The ‘Don’t Worry’ Catholics

National Catholic Register ^ | Saturday, December 06, 2008 | Tom Hoopes

[GonzoII]

Russell Shaw warns that “Assorted Catholic voices have been raised lately calling on Catholics to give President-elect Obama a chance and look for common ground between him and the Church. Part of the message is: ‘Don’t worry about the Freedom of Choice Act...’”

[GonzoII]

The ‘Don’t Worry’ Catholics

Saturday, December 06, 2008 10:46 AM

Russell Shaw warns that “Assorted Catholic voices have been raised lately calling on Catholics to give President-elect Obama a chance and look for common ground between him and the Church. Part of the message is: ‘Don’t worry about the Freedom of Choice Act.’”

He lists in the “Don’t Worry” crowd: The editors of Commonweal, the National Catholic Reporter, Professor Douglas Kmiec, and former U.S. ambassador to the Holy See Thomas Melady.

Professor Kmiec, he notes, is claiming that the Freedom of Choice Act is not a real threat. He adds, “The don’t-worry-about-FOCA line is summed up in a Commonweal editorial calling it ‘abortion-rights propaganda … a fundraising device and a rallying cry for pro-choice groups.’

“No doubt FOCA is all of that,” writes Shaw. “And it’s also a serious threat.”

He helpfully reminds the “Don’t-worry” Catholics: “How do you prevent a dangerous bill from becoming law? The answer is, or should be, a no-brainer. Dangerous bills are blocked by vigorously opposing them. Shrugging one’s shoulders and saying they’re no threat is a good way to get them passed.”

Now is the time not for concessions but for confident opposition. There will be much to oppose. Next, I’ll share our editorial from the Dec. 14 issue on why our opposition can be confident instead of fearful.

— Tom Hoopes

[GonzoII]

FOCA Ping.

[timestax]

bttt

[babygene]

If I were the Pope, no Catholics that voted for Obama would be welcome to receive Communion Until either:

1. Four years had elapsed and they voted for a pro-life candidate;

2. Or. they agreed to work in the pro-life movement. Picket lines etc..

[Clintonfatigued]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjnvSQuv-H4

[GonzoII]

Some how, that song was on my mind...LOL.

[GonzoII]

“If I were the Pope”

—

Habemus Papam!!

[BipolarBob]

Also don't worry when children are burned alive as sacrifices to Molech.We must all strive for diversity, understanding and unity. We cannot let principles stand in the way of whatever evil people want. It may be a cultural thing.

/sarc

[Salvation]

CINOs all.

[Salvation]

Take a good look at this bill and SHUDDER!

S.1173
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:
4/19/2007--Introduced.

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.

---

MAJOR ACTIONS:

***NONE***

---

ALL ACTIONS:

4/19/2007:

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(S):

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

---

AMENDMENT(S):

***NONE***

The actual contents of the bill are as follows:

S 1173 IS

110th CONGRESS

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

---

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.

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.

END

 

House Bill

H.R.1964
Title: 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: Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] (introduced 4/19/2007)      Cosponsors (109)
Related Bills: S.1173
Latest Major Action: 5/4/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

---

COSPONSORS(109), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 4/19/2007	Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 4/19/2007
Rep Allen, Thomas H. [ME-1] - 4/19/2007	Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] - 4/19/2007
Rep Baird, Brian [WA-3] - 7/11/2007	Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 4/19/2007
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 4/19/2007	Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 4/19/2007
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 4/19/2007	Rep Boucher, Rick [VA-9] - 4/19/2007
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 4/19/2007	Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 4/30/2007
Rep Carnahan, Russ [MO-3] - 7/16/2007	Rep Carson, Julia [IN-7] - 10/22/2007
Rep Castor, Kathy [FL-11] - 4/23/2007	Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 4/23/2007
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 4/20/2007	Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 4/19/2007
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 4/19/2007	Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 12/5/2007
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 4/19/2007	Rep Davis, Susan A. [CA-53] - 4/19/2007
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 4/19/2007	Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 5/2/2007
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] - 7/11/2007	Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 4/19/2007
Rep Emanuel, Rahm [IL-5] - 4/19/2007	Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 3/31/2008
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - 5/10/2007	Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 4/19/2007
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] - 4/19/2007	Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 4/19/2007
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 4/19/2007	Rep Giffords, Gabrielle [AZ-8] - 6/21/2007
Rep Green, Al [TX-9] - 1/28/2008	Rep Green, Gene [TX-29] - 4/23/2007
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 4/19/2007	Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 1/22/2008
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 4/19/2007	Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 5/2/2007
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 4/19/2007	Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 4/19/2007
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 4/19/2007	Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] - 4/19/2007
Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] - 4/23/2007	Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 4/19/2007
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 4/19/2007	Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 6/12/2007
Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs [OH-11] - 9/4/2007	Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] - 1/28/2008
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 4/19/2007	Rep Lantos, Tom [CA-12] - 4/19/2007
Rep Larsen, Rick [WA-2] - 4/19/2007	Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 4/19/2007
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 5/3/2007	Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] - 4/19/2007
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 5/3/2007	Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 4/19/2007
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 4/19/2007	Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5] - 4/19/2007
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] - 4/23/2007	Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 4/19/2007
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 4/19/2007	Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 4/23/2007
Rep McNerney, Jerry [CA-11] - 6/6/2007	Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5] - 6/14/2007
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] - 4/19/2007	Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 5/2/2007
Rep Mitchell, Harry E. [AZ-5] - 5/23/2007	Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 4/23/2007
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 4/19/2007	Rep Murphy, Christopher S. [CT-5] - 4/30/2007
Rep Murphy, Patrick J. [PA-8] - 9/9/2008	Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] - 6/21/2007
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 4/20/2007	Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 4/19/2007
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] - 1/22/2008	Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 4/24/2007
Rep Price, David E. [NC-4] - 6/6/2007	Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 4/23/2007
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] - 4/30/2007	Rep Ruppersberger, C. A. Dutch [MD-2] - 1/29/2008
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39] - 4/19/2007	Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-47] - 5/21/2007
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 4/19/2007	Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. [PA-13] - 10/15/2007
Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] - 4/19/2007	Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] - 4/23/2007
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 5/3/2007	Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] - 4/19/2007
Rep Solis, Hilda L. [CA-32] - 4/19/2007	Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 4/19/2007
Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] - 4/19/2007	Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] - 6/18/2007
Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] - 4/19/2007	Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 5/3/2007
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 4/19/2007	Rep Tsongas, Niki [MA-5] - 2/12/2008
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] - 5/2/2007	Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 6/6/2007
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] - 4/23/2007	Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 4/19/2007
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 4/19/2007	Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] - 4/19/2007
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] - 5/21/2007	Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 4/19/2007
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 4/19/2007	Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 4/23/2007
Rep Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4] - 4/23/2007

Rep Porter, Jon C. [NV-3] - 4/19/2007(withdrawn - 4/23/2007)

[NTHockey]

How about including the clergy who keep silent - like Biden’s bishop, W. Francis Malooly. He doesn’t “want to alienate people” nor does he think The Eucharist is a political tool.

What does the Bible say about hypocrites and those who remain silent?

[pray4liberty]

No, I’m not going to worry. Not at all. I’m going to get down on my knees and pray, then I’m going to get up, put on the Armor of God and fight.

[cricket]

It is not just Catholics who are in denial...Too many; suffering ‘sand in the eyes’ syndrome and offering that ‘ we should just give Obama a chance’. Guess we feel the same about Iran and their nuclear capacity.

[GonzoII]

“It is not just Catholics who are in denial...Too many; suffering ‘sand in the eyes’ syndrome and offering that ‘ we should just give Obama a chance’. Guess we feel the same about Iran and their nuclear capacity.”

—

Well, sad to say, it usually takes some kind of catastrophe to wake some folks up.

[cricket]

Well, sad to say, it usually takes some kind of catastrophe to wake some folks up.

Even more sad; that it takes more than 'one' castasrophe. . .

[cricket]

Well, sad to say, it usually takes some kind of catastrophe to wake some folks up.

Even more sad; that it takes more than 'one' castasrophe. . .