The Notre Dame Speech:
"President Barack Obama strode head-on Sunday into the stormy abortion debate and told graduates at America's leading Roman Catholic university that both sides must stop demonizing one another."http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_notre_dame/print
Obama calls for understanding in Notre Dame speechBy JULIE PACE, Associated Press Writer
2 hrs 9 mins ago
SOUTH BEND, Ind. – President Barack Obama strode head-on Sunday into the stormy abortion debate and told graduates at America's leading Roman Catholic university that both sides must stop demonizing one another.
Obama acknowledged that "no matter how much we want to fudge it ... the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable." But he still implored the University of Notre Dame's graduating class and all in the U.S. to stop "reducing those with differing views to caricature. Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words. It's a way of life that always has been the Notre Dame tradition."
One of the noisiest controversies of his young presidency flared after Obama, who supports abortion rights but says the procedure should be rare, was invited to speak at the school and receive an honorary degree. "I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away," the president said.
The Rev. John Jenkins, Notre Dame's president, introduced Obama and praised the president for not being "someone who stops talking to those who disagree with him." Jenkins said too little attention has been paid to Obama's decision to speak at an institution that opposes his abortion policy.
Ahead of Obama's address, at least 27 people were arrested on trespassing charges. They included Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff identified as "Roe" in the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. She now opposes abortion and joined more than 300 anti-abortion demonstrators at the school's front gate.
More than half held signs, some declaring "Shame on Notre Dame" and "Stop Abortion Now" to express their anger over Notre Dame's invitation to Obama.
Obama entered the arena to thunderous applause and a standing ovation from many in the crowd of 12,000. But as the president began his commencement address, at least three protesters interrupted it. One yelled, "Stop killing our children."
The graduates responded by chanting "Yes we can," the slogan that became synonymous with Obama's presidential campaign, as well as "We are ND." Obama seem unfazed, saying Americans must be able to deal with things that make them "uncomfortable."
The president ceded no ground. But he said those on each side of the debate "can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.
"So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term."
He said he favored "a sensible conscience clause" that would give anti-abortion health care providers the right to refuse to perform the procedure.
Before taking on the abortion issue, Obama told graduates they were part of a "generation that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before this crisis hit an economy where greed and short-term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day's work."
Obama's appearance appeared additionally complicated by fresh polls that show Americans' attitudes on the issue have shifted toward the anti-abortion position.
A Gallup survey released Friday found that 51 percent of those questioned call themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42 percent "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as "pro-life" since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.
Just a year ago, Gallup found that 50 percent termed themselves "pro-choice" while 44 percent described their beliefs as "pro-life."
A Pew Research Center survey found public opinion about abortion more closely divided than it has been in several years.
Pew said its latest polling found that 28 percent said abortion should be legal in most cases while 18 percent said all cases. Forty-four percent of those surveyed were opposed to abortion in most or all cases.
Gallup said shifting opinions lay almost entirely with Republicans or independents who lean Republican, with opposition among those groups rising over the past year from 60 percent to 70 percent.
The abortion issue also is front and center as Obama considers potential nominees to fill the vacancy left by the retirement this summer of Justice David Souter. Abortion opponents are determined to see Roe v. Wade overturned, but only four court justices out of nine have backed that position. Souter has opposed arguments for overturning the ruling.
The Catholic Church and many other Christian denominations hold that abortion and the use of embryos for stem cell research amount to the destruction of human life, are morally wrong and should be banned by law.
The contrary argument holds that women have the right to terminate a pregnancy and that unused embryos created outside the womb for couples who cannot otherwise conceive should be available for stem cell research. Such research holds the promise of finding treatments for debilitating ailments.
Within weeks of taking office in January, Obama eased an executive order by President George W. Bush that limited research to a small number of stem-cell strains.
On the Notre Dame campus, members of an abortion rights group also protested while a plane pulling an anti-abortion banner circled above. Tara Makowski of Seattle, who received a master's degree Saturday from the school, said she was dismayed by the way Notre Dame was being characterized.
"Seeing us being portrayed nationally as radical conservative has been really tough," she said. "People need to realize that the majority of students and faculty" favored Obama's visit.
But Bishop John D'Arcy, whose diocese includes Notre Dame, skipped commencement. He attended an open-air Mass and rally. He said he wanted to support the students protesting Obama's speech.
"All of you are heroes, and I'm proud to stand with you," he said.
Obama was the ninth president to receive an honorary degree from Notre Dame and sixth sitting president to address graduates. Other commencement speakers have included Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.
Before returning to Washington, Obama stopped in Indianapolis for two fundraisers. About 40 people attended a $15,000-per-couple Democratic National Committee event, which raised between $300,000 and $400,000.
About 650 people attended a second fundraiser for four Indiana Democratic congressmen. That dinner cost $250-$5,000 per person.
Indiana is a traditionally conservative state that Obama carried in the presidential election.
Why on earth would a President discuss abortion at a college commencement? College commencements are about the transition to the "real world" and "atta-boy" speeches, not political agendas.
""So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term."
He said he favored "a sensible conscience clause" that would give anti-abortion health care providers the right to refuse to perform the procedure."
Quote from: Conan71 on May 17, 2009, 11:24:58 PM
Why on earth would a President discuss abortion at a college commencement? College commencements are about the transition to the "real world" and "atta-boy" speeches, not political agendas.
""So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term."
He said he favored "a sensible conscience clause" that would give anti-abortion health care providers the right to refuse to perform the procedure."
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. He'd have been lambasted if he HADN'T spoken about it, given that the controversy around his visit centered around that very thing.
I'm a little flabbergasted Conan that you would ask why he'd talk about it after all the hoop-lah surrounding it. I for one would rather see him go at it head on then to try and evade it. I doubt many others would have (note I avoided saying the name of our former executive lest I get lambasted by the Bush spooners).
;D
He was dishonest. He wants absolute unrestricted for abortion, that is an extreme view that most pedestrian 'pro-choice' people do not adhere to. He should have told the grads that he wants to punish Catholic hospitals for refusing to perform abortions, to force private pharmacies to distribute abortificants, then he would have told the whole truth. Otherwise he was just doing the typical lawyerise dance-around.
Quote from: Hoss on May 18, 2009, 01:26:27 AM
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. He'd have been lambasted if he HADN'T spoken about it, given that the controversy around his visit centered around that very thing.
I'm a little flabbergasted Conan that you would ask why he'd talk about it after all the hoop-lah surrounding it. I for one would rather see him go at it head on then to try and evade it. I doubt many others would have (note I avoided saying the name of our former executive lest I get lambasted by the Bush spooners).
;D
Hoss, it goes without saying you don't try to hide the issue, but I don't think it was appropriate to delve into it at length at a college commencement ceremony. Something more along the lines of:
"Obviously there has been some controversy over my speaking here today. I think it wise for all Americans to see that we can have divergent views...etc. ad nauseum".
Calliing differing opinions irreconcileable? Does that mean he's not flexible?
Quote from: Know Nothing on May 18, 2009, 08:34:42 AM
He was dishonest. He wants absolute unrestricted for abortion, that is an extreme view that most pedestrian 'pro-choice' people do not adhere to. He should have told the grads that he wants to punish Catholic hospitals for refusing to perform abortions, to force private pharmacies to distribute abortificants, then he would have told the whole truth. Otherwise he was just doing the typical lawyerise dance-around.
Anyone have a credible news source for the "he wants to punish Catholic hospitals for refusing to perform abortion" reference?
Quote from: brianh on May 18, 2009, 09:39:00 AM
Anyone have a credible news source for the "he wants to punish Catholic hospitals for refusing to perform abortion" reference?
Most people here doing this cite places like Drudge and Freeper. That's all they need to know; it makes it the gospel troof for some here if they get it from those two sites. Some of us are a little more broad than that.
Quote from: brianh on May 18, 2009, 09:39:00 AM
Anyone have a credible news source for the "he wants to punish Catholic hospitals for refusing to perform abortion" reference?
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=40075
'Bishop Paul Loverde of the Roman Catholic diocese of Arlington, Va., said last week that if the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) should become law and a Catholic hospital in his diocese is forced to provide abortions, he would refuse to let the hospital comply, but he would also not close the institution.
'Though there are no Catholic hospitals in his diocese, the bishop nevertheless was defiant: "I would say, 'Yeah, I'm not going to close the hospital, you're going to arrest me, go right ahead. You'll have to drag me out, go right ahead. I'm not closing this hospital, we will not perform abortions, and you can go take a flying leap.' "
According to the catechism – or official teachings -- of the Catholic Church, Catholics are "obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel."
Catholics may refuse to obey civil authorities, "when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience."
Loverde addressed the crowd of mostly young adults at a diocesan event last Monday about the proposed Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).
In 2007, President-elect Obama publicly promised a Planned Parenthood convention that signing FOCA into law would be one of the first things he would do upon taking office.
The bill has not been approved by Congress, but seems poised to do so when the new Congress convenes in January. It would prohibit government from "interfering" with a woman's right to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability -- or after fetal viability if a mother's health is at risk.
The government also may not "discriminate" against or deny the exercise of women's rights to choice "in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information."
'The legislation has been interpreted by many, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), to mean that all hospitals and healthcare institutions would be mandated to perform abortions – or face the loss of federal funding and likely closure if they refuse to do so.'
Quote from: Know Nothing on May 18, 2009, 09:48:50 AM
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=40075
'Bishop Paul Loverde of the Roman Catholic diocese of Arlington, Va., said last week that if the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) should become law and a Catholic hospital in his diocese is forced to provide abortions, he would refuse to let the hospital comply, but he would also not close the institution.
'Though there are no Catholic hospitals in his diocese, the bishop nevertheless was defiant: "I would say, 'Yeah, I'm not going to close the hospital, you're going to arrest me, go right ahead. You'll have to drag me out, go right ahead. I'm not closing this hospital, we will not perform abortions, and you can go take a flying leap.' "
According to the catechism – or official teachings -- of the Catholic Church, Catholics are "obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel."
Catholics may refuse to obey civil authorities, "when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience."
Loverde addressed the crowd of mostly young adults at a diocesan event last Monday about the proposed Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).
In 2007, President-elect Obama publicly promised a Planned Parenthood convention that signing FOCA into law would be one of the first things he would do upon taking office.
The bill has not been approved by Congress, but seems poised to do so when the new Congress convenes in January. It would prohibit government from "interfering" with a woman's right to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability -- or after fetal viability if a mother's health is at risk.
The government also may not "discriminate" against or deny the exercise of women's rights to choice "in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information."
'The legislation has been interpreted by many, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), to mean that all hospitals and healthcare institutions would be mandated to perform abortions – or face the loss of federal funding and likely closure if they refuse to do so.'
OK, so whom else has interpreted it this way? They say many, but only cite specifically a Catholic institution. Something smells. Not saying it's untrue, but when the people speaking out against the legislation are essentially the only ones reading into it, then I have to question it unless other groups are cited.
Plus, I have to dispute a news service who now calls themselves 'Cybercast News Service' when they used to be called 'Conservative News Service'.
Could be a big to-do about nothing.
This was as of mid-February 2009:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1880451,00.html
You guys are such kool-aid drinkers. What is going to take for you to WAKE UP? The hard-core 'pro-choice' groups are way out of the mainstream.
Oh, and here: anhttp://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13879
Quote from: Know Nothing on May 18, 2009, 10:08:50 AM
You guys are such kool-aid drinkers. What is going to take for you to WAKE UP? The hard-core 'pro-choice' groups are way out of the mainstream.
Oh, and here: anhttp://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13879
Once again you're citing a biased news agency. Come on! Catholic News Agency?! Where's the mainstream media on this?
And and excerpt from the Time article Conan cites (you know, Time, an MSM outlet) is particularly telling.
QuoteIn response, Catholic News Service — the official news agency affiliated with the USCCB — ran an article that began, "Internet rumors to the contrary, no Catholic hospital in the United States is in danger of closing because of the Freedom of Choice Act." Sister Carol Keehan, president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, told the news agency that the legislation "has never contained anything that would force Catholic hospitals or Catholic personnel to do abortions or to participate in them." She added, "I don't believe that FOCA will pass."
Now I understand why Know Nothing attacked me on my Alan Keyes' "media whore" position. Just so you know, Know Nothing, I may not have been arrested at a protest, but I give thousands of dollars to pro-life organizations. In fact, the money that would have gone to folks I believe supported Obama now goes there. Sort of a double jab. I'm with Conman as to the issue in this thread.
Quote from: Hoss on May 18, 2009, 10:17:30 AM
Once again you're citing a biased news agency. Come on! Catholic News Agency?! Where's the mainstream media on this?
So first the citation is BS bc you thought Drudge or Freepers had mentioned this. Then you were dismissive because it was another conservative site. Then a 'mainstream' Catholic press service is no good. WAKE UP!
FOCA has been kicking around since 1989 in one form or another. IOW- 20 years and it's not made it into law even with Dem control of Congress. Know Nothing, I'm not saying it's something that the pro-life movement shouldn't be keeping an eye on, but it's along the lines of DEA thugs raiding my house and taking my guns at gun-point: it's being whipped into in more of an irrational frenzy than makes sense at this point. It's an issue that's making pro-life groups more relevant and easier for them to raise funds right now, nothing more, nothing less. That's one reason a quick Google search of FOCA mainly returns results from pro-life or Catholic publications or web sites.
Yes, there are bed-wetters on the right as well.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 18, 2009, 10:42:06 AM
FOCA has been kicking around since 1989 in one form or another. IOW- 20 years and it's not made it into law even with Dem control of Congress. Know Nothing, I'm not saying it's something that the pro-life movement shouldn't be keeping an eye on, but it's along the lines of DEA thugs raiding my house and taking my guns at gun-point: it's being whipped into in more of an irrational frenzy than makes sense at this point. It's an issue that's making pro-life groups more relevant and easier for them to raise funds right now, nothing more, nothing less. That's one reason a quick Google search of FOCA mainly returns results from pro-life or Catholic publications or web sites.
Yes, there are bed-wetters on the right as well.
DEA? Heck BOY SCOUTS are being taught to go after terrorist Iraqi War vets!!
Quote from: Know Nothing on May 18, 2009, 10:58:02 AM
No I objected to your filthy description of the protesters, your arrogance for suggesting you are responsible for my G-d given rights.
Bullcrap. You are such a misrepresenting of fact tool. Re-read that thread dumba$$, you attacked me first for throwing Keyes under some bus and then accused me of not doing anything to support a cause. It was at that point why I even mentioned the military. As for the ugly description of protesters, us "teabaggers" took a ton of crap over the tax day protests. These folks can't get a little smack back?
Quote from: guido911 on May 18, 2009, 11:52:39 AM
Bullcrap. You are such a misrepresenting of fact tool. Re-read that thread dumba$$, you attacked me first for throwing Keyes under some bus and then accused me of not doing anything to support a cause. It was at that point why I even mentioned the military. As for the ugly description of protesters, us "teabaggers" took a ton of crap over the tax day protests. These folks can't get a little smack back?
Keyes and all used filthy language to describe the 'tea party' 'protests'? They deserved that because why? Because some reprobates used an innuendo to deride the events, that gives you reason to a) use a filthy description of the protesters and 2) deny that they - prolifers - are on your 'side'?
Ha ha G-Dawg! Do not throw your pearls to swine!
"we won't shy away from things that make us uncomfortable..." The off the (teleprompter) cuff comment by POTUS OBAMA during the speech. He deals head on with the uncomfortable. Balls.
Change has come to America.
Quote from: FOTD on May 18, 2009, 09:27:45 PM
"we won't shy away from things that make us uncomfortable..." The off the (teleprompter) cuff comment by POTUS OBAMA during the speech. He deals head on with the uncomfortable. Balls.
Change has come to America.
WOW!!! REEEEAAAALLLY? He can speak WITHOUT USE OF A TELEPROMPTER!!! Incredible!! What a man! What a GENIUS!! How does he do it?!
He was right ON: he came right up and admitted he supports letting newborn would-be abortion victims die on the table. He came right out and said FOCA is not a priority for his Administration. He was forthright in his careful examination of the fetal stem-cell fraud. WOW!!
Quote from: Know Nothing on May 19, 2009, 02:38:44 PM
WOW!!! REEEEAAAALLLY? He can speak WITHOUT USE OF A TELEPROMPTER!!! Incredible!! What a man! What a GENIUS!! How does he do it?!
He was right ON: he came right up and admitted he supports letting newborn would-be abortion victims die on the table. He came right out and said FOCA is not a priority for his Administration. He was forthright in his careful examination of the fetal stem-cell fraud. WOW!!
I'M SCREAMING ON THE INTERNET BECAUSE I WISH TO DEFLECT ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT I WAS OWNED ON MY CLAIM BUT WISH TO APPEAR LIKE I WON THE ARGUMENT ANYWAY!!
Quote from: Hoss on May 19, 2009, 02:56:51 PM
I'M SCREAMING ON THE INTERNET BECAUSE I WISH TO DEFLECT ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT I WAS OWNED ON MY CLAIM BUT WISH TO APPEAR LIKE I WON THE ARGUMENT ANYWAY!!
WHAT CLAIM ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I AM SCREAMING BECAUSE I AM LAUGHING SO HARD AT HOW STUPID YOUR COMMENT WAS!!! POTUS OBAMA? WHO 'DAT?? HOSS YOU ARE A KOOL AID SUCKING DOPE!
Quote from: Hoss on May 19, 2009, 02:56:51 PM
I'M SCREAMING ON THE INTERNET BECAUSE I WISH TO DEFLECT ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT I WAS OWNED ON MY CLAIM BUT WISH TO APPEAR LIKE I WON THE ARGUMENT ANYWAY!!
Freeper spooner...
Quote from: Know Nothing on May 19, 2009, 03:04:11 PM
WHAT CLAIM ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I AM SCREAMING BECAUSE I AM LAUGHING SO HARD AT HOW STUPID YOUR COMMENT WAS!!! POTUS OBAMA? WHO 'DAT?? HOSS YOU ARE A KOOL AID SUCKING DOPE!
Point proven...
Quote from: Conan71 on May 19, 2009, 03:11:16 PM
Freeper spooner...
Shhhhhh. You're not supposed to know about that. They made me promise to use a super-secret handshake over there.
;)
Quote from: Know Nothing on May 19, 2009, 02:38:44 PM
WOW!!! REEEEAAAALLLY? He can speak WITHOUT USE OF A TELEPROMPTER!!! Incredible!! What a man! What a GENIUS!! How does he do it?!
He was right ON: he came right up and admitted he supports letting newborn would-be abortion victims die on the table. He came right out and said FOCA is not a priority for his Administration. He was forthright in his careful examination of the fetal stem-cell fraud. WOW!!
The answer to this is, and always has been, simple. If you are against abortion, don't have one. Someone else's pregnacy is none of your business.
The middle ground POTUS Obama wants too often is a capitulation to the conservatives. POTUS Obama is now getting hammered from the far right and the far left. This is not good for change.
Quote from: Hoss on May 19, 2009, 03:11:38 PM
Point proven...
Nope not yet. What point did I lose out on? No no no let us not address that or how detestable Obama's policies are on abortionand how out of the mainstream they are. Go ahead and prostrate yourself in adoration, Hoss. Get on your knees and worship him! He is your god if you are impressed with an off-the-cuff remark! What a joke!
Quote from: Know Nothing on May 19, 2009, 03:16:57 PM
Nope not yet. What point did I lose out on? No no no let us not address that or how detestable Obama's policies are on abortionand how out of the mainstream they are. Go ahead and prostrate yourself in adoration, Hoss. Get on your knees and worship him! He is your god if you are impressed with an off-the-cuff remark! What a joke!
ODS again.
Actually, the mainstream's policies on abortion I share. I don't like abortion, wouldn't suggest it, have made mention of it here before. But the law of the land remains to allow a woman a choice to decide. I could care less if it's repealed or not. But the fringe right-wingers have made it their cross to bear. Catholics are not exclusive to this group, but they always seem to be the most vocal about it.
Next time, you might try searching to see what my beliefs on abortion are. My problem with your claims is that the FOCA you claim to hear about isn't the same FOCA. You're spreading FUD.
Quote from: Know Nothing on May 19, 2009, 03:16:57 PM
Nope not yet. What point did I lose out on? No no no let us not address that or how detestable Obama's policies are on abortionand how out of the mainstream they are. Go ahead and prostrate yourself in adoration, Hoss. Get on your knees and worship him! He is your god if you are impressed with an off-the-cuff remark! What a joke!
You know, you are literally the first poster on this board to make me wish for an ignore feature. Good job.
On the topic. Please don't have an abortion if you don't want one.
Quote from: Hoss on May 19, 2009, 03:21:26 PM
ODS again.
Actually, the mainstream's policies on abortion I share. I don't like abortion, wouldn't suggest it, have made mention of it here before. But the law of the land remains to allow a woman a choice to decide. I could care less if it's repealed or not. But the fringe right-wingers have made it their cross to bear. Catholics are not exclusive to this group, but they always seem to be the most vocal about it.
Next time, you might try searching to see what my beliefs on abortion are. My problem with your claims is that the FOCA you claim to hear about isn't the same FOCA. You're spreading FUD.
ESAD! LMAO! FI! DYDI?
Here some more crazay right wingers from that bastion of right-wingedness 'Slate'.
http://www.slate.com/id/2205326/
'If the Freedom of Choice Act passes Congress, and that's a big if, Obama has promised to sign it the second it hits his desk. (Here he is at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event in 2007, vowing, "The first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do.") Though it's often referred to as a mere codification of Roe, FOCA, as currently drafted, actually goes well beyond that:
According to the Senate sponsor of the bill, Barbara Boxer, in a statement on her Web site, FOCA would nullify all existing laws and regulations that limit abortion in any way, up to the time of fetal viability. [emph added] Laws requiring parental notification and informed consent would be tossed out. While there is strenuous debate among legal experts on the matter, many believe the act would invalidate the freedom-of-conscience laws on the books in 46 states. These are the laws that allow Catholic hospitals and health providers that receive public funds through Medicaid and Medicare to opt out of performing abortions. Without public funds, these health centers couldn't stay open; if forced to do abortions, they would sooner close their doors. Even the prospect of selling the institutions to other providers wouldn't be an option, the bishops have said, because that would constitute "material cooperation with an intrinsic evil."
Quote from: Know Nothing on May 19, 2009, 03:33:05 PM
ESAD! LMAO! FI! DYDI?
Here some more crazay right wingers from that bastion of right-wingedness 'Slate'.
http://www.slate.com/id/2205326/
'If the Freedom of Choice Act passes Congress, and that's a big if, Obama has promised to sign it the second it hits his desk. (Here he is at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event in 2007, vowing, "The first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do.") Though it's often referred to as a mere codification of Roe, FOCA, as currently drafted, actually goes well beyond that: According to the Senate sponsor of the bill, Barbara Boxer, in a statement on her Web site, FOCA would nullify all existing laws and regulations that limit abortion in any way, up to the time of fetal viability. Laws requiring parental notification and informed consent would be tossed out. While there is strenuous debate among legal experts on the matter, many believe the act would invalidate the freedom-of-conscience laws on the books in 46 states. These are the laws that allow Catholic hospitals and health providers that receive public funds through Medicaid and Medicare to opt out of performing abortions. Without public funds, these health centers couldn't stay open; if forced to do abortions, they would sooner close their doors. Even the prospect of selling the institutions to other providers wouldn't be an option, the bishops have said, because that would constitute "material cooperation with an intrinsic evil."
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_are_the_facts_on_the_freedom.html
So the way I read this is that it would only apply to government institutions, not Catholic Hospitals or anyone who might have a problem with performing said procedures.
Update: A reporter asked Obama about FOCA at a news conference on April 29, 2009. The president said that signing FOCA was not his method of choice for resolving abortion disputes: "Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose, but I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's where I'm going to focus."Like I said, FUD...
Quote from: Hoss on May 19, 2009, 03:49:07 PM
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_are_the_facts_on_the_freedom.html
So the way I read this is that it would only apply to government institutions, not Catholic Hospitals or anyone who might have a problem with performing said procedures.
Update: A reporter asked Obama about FOCA at a news conference on April 29, 2009. The president said that signing FOCA was not his method of choice for resolving abortion disputes: "Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose, but I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's where I'm going to focus."
Like I said, FUD...
BFD, DA. YASAJA! Read your stupid article stupid: 'Some claims about this proposal's impact are unfounded; others contain some truth. But the bill's vague wording makes it hard to pin down what it actually would or wouldn't do.'
Even O's in-the-pocket org does not know what the FOCA does, but YOU DO! Wow!
I don't think it's really worth getting in a huge lather over it right now, as there's a whole lot of mis-information being pumped on this. Let's say this FOCA were to usurp state laws as was claimed in the email that was circulating (and was asked about on the factcheck link Hoss provided), you can bet conservative state AG's would be lining up to tie this up for a long time up at SCOTUS. Even more liberal AG's would likely sue over state's rights.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 19, 2009, 04:13:08 PM
I don't think it's really worth getting in a huge lather over it right now, as there's a whole lot of mis-information being pumped on this. Let's say this FOCA were to usurp state laws as was claimed in the email that was circulating (and was asked about on the factcheck link Hoss provided), you can bet conservative state AG's would be lining up to tie this up for a long time up at SCOTUS. Even more liberal AG's would likely sue over state's rights.
I agree. Injunctive relief would be sought by AGs in states like Oklahoma, Utah and other "red" states, which would finally allow the very conservative northern district judges a crack at the issue. I think the Supremes would find FOCA unconstitutional under the first and fourteenth amendments. Also, this would probably be enough for J. Kennedy to finally let Scalia write the opinion (and himself join) I sense Scalia wants to write--overturning Roe and throwing the abortion question back where it belongs...to the states. Roberts, Thomas, and Alito would of course join as well
Quote from: Know Nothing on May 19, 2009, 04:08:08 PM
BFD, DA. YASAJA! Read your stupid article stupid: 'Some claims about this proposal's impact are unfounded; others contain some truth. But the bill's vague wording makes it hard to pin down what it actually would or wouldn't do.'
Even O's in-the-pocket org does not know what the FOCA does, but YOU DO! Wow!
Wow, love the ad-hominem. Someone posts a dissenting opinion...sheesh. Get over yourself.
Quote from: Hoss on May 19, 2009, 04:30:20 PM
Wow, love the ad-hominem. Someone posts a dissenting opinion...sheesh. Get over yourself.
Ha ha! Ok! There! Over myself!! But your adoration of the O required a response, so get over y'self, too, H-bomb! OOOHHHHH NOOOOOO! CAPS!!!! RUN!!