Why Foca Is Like A Nuclear Bomb

[dairygirl4u2c]

i thought there had to be folks with similar views to me on this, so i searched around, and there is.

[quote]Why FOCA is Like a Nuclear Bomb

Progressive Catholics say that the nation’s bishops should stop crying wolf over the possibility that the dreaded Freedom of Choice Act will become law. The legislation (here and here) would eliminate all legal protections for unborn infants and may prevent medical personnel from invoking a freedom-of-conscience clause to not have to perform abortions. Commonweal's editors described the bishops’ focus on the threat posed by FOC as “disconcerting.” Michael Sean Winters advised them to “keep still and be quiet” about the matter. David Gibson said FOCA is a “phantom” issue.

Progressives argue that because FOCA is such a radical measure, it stands little or no chance of being enacted and therefore should be largely ignored; when bishops made dire pronouncements about the measure, they betrayed at best a lack of faith in the incoming Obama administration and at worst a pro-life absolutism.

This line of argument is not outlandish. It is true that at present the chances of FOCA becoming law are slim. Even moderate Democrats support some restrictions on abortion, not their wholesale evisceration. It is also unclear that if FOCA were enacted, medical personnel unwilling to perform abortions would have to do so. But the unlikelihood that the bill will pass is not comforting, nor is the ambiguity about the bill’s constitutionality. As Rick Hertzberg wrote once, it is a 99 percent certainty that a nuclear bomb will never detonate, but the 1 percent chance that it will is terrifying.

If FOCA were enacted and fulfilled its supporters’ expectation, the legislation would be the cultural equivalent of a nuclear bomb. The Church operates 573 hospitals, which served 84.3 million patients. Surely the vast majority of these would shut down. In addition, hundreds of state and federal abortion restrictions would be struck down. Thirty five years of pro-life efforts would go down the drain.


And it is possible to imagine scenarios in which FOCA became law. Suppose Obama did become another FDR and help his party add dozens of seats in the off-year congressional elections. The Democrats might have the votes to pass FOCA. Or suppose after withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and righting the nation’s economic ship, Democratic leaders used their political capital to whip FOCA hard, pressuring moderate Democrats and liberal Republicans for their votes. (As things stand, Democrats effectively have at least 58 votes in the Senate and 257 in the House).

Obama would have to sign the legislation. While it is true that Obama has not discussed FOCA since July 2007, at the time he said it would be his first priority as president and continues to endorse the bill on his website.

It is also possible to imagine scenarios in which Catholic physicians would be unable to invoke freedom of conscience to not have to perform abortions. One of the five socially moderate or conservtive justices on the Supreme Court could step down and be replaced by a socially liberal justice. This scenario is unlikely. Then again, even Planned Parenthood's president expressed shock that Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton had invalidated almost all of the nation's abortion restrictions.

Perhaps the main objection to my argument is that bishops should be worried not about FOCA but rather other pro-choice measures, such as federal restrictions on embryonic stem-cell funding and the so-called Mexico City policy. But what are their odds of success? ESCR has commanding support in the Congress and is almost certain to become law regardless of the bishops’ efforts; rescinding the Mexico City policy will be even easier, as it requires nothing more than a stroke of Obama’s pen. A more promising path, one suggested by this magazine's editors is, that Obama should seek to reduce the number of abortions.

On balance, however, I think the bishops got it right. Their position is reminiscent in some ways of their stand in the early 1980s against the build up of nuclear weapons. They hooted and hollered against the build up; they were criticized by some Catholics (conservatives, in this case) for doing so; it was very unlikely that nuclear weapons would ever be used; but their stated opposition and witnesss probably made it more unlikely that the bomb would ever go off.[/quote]


[quote]The FOCA Phantom: What will pro-lifers do without it?
November 25, 2008, 10:00 am Posted by David Gibson



The focus of much of the Catholic right’s doomsday prophesying about Barack Obama, a.k.a. the anti-Christ (see Stafford, Cardinal Francis, et al) has been about the inevitability of Obama signing the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would enshrine Roe into federal law and make abortion-on-demand part of a mandated kindergarten curriculum and push the Catholic Church back into the catacombs and lead to violence against bishops, who have said they will happily be martyrs for this cause, and gosh, all sorts of things unheard of since the days before Constantine. (George Weigel had the latest from Babylon here.)

Lost in all this prophesying is any recognition that the people who would need to pass FOCA think it’s a bad idea and that it’d never pass, much less get to President Obama’s desk. NCR’s new publisher, Joe Feuerhard, has a solid take on the politics involved here, including the apt observation that Obama’s 2007 pledge to Planned Parenthood to sign FOCA was political “pandering.” Joe’s bottom line: “FOCA has as much chance of passage as the 0-10 Detroit Lions have of winning the next Super Bowl.” (Ouch.)

So why the focus on FOCA by Catholic conservatives? I’d say a couple of things: One, the election was a resounding defeat for their camp, and exposed division in the church and within the pro-life movement. While they retrench, they need to keep the focus on an enemy, and FOCA serves that purpose. The pro-life movement has largely been an opposition movement, and that dynamic is hard to change, and it could hurt fundraising at a bad time for all fundraisers. Two, the conservatives can also claim “credit” for defeating FOCA when it does not become law.

The problem of course is that this straw men and red herrings divert us all from the hard work to be done on this issue, both within the church and in the public square. Opposition to FOCA should be part of that, to keep the pressure on and pols honest. But using a phantom FOCA as a single-issue means of demonizing one’s political opponents does no good to one’s cause, or the wider society.[/quote]

i don't question the motives of those against FOCA, as much, though.

question, comments, words of wisdom?

Edited January 13, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote]they betrayed at best a lack of faith in the incoming Obama administration and [b]at worst a pro-life absolutism[/b].[/quote]
Emphasis my own.
This is perhaps the single most ridiculous quote I've heard this week.
Hate to break it to whoever said that, but it's like saying that prisons are "at worst an anti-crime absolutism." Yea, that's ridiculous too.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't like the way he said that, either, even though i think the article is important.

but..
he did say "at worst" and it is a good point, that much of the uproar from the prolife group about the issue, is overkill, given the likelihood that it won't pass. so, in a sense, if it's overkill, then "at worst" it's a reflection of the sort of prolife absolutism that won't accept even this sort of thing for an answer "well, if we can't in fact rid abortion, let's at least reduce it".

if that's what the article meant, then i have no beef withit, just a bad way of saying it.
if i'm wrong in what the article said, then i lean more towards what the guy in the last post said.

Edited January 13, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[CatherineM]

There is something that FOCA will do if it is passed (and please God protect us from it), is that people will no longer be able to be on the fence. You either have to be for abortion all the way, or not at all. No more, except fors.

[MithLuin]

The thing is, this isn't so much of a phantom fear as has been suggested. The Democrats have a pretty good control of both the House and the Senate. I don't think it's a filibuster proof majority (though there have been a few changes in recent weeks), but it is certainly enough to push through questionable legislation.

[i]Both[/i] the Senators from my state support FOCA, for instance.

Sure, Obama's endorsement of it was a campaign tactic - he wanted the support of PP, and was at their event, so he said he'd sign it. But his voting record indicates that he would most certainly sign it and he does support it. So it wasn't empty, groundless pandering.

By speaking about it, we let the people in Washington know that it most certainly is a controversial bill. So then, it will never make it through the House or Senate. But if it [i]did[/i]....Obama would sign it, no doubt. And the only way it isn't going to go through is if our leaders recognize it as extreme, not part of a mainstream Democratic agenda. So we have to keep telling them how much it bothers us, not be passive.


Until it actually is brought up in the House or Senate for a vote, I will not worry too too much. But...I'd say the chances are a lot higher that this would happen than that Russia would have used nukes against us during the Cold War. And the whole country was paranoid about [i]that[/i].


Yes, the focus is here because it is a fight we can win. In a case where the president is the most blatantly pro-choice candidate...ever....it is only prudent to choose your battles. He is going to sign the papers that he alone has to authorize, regardless of what we think. A bill that has a good chance of dying a quiet death in the House or Senate first? That, we can defeat.

Edited January 13, 2009 by MithLuin

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1750405' date='Jan 13 2009, 06:19 PM']There is something that FOCA will do if it is passed (and please God protect us from it), is that people will no longer be able to be on the fence. You either have to be for abortion all the way, or not at all. No more, except fors.[/quote]

in that regard, it'd have benefits.
i'd be willing to engage more people about abortion generally, even tho i disgree with the legality of it. so as it is, i'm don't engage enough.
at that point though foca is passed, i'd feel no other choice but to engage.
the reason i don't engage per abortion is cause i'd think it fruitless. maybe i'm wrong, maybe i'm right. but whatever the case, were it to pass, i'd have no choice, like i said.
for one, i thik it'd change cause i think peole don't want foca, and for two, it's just too outrageous to think there can be no regulations on it.
yes i voted for obama, but despite of his stance on foca. but, i think his position on that one issue is outrageous, and unreasonable. were i to have thought foca might pass, a reasonable chance, i wouldn't have voted for him, as i said preelection.

Edited January 13, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm heartened at one thing in this thread: the chance it will not pass.
Living in Canada, and being preoccupied with the Canadian political and economic issues, I don't hear much about FOCA, and what I have heard had me under the impression that it was all set and all Obama was going to do on Jan. 20 was sign the thing.
Glad to hear I was under the wrong impression. Do everything you can to fight this! It's absolutely terrifying.

[Sirklawd]

The calming thing about those posts - more the first one - is that they all agree that FOCA is absolutely ridiculous. Realistically, Obama hasn't said a dang thing about FOCA since july2007. Infact, since that time he has controlled what he says publically about abortion in order to secure the most votes. In this light, there's a part of me that isnt sure FOCA is a priority to him anymore, but I'm still slgihtly worried because it is out there.

Whether or not FOCA has the possibility to be signed in isnt the issue though, and this is where the 2nd article is wrong. Just getting the word out about FOCA is more than enough to help the entire pro-life cause. FOCA is so ridiculous we can actually reach out to MANY pro-choice people and show them what politicians are trying to do.

Whether or not the bill will pass doesnt change the fact that it was created in the first place, and Obama is on record proudly declaring his love for it. I think the latter is what really stings for the authors of these articles (and any obama supporter who would like to ignore this issue). They'd like to have Obama be the hero, but he screwed up. They admit that FOCA is ridiculous, therefore Obama looks ridiculous when he supports it (radicalus?)

An effort to secure votes (which didnt really need to be secured anyway - why would Planned Parenthood ever vote republican), was a tactical error in the cultural war. This whole FOCA thing has present pro-lifers with an excellent opportunity to explain many areas of the prolife cause that most people just dont know about; what partial-birth-abortions are, how some laws prevent parental notification, just how much tax money goes to abortions....etc. Most pro-choicers dont know this stuff, and arnt happy when they find out.


with that said, play my hilariously awesome FOCA awareness game:

[url="http://www.savebabypebo.com"]http://www.savebabypebo.com[/url]

Edited January 14, 2009 by Sirklawd

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Sirklawd' post='1751343' date='Jan 14 2009, 04:38 PM']An effort to secure votes (which didnt really need to be secured anyway - why would Planned Parenthood ever vote republican), was a tactical error in the cultural war.[/quote]

He was running in a highly contested primary at the time, if you recall. Against a woman. Don't pretend for a moment that he had the PP vote in the bag against Hilary. And it wasn't just about the vote - he wanted their money for the campaign. I think that if his goal was to convince them that he was the best candidate to further their agenda, he did so. He told them the culture war was over, to thunderous applause.



Wow, a FOCA awareness game? You are awesome!

[Nihil Obstat]

If things go the way we hope, then maye there will be a puclic kind of debate or discussion in which FOCA is resoundingly blasted by both pro life and moderate pro abortion. Wouldn't that be a sight to see?
With a success like that on our side, it's not as much of a step to once again bring a proper awareness to the general public about the absolute evil of abortion.

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1751402' date='Jan 14 2009, 06:42 PM']He was running in a highly contested primary at the time, if you recall. Against a woman. Don't pretend for a moment that he had the PP vote in the bag against Hilary. And it wasn't just about the vote - he wanted their money for the campaign. I think that if his goal was to convince them that he was the best candidate to further their agenda, he did so. He told them the culture war was over, to thunderous applause.



Wow, a FOCA awareness game? You are awesome![/quote]


ohhh right. I forgot he was competing with hilary at the time. I'd love to make a timeline of everything Obama has said about his stance on abortion to chart his effort to secure votes over the last 2-3 years.

[kujo]

Ya know, I've been saying this for months. This FOCA bill is so far-left that it would invalidate and spoil all of the political capital Obama's gotta going for him right now. He's got so much going for him right now, not the least of which is the general good will afforded to him and the genuine hope that he can right this ship. This good will reached across party lines to a more honest part of us, because, quite frankly, we [i]need[/i] him to succeed, at least in part. The alternative would be more jobs being lost, more economic downturn and more bailouts. Enacting FOCA would cost him so much political support that it would send us right back to the Bush-era partisanship that Obama has spent so much time railing against.

My prediction is that this bill doesn't see the light of day until AT LEAST his second term, potentially even later.

[CatherineM]

Since most of this abortion stuff is financially driven, a thought occurred to me. Why would Planned Parenthood want Catholic hospitals to do abortions, thereby going into competition with them?

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1751972' date='Jan 15 2009, 02:12 PM']Since most of this abortion stuff is financially driven, a thought occurred to me. Why would Planned Parenthood want Catholic hospitals to do abortions, thereby going into competition with them?[/quote]

Alot of it is ideological. These people have determined that sexual freedom is a natural freedom and a right that needs to be recognized by the government. Only for them sexual freedom means sexual irresponsibility. They also believe that such rights, as just defined, have been denied to women for the longest time while men, for the most part, have full enjoyed them (partly by government, and partly by the way nature made man).

in short: they are eff'd and need a real hug by real men.


[quote name='kujo' post='1751922' date='Jan 15 2009, 01:12 PM']This good will reached across party lines to a more honest part of us, because, quite frankly, we [i]need[/i] him to succeed, at least in part.[/quote]

man what? Obama only reaches across party lines in an effort to pull you to his side. When he says "we have to stop fighting as a country" he doesnt mean "lets compromise" it means "join me or shutup". Anything that sharply divides the parties, like abortion, is considered "culture war" and only a distraction.

Didnt you hear, "the culture wars are so '90s. we need to rise above them so that we can concentrate on things that truely matter". please. What obama is really saying is "stop bringing up abortions or you might find out that I called babies that survived abortions "temporarily alive fetuses" and I think that if a woman didnt want her kid she should have the right to kill him whether in the womb or not."

Edited January 15, 2009 by Sirklawd

[kujo]

[quote name='Sirklawd' post='1752074' date='Jan 15 2009, 04:24 PM']in short: they are eff'd and need a real hug by real men.[/quote]

This comment is so sexist and absurd that I will not even dignify the rest of your post with a response.

WOW!