22 Responses to “Obama and FOCA”

1. WRW, on November 25th, 2008 at 1:18 pm Said:

   Mr. Larison,
   I agree with your analysis. There is no reason for Obama to sign FOCA. Most obviously, the pro-abortion movement has nowhere to go but the Dems (and, as they are political animals with little other meaning to their lives, they won’t stay home.) Signing FOCA would, at least, cause Obama to likely toss away the two Southern Virginia seats the Dems picked up by beating Thelma Drake and Virgil Goode (at least it appears he lost.) There doubtless are other seats that would similarly be endangered. The last thing the Democrats want, if they are “transform” the landscape by picking up border Red states, is to put local candidates in the position (as they were under Clinton) of having to renounce the party’s leader. Obama is too smart for that, it would appear, when there is no need to placate the faction in question. (Where will the pro-abortion, feminist movement go? Even Hilary will be part of the Obama administration.)

   I will say, though, that it was troubling to see Obama appoint the head of Emily’s List (a pro-abortion version of the Club for Growth) as his communications director. Of course, that position gets no public attention (as evidenced by the fact that Reagan put Buchanan in it) compared to press secretary. Maybe it was a bone to the pro-abortion movement. Maybe. But maybe Prof. Kmiec is yet going to have to don the hairshirt (which will as well, although I had no illusions about imputing a pro-life position to Obama in voting for him.)

2. conradg, on November 25th, 2008 at 2:35 pm Said:

   Seeing as I’m pro-choice, it’s hard to oppose FOCA on its merits. It seems like a pretty straightforward codification of Roe. The Wikipedia link you gave includes some rather crazy opposition arguments, such as that it will lead to some kind of government mandated abortion policy in the future, which is like suggesting that the second amendment will lead to the government requiring everyone to own a gun. That aside, I can see how politically this could cause some trouble, unless there were some specific amendments added that guarantee the right of religiously affiliated hospitals to not offer abortion. Certain kinds of compromises based on accomodations to the conscience of those who oppose abortion is necessary. But otherwise, it seems pretty much your basic pro-choice position. No one is required or even encouraged to get an abortion. I just would like to make sure it allows medical workers who oppose abortion to be free of any kind of coercion to participate in it. As I’ve said before, I think the pro-life movement should concentrate on persuasion, rather than legal coercion, as the method and goal of their efforts.

3. rawshark, on November 25th, 2008 at 3:56 pm Said:

   ’signing such a bill would feed into every hostile portrayal of him as a pro-abortion extremist (a portrayal, by the way, that is not an exaggeration of his record), ‘

   Calling anyone ‘pro-abortion’ is an extreme exaggeration. No one is pro-abortion. That’s a misrepresentation. It’s pro choice. If the pro-life movement could state their case without saying that I love killing babies and you might make a dent in my resistance to your desire to restrict a person’s rights.

4. abuhatem, on November 25th, 2008 at 4:21 pm Said:

   How do the democrats even have enough votes to pass this thing? Sure, they have majorities in both houses, but remember that the partial birth abortion act passed overwhelmingly - 64-34 in the Senate - with 17 democrats voting for it including Obama’s VP Joe Biden, Sec. of Health and Human Services Tom Daschle, and current Senate majority leader Harry Reid.

   I don’t know if the democrats would be dumb enough to pass anything this radical. Most of the people I know who support abortion do not support late-term abortion. Passing this would alienate so much of the country that the republicans could use it to win in 2010 and maybe 2012.

   http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00402

5. Jake - butnottheone, on November 25th, 2008 at 4:55 pm Said:

   I’m with conradg and rawshark- when I skim over FOCA, I don’t see much besides legislation that agrees w/RvW. I too believe that there are no abortion fans, only pro-choice advocates. I believe that a woman is the inviolate owner of her physical being, and a not-yet-viable fetus has no rights that supersede her’s.

6. funyun, on November 25th, 2008 at 7:13 pm Said:

   It would be nice if pro-choice advocates would not tell pro-life advocates that they need to ‘rely on persuasion instead of legal coercion’ as we the people watch ever more legally coercive pro-choice legislation get passed.

7. conradg, on November 25th, 2008 at 7:19 pm Said:

   funyun,

   I’m against legally coercive legislation of any kind regarding abortion. That’s why I think FOCA should be amended so that it doesn’t coerce hospitals to perform abortions if they choose not to. But let’s be honest, the pro-choice people are not the ones trying to use coercion in any big way on this issue. No one is trying to coerce anyone into having an abortion, quite the opposite. It’s the pro-life people who are not merely trying to coerce women and doctors from having abortions, but are trying to put them in jail for it. Will you agree that both sides should renounce coercion of any kind in regards to this issue?

8. funyun, on November 25th, 2008 at 10:12 pm Said:

   When the original coercive pro-choice decision (roe) is overturned, then it’s probably fair to have an argument about legal coercion strategies.

   Frankly, when I see some pro-choice advocacy of fertility awareness/nfp (which would reduce incidence of elective abortion), then I’d feel a bit differently about the pro-choice position, which one must admit focuses in practical terms on abortion access specifically and very little else.

   The pro-choice rhetoric of ‘clumps of cells’ and such is hardly the kind of language that will make people believe one is pro-any choice other than elective, surgical abortion.

9. cbh8377, on November 26th, 2008 at 1:08 am Said:

   I think there are real issues here. I don’t like freedom of conscience regulations for professionals. E.g., I think if you are a licensed pharmacist, you can’t refuse to fill a valid prescription based upon your religious convictions, without exceptions. You must dole out emergency contraception and birth control to single women (through gritted teeth, if you must) if a licensed physician in your state prescribes them. Or lose your license. I feel that in an ideal world, the same logic should apply to hospitals and abortions (which is how I read FOCA); but I’m a pragmatist, and I recognize that Catholic hospitals are a major part of our nation’s health care infrastructure and we can’t do without them (and their convictions play a huge role in why they do what they do). Therefore this is a spectacularly dumb bill. I hope Congress gets this and doesn’t pass it.

10. Jake - butnottheone, on November 26th, 2008 at 7:33 am Said:

    funyun, I am confused - it is exactly the position of pro-choice activists that more fertility awareness is a good thing. Sex-education, contraception, condoms, even abstinence - those are all ideas or methods pro-choice promotes. What, exactly, is it that pro-choice advocates are supposed to do that is different from what they are already doing?

    And mind you, I still respect the primacy of a woman’s ownership of her body. These are ancillary arguments in my view.

    As for hospitals, it depends upon funding. I don’t think it kosher for institutions to take public money but adopt policies that unreasonably discriminate against at least some part of that same public. If Catholic hospitals receive no Federal or State funding, I think they can choose what kind of procedures they perform. If, as may be the case in some places, they are the only provider in a community, I am not sure that the public good doesn’t require a modification of that position.

11. funyun, on November 26th, 2008 at 9:18 am Said:

    fertility awareness is the sole method of contraception considered ‘unreliable’. you can see evidence of this in how it’s treated on planned parenthood’s website compared to actual unreliable and physically unpleasant contraception methods like spermicide. fertility awareness is NOT on the table as an option for, say, inner-city minority women. instead, pro-choice advocates want to put them on depo-provera and other hormone-based contraceptives if they aren’t outright trying to ‘encourage’ that category of lady to abort. i have yet to see anyone advocate fertility awareness/natural family planning as contraception for women of color anywhere in america (though it has been done with great success in countries across africa, as well as the indian subcontinent).

    there is something very unpleasant about the face that abortion-focused planned parenthoods are located overwhelmingly in poor, minority (usually black) neighborhoods, while planned parenthoods focused more on ‘women’s health’ are not.

    in light of the strong Catholic origins of much of what we know consider ‘fertility awareness/natural family planning’, it’s quite telling to see the disregard of a chemical-free, cheap birth control method that reduces incidence of elective surgical abortion in a discussion about whether Catholic doctors should be coerced into performing elective surgical abortion.

    a more honest argument from public good would start with reducing unnecessary surgical interventions (’first do no harm’), of which abortion can certainly be said to frequently fall under.

12. Jake - butnottheone, on November 26th, 2008 at 9:32 am Said:

    funyun, I completely agree that reducing the number of abortions is an unmitigated good. Reducing that number by taking away women’s sovereignty over their own body is not acceptable.

    The statistics on ‘fertility awareness”, as you further describe the phrase, and from recollection only, are not good. In fact, the risk of pregnancy is so high as to be unacceptable if abortion is not an option.

    Given that the catholic church has considered sex for pleasure a sin, it is little difficult to consider the church an honest broker in this discussion.

13. mtraven, on November 26th, 2008 at 9:34 am Said:

    In the last Batman movie, the Joker blew up a hospital to prove a point, but he was supposed to be the embodiment of sociopathic evil. I hadn’t realized that the Catholic hierarchy had descended to the same level.

14. mtraven, on November 26th, 2008 at 9:38 am Said:

    In the last Batman movie, the Joker blew up a hospital to prove a point, but he was supposed to be the embodiment of sociopathic evil. I hadn’t realized that the Catholic hierarchy had descended to the same level. Yet they are threating to close all Catholic hospitals if this bill passes. They are even unwilling to sell the facilities to other healthcare providers, preferring to shutter them. This will deprive millions of people of health care, and almost certainly causing some to die much earlier than they otherwise would have. Yet we are supposed to consider these people “pro-life”.

15. WRW, on November 26th, 2008 at 9:49 am Said:

    Amusing movie reference, mtraven. And you and other pro-abortionists would bring about such a desperate choice of the Catholic church in order to passing legislation enshrining abortion-on-demand until the final moment before birth (which is what Roe actually does.) And we’re supposed to believe you’re not pro-abortion.

16. Jake - butnottheone, on November 26th, 2008 at 10:05 am Said:

    WRW, however the point is made by mtraven, the point is well taken - actions that cause more ill than already exists are bad.

    I am sure you are aware that the anti-abortion position is often caricatured as caring about people only before they are born. Taking positions that you will cease health care for millions before you will allow a legal procedure to be done in your facility feeds directly into that caricature.

    I will agree with you on one point , at least in principle if not yet in practice, that RvW implies that if a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy at ANY time, that should be her choice, and hers alone. That does not, by itself, imply that the fetus will not survive. Most pregnancies actually terminate with a live baby, once the fetus is viable, however they are terminated.

17. conradg, on November 26th, 2008 at 10:51 am Said:

    I don’t see how you can force a pharmacist to stock every possible prescription, especially ones they don’t find morally acceptable. If they stock it, well, of course they have to hand it out equally, but a person has certain moral and religious rights that take precedence over such things. Think if the situation were reversed, and you were a doctor who was forced by law to put chips in people’s brains by the government. You really wouldn’t want the right to refuse to perform that operation? Or psychologists and doctors forced to help the government torture people? I think the whole idea of coercion on matters of conscience is simply unacceptable in a democratic and free society. It’s one thing to use government power to enforce non-discriminatory activity, but it shouldn’t be used to force us to act against our conscience in any matter.

18. conradg, on November 26th, 2008 at 10:57 am Said:

    Jake, I don’t see how a Catholic hospital not offering abortions is discriminatory, unless they only offer them to one population group and not all groups. Are they discriminatory if they don’t offer plastic surgery? Or if they don’t offer heart transplants? I think a hospital has a right to limit its services for all kinds of reasons. Obviously budgetary limitations will require that some services not be available in all but the largest facitilities. So why not be free to limit services for moral reasons consistent with that hospital’s mission? I don’t see how we have the right to insist that hospitals provide services they feel are immoral. Now yes, the federal government could require it for those that receive federal funding, but I hate that method of coercion, and I don’t want it associated with a movement that is dedicated to the notion of “choice”. If we really believe in choice, and i do, we should also believe in the right of others to chose not to participate in abortion or others things they find morally objectionable.

19. conradg, on November 26th, 2008 at 11:01 am Said:

    “When the original coercive pro-choice decision (roe) is overturned, then it’s probably fair to have an argument about legal coercion strategies”

    I don’t understand how Roe is coercive. Could you explain that for me? It doesn’t coerce anyone to have an abortion. It only prevents people from being coerced into NOT having an abortion, at least before the fetus is viable (Casey).

20. funyun, on November 26th, 2008 at 12:03 pm Said:

    Jake, fertility awareness is about as reliable as hormonal birth control (99% or greater). How is that an unacceptable level of reliability? And you can get those results with the simplest, cheapest methods, that don’t require *any* equipment other than a calendar and a pen.

    It’s lack of information that is part of the reason there are so many elective surgical abortions. It is a shame you are illustrating the very point I’ve been making about pro-choice not really being about advocating choices that actually reduce elective abortion (since that would require getting informed about their existence).

    Abortion is at a bare minimum physically unpleasant and a surgical invasion of the body. Why anyone would want to encourage this option when so many options exist to prevent *conception* remains a mystery to me.

21. Jake - butnottheone, on December 1st, 2008 at 11:03 am Said:

    funyun, at least one source puts the odds of unwanted pregnancy much higher with fertility awareness - 2 to 20% in any year. Still, if that’s what works for anyone, than I am for it - as one tool in the toolshed. There are other advantages to the pill - reduced length of periods, reduced discomfort, better timing.

    F/A with the morning after pill for screwups seems a reasonable alternative.

    I am not sure I get your point about pro-choice not really advocating existing choices. If unwanted pregnancies are a major issue, then the most effective forms of b/c are to be desired. A method that fails approximately 10% in any year (I don’t know the actual distribution, so I am using a conservative median) is not terribly effective. Using it would put 10 times as many women at risk for an unwanted pregnancy. That’s a lot of women forced to chose between abortion and or a pregnancy they don’t want. Inevitably, more abortions will occur. Not a good plan if NOT setting the stage for abortions is your goal.

    Abortion is a hard choice, but it is not your place or mine to make that choice for another being.

22. kathym, on March 13th, 2009 at 6:58 pm Said:

    Boys,boys. I am a single mom,49, with 3 older boys. Until a few years ago I was a confirmed social liberal, pro-choice, very post-modern. Now I am a social conservative, pro-life. What changed me? Catholic radio in an old car that only had AM radio and a promise to return a favor to God. I promised to listen to all the difficult talk on the radio (about abortion and theology of the body) ….plus hearing my boys actually say that if their girfriends got pregnant they could just get an abortion…This changed my mind and let me tell you, I am a hard-nosed cynic. But let me share what I learned, and why I believe that FOCA is wrong, and we are heading down a very slippery slope if we as a nation buy into the ‘let’s punish the conservative’s 8 years of unrelenting ideology with 8 years of our ultra-liberal ideology” mentality. First, many people say that they think abortion is bad but they do not want to tell women what to do. I used to tell myself that but something about the statement nagged at me. Then it occurred to me that technology HAS irrefutably proven that human life begins at conception, so turn the argument around thusly: I do not want to tell women what to do, but if they choose abortion SOMEONE HAS TO DIE. Period. There is simply no way to candy coat this. Second, the Catholic Church does not condemn sex for pleasure. What the Church teaches is this : sex outside of the bonds of marriage is inherently harmful to the human person. Think about that. I came of age at a time when women were encouraged to express their sexuality freely - which I did. But it was a very lonely time, and that attitude surely did harm me. Now I have two teens and one grown boy who expect women to be on birth control so they can “have sex for pleasure” with no consequences and frankly, I am apalled at the crappy parenting job I have done. Trying to reverse 28 years of parenting with the tides of culture is rather like trying to stop a speeding train. But after all, isn’t that the way of things. The prophets standing on the mountain crying ‘doom’ are laughed at…but a generation or two later we are crying at the wreckage of our society. God forgive us for what we have done, I can do little else now but pray, pray, pray. Third - those of us who are pro-life truly believe that things like abortion, the morning after pill, and contraceptives are morally evil because we understand the ‘theology of the body’ as explained by Pope John Paul II. Therefore, we would prefer to be punished …even martyred, in an effort to uphold those beliefs. It is not hatred that would cause a pharmacist to refuse to dispense a morally objectionable drug, or the Catholic Church to shut down a hospital rather than allow abortions to be performed. Rather, it is our deep love for God and dismay at the efforts to turn society at large away from morality that causes this reaction. Do not ever forget that we are following in the footsteps of the many early Christians who willingly went to horrible deaths rather than compromise their beliefs. Don’t kid yourselves - there are plenty of us out there willing to fight the good fight should it come to that - because simply put, we believe that there is no other way. And for those who would tell me that America is the land of the free and they should be free of any mention of MY God and His moral law, then I will remind them that this country was established with a constitution and Bill of Rights based on Judeo-Christian principles and they benefit from that, like it or not. If they still object, then perhaps they should move to a country that does not have a legal system based on Judeo-Christian principles, like the Sudan, or China. Tell me what you think after a few years of that. Fourth, I think that liberal women’s political organizations are going to be pressuring Obama to pass legislation that will force healthcare providers to offer reproductive services or else. (There is a big stink in California over this.). Then when Catholic healthcare providers refuse to comply the fed can withhold Medicaid and Medicare payments (or “federal aid” as you called it)…and I think these groups hope Obama and the liberal Congress will attempt to nationalize the Catholic hospitals. That’s my theory anyway.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.