While there may be elements of truth in those implications, I'm sure things are more complicated than that. I've found that it's all too easy to accept the over-generalized, sometimes fantastical statements we hear because let's face it, we all like a little drama (gossip!) and it seems to make the world make a little more sense with a minimum amount of effort. Diving in to a little more detail is always tough, but I think it makes for a less polarized world.
If you're interested in learning more about FOCA, I came across this article that I feel does a thorough (at least for the lay person) job evaluating what it is and what it isn't. Sure, it's coming from a pro-life perspective, but it digs deeper into what the text is actually saying, not unlike what we do with the inductive method at Bible Study. The middle portion gets a little technical, but if you can get through it, it makes the final summary that much stronger:
Ultimately, the bill should be seen less as a serious attempt at lawmaking than as abortion-war propaganda dressed up as legislation. It’s noteworthy that from a purely political perspective, FOCA is useful to both prolife and prochoice activists. The bill helps prochoicers ward off any perceived threat to the right to abortion-even as, in its ominous shadows, prolifers see new threats to unborn life, and mobilize accordingly.
Go learn.
Posts
3 comments:
I'd be careful about saying this article is really a pro-life perspective. Commonweal is Catholic in one sense, and in another very questionable. Another perspective might be from a pro-life organization.
http://www.aul.org/foca
I would agree that we cannot say things definitively about FOCA but what most people have realized is the danger it holds. Putting into law anything that involves a fundamental right to abortion threatens all those things you mentioned. We have already seen how the change in laws about civil unions and marriage has led to Catholic adoption centers closing down. Or how the change in how we view religious freedom has forced Catholic hospitals to dispense Plan B or shutdown. To say that a law like this that enshrines the legal right to abortion won't threaten restrictions to abortion or the operation of Catholic hospitals is questionable at best.
I find this article misleading and subversive, and here's my critique (it's gonna be long, cause the "article" is long, if you're not gonna read all of it, I'd say read the intro and jump to the conclusion):
The author attempts at doing an analysis of the bill itself, but the analysis is totally incomplete for the following reasons, and more, but I won't make this longer :P
1. She states that the "key, obviously, is section (b)[of section 4], which forbids a government to 'deny or interfere with' a woman’s right to choose, and, second, prevents 'discrimination' against the exercise of this right." I don't understand why she (since she's Catholic writing in a "Catholic" magazine" would contend that THIS is the "key" and not sections 1 nor 2 where she even admits that section 2 actually "offers a passionate defense of a woman’s right to choose abortion, grounding it in the recognition that 'individuals are free to make the most intimate decisions without governmental interference and discrimination.'" To use House Speaker (and sometimes moral theologian and speaker for the Catholic Church) Pelosi's words, an "ardent practicing Catholic" should find this to be the key and be completely and unashamedly opposed to this section. (I hope you can read the sarcasm the right parts there!)
2. She comments that the wording of section 4(b)(1) tracks the "protections" in Roe (funny because if you read the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, link at bottom, you'll see there was no real "protection" and the court basically said the government has no place is saying when life begins so can't enforce law about it), which didn't say abortion was legal, only said that it's NOT ILLEGAL because they can't legislate law about when life begins. THEN, she admits that because of this Supreme Court ruling, some regulations were deemed unconstitutional, like "spousal notification and informed-consent provisions." I don't understand how that helps her point, someone clarify for me? Then she says that other "restrictions" were upheld. Does the author think spousal notification and informed-consent provisions being declared as unconstitutional doesn't count as "application of FOCA?" Maybe it's immaterial in the author's eyes that the spouse needs to know, or if the woman contemplating abortion isn't given all the information? Here her analysis did not incorporate the actual effects of Roe because Roe itself was in a way similar to FOCA and what the author claims about FOCA (that the "act's operational details appear to be little more than an afterthought.")
Wanna see the effects of Roe?
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_APAR.pdf
(this is from the "research" arm of Planned Parenthood)
3. I don't see why the bill needs "a disparaging remark about Casey," which is the reason why she thinks the bill won't "sweep away the regulations allowed by Casey." Why would a bill need a negative remark about a case? The bill doesn't have "glowing" remarks about Roe, it just tries to interpret and state what was decided. By her line of reasoning, this bill won't codify Roe, or do anything. Ah, see the faulty logic? She fails to recognize the effect that interpretations have on court decisions and laws themselves, no matter how lacking in "operational details it is." Just the fact that she CAN interpret this bill in this way, and others can interpret this bill in other ways show that people interpret bills, laws, cases differently and THEN apply them differently. By her saying that her interpretation is the only way, assumes that everyone else (pro-choice and pro-life) who has interpreted in other ways had either not read the bill itself, or are over-dramatic and overreacting. (That to me is pretty offensive, especially in light of my point #1 above, not just personally, but to our faithful bishops, legislators, educators, and even the pro-choice people on the other side.)
4. "On the vexing issue of abortion funding," the author claims that this won't make abortions funded by federal money. She makes no appeal to check whether or not federal money actually does go to fund ANY abortions presently! And yes, under the Hyde Amendment, none should, but could it be because the money is actually going to things like "family planning?" And what's "family planning" mean? Sound something akin to "Planned Parenthood?" (And not to mention Pelosi again had "no apologies" for trying to get some of that stimulus package money for "family planning" because she says "contraception cuts costs. Okay, HOW does contraception cut costs? Oh, the babies? http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTZkN2I0NmI1MTdlMDU0ZjQ1NzFlYTVhNDc3YjA0Yzk=)
And to tack on to the Hyde Amendment point, the Mexico City Policy has been repealed by our newly elected President. So federal money can go to fund abortion outside of the states, but not inside? Those pro-choice activists should be outraged!!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/MexicoCityPolicy-VoluntaryPopulationPlanning/
And the link between Mexico City Policy and American tax dollars killing international babies, a portion of which are in CHINA!
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=27495
and
http://www.lifenews.com/int948.html
5. The paragraph about facilities and doing abortions. She admits that a place or program that "offers medically necessary services but not elective procedures would have to offer medically necessary abortions, but would not need to offer elective ones." First, Catholic hospitals offer medically necessary services, but not abortions (hopefully). And second, WHO says what's medically necessary or not? We may think it's clear, but when it comes down to a particular case, how would we know? Medically speaking, a woman with twins is labeled as a "high-risk pregnancy!" Yeah, twins.
6. Okay, she's bringing in the First Admendment protection for religious institutions. What about the First Admendment protections for religious groups when homosexual couples wanted to get married on their property and the religious institutions weren't protected? Yes, it's happened in the states, even more so in Canada. We're not talking about medical procedure that may be deemed "medically necessary." Think about it.
7. Her conclusion seems to say that finding common ground and a truce is the highest good. Is it really? I'd like her to answer this question for me: what common ground would the baby inside a mother who wants to have an abortion have? Can't they just get along?? Maybe she knows something I don't since she's a professor of law AND theology!
Conclusion:
The article is biased from the beginning and I could label this an opinion rather than an analysis. Other than the author's own words to show the bias from the first few paragraphs of this opinion piece (first she affirmed that both sides recognize the great effect the bill MAY have and agree with each other, but she disagrees with BOTH sides), it's also clear why she would want to downplay the passing of FOCA because she was on the President's National Catholic Advisory Committee (among other "notable" self-proclaimed Catholics like Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry)
Even though the author concludes it's a bad law, and has good reason for it (all of them legal and NOT moral), I find this article down-playing the bill and the attitude we need in this battle. We're in a spiritual battle remember? Hmm, I wonder who said that? But she also says that this is just propaganda (and it is to some degree) that pro-lifers can rally back up. But does that mean we can support it just so the good of unifying and galvanizing the pro-life movement comes about? That sounds something like the ends justify the means, which we know is wrong! Either way, this opinion piece sure would make a reader not feel so bad about this FOCA thing right? Doesn't that mean this alleviation of our concerns is just a gently nudge into complacency? And remember that old saying: all that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.
Official Roe v Wade opinions of the court: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=410&page=113
oops, #6 We ARE talking about medical procedure that may be deemed "medically necessary."
Post a Comment