Skip to comments.Obama Closing Catholic Hospitals?
Posted on 11/01/2008 7:15:57 PM PDT by murphE
On Oct. 7, 2007, Sen. Barack Obama spoke to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and promised, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'll do."
What is the Freedom of Choice Act? It is the most sweeping pro-abortion legislation ever proposed in the United States.
In a letter dated Sept. 19 to members of Congress, Philadelphia's Justin Cardinal Rigali rightly warned:
"Despite its deceptive title, FOCA would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry. FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. And FOCA would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country.
"The operative language of FOCA is twofold. First it creates a 'fundamental right' to abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy, including a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined "health" reasons. No government body at any level would be able to "deny or interfere with" this newly created federal right. Second, it forbids government at all levels to "discriminate" against the exercise of this right "in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information." For the first time, abortion on demand would be a national entitlement that government must condone and promote in all public programs affecting pregnant women," said the cardinal.
It is clear the FOCA raises abortion to what it calls a "fundamental right." Yet it is not clear if Catholics realize the threat that Mr. Obama poses to the unborn, to believing Catholics in the medical profession, and to Catholic hospitals across the nation.
Michael Moses, legal analyst of the United States Council of Catholic Bishops called it a "radical measure" that will "go way beyond Roe [vs. Wade]." The language is so sweeping that it will wipe out any state's "conscience" clause, which is the law that allows hospitals, doctors and nurses to abstain from taking part in abortion for reasons of conscience. If abortion is a "fundamental right", according to FOCA, then every hospital must provide it.
The net result, as one writer noted, is "President Obama and his congressional supermajority would force every Christian hospital, doctor or nurse to abandon their faith or go out of business." Under FOCA, believing Christians could be banned from the hospital industry (and apostolate) by federal law.
John Vennari is editor of the monthly Catholic Family News. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
I suggest he draft Romney for that effort; Romney has experience in telling Catholic hospitals to shove it.
Yeah Clinton signed some big partial birth abortion thing as his first act in office. These guys are SICK freaks.
Something about make your bed, sleep in it?
Shouldn’t a doctor decide if an abortion is needed, and not the patient? Why is it a patient can demand an abortion, but not other types of surgery? Also this whole health of the mother issue is far to broad, as every pregnancy carries a risk an you really do not know who will be at risk until it happens.
25% of the hospital beds in the US are in Catholic hospitals. If FOCA is enacted, the bishops should begin shutting them down, fast enough to make things difficult. When NYC tried this garbage, that's what the Abp. did there, and they had to back down.
And meanwhile, start the legal action. If a "right to an abortion" is protected by some stupid constitutional "penumbra," the right to practice medicine without endorsing abortion ought to be protected as well.
Both Cardinal George of Chicago and Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver threatened to close all of the Catholic hospitals in their respective states when their legislatures tried to pass the same thing as a state law.
Both legislatures backed down immediately.
People have had the ability to fight against abortion for 35 years. It’s never really been put on the front burner as an issue that was more important than, say, taxes or gas prices.
Result: 50 millions dead.
Does anyone think this slipped God’s attention?
Maybe if the nation doesn’t care enough when there is a clear choice on these matters—when it clearly votes FOR abortion and FOR gay rights—then He will let the nation have its way.
And after that, he’ll start grading the exam...
Real Christians don’t vote for genocide. Real Christians do not vote pro-choice!
They worship death; dead babies are their "sacrament".
The Democrat Party has become the demoncRat Party ... and it is dead to me.
I may not always vote for the Republican in a give election (I voted for and am actively campaigning for McCain/Palin) but I will never again vote for a demoncRat.
Sick, evil and inhuman. That’s all I can say and stay within the bounds of civility.
Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven.
“But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”
Perhaps the Messiah's ‘Civilian National Security Force’
will go door to door, collecting and destroying this limited, constraining document.
Can you say “Josef Stalin”?
I know that and doctors know that. The problem is that doctors are willing to listen to patients desires instead of what is in their best interest, which is why we have 1,000s of people walking around disfigured from multiple plastic surgeries, and people dying from getting unneeded abortions.
Well said, but I would have asked: can you say "George Orwell"?
Can you say evil incarnate?
ping 4 life
The 2000 election - by watching liberals melt down over their accusations that Bush stole the election, you see that, in fact, THEIR attempt to steal the election failed. They finally succeeded in Washington State in 2004, when ACORN and Christine Gregoire were able to rip off Dino Rossi. They are deploying every dirty trick in their bag on a national level today.
Bush is abrogating our civil liberties - in fact, Obama plans the most Orwellian administration in our history.
A quick google search revealed:
Diagnostic criteria for 301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
(3) believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
(4) requires excessive admiration
(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
Like all other procedures, of you are a paying customer, you can always find a doctor willing to do the procedure, whether they feel its risky or not. They aren’t the ones going under the knife, they tell the patient the risks and get a signature saying so, and they’re good to go.
I was disappointed tonight at the vigil mass the deacon doing the homily did not mention this issue at all. I’m sorry now I did not write to the archbishop’s office and urge them to do so before.
During the prayer of the faithful though one of the petitions was for the voters to make the right decision and vote for justice, freedom, and “respect for life.” To which I replied loudly “Lord hear our prayer!” I hope He will.
meant to ping you guys
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Title: A bill to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 4/19/2007) Cosponsors (19)
Related Bills: H.R.1964
Latest Major Action: 4/19/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments
SUMMARY AS OF:
Freedom of Choice Act - Declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to: (1) bear a child; (2) terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or (3) terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.
Prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from: (1) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or (2) discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively.
Authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to obtain appropriate relief, including relief against a governmental entity, in a civil action.
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
TITLE(S): (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)
- SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
Freedom of Choice Act
- OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
A bill to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
COSPONSORS(19), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Sen Baucus, Max [MT] - 4/19/2007
Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] - 4/19/2007
Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] - 5/2/2007
Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] - 4/19/2007
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 4/19/2007
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 4/19/2007
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 4/19/2007
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 6/13/2007
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 4/19/2007
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 4/23/2007
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 4/19/2007
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 4/19/2007
Sen Murray, Patty [WA] - 4/19/2007
Sen Obama, Barack [IL] - 5/11/2007
Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] - 4/25/2007
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 4/19/2007
Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] - 4/19/2007
Sen Tester, Jon [MT] - 4/23/2007
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 6/6/2007
Committee/Subcommittee: Activity: Senate Judiciary Referral, In Committee
RELATED BILL DETAILS: (additional related bills may be indentified in Status)
Bill: Relationship: H.R.1964 Related bill identified by CRS
The actual contents of the bill are as follows:
S 1173 IS
1st Session S. 1173
To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 19, 2007
Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mrs. MURRAY, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. CLINTON, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. BAUCUS, and Ms. CANTWELL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Freedom of Choice Act'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States was founded on core principles, such as liberty, personal privacy, and equality, which ensure that individuals are free to make their most intimate decisions without governmental interference and discrimination.
(2) One of the most private and difficult decisions an individual makes is whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy. Those reproductive health decisions are best made by women, in consultation with their loved ones and health care providers.
(3) In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479), and in 1973, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) and Doe v. Bolton (410 U.S. 179), the Supreme Court recognized that the right to privacy protected by the Constitution encompasses the right of every woman to weigh the personal, moral, and religious considerations involved in deciding whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy.
(4) The Roe v. Wade decision carefully balances the rights of women to make important reproductive decisions with the State's interest in potential life. Under Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the right to privacy protects a woman's decision to choose to terminate her pregnancy prior to fetal viability, with the State permitted to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to protect a woman's life or health.
(5) These decisions have protected the health and lives of women in the United States. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, an estimated 1,200,000 women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortions, despite the risk of unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration, and death. Before Roe, it is estimated that thousands of women died annually in the United States as a result of illegal abortions.
(6) In countries in which abortion remains illegal, the risk of maternal mortality is high. According to the World Health Organization, of the approximately 600,000 pregnancy-related deaths occurring annually around the world, 80,000 are associated with unsafe abortions.
(7) The Roe v. Wade decision also expanded the opportunities for women to participate equally in society. In 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833), the Supreme Court observed that, `[t]he ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.'.
(8) Even though the Roe v. Wade decision has stood for more than 34 years, there are increasing threats to reproductive health and freedom emerging from all branches and levels of government. In 2006, South Dakota became the first State in more than 15 years to enact a ban on abortion in nearly all circumstances. Supporters of this ban have admitted it is an attempt to directly challenge Roe in the courts. Other States are considering similar bans.
(9) Further threatening Roe, the Supreme Court recently upheld the first-ever Federal ban on an abortion procedure, which has no exception to protect a woman's health. The majority decision in Gonzales v. Carhart (05-380, slip op. April 18, 2007) and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America fails to protect a woman's health, a core tenet of Roe v. Wade. Dissenting in that case, Justice Ginsburg called the majority's opinion `alarming', and stated that, `[f]or the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health'. Further, she said, the Federal ban `and the Court's defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court'.
(10) Legal and practical barriers to the full range of reproductive services endanger women's health and lives. Incremental restrictions on the right to choose imposed by Congress and State legislatures have made access to reproductive care extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many women across the country. Currently, 87 percent of the counties in the United States have no abortion provider.
(11) While abortion should remain safe and legal, women should also have more meaningful access to family planning services that prevent unintended pregnancies, thereby reducing the need for abortion.
(12) To guarantee the protections of Roe v. Wade, Federal legislation is necessary.
(13) Although Congress may not create constitutional rights without amending the Constitution, Congress may, where authorized by its enumerated powers and not prohibited by the Constitution, enact legislation to create and secure statutory rights in areas of legitimate national concern.
(14) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I of the Constitution and section 5 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution to enact legislation to facilitate interstate commerce and to prevent State interference with interstate commerce, liberty, or equal protection of the laws.
(15) Federal protection of a woman's right to choose to prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this affirmative power of Congress, in part, because--
(A) many women cross State lines to obtain abortions and many more would be forced to do so absent a constitutional right or Federal protection;
(B) reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and
(C) reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and other personnel who travel across State lines in order to provide reproductive health services to patients.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) GOVERNMENT- The term `government' includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official (or other individual acting under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State.
(2) STATE- The term `State' means each of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory or possession of the United States.
(3) VIABILITY- The term `viability' means that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.
SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.
(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--
(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--
(A) to bear a child;
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or
(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.
(c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.
SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which the provision is held to be unconstitutional, shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.
This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
I was hoping you’d ping your list.
Am I the only one who thinks Obama is possibly the Antichrist?
Tammy has That One nailed.
Beyond that ... I find him to be in the same league as all of the XX Century's bloody-handed, bloody-minded, socialist totalitarians.
Sure, he hasn't really done anything yet.
And there was a time when
Hitler was just an antisemitic rabblerouser carrying on in a beer-hall.
Lenin was just a "parlour pink".
Khomeini was just an exiled troublemaker.
“What is the Practical Impact of FOCA?
In elevating abortion to a fundamental right, FOCA poses an undeniable and irreparable danger to common-sense laws supported by a majority of Americans. Among the federal and state laws that FOCA would nullify are:
* Informed consent laws
* Waiting periods
* Parental consent and notification laws
* Health and safety regulations for abortion clinics
* Requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions
* Bans on partial-birth abortion
* Bans on abortion after viability. FOCAs apparent attempt to limit post-viability abortions is illusory. Under FOCA, post-viability abortions are expressly permitted to protect the womans 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 (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
* 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
Notably, pro-abortion groups do not deny FOCAs draconian impact. For example, Planned Parenthood has explained, FOCA will supersede anti-choice laws that restrict the right to choose, including laws that prohibit the public funding of abortions for poor women or counseling and referrals for abortions. Additionally, FOCA will prohibit onerous restrictions on a woman’s right to choose, such as mandated delays and targeted and medically unnecessary regulations.
Thus, under FOCA (as introduced and supported by Senator Obama and other pro-abortion members of Congress), a 12-year old girl could have a late-term abortion performed on her by an under-qualified non-physician without her parents knowledge. The parents would have no opportunity to speak with the abortion provider about their daughters medical history, and they would have no opportunity to make arrangements for her follow-up care.”
From the link: “* REQUIREMENTS that licensed physicians perform abortions” Of course Catholic hospital would have to close down.
This thing is asinine.
I don’t see it passing a filibuster in the senate though, even if the Dems reach 60 seats. There are enough red state Dems that would not vote for cloture on this monstrosity. Likewise, it would have trouble in the house for similar reasons.
It does show how evil Obama is.
IIRC, his first act was doing away with the Mexico City rule via executive order.
Well, not quite, but obviously Obama has a very “French” nation of the separation of Church and state.
There will be bishops who vote for Obama.
Praise God for the Catholic Church! says this Southern Baptist...
If Obama caused the closing of Catholic hospitals, he’d see, right quick, just how the poor were taken care of in this country, because most wouldn’t be, any longer.
What IS it with those Irish nuns, and many Northeastern Catholics? They swallowed Cardinal Bernadin's Seamless Garment idea hook, line and sinker. It's SO infuriating!