Another somber anniversary of Roe v. Wade and Doe v.
Bolton is upon us. These were the decisions rendered by the
U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 that mandated abortion on demand for
all nine months of pregnancy. Given the present alignment of
political power in Washington, there is not much prospect of
relief for the unborn, in the short term, resulting from
congressional action.
Nor is there any chance that the new president will appoint a
conservative, i.e., non-activist, jurist to the nation's highest
court who could cast a deciding vote for repeal or substantial
curtailment of these truly radical decisions which are contrary
to federalism, the rule of law, and basic morality.
But things can get worse. Evidently, 1.2 million abortions, each
year, are not quite enough to satisfy the advocates of abortion
on demand. Encouraged by strong liberal majorities in both houses
of Congress, they are gearing up for another attempt to enact
into law a bill sporting the Orwellian title, the "Freedom of
Choice Act," or FOCA for short.
President Barack Obama made a distinct campaign promise to sign
this legislation if it reaches his desk.
FOCA goes well beyond simply codifying Roe and
Doe. It would commandeer taxpayer dollars to pay for
abortions. A recent version of FOCA actually removed language
ensuring that taxpayers would not be forced to pay for abortions.
It now states that government may not discriminate against
abortion in publicly funded programs. Moreover, this draft also
deleted language found in previous versions which permitted
regulations to protect rights of conscientious objection on the
part of health-care providers objecting to abortion.
Admittedly, FOCA is a moving target given the iterative process
of most legislative proposals. That said, there is good reason to
be worried. "Even a paranoid can have enemies," said Henry
Kissinger.
In an article
in the newspaper of the Kansas City-St. Joseph Diocese last
October 4, Bishop Robert W. Finn stated, "It is clear that FOCA
would immediately make null and void every current restriction on
abortion in all jurisdictions." He cites studies describing in
detail the scope and number of state laws that would be
devastated by FOCA:
- State abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states
- forty-four state laws concerning parental involvement
- forty state laws restricting late-term abortions
- forty-six states conscience protection laws for individual
health care providers
- twenty-seven state conscience protection laws for institutions
Bishop Finn also notes that 38 state laws banning partial-birth
abortions, 33 state laws requiring pre-abortion counseling and 16
dealing with ultrasounds before an abortion would all be
obliterated.
Clearly, out and about the country, there is a profound sense
that abortion, even in a post-Roe environment, is a case
apart, one requiring something more than simply a laissez-faire
approach given the consequences for women, minors, families, not
to mention unborn children. FOCA would eviscerate this organic
movement as expressed through the legislatures of dozens of
sovereign states.
President Obama ought to think twice and discourage his
colleagues on the Hill from moving this toxic legislation
forward, notwithstanding his previous support for it. He is
dealing with the most serious economic crisis since the Great
Depression, and he wants to address the pressing challenge of
ballooning entitlement liabilities for the long run. He is a
living symbol of reconciliation for a nation that has struggled
mightily to overcome a great historic divide between Americans of
different color. He needs to ask himself this question: Do I risk
a significant amount of my political capital and good will in an
effort that will trample our federalist system, violate the
rights of conscience of millions of Americans, conscript
taxpayers into the culture of death, possibly shut down
religious-based hospitals throughout the country, and generate
political acrimony in Congress just to achieve a marginal
increase in the number of abortions?
Our new President has shown a very real tendency to adapt to
political realities and move to a more centrist position on
everything from tax cuts to foreign policy. One can hope that he
might calculate the disproportionate costs of appeasing the
abortion power within his own party, even if he does not
experience a change of heart and mind on the matter itself.
Moreover, he might recall that dozens of new Democratic House and
Senate members were elected from previously Republican districts
or jurisdictions. Forcing these moderate Democrats to cast a vote
for FOCA would create political difficulties they do not need in
their coming re-election campaigns.
topics:
Abortion
