30 May 2007 Vol. 9 / No. 19
Dear Colleague,
Why has the abortion movement reintroduced the Freedom of Choice Act now, when it stands little chance of passage?
Steven W. Mosher
President
What Are They Thinking?
Even though the recent Gonzales v. Carhart decision provided only minimal protection for unborn babies, it has sparked a veritable frenzy of protest from the die-hard pro-abortion lobby. These hardliners insist that the insurmountable “right to choose” is violated by any check on abortion, no matter how restrained, and are calling for immediate action. The result is the re-introduction of the radical Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).
The FOCA is nothing new. Proposed in the late 1980’s to “codify” Roe v. Wade, it stalled, largely due to the efforts of pro-lifers. It is indicative of the hard-line language of the bill that many congressmen, even more liberal ones, felt discomfort at its sweepingly radical nature. Now, with Gonzales v. Carhart pushing the contentious “women’s choice” issue back to political center stage, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) have brought the bill back into play. At the behest of NARAL,
Jerrold Nadler speaks in opposition to
Gonzales v. Carhart at a NARAL rally.
Planned Parenthood, and the ACLU, petitions are being signed and liberal pressure groups are urging that their congressmen vote in favor of the bill.
In light of this it is worth taking a step back and looking at the so-called Freedom of Choice Act for what it really is.
If passed, the Freedom of Choice Act would prohibit the government from any interference with a woman’s “right” to “terminate a pregnancy prior to viability or . . . after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.” It would also prohibit “discrimination . . . in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.”
This is broad language, to say the least, but what does it ultimately mean? Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee perhaps says it best: “The claim that the bill would ‘codify Roe’ is just a marketing gimmick by the proponents. The sponsors hope that journalists and legislators will lazily accept that vague shorthand phrase – but it is very misleading.” The actual effect of the bill, which has been completely overlooked by journalists, is far more sweeping. He continues: “the heart of the bill is a ban that would nullify all of the major types of pro-life laws that the Supreme Court has said are permissible under Roe v. Wade .”
The bill also looks to redefine “fetal viability.” Viability has traditionally been defined as when the baby has developed to the point where he/she could survive outside the mother. Not according to the FOCA, which redefines viability thus: “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.” The bill thus places the definition of fetal viability in the hands of the abortionist, whose job it is to make sure that the baby is unviable–by killing him or her.
HFOCA could be summarized thus: a woman should be able to get an abortion whenever she wants , for whatever reason she wants, at whatever time of the pregnancy she wants. Why bring such a bill forward now?
The FOCA is best summarized thus: "a woman should be able to get an abortion whenever she wants, for whatever reason she wants, at whatever time during the pregnancy she wants. Any hint of objection from anyone will be labeled as ‘discrimination’ and will be dealt with accordingly." How much of the total pro-life effort it would put beyond the pale of the law would be up to the courts to decide. This is, in itself, a scary prospect.
If the FOCA seems like a power play on the part of the pro-abortion left, that is because that is exactly what it is. The bill’s language is unwavering, the kind of language that ideological voters like to read.
Still, it seems unlikely that the FOCA will ever be signed into law, at least by this Congress. The same politcal moderates who blocked its passage in 1994 will probably react similarly today. As of this writing, the FOCA has only 87 co-sponsors in the House and 18 co-sponsors in the Senate.
And of course, there is President Bush, who is on record promising to veto anti-life legislation. There is zero likelihood that this Congress could ever muster the two-thirds majority neccesary to overturn a veto. (See PRI’s Weekly Briefing for May 3).
Why is the bill being proposed now? Why not wait until President Bush leaves office, and someone more sympathetic to the pro-abortion position is elected? Why did the anti-lifers not simply wait for a more propitious time?
Public relations, that’s why. Even though the recent Gonzales v. Carhart decision did little to actually ban abortion, it seemed to suggest that the momentum had shifted away from the pro-aborts to the pro-life movement. Something needed to be done to regain the offensive. So the anti-lifers fired off their own PR salvo, resurrecting an old, take-no-prisoners, pro-abortion bill. Their supporters are being urged to contact Congress, asking their Congressmen to co-sponsor this legislation. The legislation is so polarizing that it can serve as a kind of litmus test of political resolve, especially for new Congressmen who have not yet established a clear voting record on these issues.
The best summarization of the bill’s true purpose can be found, ironically enough, on the National Organization for Women’s (NOW) own website. Their Q&A section reads in part, that the introduction of this legislation in Congress is expected to “mobilize and activate feminist activists as we build momentum for the serious battles that lie ahead.” These activities are even warned not to expect easy success. The website goes on to state that: “success in the short term cannot be defined solely by passage of legislation, though FOCA’s passage is an important goal.” It is good of them to be so honest about it.
But there is one more goal, I think, which they would prefer to keep hidden. This is that the FOCA bill is intended to serve as an abortion litmus test for potential Democratic presidential candidates. "Do you support FOCA," will be a question that every candidate will be expected to answer in the affirmative.
Overall, the re-introduction of the Freedom of Choice Act, as poisonous as the Act itself is, is more bluster than threat. The legislation will not pass, at least under this administration. However, if a little bit more money makes it into the coffers at Planned Parenthood, if pro-choice legislators score a few more brownie points with their focus groups, and if presidential candidates can be forced to commit themselves to its abortion extremism, then the FOCA has already earned its keep.
Colin Mason is the Director for Media Production at PRI.
