The Freedom of Choice Act - The Best Way to Protect Abortion Rights

[liberalpragmatist]

I want to defend my original post, which I stand by, and perhaps make clearer my intention.

Here is the link to the original thread "What Our Abortion Platform Should Be":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x543926

Here is the link to the follow-up thread, "What Women Should Do if the Democratic Party Abandons Them on Choice":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x543926

It seems that some on this board think that I am anti-choice. If you are defining Pro-Choice so narrowly as to say that anybody who has any qualms with late-term abortions is anti-choice, then fine, go ahead and call me anti-choice. However, note that the planck that I proposed would do nothing but codify Roe v. Wade into the law code. I might also note that several bills in Congress, including one sponsored by Barbara Boxer would do exactly this. The reasons for this are outlined here:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/takeaction/takeaction_foca.cfm

The pro-choice community is working to guarantee the right to choose through the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) H. R. 3719, S. 2020

* We are launching this effort to provide a nationwide federal law that will protect a woman’s right to choose because our constitutional right to choose is in peril.

* A woman’s right to choose abortion hangs by a thread in the Supreme Court, and President Bush is poised to nominate the Justice who could eviscerate constitutional protection for reproductive rights.

* FOCA will restore the reproductive rights recognized under the broad vision expressed in 1973 in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, before legislatures and courts eroded these rights.

* Since Roe v. Wade, the right to choose abortion has been systematically eroded by anti-choice legislators in many states. In fact, more than 350 anti-choice measures have been enacted in the states since 1995. These measures make the right an empty one for many American women.

* Women in 17 states could face sweeping bans on abortion if the Supreme Court reverses Roe and allows states to re-criminalize abortion, menacing doctors and their patients with the threat of criminal investigation, prosecution, and even imprisonment.

* FOCA will secure the right to choose by establishing a federal law that will guarantee reproductive freedom for future generations of American women. This guarantee will protect women’s rights even if President Bush and an anti-choice Congress are successful in reversing Roe v. Wade or enacting even more restrictions on our right to choose.

Here is the relevant text of the bill:

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr3719.html

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The United States was founded on the principles of individual liberty, personal privacy, and equality. Such principles ensure that each individual is free to make the most intimate decisions free from governmental interference and discrimination.

(2) A woman's decision to commence, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy is one of the most intimate decisions an individual ever faces. As such, reproductive health decisions are best made by the woman, in consultation with her medical provider or loved ones, without governmental interference.

(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 the right to privacy protected by the Constitution and that such right encompassed the right of every woman to weigh the personal, moral, and religious considerations involved in deciding whether to commence, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy.

(4) The Roe v. Wade decision carefully balanced 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, a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy is absolute only prior to fetal viability, with the state permitted to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to protect the life or health of a woman.

(5) These decisions have protected the health and lives of women in the United States. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision, an estimated 1,200,000 women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortions, despite the known hazards that included unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration, and death.

(6) According to one estimate, prior to 1973, as many as 5,000 women died each year in the United States as a result of having an illegal abortion.

(7) In countries where abortion remains illegal, the risk of complications and 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.

(8) The Roe v. Wade decision 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, `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.'.

(9) Even though the Roe v. Wade decision guaranteed a constitutional right to choose whether to terminate or continue a pregnancy, threats to that right remain, including possible reversal or further erosion by the Supreme Court of the right, and legislative and administrative policies at all levels of government that make abortion more difficult and dangerous to obtain.

(10) 87 percent of the counties in the United States have no abortion provider.

(11) Legal barriers to the full range of reproductive services endanger the health and lives of women.

(12) Women should have meaningful access to reproductive health services to prevent unintended pregnancies, thereby reducing the need for abortions.

(13) To ensure that a woman's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy is available to all women in the United States, Federal protection for that right is necessary.

(14) 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.

(15) 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.

(16) 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.

AND...

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.

A similar bill was proposed in 1993: http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/foca.htm

Now, if you believe that arguing for codifying into law the following - unrestricted right to an abortion through viability, with post-viability abortions allowed only to save the life or health of the mother - is "hating women" in the words of one poster, then I guess that Pro-Choice America and Barbara Boxer hate women too.

I will concede that I do disagree with those organizations on one point. Though you are free to disagree with me on this point, I believe that post-viability or third-term (whichever standard proves better), abortions should be allowed only to protect the life or physical health of the mother. However, I am willing to concede on this issue and my overall point is that it is in the best interest of the country and the pro-choice movement to pass some sort of "Freedom of Choice Act" within the parameters described throughout the text. If that makes me anti-woman, well, I don't know what I can say to that.

[freetobegay]

1. I'ts pretty simple

Either you are pro choice, or you are not.

[liberalpragmatist]

2. That's exactly the point

This bill is to protect the right to choose by codifying Roe v. Wade into law and getting it out of the jurisdiction of the courts and state governments where it's eroded. And it simply does what is currently accepted - unrestricted before viability, life or health only after viability - what Roe v. Wade said.

Sometimes I get the impression people don't even read the post. They just ignore it and post something tangentally related.

[eyesroll]

3. I'm just wondering why you believe mental health is somehow less important

than physical health.

Let's say a woman is in her third trimester of pregnancy. And let's say she experiences a severe mental-health crisis. (A relative of mine, for instance, needed to drop out of school and seek treatment for depression after a breakup -- it wasn't the breakup that made her depressed, but it triggered something. She literally couldn't function.)

If a medical professional determines that her mental health will be severely and further impaired if she carries the fetus to term, should the law dictate she do so anyway? (Let's say it's a choice between letting the mental illness go untreated, or taking drugs that are 100% incompatible with pregnancy or fetal development.)

I realize this is probably an academic discussion, since I'm not a doctor and have no idea if this scenario is even possible, but you seem to be minimizing mental illness as a legitimate health problem. As someone who's seen most close family members suffer through depression, OCD and other mental illness, I find this disparity offensive.

(on edit: I have to sign off for the evening, so if there's any follow-up, I'll need to continue the discussion tomorrow. Thanks.)

[liberalpragmatist]

4. Here's the thing about mental health for me

Frankly, it's not a HUGE issue for me. I'm willing to take a bill that would allow for freedom of choice in the third trimester with mental health being allowed. So Boxer's bill, which would protect the right to choose in the instance of mental health issues, is fine by me.

Personally, however, I do believe that in the third-term the fetus is a person - I view human life as beginning when brain wave activity starts b/c I feel that it is our minds that define us. I worry then, that allowing mental health exceptions would be ethically unsound (at least for me) because it's open to abuse, at least in theory if not in practice, and I generally think that late-term abortions should only occur when absolutely necessary.

But it's not a sticking pt. with me and I agree that most dooctors would only perform the procedure if necessary - it's not likely to be abused exc. in very few cases and most doctors and others know what to do. So it isn't a sticking point.

[Cheswick2.0]

7. well Gee, since you are a guy, you aren't going to have to ever worry

about your ethics concerning abortion. Why the heck should you have a right to put your ethical and moral judgements on someone else?

The answer is simply, do what you need to do with your reproductive system as to satisfy your own morality and leave me alone to do the same.

[liberalpragmatist]

8. That's fine

Look, I said that I personally would prefer if only life and physical health reasons permitted late-term abortions, but I never said that was a sticking point for me - in fact, I said explicitly that it wasn't. If the pro-choice lobby has compelling interest in protecting mental health cases, fine.

Why can you not understand any nuance or reasoned thought when it comes to this? Your last post attacked me just for expressing my own ethical point of view and then accused me of trying to take away a woman's right to a late-term abortion b/c of mental health concerns. I said explicitly in my post (reply #4) that I wasn't insisting or demanding banning late-term abortions for mental health reasons.

And did you not read the original post of this thread? ALL I am calling for is codifying Roe v. Wade into federal law and taking it out of the courts where it is likely to be overturned by a future right-wing court. What part of this do you not understand? You won't even respond to my arguments, you just reply with anger and vitriol and keep yelling "CHOICE" "CHOICE" in my face like some kind of red-herring and then slur me as anti-woman. Please, if you're going to respond, I request that you do some respectfully and debate the substance of my posts, not just constantly chanting the choice refrain.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

5. I can see one problem with a "Pro-choice Act"..

By codifying it in normal law, aren't you accepting that it is not a Constitutional right? If it is a Constitutional right, what need is there for a law? Surely the Constitution protects the right without need of further legislation?

It seems to me that the only further codification that does not open a way for the anti-choice people to remove abortion rights would be to have a Constitutional ammendment that specifically recognises the right to choose.

I am no legal scholar, but it does seem to me that creating a "right to choose" law just opens the way for a "no right to choose" law in the future.

[liberalpragmatist]

6. It's an insurance policy

It creates a law to protect the right to choose from a court that may overturn the right to choose. It may be theoretically possible that a far-right court would declare all abortions murder and therefore illegal, but that is viewed as an extremely remote possibility. What is seen as possible is that Roe v. Wade would be overturned which would not outright ban abortion but would permit governments to do so - this would protect against that because federal law would guarantee the right to choose.

And yes, it's theoretically possible that abortion opponents in Congress could ban the right to choose, but the historical experience of most countries in Western Europe and throughout has been that once abortion is declared a law by the national legislature, the issue ceases to be an issue - it's settled, and that's in line with the majority of the American people. Polls have consistently shown 70%+ support for abortion rights (although the majority favors restricting post-viability abortions to instances of saving the life or health of the mother). If, theoretically, Roe v. Wade were to be overturned by the Freedom of Choice Act was in place, it is theoretically possible that the Republicans would then campaign against it, but as Jonathon Chait of The New Republic (yes, it's neocon in foreign policy, but the abortion article was a reasonable one) pointed out, if Roe v. Wade were ever overturned and the GOP became serious about overturning the right to choose, moderates would abandon them in droves. Many of them currently stick with the party b/c they realize they can do little to legislate against Roe v. Wade and most don't think that Roe will be overturned. If the GOP were to promise that and there promise were serious, it's highly doubtful they could ever remain in power.

Moreover, a constitutional amendment would never pass - this would just require the majority of Congress, but an amendment would require 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of the states to ratify it - not likely, even if a vast majority favors choice.