What Laws Would Be Overturned By Foca?

[elts1956]

I think there has been a communication breakdown. I know exactly what FOCA would do. I am just as opposed to FOCA as anyone. All I have said is that FOCA has not yet passed Congress. That’s it. I didn’t say not to worry about it. I didn’t say not to oppose it. I didn’t underestimate how horrible it would be. All I said was that it never has passed Congress.

Guess I misunderstood. I just think with all the Dems in position, it will pass if B.O. gets in and he pushes for it, which I think he will. Wish I could think of a good usable name I could call him in public besides Evil.

 

[Gamera]

Guess I misunderstood. I just think with all the Dems in position, it will pass if B.O. gets in and he pushes for it, which I think he will. Wish I could think of a good usable name I could call him in public besides Evil.

Your theory assumes that every Congressional Democrat will vote for FOCA. I don’t assume that. They haven’t so far.

 

[MarcellusW]

Is there anything about this bill that would prevent people from protesting abortions, or handing out alternative materials outside the abortion clinics?

 

[RobbyS]

As puzzleannie has suggested, all state laws would be nullified. So, all laws requiring parental consent to have an abortion, all laws against partial birth abortion, all laws requiring women to be counseled and notified of the potential negative effects of an abortion, and these I’m sure are only a few.

It would also send more of our tax money towards funding abortions.

It’s important to understand that this would take the control out of the state and leave it up to the federal government. Just one small step towards Socialism.

Step one will be the elimination of the Hyde Amendment. Some pro-life Democrats would vote for it, because they need cover in their districts. But the Leadership would limit the number, so they don’t outweigh the proabortion Republicans. The proabortion Republicans would like to put the whole issue behind them. They could then tell their pro-life constituents, sorry, but the odds are too much us, so even though we are “personally” opposed, it is not "practical"to raise the issue again.

 

[joshhackerspmdo]

That Personally opposed bunk needs to be answered with a quote from cardinal Arinze…" I am personally opposed to someone shotting the whole lot of you but far be it from me to force my morality on another"

 

[elts1956]

Is there anything about this bill that would prevent people from protesting abortions, or handing out alternative materials outside the abortion clinics?

Why let it get that far? But I have heard intimations that the right to disagree with the agenda of the far left will be restrained. In what way, I have no idea. But it could get that far. Pelosi is further left than B.O.

 

[Gamera]

That Personally opposed bunk needs to be answered with a quote from cardinal Arinze…" I am personally opposed to someone shotting the whole lot of you but far be it from me to force my morality on another"

“Personally opposed”: the position of Pontius Pilate.

 

[Corki]

Is there anything about this bill that would prevent people from protesting abortions, or handing out alternative materials outside the abortion clinics?

In states where there are laws on the books protecting anti-abortion protestors, these laws would become null. Most states do not have such laws but have rather enacted laws that work in the other direction such as creating a “speech-free zone” around an abortion clinic.

However, FOCA seems to not only overturn laws but create openings for new ones to protect and enshrine the “right” to an abortion. So, if a state wanted to pass a law prohibiting the handing out of anti-abortion literature or anti-abortion protests, FOCA could conceivably be invoked to shut down opposition to the law.

 

[Corki]

Laws that require health and environmental standards/inspections for abortion clinics would be nullified.

 

[Corki]

Laws that require mandatory reporting of statory rape and suspected abuse would be nullified to the extent that they apply to abortion clinics. At least one federal court has stated that these laws should be “optional” for abortion clinics already. However, most health care professionals (not that I actually consider abortionists or abortion nurses in that category ) are mandatory reporters for such crimes.

 

[jc-servant]

But the law can make it hard to practice your faith and your profession…

If you are a lawyer and a Catholic then you need to help stop the human rights violations against the unborn and quit riding the fence by saying ," ‘duh’ I don’t see it happening", get on the boat or out of it…

If you are not a Catholic your argument of “I don’t see it” is just another ploy of the left-wing femi-nazi agenda. so which is it … are you on the boat or trying to sink it?

The Assault on Catholic Health Care

There are a lot of idiots out there trying to stop any discussion over abortion and stop any and all efforts to restrict them at any cost. The question is; “does one have the right to end the life of another, because it is inconvenient for the other to live?” If that is a true right then, “The first thing we should do, is kill all the lawyers.” (popular misquote of William S.) starting with the ACLU for they sure have made a mess for many of us and cost the lives of millions - just kidding about killing the lawyers… or maybe not. No we need good faithful Catholic Lawyers that will stand up for the unborn and I hope you are one up for the fight.

The point is FOCA is an attempt to stop the pro-life movement once and for all. If you don’t see it then either your blind, intellectually dishonest, part of the pro-abort movement, or all of the above… I hope I’m wrong on all accounts…

I appoligize for being so forward and/or if I offend you…

catholicvote.com/

So by asking someone to be more specific in explaining how something would happen in a specific situation I’m not Catholic, not pro-life or I’m a “feminazi?” Is that how you practice our faith? ATTACKING and ASSUMING IN HATEFUL LANGUAGE!!!

Wow, if I was not already pro-life and Catholic you certainly could have helped me to form an incorrect view of both pro-life people and Catholics. Shame on YOU!

 

[MarcellusW]

So by asking someone to be more specific in explaining how something would happen in a specific situation I’m not Catholic, not pro-life or I’m a “feminazi?” Is that how you practice our faith? ATTACKING and ASSUMING IN HATEFUL LANGUAGE!!!

Wow, if I was not already pro-life and Catholic you certainly could have helped me to form an incorrect view of both pro-life people and Catholics. Shame on YOU!

I think an apology is in order.

 

[TraderTif]

My state?

snort Vermont basically has no abortion restrictions. No parental notification, no informed consent, abortion is legal through all 9 months. We don’t even have state inspection of clinics. No conscience protection for health workers. In fact, it’s even legal for abortions to be done by non-physicians.

I can’t imagine that FOCA could make things much worse here. But, it could make this stuff legal across the whole country.

Chilling, isn’t it??

 

[jc-servant]

I’m an attorney too, and I can see it. After all, they do it to us. Like physicians, we attorneys need our professional license to keep working. Various states force attorneys to do certain things to remain licensed. Some are harmless, like mandatory CLE. Others are more obtrusive, such as requiring mandatory pro bono work. Here in New York, you’re required to perform a certain number of pro bono divorces based on the number of matrimonial actions you file (like, one pro bono for every five filings). So theoretically, a state could refuse to renew a physicians license for failure to comply with some mandatory “service” requirement. Mind you, I agree that FOCA would be unconstitutional as applied here, but I wouldn’t put it past a state to try. They already try to force pharmacists to sell birth control pills.

I appreciate that you understand that I am questioning the projections of what a particular law could or could not do rather than questioning the intent of those proposing it. It is quite clear that some people are incapable of having a rational discussion about this subject without jumping to erroneous conclusions about other posters if someone questions the basis of their assertions.

I don’t believe that what you are saying about pro bono translates exactly to the physician situation. If someone is already engaged in a family law practice, then requiring additional family law cases on a pro bono basis does not force the lawyer into an area of law that they don’t already practice. Trying to mandate that a doctor who does not already perform abortions to perform one is forcing them into a procedure that they don’t do already. It is simply not the same thing. I believe that the example you gave for lawyers and pro bono would be comparable if a doctor who was performing abortions was required to provide a certain number of them for free.

The situation with pharmacists is awful, but I don’t think that they would have the same defenses available to them as a doctor who is being coerced to perform an abortion. Both would be horrible if you were the professional being coerced, but I believe the doctor could raise an argument to combat the coercion that a pharmacist simply would not have available to them.

As I said before, I believe that a doctor could say that they are not medically competent to do the abortion because it is not something that they do as a physician. There are MDs who spend their careers treating acne and allergies for instance, so of course they would never have occasion to deal with any OB or GYN issues after med school. It would be ridiculous to expect a dermatologist to perform open heart surgery, an organ transplant or an abortion.

We know that the vast majority of physicians pick an area of practice that could mean the only time abortion ever came up was in med school. I believe that a pharmacist is more vulnerable to coercive laws because they cannot mount an argument that they are not professionally competent to dispense a certain pill. All professionals can mount an argument that their faith and morals will not allow them to engage in certain activities, but I believe that having a plausible non-faith-based argument for physicians would be more persuasive against people who don’t give a hoot about faith.

As attorneys, we cannot simply jump on the emotional bandwagon on this issue and lose our ability to rationally weigh out what legal arguments will and will not work. As you said, FOCA may be unconstitutional in its present form. Rather than beating our chests in outrage or gnashing our teeth, the productive and prudent thing to do is to carefully examine every line and find ways to combat it by using our intellect and not our emotions.

 

[wabrams]

I don’t believe that what you are saying about pro bono translates exactly to the physician situation. If someone is already engaged in a family law practice, then requiring additional family law cases on a pro bono basis does not force the lawyer into an area of law that they don’t already practice. Trying to mandate that a doctor who does not already perform abortions to perform one is forcing them into a procedure that they don’t do already. It is simply not the same thing. I believe that the example you gave for lawyers and pro bono would be comparable if a doctor who was performing abortions was required to provide a certain number of them for free.

The situation with pharmacists is awful, but I don’t think that they would have the same defenses available to them as a doctor who is being coerced to perform an abortion. Both would be horrible if you were the professional being coerced, but I believe the doctor could raise an argument to combat the coercion that a pharmacist simply would not have available to them.

As I said before, I believe that a doctor could say that they are not medically competent to do the abortion because it is not something that they do as a physician. There are MDs who spend their careers treating acne and allergies for instance, so of course they would never have occasion to deal with any OB or GYN issues after med school. It would be ridiculous to expect a dermatologist to perform open heart surgery, an organ transplant or an abortion.

We know that the vast majority of physicians pick an area of practice that could mean the only time abortion ever came up was in med school. I believe that a pharmacist is more vulnerable to coercive laws because they cannot mount an argument that they are not professionally competent to dispense a certain pill. All professionals can mount an argument that their faith and morals will not allow them to engage in certain activities, but I believe that having a plausible non-faith-based argument for physicians would be more persuasive against people who don’t give a hoot about faith.

Healthcare doesn’t work that way. If you have had any verfiable training in it, it doesn’t matter whether you’ve actually performed it on a patient, you are still technically trained to do it.

Example: Urologists. Before their fellowship in urology, they do a 2 year general surgery residency. This includes removing the appendix, hernia repair etc. Once they move on to urology, they won’t do those things again; but guess what, they are still trained to do it. Anything they have learned to do but didn’t have not had the opportunity to perform on a patient still falls under the category of trained to do.

 

[elts1956]

So by asking someone to be more specific in explaining how something would happen in a specific situation I’m not Catholic, not pro-life or I’m a “feminazi?” Is that how you practice our faith? ATTACKING and ASSUMING IN HATEFUL LANGUAGE!!!

Wow, if I was not already pro-life and Catholic you certainly could have helped me to form an incorrect view of both pro-life people and Catholics. Shame on YOU!

I think many of us are so very tired of repeating the same proof to “some” folks, we are not looking, or thinking straight. I know after I have posted several pro life arguments, especially as given by the Pope, or an individual Bishop, to the same people over and over, I begin to lose some of my sanity.

Sometimes we just aren’t rational about this issue.

 

[maggiemay2u]

My state?

snort Vermont basically has no abortion restrictions. No parental notification, no informed consent, abortion is legal through all 9 months. We don’t even have state inspection of clinics. No conscience protection for health workers. In fact, it’s even legal for abortions to be done by non-physicians.

I can’t imagine that FOCA could make things much worse here. But, it could make this stuff legal across the whole country.

Chilling, isn’t it??

Gee, so it’s not just California…

 

[manualman]

I’m an attorney and I’m still not seeing it. You provided no basis upon which any court could force an individual physician to perform a certain procedure or surgery.

Any idiot can file suit to assert that they have a “right” to something but they must have something in the state or federal constitution or statutes upon which to base their “right.” I had a friend who used to defend a state governent against ridiculous suits filed by prisoners at the state pen who had easy access to a law library and nothing but time on their hands. They sued over stupid things like cheap peanut butter in their meals, but they had no genuine legal basis to force a change. They filed and she got them dismissed, but of course they continued to do it because the law allows people to file weak cases.

Even if a court concedes that a person has a “right” to have a certain procedure, it does not mean that they can automatically show up at some doctor’s office and force that doctor to perform the procedure. For instance, even where abortion is legal right now a person cannot go to an OB/GYN or any other type of MD and demand that they perform it if that doctor does not perform abortions as part of his/her practice. It does not matter if they learned how in med school at some point. I don’t know of any way that the government or anyone else can force them into that activity.

Even if a stranger is going to die right in front of a doctor (or any other trained person), no law requires them to act to save the person. It is harsh, but true. They can walk away just like any other person. Therefore, I don’t believe a doctor can be forced to perform an abortion against their will. Even if they were dragged to court over a refusal, I believe that asserting it is outside of their area of competence would take care of the matter.

That’s a great question. The answer is hinted at in my state, Illinois.

Here in Illinois if you are a pharmacist and refuse to fill a prescription for RU486 (the abortion drug), you WILL lose your license and possible face jail time. Similar offenses are taking place in Wisconsin.

It doesn’t take much imagination to see the same thing happening to OB doctors. Some state conscience clauses were enacted to protect medical students when teaching hospitals started requiring residents to perform an abortion in order to complete the requirements of the OB residency rotation. FOCA will end those legal protections and pro-lifers may eventually be barred from practicing OB medicine.

Real “pro-choice” huh?

 

[Corki]

Healthcare doesn’t work that way. If you have had any verfiable training in it, it doesn’t matter whether you’ve actually performed it on a patient, you are still technically trained to do it.

Example: Urologists. Before their fellowship in urology, they do a 2 year general surgery residency. This includes removing the appendix, hernia repair etc. Once they move on to urology, they won’t do those things again; but guess what, they are still trained to do it. Anything they have learned to do but didn’t have not had the opportunity to perform on a patient still falls under the category of trained to do.

To expand on that: In NYC and in California, medical students who pass through the hospital residencies in Obstetrics and Gynocoloy are required to learn how to perform abortions. This could easily be expanded under FOCA to include all OB/GYN programs in the country (or to also include GPs and FPs). That means that all OB/GYN doctors would be trained to perform abortions and feasibly compelled to do so in order to retain hospital privaleges, licensing or board certification.

 

[Spirithound]

I wonder…so much can go wrong in an abortion…would anybody actually go to a pro-lifer?
Sorry…sinister thoughts