A Minnesota Priest Asks People Not To Fight FOCA (Freedom Of Choice Act) And To Thwart US Bishops Effort

[NReily]

I agree with him, we need to stick with Obama, he does want to reduce abortions in the long run you know, just not by unconstitutionally banning it.

If we are going to bring out the constitutional argument, I like to see where the founding fathers would have come to the consensus that Abortion would fall under the right of privacy.

 

[Janet_S]

Obama already outlined his plans, and you can read them here.

otrans.3cdn.net/3b21d35e246c18a427_d7m6bw2o1.pdf

It can’t get much worse than this.

 

[Janet_S]

I agree with him, we need to stick with Obama, he does want to reduce abortions in the long run you know, just not by unconstitutionally banning it.

We’re not making it up. It came straight from the horse’s mouth. Obama was the one who said the first thing he would do as president would be to sign FOCA.

youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8

People who claim Obama will reduce abortions have their heads in the sand. You don’t reduce abortions by removing all restrictions on it and spending more money on it. That’s what we have in store for us if he remains true to his campaign promises.

BTW, here is the 55-page document on “Advancing Reproductive Rights” submitted to the Obama-Biden transition project.

otrans.3cdn.net/3b21d35e246c18a427_d7m6bw2o1.pdf

 

[Janet_S]

Abortion was generally legal when the U.S. was founded. Anti-abortion laws didn’t start to appear until c. 1820.

If you scroll to the bottom of this page, there is a series called “The Truth About Abortion.” In one of the talks, “The History of Abortion,” Jeff Crandall discusses abortion laws and the evolution of abortion techniques.

catholicaudio.blogspot.com/search/label/Abortion

These are excerpts from the power point presentation:

British Common Law (1300-1850)
“Whether abortion of a quick fetus was a felony at
common law, or even a lesser crime, is still
disputed. Bracton, writing early in the 13th
century, thought it homicide. But the later and
predominant view, following the great commonlaw
scholars, has been that it was, at most, a
lesser offense. In a frequently cited passage,
Coke took the position that abortion of a woman
“quick with child” is “a great misprision
[misdemeanor], and no murder.” Blackstone
followed, saying that while abortion after
quickening had once been considered
manslaughter (though not murder), “modern
law” took a less severe view.”
(From Roe v Wade)

The American Medical
Association
In the mid 1800’s, concern about women’s safety,
falling birth rates, and indecent advertising, and
the discovery of the real nature of conception,
caused legal opinion to change. Led by
Horation Robinson Storer, a Boston physician,
the newly formed AMA (1847) began to lobby
politically for the outlawing of abortion at any
stage of gestation.
In the 20 years following, 31 states passed or
amended their laws on abortion to protect preterm
infants at all stages of gestation.
By 1910, every state had outlawed abortion.
Abortion went underground.
Surveys conducted by the AMA in the 1930’s
showed widespread illegal abortion still going
on.
By 1967, not much had changed. In 49 states,
abortion was a felony; in New Jersey, it was a
high misdemeanor. Furthermore, 29 states
banned abortion advertising, and many
outlawed the manufacture or distribution of
abortifacients.

Things begin to Change…
The American Law Institute (ALI) proposed,
in its 1959 model criminal code for all the
states, a “reform” abortion law. The model
bill, approved by ALI in 1962, declared that
abortion should be permitted for the
physical or mental health of the mother, for
fetal abnormality, and for rape or incest.
In June 1967, following the ALI model, the
American Medical Association voted to
change that body’s long-standing
opposition to abortion. With a new
resolution, the AMA now condoned
abortion for the life or health of the mother,
for a baby’s ‘incapacitating’ physical
deformity or mental deficiency, or for
cases of rape or incest.
In that same year state abortion laws began to
change, but only after years of organized
campaigns by pro-abortion forces.
Colorado, North Carolina, and California
became the first states to adopt versions of
the ALI “reform” abortion law.
By 1970, four states - New York, Alaska,
Hawaii and Washington - passed laws that
basically allowed abortion on demand. Of
those four, New York’s was the only law
without a residency requirement and the state
quickly became the nation’s abortion capital.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
“Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth
Amendment, life begins at conception and is
present throughout pregnancy, and that,
therefore, the State has a compelling interest in
protecting that life from and after conception. We
need not resolve the difficult question of when
life begins. When those trained in the respective
disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and
theology are unable to arrive at any consensus,
the judiciary, at this point in the development of
man’s knowledge, is not in a position to
speculate as to the answer.” (IX.B)

 

[josephdavid]

I am sorry but you are misinformed. Please read FOCA and review your facts. Obama has stated more than once that he will make it his first act to sign FOCA. He has posted on his website of the President Elect the plan he is looking to implement within the first 100 days of his administration.

The state of Massachusetts passed a similar bill to FOCA in 1993. Since that time, abortions have risen 8% in that state. While in the USA overall, with the restrictions the pro-life movement has fought so hard for, abortions have declined by 9%. Do the math on a nationwide scale?

In addition, the plan listed on his website also calls for funds to be given to countries that would use them for purposes of abortion. Under Bush, this is not allowed.

Obama is EXTREMELY pro-choice ~ so pro-choice, you could call him anti-human. Look at his voting record on all matters of research and abortion. He is far more frightening than Clinton, Kerry or Kennedy.

God help our country if we sit idly by and do not fight for ALL Americans. We must protect life from CONCEPTION TO NATURAL DEATH!!

I do remeber hearing Obama say that a couple years ago but I have not heard boo about that. Seems he and others are more focused on fixing the economy and winding down Iraq issue than FOCA. I hope that will be the case.

I think considering the emergency situation we are in with the economy Pelosi and others would be commiting political suicide if they made that their first priority.

 

[twosweetgirls]

Okay, so it was the single priest, not Abp. Nienstedt, who is urging parishioners not to fight FOCA. (Glad I read the post completely . )

I wonder if Fr. Trageder is just worried about having to be responsible for such a big undertaking in his own diocese or parish? I commend Abp. Nienstedt–who was my Bishop in the New Ulm Diocese–for his efforts to save our unborn brothers and sisters. I’ll gladly sign any postcard that shows up in my pew soon.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

I agree with him, we need to stick with Obama, he does want to reduce abortions in the long run you know, just not by unconstitutionally banning it.

Limiting abortions doesn’t do a bit of good for the children still being aborted. Obama is planned parenthood’s hired gun, and will not limit abortions. The FOCA would eliminate all regulations that have been limiting them.

 

[Teelynn]

Limiting abortions doesn’t do a bit of good for the children still being aborted. Obama is planned parenthood’s hired gun, and will not limit abortions. The FOCA would eliminate all regulations that have been limiting them.

Good way to put it…Obama is PP’s hired gun. PP paid him a lot of money toward his campaign. Now they want that money back plus interest.

 

[MrS]

I agree with him, we need to stick with Obama, he does want to reduce abortions in the long run you know, just not by unconstitutionally banning it.

With that thinking, you might add three letters to your sign-in name… N, O, T.

.

 

[Dale_M]

Then why on earth would Obama promise he would sign into law FOCA within his first 100 days.

Politicians say lots of things on the campaign trail which they really don’t mean. Obama is no different. Besides, given how the economy has fallen, I think his priorities (and Congress’ priorities) may have changed a bit.

 

[josephdavid]

Politicians say lots of things on the campaign trail which they really don’t mean. Obama is no different. Besides, given how the economy has fallen, I think his priorities (and Congress’ priorities) may have changed a bit.

Not to mention FOCA has not even come under the radar.

 

[DawnInTexas]

This is good—>From my December 2008 “Catholic Spirit”-The Official Publication of the Diocese of Austin, Texas:

Faithful Citizenship
Freedom of Choice Act offers no freedom to the unborn
By Barbara Budde, Columnist

I always find it interesting when television programs pick up current political and cultural “hot topics” in their story lines. I am not a huge TV watcher, but I recently saw a medical drama where the patient was a pregnant woman whose child was causing the mother’s major organs to shut down. The woman desperately wanted to keep her child and was willing to risk her own life to save the life of the baby. A physician was arguing that “it” was not a child; it was a tumor that was killing her. There is the crux of the matter –– is the unborn child a person or part of the mother?

For us in the Catholic tradition the answer is clear, the unborn child is a person from the moment of conception. The child is a separate entity from the mother, dependent for life certainly, but possessing 46 distinct chromosomes of its own, and, therefore, a separate and distinct person loved and created by God and deserving of respect and protection.

The question of the status of personhood is of particular interest to me since my ancestors were slave-owners. It is incomprehensible to me how my good Christian family could treat other persons as property and not as equals, but they did. I suspect that they absolved themselves with the culturally acceptable excuse at the time, that black people were not like white people and not fully human. It was in 1857 that Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney institutionalized inequality into the law with the Dred Scott decision.

Now more than a century later, after a Civil War, several amendments to the U.S. Constitution and even more civil rights legislation, we have finally broken the color barrier by electing a black president. This is real progress.

However, our president-elect and many other elected officials are working against the personhood of unborn children through their support of the Freedom of Choice Act. This legislation, if passed, would prohibit government interference with a woman’s right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy up to viability, and after viability to protect the life and health of the mother.

The legal department of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has studied the law and concluded that if passed the Freedom of Choice Act would require all tax payers to pay for abortions, eliminate protections for women from unsafe abortion clinics and subject women to abortions performed by non-physicians, require all states to allow “partial birth” and other late-term abortions, violate the conscience rights of doctors, nurses and hospitals to refuse to perform abortions and eliminate all state parental notification laws, thus stripping parents of their right to be involved with their daughter’s medical decisions.

The Freedom of Choice Act offers no freedom and no choice to the child, and like slavery, denies personhood to the unborn child. As we recognize and celebrate the importance of the election of a black president, we need to challenge him and others to reject the Freedom of Choice Act.

We need to contact our U.S. senators and congressional representatives and tell them to vote against the Freedom of Choice Act. Contact our president elect and let him know that unborn children are persons deserving of protection and personhood today, just as slaves were deserving of protection and personhood in centuries past.

For more information on the Freedom of Choice Act, visit www.usccb.org/prolire/issues/FOCA/index.shtml. For more information on Catholic social teaching, visit the Faithful Citizenship site at www.ccctx.org/fc_cst.php.

 

[MDK]

I agree with him, we need to stick with Obama, he does want to reduce abortions in the long run you know, just not by unconstitutionally banning it.

Teens need to mature at some point. If you really want to be for Christ, then you need to stop opposing His Laws and His word. What part of “Thou Shalt not Kill” do you not understand?

It also wouldn’t hurt to learn the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it say that only some of us have the right to life?

It is largely because of those who are morally immature and easily swayed that an amoral con man (at best) will be able to inhabit the oval office.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I agree with him, we need to stick with Obama, he does want to reduce abortions in the long run you know, just not by unconstitutionally banning it.

At 18, very liberal and a non-catholic Christian seeker (your profile) your stand on this issue does not surprise me. It does sadden me for someone that calls her/him-self a Teen4Christ would allow him/her-self to believe that liberalizing the availability without restrictions will somehow reduce a problem, this holds true for abortion, drugs, divorce (we know how well this one worked look around you) and many other “social” issues.

 

[Janet_S]

Politicians say lots of things on the campaign trail which they really don’t mean. Obama is no different. Besides, given how the economy has fallen, I think his priorities (and Congress’ priorities) may have changed a bit.

That’s what he said, and we can’t just assume he didn’t mean it. Has he ever retracted his commitment to FOCA? If he did, you might have a point, but I don’t think he did.

Funny how those who didn’t vote for Obama take his campaign promises more seriously than those who did vote for him. What other pie-in-the-sky promises is he not going to keep?

 

[Fitz]

I agree with him, we need to stick with Obama, he does want to reduce abortions in the long run you know, just not by unconstitutionally banning it.

You have been sold a bill of goods. Please educate yourself and go to at least one of the websites in my signature. You are sadly mistaken if you think Obama wants to reduce abortion. Read about his record in the Illinois Senate. I am so sad that you have been fooled by our media.