLAND
01 Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D) TENNESSEE
09 Rep. Steve Cohen (D) TEXAS
09 Rep. Al Green (D)
18 Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D)
29 Rep. Gene Green (D) VERMONT
AL Rep. Peter Welch (D) VIRGINIA
08 Rep. James P. Moran (D)
09 Rep. Rick Boucher (D) WASHINGTON
01 Rep. Jay Inslee (D)
02 Rep. Rick Larsen (D)
03 Rep. Brian Baird (D)
07 Rep. Jim McDermott (D) WISCONSIN
02 Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D)
04 Rep. Gwen Moore (D)
FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT (S. 1173)
INTRODUCED APRIL 19, 2007 (110th CONGRESS)
SPONSORED BY SENATOR BARBARA BOXER (D-CA) 19 COSPONSORS LISTED BY STATE: CALIFORNIA
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) CONNECTICUT
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (I) ILLINOIS
Senator Barak Obama (D) MASSACHUSETTS
Senator John F. Kerry (D) MARYLAND
Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D)
Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D) MICHIGAN
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D) MONTANA
Senator Max Baucus (D)
Senator Jon Tester (D)
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D)
Senator Robert Menendez (D)
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D) NEW YORK
Senator Charles E. Schumer (D)
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) OHIO
Senator Sherrod Brown (D) RHODE ISLAND
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D) VERMONT
Senator Bernard Sanders (I) WASHINGTON
Senator Maria Cantwell (D)
Senator Patty Murray (D)
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/FOCA/FOCA_FactSheet08.pdf A Fact Sheet On FOCA WELL worth the time to save, copy, read, pass along.
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/FOCA/index.shtml For the LEGAL analysis of FOCA
The BEST place to get a thorough truth about FOCA is right there above!
Federal "Freedom of Choice Act" would Make "Null and Void" all Abortion Restrictions in the US: Kansas City Bishop Warns
By Hilary White
KANSAS CITY, Missouri, October 2, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City, Mo. has issued a pastoral warning to his flock that the proposed Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would "immediately make null and void every current restriction on abortion in all jurisdictions." The federal legislation, introduced in April 2007, would, the bishop warns, "unleash - on a national level - a complete and unrestricted access to abortion."
A leading US pro-abortion organisation agrees with the bishop's assessment. The National Organization of Women (NOW) said that FOCA "would sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws, policies." Planned Parenthood also agreed, saying, "The legislation (FOCA) would invalidate existing and future laws that interfere with or discriminate against the exercise of the [abortion] rights protected. It also would provide an individual aggrieved by a violation of the act a private right of civil action in order to obtain appropriate relief."
When Senator Barack Obama addressed a Planned Parenthood event on July 17, 2007, he said, "The first thing I will do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."
Bishop Finn, while not mentioning Senator Obama's name, wrote, "When a candidate ... promises to promote - or to 'sign immediately upon taking office' - the Freedom of Choice Act, Catholics and all people of good will have cause to question the sincerity of the candidate's determination to reduce abortions." Bishop Finn noted that the abortion rate has been falling amongst teens, suggesting that this is due to "these already existing limits" that "have caused a decrease of more than 100,000 abortions each year."
FOCA would eliminate conscience protection for physicians, he said, and would require states to fund abortions.
The bill reads, "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.
"This act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, penalty, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before or after the date of enactment of this act."
FOCA at a stroke would reverse many of the gains won by the pro-life movement in the US in the last twenty years. It would overturn state abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states; forty-four states' laws concerning parental involvement; forty states' laws on restricting later-term abortions; forty-six states' conscience protection laws for individual health care providers; twenty-seven states' conscience protection laws for institutions; thirty-eight states' bans on partial-birth abortions; thirty-three states' laws on requiring counselling before an abortion; and sixteen states' laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion.
Bishop Finn said that while it may be permissible to vote for a candidate "in spite of" his support for abortion, "it seems we are morally obliged to establish a proportionate reason sufficient to justify the destruction of 45 million human persons through abortion."
If a candidate, however, "pledges - through an instrument such as FOCA - to eliminate all existing limitations against abortion, it is that much more doubtful whether voting for him or her can ever be morally justified under any circumstance," Bishop Finn concluded.
(My beloved bishop speaks)
Get Familiar with FOCA Legislation
Bishop James V. Johnston
Bishop of the Diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau
Bishop's column for October 24, 2008
Dangerous & stealth
In the past several weeks a number of my columns have focused on the sanctity of human life. This topic was treated for several reasons: 1) For some time October has been Respect Life Month; and 2) the life issue takes a certain precedence as we prepare to vote. Recently a good friend, having considered my columns, suggested to me that we should not focus so much on changing abortion laws as we should focus on the ways that effectively limit abortion. My response was that we should focus on both, as both are crucial in the struggle for the unborn, the human rights struggle of our era.
But, let’s look closer at my friend’s point. What are those common-sense things that have lowered the number of abortions in America in recent years? Several things can be highlighted. First, parental notification laws; these common-sense provisions require that those under 18 first be required to talk about this huge matter before procuring an abortion. In addition to parental notification laws, some states have laws requiring counseling from someone other than a parent, in the event that the parent is unfit for some reason. A second approach that has reduced abortions is the increased use of ultrasound technology. The more a mother can realize the baby she carries is a baby, the more likely her motherly instinct and compassion will kick in to care for her own child. Finally, the number of abortions has been lessened because of the near unanimous outcry of Americans against the most heinous of abortions: late-term abortions, and partial birth abortions in which the body of the baby is delivered up to the neck, while the child is killed by having the brain stem severed before the head can pass through the birth canal. These are some of the main reasons abortions have been reduced even though thousands still occur every day (dropping some nine percent from 2000 to 2005 according to Planned Parenthood’s Alan Guttmacher Institute statistics).
What is FOCA?
Agreeing with my friend that these things are important and deserve our attention and support, I asked him if he was familiar with FOCA. His reply was, “What?” FOCA stands for the Freedom of Choice Act, and most Americans, like my friend, are unaware of it and its repercussions if it becomes the law of the land (Read more about FOCA on p.1 of the October 24, 2008 issue of The Mirror).
The Freedom of Choice Act was first introduced in 1989 by Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) and Rep. Don Edwards (D-CA). Its prime purpose was to codify Roe v. Wade. It never mustered enough support in those days and much of the time faced a certain veto even if it had. However, this year with the shifting of power in Congress, its prospects for passage have been resurrected, with one of the presidential candidates pledging, if elected, to sign it into law as his first act as president.
Which brings us to the present danger: if FOCA is passed, it would most certainly nullify the common-sense restrictions that have helped lower the number of abortions alluded to above. According to Tom McCloskey, vice president of government affairs for the Family Research Council, if FOCA is passed it would automatically overturn: • state abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states; • forty-four states’ laws concerning parental involvement; • forty states’ laws on restricting later term abortions; • forty-six states’ conscience protection laws for individual health care providers; • twenty-seven states’ conscience protection laws for institutions; • thirty-eight states’ bans on partial-birth abortions; • thirty-three states’ laws on requiring counseling before an abortion; • sixteen states’ laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion.
McCloskey goes on to note: “The passage of FOCA would not only force the issue of taxpayer-funded abortions on both the federal and state governments, but would also overturn the wishes of all 50 state legislatures and millions of people in the states.” In essence, FOCA would be a raw act of federal power, wiping out all of the provisions in the states to reduce abortions in one fell swoop.
Indeed, there are many important issues that absorb us in these days which cannot be ignored, such as the current economic turmoil. These get most of the press as our elected officials, economists, and thinkers grapple with solutions. The Freedom of Choice Act has been under the radar for most; yet, if passed, this law will have repercussions in America long after the economy is eventually stabilized.
I encourage all of you to investigate where the candidates stand on FOCA. Simply go to the Internet and type in: Freedom of Choice Act, and then the candidate’s name.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
The Dangers of FOCA
Dear friends of Life,
It is rare in this election season that we hear about the Freedom Of Choice Act or FOCA. The secular media doesn’t discuss it, the radio talk shows don’t discuss it and the few more conservative cable channels don’t discuss it. So what is it? It is one of the keys to understanding why pro-lifers must do everything they can in the next 4 ½ weeks to awaken pro-lifers, and those who might become pro-lifers, to the insidious evil that it contains! Please take the time to read and absorb its contents and then pass it on to everyone on your list. It would “sweep away” hundreds of pro-life laws and policies on the local, state and federal level, including the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. It would replace Roe V. Wade and Doe V. Bolton. It would take conscience rights away from doctors and if interpreted broadly would probably force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions...didn’t I say “insidious evil?” Please ACT on this!
I am including some other attachments on subjects that I often discuss with the public each day here at Priests for life in the hope that they will help you to fight the good fight in your area so that one day you may hear the sweetest words that a human being can ever hear, “Well done my good and faithful servant...Come, share your master's joy.”
I have included a number of pieces of information that comes up repeatedly during this election, especially where Catholics are concerned. I hope that this will help, especially the Bishop Martino letter. I also attached a letter just released by the New York Bishops. You can check the USCCB statement on responsible voting which you will find at www.faithfulcitizenship.org/resources/bulletin; it may be a little fuzzy from a morality standpoint, but page 4 of the Neumann-Finn letter gives a much clearer interpretation which you can share with people.
We hear from a number of people who raise the issues of war, capital punishment and other social justice issues saying that they are equal in weight to the Right to Life. I attached an excellent paper on intrinsic evils as it relates to these issues. Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict, Cardinal Beradin and the USCCB have written on intrinsic evils which must be avoided in voting responsibly. They have made the point very clearly that the Right to Life is the foundational right upon which all other rights depend. They and the Catechism do not define war and the death penalty, etc. as intrinsic evils, but abortion and euthanasia are always intrinsically evil. Please understand that the total focus of Priests for Life is beginning of life and end of life issues. Let us be a resource for you; become familiar with www.priestsforlife.org.
We, as a 501(c)3 organization, are not allowed to endorse candidates or parties, but I think that you will find the attached voter guide to be very helpful. You can order them from us in quantity at no charge if you wish. Please let me know if you have any questions or any thoughts that you want to share. You should also check out www.nrlc.org and www.politicalresponsibility.org for additional information.
Yours in Christ,
Ray Mooney, M.E.V.
Missionaries of the Gospel of Life
Priests for Life
PO Box 141172
Staten Island , NY 10314
Click here to visit the Priests for Life website
Click here to view the M.E.V. Lay Associates Website
Freedom Of Choice Act Analysis
Cardinal Rigali Letter About FOCA
A Pastoral Letter From Bishop Martino
Our Moral Responsibility As Christian Citizens
Our Cherished Right, Our Solemn Duty
What Is An Intrinsic Evil And What Is Its Significance For The Christian Voter?
2008 Presidential Election Non-Partisan Voter Guide
Getting up to date in Kansas City
2 hours ago