“[T]he first thing I will do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”
Senator and Presidential Candidate Barack Obama
July 17, 2007, Address to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund

Just over a year 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, presumptive Democrat Presidential nominee, Senator 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, Senator 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, like Senator Obama, are dismayed that abortion remains a divisive issue and that their radical agenda has not been submissively accepted by the American public.  In an address to Planned Parenthood last summer, Senator Obama indicated that he is “absolutely convinced that culture wars (including the on-going debate over abortion) are “so nineties,” and that it is “time to turn the page” since he and other abortion supporters are “tired about arguing about the same ole’ stuff.”

History of FOCA

FOCA was first proposed in the late 1980s, when abortion proponents feared that the U.S. Supreme Court was poised to imminently overturn Roe v. Wade.
Upon its reintroduction, proponents of FOCA argued that it was simply a codification of the principles enunciated in Roe v. Wade.  This assertion is blatantly untrue.  FOCA goes far beyond Roe, envisioning a nation with no meaningful regulation of abortion and seeking to undo years of progress made in protecting women and their children from the negative consequences of abortion and in reducing abortion rates (by nearly 20% in the 1990’s).

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, the U.S. Supreme Court has never (in Roe v. Wade or in any subsequent decision) defined abortion as a fundamental constitutional right.  Thus, FOCA goes beyond any U.S. Supreme Court decision in enshrining unlimited abortion-on-demand into American law.

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 federal and state laws that FOCA would nullify are:
•    Informed consent laws
•    Waiting periods
•    Parental consent and notification laws
•    Health and safety regulations for abortion clinics
•    Requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions
•    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
•    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."
Clearly FOCA will not make abortion safe or rare – on the contrary, it will actively promote abortion and do nothing to ensure its safety.
 
Conclusion

Senator Obama’s bold promise to Planned Parenthood is a “wake-up call” to pro-life Americans.  If implemented, FOCA would invalidate common-sense, protective laws that the majority of all Americans support.  Instead, it would protect and promote the abortion industry 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.

For More Information:  http://www.aul.org