Choose Life Blog

The Freedom of Choice Act in Plain Language

I've found it difficult to find a simple and comprehensive list outlining the impact of the Freedom of Choice Act promoted by our new congress and President-Elect. Here's a simple list I ran across recently. Among the more than 550 federal and state laws that the Freedom of Choice act would nullify are:

• Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
• Hyde Amendment (restricting taxpayer funding of abortions)
• Restrictions on abortions performed at military hospitals
• Restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion for federal employees
• Informed consent laws
• Waiting periods
• Parental consent and notification laws
• Health and safety regulations for abortion clinics
• Requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions
• “Delayed enforcement” laws (banning abortion when Roe v. Wade is overturned and/or the authority to restrict abortion is returned to the states)
• Bans on partial-birth abortion
• Bans on abortion after viability. FOCA’s apparent attempt to limit post-viability abortions is illusory. Under FOCA, post-viability abortions are expressly permitted to protect the woman’s “health.” Within the context of abortion, “health” has been interpreted so broadly that FOCA would not actually proscribe any abortion before or after viability.
• Limits on public funding for elective abortions now covered by the Mexico City Policy (thus, making American taxpayers fund a procedure that many find morally objectionable)
• Limits on the use of public facilities (such has public hospitals and medical schools at state universities) for abortions
• State and federal legal protections for individual healthcare providers who decline to participate in abortions
• Legal protections for Catholic and other religiously-affiliated hospitals who, while providing care to millions of poor and uninsured Americans, refuse to allow abortions within their facilities

Support Fight FOCA. Sign the petition... or at the very least, make sure you know the details of what you are for or against.

The Consequences of our Actions

Arzigul Tursun is a Chinese citizen, a mother of 2 and six months pregnant with her third child. This week, she was placed in a hospital in in China's northwestern Xinjiang region to undergo a forced abortion mandated by the Chinese Government (see ABC news story). Under China's One Child policies, Arzigul is bound by law to limit the number of children she can bear to only one.  Despite international pressure and condemnation across the globe, the child will likely be put to death in the next few days. 

 Would any American agree that the policy above is moral under any circumstances?  Would any American want their tax dollars supporting China's One Child policies?

One of the first things Barack Obama has stated he will do by executive order is overturn the Mexico City Policy put in place by Ronald Reagan in 1984.  The policy specifically restricts US government funding for any organization that performs or promotes abortion in other countries.  When this happens, US funding will immediately be available to international organizations, like the UN Population Fund, an organization that promotes abortions worldwide.  While they deny their direct connection to the One Child policy, the US government, again, has refused funding (under the Kemp-Kasten amendment) to this organization due to evidence they've found connecting the UNFP to promotion of coerced abortions in China and other countries.  The executive order to remove the Mexico City Policy will be the initial step in making our tax dollars available to China.  Oh yeah... and to Planned Parenthood over here. 

We may have voted this man into office, but now it's our responsibility to make sure that he knows the implications that go along with a stroke of his pen.

Read here for a further explaination of the China's One Child policy and the implications that the Mexico City rule have on these horrible practices.