So Much For the "Mythical" Freedom of Choice Act

Commentary by Deal W. Hudson
March 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -

Many Democrats are wise enough to have a healthy fear of FOCA, the Freedom of Choice Act. Those on the religious left who support President Barack Obama are particularly sensitive to the symbolic power of FOCA to undercut their messaging about "abortion reduction." If FOCA were to cause much-beloved Catholic hospitals to begin shutting their doors, the political impact would be devastating.

Thus, it came as no surprise several weeks ago when some of Obama's religious supporters began accusing pro-lifers -- particularly Catholics -- of using FOCA as a scare tactic when it had not yet been introduced into the 111th Congress.

Amy Sullivan, an editor at TIME, wrote an article titled, "The Catholic Attack on a Mythical Abortion Bill," singling out the U.S. Catholic bishops for their national postcard campaign against FOCA. Catholics United was predictably quoted in the story, as they are now in every media story giving pro-abortion Catholics political cover: "These right-wing organizations are deliberately misleading people in order to stoke the culture war."

Sullivan, who wrote a good book about the "God gap" in the Democratic Party, went way out on a limb to defuse FOCA anxiety. "Congress," she wrote, "isn't about to pass the Freedom of Choice Act -- because no such bill has been introduced in the current Congress." True, but as Sullivan surely knows, there are several members of Congress who are itching to reintroduce FOCA, regardless of any misgivings Democratic strategists may have about its consequences in the 2010 election.

For the abortion lobby, the passage of FOCA is the holy grail of their activism, and the just desserts for their strenuous -- and expensive -- efforts on behalf of Obama.

FOCA, as it turns out, is going to be reintroduced in the not-so-distant future. On March 6, a spokesman for Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, told the St. Louis Post Dispatch that FOCA "is among the congressman's priorities. We expect to reintroduce it sooner rather than later."

Ilan Kayatksy, the spokesman, added that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) would introduce the same bill in the Senate "with some minor tweaks." (Representative Nadler introduced FOCA in the 108th and 110th sessions of Congress.)

Three weeks earlier, an unnamed spokesman for Representative Nadler had told Sullivan at TIME that FOCA would not be reintroduced "anytime soon." It sounds as if Nadler's staff needs to get its story straight. At the same time, the conflicting statements coming from the same congressional office represent the division among Democrats about the wisdom of making FOCA a legislative priority.

But whether or not FOCA reaches the floor of the Congress this session may not make much difference: Obama might get everything he wants without the bill. He has been using Friday nights to issue statements about his plans to overturn restrictions on abortion and its funding (Friday being the best time to damp down media coverage). This past Friday, Obama announced he will sign an executive order requiring federal money be spent on embryonic stem cell research, removing all the restrictions placed by the Bush administration.

Friday-night statements from the White House may eventually approximate the outcome of FOCA without the controversial bill ever ending up on the president's desk.

Just How "Catholic" is the Catholic News Service?

By Ronald J. Rychlak, University of Mississippi School of Law

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a bill proposed in the 110th U.S. Congress, declared that “it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child; terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or terminate a pregnancy after viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.” If passed and signed into law, it would overturn virtually every legal restriction on abortion, including limits on partial-birth abortion and parental notification. While on the campaign trial, President Obama said: “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” In fact, he was one of 19 senators who co-sponsored the legislation.The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has strongly opposed the Freedom of Choice Act. In a statement entitled The Freedom of Choice Act: Most Radical Abortion Legislation in U.S. History, the USCCB’s Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities argued that FOCA would go “far beyond even Roe.” Among other things, “FOCA will bar laws protecting a right of conscientious objection to abortion.” In other words, Catholic hospitals could be forced to perform abortions.
Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance, said at the November bishops’ meeting that passage of FOCA “could mean discontinuing obstetrics in our hospitals, and we may need to consider taking the drastic step of closing our Catholic hospitals entirely…. I do not think I’m being alarmist in considering such drastic steps.”
Imagine, then, my surprise to open our diocesan newspaper only to read in a Catholic News Service story written by CNS reporter Nancy Frazier O’Brien: “no Catholic hospital in the United States is in danger of closing because of the Freedom of Choice Act…. [T]he Freedom of Choice Act died with the 110th Congress and, a week after the inauguration of President Barack Obama, has not been reintroduced.”
O’Brien referenced the Catholic Health Association’s president, Sister Carol Keehan, in order to explain that FOCA “poses no threat to Catholic hospitals or to the conscience rights of those who work there.” She went on to quote Bishop Robert N. Lynch of St. Petersburg, Fla., a member of the CHA’s board of trustees, saying: “there is no plan to shut down any hospital if [FOCA] passes.… There’s no sense of ominous danger threatening health care institutions.” O’Brien blamed concerns and “confusion over FOCA” on “misleading e-mails,” “false Internet rumors,” “blogs and Web sites,” and “anti-FOCA groups” on Facebook.
A close and very generous reading of the quotes in O’Brien’s article leaves some room for interpretation about what the people were saying. Sister Keehan seemed to be suggesting that Catholic hospitals could oppose the law in a passive way without compromising their ideals, the way people fought for civil rights in the 1960s. The same might arguably be said of Bishop Lynch, especially since quotations might be taken in different contexts. O’Brien, however, left herself no such wiggle room.
This piece is clearly intended to soften up Catholic opposition to FOCA and to the Obama administration. O’Brien tries to assure readers that FOCA poses no threat to Catholic sensibilities; there is no danger. She actually argues that the new administration has had a whole week, and it has not yet reintroduced the legislation. In fact, she explains, FOCA is dead.
The USCCB does not see things that way. It is currently conducting a postcard campaign to “Fight FOCA.” The related USCCB web page explains that “many pro-life laws and policies are subject to attack and reversal. The new Congress includes the largest number of pro-abortion members since 1993.” The bishops go on to explain that “63 pro-abortion groups have publicly submitted a comprehensive 55-page blueprint for their agenda to the incoming Administration. Passing FOCA is a priority….”
The author of a piece like O’Brien’s, of course, is primarily responsible for its content, but there are others. Those who were quoted in the article, if taken out of context, need to clarify their positions. The Catholic News Service decided to publish and distribute the article despite the clear position of the USCCB. Frankly, the article is so out of line with everything we know, even those diocesan newspapers that ran it should have known better.
Our bishops have taken a strong leadership position on FOCA. Other Catholic leaders and entities should follow their example. Unfortunately, the CNS article by Nancy Frazier O’Brien seeks to undercut them.

Star Trek Actor Who Paid for Three Abortions Now Condemns Woman's "Right to Choose...to Kill Her Baby"

By Kathleen Gilbert
LOS ANGELES, February 2, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com)

Actor Gary Graham knew that by writing about his personal experience and rejection of abortion, he would be incurring the ire of not a few among the Hollywood elite.

Yet a blog column posted last Tuesday by the seasoned actor, known most recently for his roles as Ambassador Soval in the TV series "Star Trek: Enterprise" and Capt. Ingles on "J.A.G.", took an unflinching look at truths almost entirely ignored by those in the Hollywood establishment.

"I’m going to say what millions know in the front of their brains, and many, many more millions know in the depths of their hearts … but won’t allow themselves to think it, much less feel it," wrote Graham. "And believe me, I know I’ll be hated for saying it, I’ll be hated by people who don’t know me, have never worked with me, have never golfed with me, had a drink with me.
"I’m going to say it anyway: Abortion is murder."

Graham described the irresponsibility of his youth that made abortion the convenient option for a drug-fueled, “free-love” lifestyle. He confessed to having paid for multiple abortions for girlfriends, observing that abortion “sure took the pressure off of me, a guy, interested in sex who had been raised in the era of, ‘Hey, you get a girl pregnant, you marry her!’” But then, he says, a "spiritual awakening" brought him to a "tearful epiphany of what it meant for a man to be with a woman, what sex was really designed for by our Creator and … what abortion is.

"I truly wish that I had had this conviction way back when…when I was only concerned about my selfish convenience of the day," wrote Graham. "But I didn’t want to know, I didn’t want to think about it. It was inconvenient to think about it."

He noted that the widespread acceptance of abortion "says volumes of how our entire culture has been coarsened," and "How life itself has been cheapened.”

"We are told to have sex any time we feel the urge. Condoms are handed out in grade schools. Promiscuity is not only condoned, it’s tacitly encouraged ... But if you should get pregnant and it’s just not a ‘convenient’ time for you, don’t worry, there are Family Planning Services. ... That inconvenient fetus can be surgically ripped from its uterine moorings, ground up and tossed into the trash like so much garbage.

"Problem solved, and the mother can resume her egocentric lifestyle. But the scars on that woman’s soul will never quite heal. I’m a man, but I’ve got them on mine."

Responding to those who call for abortion to be "legal but rare," Graham asked, "Why rare?
"What’s wrong with abortion, that you think it should be a rare occurrence? I’ve had moles removed from my skin. Doctors don’t tell us that a mole removal should be rare. So what’s with this ‘rare’ business? Or is it a tacit agreement that abortion … is plain wrong?

"Try this exercise: Every time you hear someone use the phrase '…a woman’s right to choose…' mentally complete the phrase with the following words – '…to kill her baby.' That’s what the argument’s about. A woman’s right to kill her baby."