Skip to comments.Fight the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)
Posted on 01/28/2009 10:06:46 AM PST by DBCJR
The first thing I want to say is, you don't have to be Pro-Life to join this group! There are already plenty of people that have joined that are Pro-Choice. This group is against FOCA, if you would like to learn about it, it takes only a few minutes. A second thought, before anyone ignores this group because they think it's a group against Obama, let me tell you that it's not. This group's sole purpose is to help keep FOCA from being passed. If you read my guidelines at the bottom, I do not tolerate any severe comments against him and I have already deleted quite a few. Also, if you don't want to read all of the information I have written down but you still support me, please go to http://www.fightfoca.com/ and sign the petition. It takes less than 30 seconds and you could make a big difference. But please watch the first video at the bottom of this group if you can, maybe it'll change your mind if you're Pro-Choice. And please don't ignore it just because you are Pro-Choice. Be open minded and learn the facts and debate on the page if you don't agree.
"The first thing Id do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. Thats the first thing Id do." -Barack Obama
The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would eliminate every restriction on abortion nationwide.
* FOCA will do away with state laws on parental involvement, on partial birth abortion, and on all other protections.
* FOCA will compel taxpayer funding of abortions.
* FOCA will force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions.
FOCA will eradicate state and federal laws that the MAJORITY of Americans support, such as:
* Bans on Partial Birth Abortion
* Requirements that women be given information about the risks of getting an abortion
* Only licensed physicians can perform abortions
* Parents must be informed and give consent to their minor daughter's abortion
all taken from http://www.fightfoca.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- So if FOCA is passed,
1) Parents do not have to be notified of a minor getting an abortion and won't be able to help their daughter make the right decision.
2) We, as taxpaying Americans, have to pay taxes to fund abortions even if we don't support them.
3) Hospitals (including Catholic hospitals) and doctors will be forced to perform abortions even if they don't want to.
4) It will not be required to give women the risks of getting an abortion such as: (A) the risk of an ectopic or tubal pregnancy is 30% higher for women who have had one abortion, and up to four times higher for women with two or more abortions.(When a woman has an Ectopic pregnancy she has a 12% risk of dying in a future pregnancy.) (B) women who abort face a 50% increase in breast cancer. (C) Placenta previa is a condition in pregnancy where the sac holding the baby (the placenta) tears away from the uterine lining. This can result in extreme and severe life-threatening bleeding. Women who have experienced abortion have a 600% increase in their risk for placenta previa in future pregnancies. (D) Infertility and sterility mean that a woman cannot get pregnant. Abortion causes sterility in 2-5% of the women who have an abortion.
5) People don't need to be a licensed physician to abort children. This will definitely cause more problems for women because these people won't know how to do their job to the best of their ability.
6) It will eliminate all bans on Partial Birth abortion. For those who don't know, Partial Birth abortion is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. Up to the 9th month..... There have been babies born at 24 weeks (6 months) and have grown up to live healthy lives. The way that Partial Birth abortion works is the baby is flipped on it's stomach and is taken halfway out. Then the abortionist does whatever he does and kills it. If you want a better description go on youtube. There's a video where people in the background clap after it's done.
For those who say that the babies don't feel anything, they most certainly do. We have ultrasound footage of the babies squirming around trying to avoid the tubes when a suction abortion is taking place. We also have ultrasound footage of the babies writhing in pain when an acid is poured on them to make it easy to clean out. They are people, like you and me, and they deserve to live. Some can make the argument that they can't afford a kid, they don't want to bring a baby into a messed up life, or they were raped. But adoption is always the answer to any of those reasons. Yes, adoption is hard on the kids and makes a lot of them feel like their parents didn't want them but it's better than killing them. I am sorry for every girl that has ever gotten raped and will get raped, it is never your fault, it is always the man's fault and they are sick for doing it, but it's not the child's fault that you got raped so don't kill it. Plus, more women suffer psychologically from getting an abortion than from being raped.
Perhaps the most sickening way of aborting a child is infanticide, the killing of fully born infants who had survived a failed abortion attempt and then are left for hours in soiled linen baskets to die. This is murder and it is happening in our country everyday. The sad thing about our country is that we just elected the man that supports it. Barack Obama supports infanticide. It is the first video.
The second video is Obama promising to sign FOCA just so you have proof.
"The first thing Id do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. Thats the first thing Id do." -Barack Obama
This is an awesome video. To all those of you who believe that abortions are necessary so a child isn't born into a bad life, watch this.
Please everyone, go to http://www.fightfoca.com/ and sign the petition to fight FOCA. Like I said, it takes less than 30 seconds and you could make a big difference. Also, please take the little amount of time to invite all of your friends, and get your parents and family to sign the petition. The more people we get the better. Thank you.
P.S. I want to give some guidelines on posting, It's only been 2 days and I've had to delete a few comments. So if you don't want your comments deleted, I suggest you read these few simple rules.
1) There will be no racial comments. All racial comments will be deleted immediately.
2) Please do not use God or Jesus as part of your argument. I will not delete your comment, but it will make you and the group look like idiots who use God in every argument. I am Catholic, but there must be a separation between church and state. This is not a religious argument as some people have proposed. This is a human rights issue and we will debate as such.
3) No comments about Obama dying. I do not like anything he stands for, but I will not tolerate any such comments and they will be deleted as soon as I see them no matter how good of an argument you make.
4) Do not bring other issues into this group. Someone came in and said something about the Palestinian-Israeli comment yesterday; I did not create a Middle Eastern conflict group everyone, so don't talk about anything that's not related to FOCA or having abortions.
I will fight it with everything I’ve got....and then cry when Obama signs the bill after passage.
I have a question about healthcare worker/doctor responsibility.
Won’t this bill FORCE INDIVIDUALS (say in a small clinic or town) to provide the “service” because they are the only physicians around?
Ah, but those individuals chose a profession that is slowly coming under the thumb of the federal gov't. Like the orders to gas the Jews, doctors will be ordered to conduct abortions.
The good doctors will refuse while the others will do as ordered.
No ... if the bill becomes "law", government goon with MP5s will try to force those individuals to commit crimes against humanity. What happens then will determine the future of this Great Republic.
Don’t know. You might email Lee Gesham whose address is provided.
*** but those individuals chose a profession that is slowly coming under the thumb of the federal gov’t***
I think we are coming to a point where FEDERAL licenses will be required, (after all, all the $$$ will be coming from DC).
Once that starts, if you don’t do their goose step, you don’t dance.
The FOCA Act would basically remove all restrictions on abotions.The recent Harris Poll showed that only 9% of those polled wanted to remove all restrictions on abortion.Obama has a very extreme position on this subject.
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.
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.
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)
Catholic Action Ping!
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Action Ping List.
Even that a licensed clinician perform it.
Thanks for the post. Mine went out last week.
Who is providing the postcards? I am VERY interested in this. How can we make sure that our parish does this?
Yea! Great job!
USCCB — check with your pastor.
I saw them for our church.....there were lots and lots of them.
They were passing these postcards at my church after Mass on Sunday and wanted us to contact Sens. Boxer and Feinstein. These are two of the biggest pro-abortion members of the entire U.S. Senate and contacting them on this subject is a total waste of time, they both strongly favor FOCA.
Catholics need ask themselves why they continue to vote for these two nitwits in election after election to begin with. Elections DO have consequences. Let FOCA be exhibit A. Of course BHO supports it as well. The Catholic Church really does need to take a firm stand on this issue and excommunicate politicians who support this type of legislation.
The bill shown in #9 above was from the 110th Congress. It hasn’t yeet been introduced in the 111th Congress.
My only hope is that we aren’t peaking too early.
Please keep an eye on this for when this is, in fact, introduced.
I don’t know who would be providing the cards in the churches but I do know the ministry that prints them up.
You can personally buy as many as you like at www.hh76.com
I bought my lawn signs, postcards, and also 1 page pamphlets on anti-FOCA literature.
Anyone can purchase these at this website.
Thanks for the info..
And also write letters to the editor to get other pro-lifers to contact their reps..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.