[Pflienews] PharmFacts E-News Update: New Nomenclature; Info on FOCA
PFLI PharmAid Center
pfli at pfli.org
Tue Nov 11 11:50:43 MST 2008
*PharmFacts E-News Update -- 11 Nov 2008 AD
*
*Nomenclature - era of Barrie Hussein:*
We hope to here introduce some new terminology to match the anti-life
policies and proclivities of the new administration:
*Obamanation*: any elective abortion, especially those closer to
delivery date; also can describe the promised "Camelot" like
utopian land sought for by Obamaborts [see below] under a
nation which has a dictatorship of the
"hopeful" proletariat Obaminating [see below] anyone who
bitterly clings to their religion, conscience,
morals (especially the Christian variety) and, at times, guns
*Obaminate:* to destroy or kill lives not worth living e.g. preborns,
newborn infants, useless eaters like Terri Schiavo, etc.
*Obamicide*: killing a parasite new human baby after the mother has
delivered him/her
*Obamaborts:* abortoholics addicted to the confused misguided notion
that their freedom and "choices" are tied to someone
else dying from abortion, be it surgical or chemical; this class of
creatures usually become agitated, hostile,
and hurl obscenities when someone refuses to participate in an
Obamanation, regardless how many other
individuals are willing to provide "women's reproductive health care" [sic].
We hope to share more of these terms with you soon, to pass along in
your communications and to your friends and associates. We especially
encourage their use by high school and college students, IM chatters,
bloggers and our brave military folks. Any suggestions and new terms
are warmly and gratefully welcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.aul.org/foca
*The Freedom of Choice Act: Radical Attempt to Prematurely End Debate
Over Abortion^1 ** *
Denise M. Burke
AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs
Nearly two years ago, the public debate over abortion was irrevocably
altered. In the landmark /Gonzales v. Carhart/ decision, the U.S.
Supreme Court upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and, more
importantly, abdicated, at least in part, its role as the "National
Abortion Control Board."
In its decision, the Court signaled an increasing willingness to blunt
attempts by abortion extremists to use the federal courts to
unilaterally impose their radical agenda. The immediate reaction of
activists and some members of Congress confirmed this critical shift.
Abortion advocates, including some members of Congress, hastily recycled
the hyperbolic rhetoric of the 1970s. In one public statement after
another, they condemned the decision and the Court, predicting--like
modern-day Chicken Littles--that the outlawing of abortion was at hand
and that women were about to be relegated to "second-class" status. For
example, then-Presidential candidate Barack Obama stated, "I am
extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to
enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that
the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other
opportunities to erode /Roe v. Wade/, which is established federal law
and a matter of equal rights for women."
Recognizing that the federal courts would no longer be a reliable and
viable tool for actualizing their demands for unlimited and unregulated
abortion, abortion supporters began to look elsewhere for the means to
advance their radical agenda.
In late April 2007, Obama along with Senator Hillary Clinton and others,
immediately re-introduced the federal /Freedom of Choice Act/ (FOCA), a
radical attempt to enshrine abortion-on-demand into American law, to
sweep aside existing laws that the majority of Americans support-- such
as requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions,
fully-informed consent, and parental involvement-- and to prevent states
from enacting similar protective measures in the future.
More importantly, FOCA is a cynical attempt to prematurely end the
debate over abortion and declare "victory" in the face of mounting
evidence that (a) the American public does not support the vast majority
of abortions being performed in the U.S. each year and (b) abortion has
a substantial negative impact on women.
Thirty-five years after /Roe/, abortion supporters are dismayed that
abortion remains a divisive issue and that their radical agenda has not
been submissively accepted by the American public. Their weapon to
impose their will on the unwilling American public is FOCA.
History of FOCA
Even before /Roe v. Wade /was decided in 1973, there were attempts by
Congress to legalize abortion. For example in 1970, Senator Robert
Packwood introduced the /National Abortion Act/, which sought to
legalize abortion nationwide and preempt state laws restricting or
regulating abortion.^2 Although the /National Abortion Act/ was
unsuccessful, Senator Packwood later joined with Senator Alan Cranston
to introduce the inaugural version of the /Freedom of Choice Act (/FOCA)
in 1989.^3
FOCA was introduced at a time when some in Congress feared that /Roe v.
Wade/ might imminently be overturned (as a result of on-going litigation
over abortion-related laws and restrictions including those at issue in
/Planned Parenthood v. Casey/), and were seeking a means to prevent
states from enacting laws prohibiting or regulating abortion. FOCA's
main goals were to create a "fundamental right to abortion" and to
eliminate any federal, state, or local government action (including the
enactment of abortion-related legislation) that limited or "impeded"
access to abortion.
Relying on specific portions of the Supreme Court's decision in /Roe/,
abortion supporters argued that FOCA would protect a woman's right to an
abortion prior to "fetal viability or at any time...to protect the life
or health of the woman" and that states could, within enumerated limits,
enact protective laws that did not interfere with a woman's right to
abortion.
Over the next several years, substantially-similar versions of FOCA were
repeatedly re-introduced in Congress until 1993, when the provision
allowing states to enact protective legislation was removed. The 1993
version of FOCA instead included criticism of the Supreme Court for
abandoning the "strict scrutiny standard" (of reviewing abortion-related
laws) for the "undue burden" standard that had recently been announced
in /Planned Parenthood v. Casey.^4 /Notably, under the new "undue
burden" standard, requirements such as informed consent, reflection
periods, and parental involvement for abortion were deemed constitutional.
After its subsequent re-introduction in 1995, FOCA was not again
introduced until 2004 when it was offered by Representative Jerrold
Nadler in the House of Representatives and Senator Barbara Boxer in the
Senate. In her accompanying press release, Senator Boxer explained that
FOCA would "supersede all other abortion related laws, regulations or
local ordinances^5 ," which included informed consent laws and any
health and safety regulations imposed on abortion clinics.
The most recent version of FOCA was introduced in April 2007, following
the Supreme Court's decision in /Gonzales v. Carhart/, upholding the
federal ban on partial-birth abortion. This most-recent version was
substantially similar to the 2004 version, but also included a section
deriding the Supreme Court's decision in /Gonzalez/. Specifically, FOCA
mischaracterized the prohibition of partial-birth abortion as a "legal
and practical" barrier that hindered "the ability of women to
participate in the economic and social life of the Nation."^6 Further,
drawing upon "abortion mythology," this version of FOCA exaggerated the
numbers of Americans who availed themselves of illegal abortions in the
late 1800's and early 1900's, inflating the actual figure of less than
one-hundred thousand to "over one-million."^7
Although expressing as its goal the simple codification of /Roe/, FOCA
also expressly provided that it would apply "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."^8 As Senator
Boxer eloquently explained in 2004, "FOCA [will] supersede all other
laws," especially those that the Supreme Court has held to be
constitutional under /Roe/ and its progeny.^9
What Does FOCA Say?
FOCA provides that "[i]t 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."
Further, FOCA would specifically invalidate any "statute, ordinance,
regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other
action" of any federal, state, or local government or governmental
official (or any person acting under government authority) that would
"deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose" abortion, or that
would "discriminate against the exercise of the right . . . in the
regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information."
Clearly, its reach is very broad. This single piece of legislation would
apply to any federal or state law "enacted, adopted, or implemented
before, on, or after the date of [its] enactment."
What is the Legal Impact of FOCA?**
FOCA creates a new and dangerously radical "right." It establishes the
right to abortion as a "fundamental right," elevating it to the same
status as the right to vote and the right to free speech (which, unlike
the abortion license, are specifically mentioned in the U.S.
Constitution). Critically, in /Roe v. Wade/, the Supreme Court did not
define abortion as a "fundamental right."^10 And with the exception of
one justice's attempt in 1983 to distort the Court's abortion
jurisprudence by framing the abortion license as a "fundamental right,"
the Court has not subsequently defined abortion as a "fundamental
right." Thus, FOCA goes beyond any Supreme Court decision in enshrining
unlimited abortion-on-demand into American law.
FOCA would also subject laws regulating or even touching on abortion to
judicial review using a "strict scrutiny" framework of analysis. This is
the highest standard American courts can apply and is typically reserved
for laws impacting such fundamental rights as the right to free speech
and the right to vote. Prior to the Supreme Court's 1992 decision in
/Planned Parenthood v. Casey/ (which substituted the "undue burden"
standard for the more stringent "strict scrutiny" analysis),
abortion-related laws (such parental involvement for minors and minimum
health and safety standards for abortion clinics) were almost uniformly
struck down under "strict scrutiny" analysis. If enacted, FOCA would
retroactively be applied to all federal and state abortion-related laws
and would result in their invalidation.
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 more than 550 federal and state laws that FOCA
would nullify are:
*
/Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003/
*
/Hyde Amendment/ (restricting taxpayer funding of abortions)
*
Restrictions on abortions performed at military hospitals
*
Restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion for federal employees
*
Informed consent laws
*
Waiting periods
*
Parental consent and notification laws
*
Health and safety regulations for abortion clinics
*
Requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions
*
"Delayed enforcement" laws (banning abortion when /Roe v. Wade/ is
overturned and/or the authority to restrict abortion is returned
to the states)
*
Bans on partial-birth abortion
*
Bans on abortion after viability. FOCA's apparent attempt to limit
post-viability abortions is illusory. Under FOCA, post-viability
abortions are expressly permitted to protect the woman's "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
*
State and federal 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 FOCA's draconian impact. For
example, Planned Parenthood has explained, "FOCA will supercede
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."
State FOCAs
Seven states have enacted versions of FOCA, further entrenching and
protecting the "right to abortion" in those states: California,
Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, and Washington.
Conclusion
Clearly FOCA will not make abortion safe or rare -- on the contrary, it
will actively promote abortion and do nothing to ensure its safety --
so, abortion advocates' unrelenting campaign to enact FOCA is a "wake-up
call" to all Americans. If implemented, FOCA would invalidate
common-sense, protective laws that the majority of Americans support. It
will not protect or empower women. Instead, it would protect and promote
the abortion industry, sacrifice women and their health to a radical
political ideology, and silence the voices of everyday Americans who
want to engage in a meaningful public discussion over the availability,
safety, and even desirability of abortion.
*Endnotes*
1. This article -- in substantial part -- was previously published by
the Culture of Life Foundation. See Denise Burke, "The Freedom of Choice
Act: Imposing Unregulated Abortion on Americans" at
http://culture-of-life.org//content/view/490/96/ (last visited November
4, 2008).
2. Johnsen, Dawn E., "Functional Departmentalism and Nonjudicial
Interpretation: Who Determines Constitutional Meaning?" /Law and
Contemporary Problems/, Supra note 152, available at:
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?67+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+105+(summer+2004)
<http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?67+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+105+%28summer+2004%29>
(last visited November 4, 2008).
3. See S. 1912, 101st Cong. (1989); H.R. 3700, 101st Cong. (1989).
4. See /Planned Parenthood v. Casey/, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) and S. 25,
103d Cong. (1993); H.R. 1068, 103d Cong. (1993).
5. National Right to Life, Senator Barbara Boxer 2004 Press release,
available at:
http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/FOCA%20Boxer%20press%20release.pdf, (last
visited November 4, 2008).
6. See S. 1173, 110th Cong. (2007); H. R. 1964, 110th Cong. (2007).
7. Nathanson, Bernard. (PHD), "Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist",
available at: http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html (last visited
November 4, 2008).
8. See S. 1173, 110th Cong. (2007); H. R. 1964, 110th Cong. (2007).
9. http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/FOCA%20Boxer%20press%20release.pdf (last
visited November 4, 2008).
10. See /City of Akron v. Akron Ctr for Reproductive Health/, 462 U.S.
416, 420 n.1 (1983) (majority opinion authored by Justice Powell).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Obama Likely To Reverse Bush Executive Orders on Family Planning, Stem
Cell Research, Advisers Say
*http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr001=aw11eydao2.app13a&abbr=daily2_&page=NewsArticle&id=14077&security=1201&news_iv_ctrl=-1
<http://nvs.all.org/sendstudio/link.php?M=22016&N=572&L=2785&F=H>
National Partnership for Women and Families
Advisers to President-elect Barack Obama say that a list of about 200
Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be reversed
under the Obama administration includes bans on funding for
international family planning programs and embryonic stem cell research,
the Washington Post reports (Connolly/Smith, Washington Post, 11/9).
According to the Wall Street Journal, Obama plans to reverse the "Mexico
City" policy, which restricts U.S. international foreign aid to family
planning programs abroad that use their own funds to provide abortion
services or lobby governments regarding abortion rights (Weisman, Wall
Street Journal, 11/10). The Post reports that Obama also has signaled
that he intends to repeal Bush's "controversial limit on federal funding
of embryonic stem cell research, a decision that scientists say has
restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for
defeating a wide array of diseases" (Washington Post, 11/9)
--from ALL Pro-Life Today, 11/10/08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PFLI PharmAid Center
pfli at pfli.org <mailto:pfli at pfli.org>
PO Box 1281
Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA
800-227-8359
www.pfli.org
PFLI supports pharmacist rights of conscience NOT to be forced to
dispense or counsel for chemicals which violate their sincerely held
religious, moral or ethical beliefs. For more info see:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
*** PFLI is the only pharmacy association which is exclusively pro-life.
It represents thousands of pharmacists and many lay supporters
in the USA, Canada and all around the globe. For membership info, key
PFLI texts, PFLI archives, late-breaking news, abridged newsletter excerpts
or general information, visit the PFLI web site at http://www.pfli.org.
Or e-mail us at mailto:pfli at pfli.org.
*** We do NOT send out SPAM. To subscribe to PharmFacts E-News, just
send an e-mail with the word
"subscribe" in the subject area or better yet, just enroll right from
our main news page at
http://www.pfli.org; to cease your subscription [although we can't
imagine anyone would!] self-manage your account at:
http://pfli.org/mailman/listinfo/pflienews_pfli.org
*** You may contact PFLI at any/all of the following: Pharmacists For
Life International,
PO Box 1281, Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA, 1-800-227-8359 [US & Canada only],
+1-740-881-5520 [voice] or +1-707-667-2447 [fax]; e-mail us at
mailto:pfli at pfli.org.
*** You can order our publications as well as begin/renew your
membership or donate right on our
secure website at http://www.pfli.org/shop <http://www.pfli.org>. Click
on the "PFLI Store" link on the toolbar and
follow the prompts! There you can also donate to PFLI as well as
purchase a wide range of publications.
* *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20081111/c484db60/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 78028 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20081111/c484db60/attachment-0001.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: moz-screenshot-3.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 12810 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20081111/c484db60/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 2923 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20081111/c484db60/attachment-0001.gif>
More information about the PFLIENews
mailing list