PDA

View Full Version : FOCA and Catholic Hospitals



biccat
12-01-2008, 10:59 AM
The so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA) is a bill before Congress (it's been there for 15 years or so) which has a stated purpose of "prohibit[ing], consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman's right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes. "

This bill will, through Federal preemption, invalidate many of the laws on the books throughout the country that limit abortions, whether through parental consent, waiting periods, or educational materials.

Because the law contains the clause "A government may not . . . discriminate against the exercise of the right[] [to abortion] in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information," Catholic and faith-based hospitals are worried that the new FOCA law will require Catholic hospitals to provide abortion services, or lose federal funding (close down).

Cardinal Francis George, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has spoken out against FOCA, and Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League, has said that many churches would rather shut down than provide abortion services.

The effect of this law will be to eliminate a large number of hospitals from our healthcare system, and they will not be quickly or easily replaced.

CNS news article (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=40006)

wilbur
12-01-2008, 12:43 PM
The so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA) is a bill before Congress (it's been there for 15 years or so) which has a stated purpose of "prohibit[ing], consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman's right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes. "

This bill will, through Federal preemption, invalidate many of the laws on the books throughout the country that limit abortions, whether through parental consent, waiting periods, or educational materials.

Because the law contains the clause "A government may not . . . discriminate against the exercise of the right[] [to abortion] in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information," Catholic and faith-based hospitals are worried that the new FOCA law will require Catholic hospitals to provide abortion services, or lose federal funding (close down).

Cardinal Francis George, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has spoken out against FOCA, and Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League, has said that many churches would rather shut down than provide abortion services.

The effect of this law will be to eliminate a large number of hospitals from our healthcare system, and they will not be quickly or easily replaced.

CNS news article (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=40006)

It sounds like they are really reaching on this one.. there's nothing here that I see that would require Christian hospitals to provide abortions.... if a bill or amendment comes up that would force them to do so, I would happily oppose it with them.

And why does that demented windbag Donahue still get any press? Crazier than a shit house rat, he is.

MrsSmith
12-01-2008, 07:48 PM
It sounds like they are really reaching on this one.. there's nothing here that I see that would require Christian hospitals to provide abortions.... if a bill or amendment comes up that would force them to do so, I would happily oppose it with them.

And why does that demented windbag Donahue still get any press? Crazier than a shit house rat, he is.We'll all just pretend we haven't seen Christian adoption agencies forced out of business, Christians in other businesses sued for not providing a specific service despite the presumed right to deny service, the Boy Scouts sued... Naturally, no one will ever force hospitals to provide murders in order to stay open. :rolleyes:

patriot45
12-01-2008, 07:57 PM
It sounds like they are really reaching on this one.. there's nothing here that I see that would require Christian hospitals to provide abortions.... if a bill or amendment comes up that would force them to do so, I would happily oppose it with them.

And why does that demented windbag Donahue still get any press? Crazier than a shit house rat, he is.

It does not look like a reach to me!, What did you read?


The FOCA is “designed to stop any impediments to a woman being able to get an abortion at any time during her pregnancy,” Burke said. “Catholic hospitals or individual doctors who refuse to perform abortions are an impediment, especially as the other side sees it, to low-income women.”

Because almost all Catholic and other faith-based hospitals and health care providers depend on federal funding, the “provision of benefits” reference in the FOCA would mean these hospitals would have to either provide abortions or lose that funding, Burke said.

wilbur
12-01-2008, 08:31 PM
It does not look like a reach to me!, What did you read?

Look where the quote is coming from... of course he's going to take the most alarmist position possible... All slopes are too slippery when it comes to pro-life/Christian organizations,... so much so that they exaggerate every chance they get about the horrors of every single bill that comes up on this issue. Its like asking a PETA employee about GWB and endangered species laws. Your not going to get an honest answer.

patriot45
12-01-2008, 08:43 PM
Look where the quote is coming from... of course he's going to take the most alarmist position possible... All slopes are too slippery when it comes to pro-life/Christian organizations,... so much so that they exaggerate every chance they get about the horrors of every single bill that comes up on this issue. Its like asking a PETA employee about GWB and endangered species laws. Your not going to get an honest answer.

Well I guess they are going to start the slippery slope with stuff like this.


(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.

Real slippery!


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.

wilbur
12-02-2008, 07:56 AM
Real slippery!



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.



The Federal Conscious clause clearly prohibits that sort of thing, even if a hospital receives federal funding. FOCA will not undo that. In other words.... FOCA won't change a thing for Christian hospitals. FOCA matters for government institutions... not private institutions. There's nothing in the bill to deny government funding to the hospitals, nor to 'turn them into government institutions' because they receive government funding.



(d) Individual rights respecting certain requirements contrary to religious beliefs or moral convictions

No individual shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity funded in whole or in part under a program administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services if his performance or assistance in the performance of such part of such program or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions.

(e) Prohibition on entities receiving Federal grant, etc., from discriminating against applicants for training or study because of refusal of applicant to participate on religious or moral grounds

No entity which receives, after September 29, 1979, any grant, contract, loan, loan guarantee, or interest subsidy under the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.], the Community Mental Health Centers Act [42 U.S.C. 2689 et seq.], or the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. 15001 et seq.] may deny admission or otherwise discriminate against any applicant (including applicants for internships and residencies) for training or study because of the applicant’s reluctance, or willingness, to counsel, suggest, recommend, assist, or in any way participate in the performance of abortions or sterilizations contrary to or consistent with the applicant’s religious beliefs or moral convictions.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00000300---a007-.html

noonwitch
12-02-2008, 09:15 AM
Look where the quote is coming from... of course he's going to take the most alarmist position possible... All slopes are too slippery when it comes to pro-life/Christian organizations,... so much so that they exaggerate every chance they get about the horrors of every single bill that comes up on this issue. Its like asking a PETA employee about GWB and endangered species laws. Your not going to get an honest answer.




I don't know, I think it's pretty clear that it will cause problems for hospitals and clinics that are operated by churches or other religious organizations that are opposed to abortion and refuse to perform them in their facilities, if those same organizations depend on federal funding for their general overall operation. Catholic hospitals, for example, do stand to lose a lot.

Hospitals founded and operated by religious organizations are a tradition. The people who work in them believe that they are doing the healing work that their God inspires them to perform. The same organizations are also likely to serve a great deal of poor patients, and uninsured or underinsured patients, which makes them valuable assets to the community. The policy needs to ensure that hospitals/clinics that refuse to perform abortions are not going to end up going bankrupt as a result.

wilbur
12-02-2008, 09:22 AM
I don't know, I think it's pretty clear that it will cause problems for hospitals and clinics that are operated by churches or other religious organizations that are opposed to abortion and refuse to perform them in their facilities, if those same organizations depend on federal funding for their general overall operation. Catholic hospitals, for example, do stand to lose a lot.

Hospitals founded and operated by religious organizations are a tradition. The people who work in them believe that they are doing the healing work that their God inspires them to perform. The same organizations are also likely to serve a great deal of poor patients, and uninsured or underinsured patients, which makes them valuable assets to the community. The policy needs to ensure that hospitals/clinics that refuse to perform abortions are not going to end up going bankrupt as a result.

I wouldnt support denying funding to such hospitals that dont want to participate in procedures they find unethical.. but this bill doesnt seem to do that.

The message emenating from the likes of Phil Donahue and his cohorts, that this bill would inexplicably cut off gov funding for Christian hospitals, seems to be pure fabrication... really par for the course for that crowd though. Donahue is like Jesse Jackson for white Catholics.

Celtic Rose
12-02-2008, 09:39 AM
My issue with this bill is that is abuses the Interstate Commerce clause of the constitution. The Bill is claiming that because people cross state lines to get abortions, and because abortion clinic purchase items from out of state, Congress has the right to enact legislation regarding abortions. I believe that this is an extreme mis-interpretation of the intention of the interstate commerce clause, and that Congress is definitely overstepping the realm of their power and responsibility.

Odysseus
12-02-2008, 10:41 AM
I wouldnt support denying funding to such hospitals that dont want to participate in procedures they find unethical.. but this bill doesnt seem to do that.
And, naturally, your personal support is going to be the determining factor of how the bill is interpreted. :rolleyes:

The message emenating from the likes of Phil Donahue and his cohorts, that this bill would inexplicably cut off gov funding for Christian hospitals, seems to be pure fabrication... really par for the course for that crowd though. Donahue is like Jesse Jackson for white Catholics.
Phil Donahue is a talk show host. Bill Donahue is the president of the Catholic League. A subtle distinction, especially since you claim knowledge of Donahue's activities that runs counter to reality. His concern is that this will be used to force Catholic hospitals to answer multiple lawsuits, get bogged down in legal attacks and knuckle under, or go out of business, just as antidiscrimination laws which have similar conscience clauses have been used to attack Catholic adoption agencies that did not want to deal with gay couples or single parents, or, for that matter, even a simple dating service that was focused on marriage and did not want to facilitate hookups for gays (remember that one?).

biccat
12-02-2008, 11:13 AM
My issue with this bill is that is abuses the Interstate Commerce clause of the constitution. The Bill is claiming that because people cross state lines to get abortions, and because abortion clinic purchase items from out of state, Congress has the right to enact legislation regarding abortions. I believe that this is an extreme mis-interpretation of the intention of the interstate commerce clause, and that Congress is definitely overstepping the realm of their power and responsibility.
Congress has repeatedly abused the interstate commerce clause as a basis for authority for a lot of their actions. Most of what Congress does is under the guise of the ICC. There are very limited circumstances where Congress' action would not be authorized under the ICC, according to current Supreme Court jurisprudence.

wilbur
12-02-2008, 11:48 AM
And, naturally, your personal support is going to be the determining factor of how the bill is interpreted. :rolleyes:


It has to be interpreted according to existing law... conscience clause included.



Phil Donahue is a talk show host. Bill Donahue is the president of the Catholic League. A subtle distinction, especially since you claim knowledge of Donahue's activities that runs counter to reality.


I am quite familiar with his antics... but mistakenly typed 'phil' instead of 'bill'. An easy mistake to make.




His concern is that this will be used to force Catholic hospitals to answer multiple lawsuits, get bogged down in legal attacks and knuckle under, or go out of business, just as antidiscrimination laws[/b]

No, his concern is to run as much interference as possible in his typical vociferous, and obnoxious fashion, in order to prevent another abortion bill from passing... even if he has to stretch the truth thinner than joan rivers face to do so. The hospital controversy is the race card here.... a way to pretend to be a victim.



which have similar conscience clauses have been used to attack Catholic adoption agencies that did not want to deal with gay couples or single parents, or, for that matter, even a simple dating service that was focused on marriage and did not want to facilitate hookups for gays (remember that one?).

The dating service that settled without so much as a fight in court, despite having a decent case? And was also met from typical outbursts and faux victimization from the shrill, white Jesse Jackson.

MrsSmith
12-02-2008, 08:01 PM
It has to be interpreted according to existing law... conscience clause included.



I am quite familiar with his antics... but mistakenly typed 'phil' instead of 'bill'. An easy mistake to make.




No, his concern is to run as much interference as possible in his typical vociferous, and obnoxious fashion, in order to prevent another abortion bill from passing... even if he has to stretch the truth thinner than joan rivers face to do so. The hospital controversy is the race card here.... a way to pretend to be a victim.



The dating service that settled without so much as a fight in court, despite having a decent case? And was also met from typical outbursts and faux victimization from the shrill, white Jesse Jackson.

Those "shrill, white Jesse Jacksons" who have been forced to set up legal defense organizations to protect the most basic freedoms, like speech? (Oh, and who happen to be of all races, not just white.) It won't take any time at all from this passing to the first law suit to force all medical organizations to provide murder...just as pharmacists are being sued for failing to provide deadly drugs to pregnant women. The fact that they can have their murder performed elsewhere just isn't ever good enough for them.

wilbur
12-02-2008, 08:14 PM
Those "shrill, white Jesse Jacksons" who have been forced to set up legal defense organizations to protect the most basic freedoms, like speech? (Oh, and who happen to be of all races, not just white.) It won't take any time at all from this passing to the first law suit to force all medical organizations to provide murder...just as pharmacists are being sued for failing to provide deadly drugs to pregnant women. The fact that they can have their murder performed elsewhere just isn't ever good enough for them.

Oh my how will we stand in a world made of so many slippery slopes! :rolleyes:

MrsSmith
12-02-2008, 08:29 PM
Oh my how will we stand in a world made of so many slippery slopes! :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Odysseus
12-03-2008, 10:47 AM
It has to be interpreted according to existing law... conscience clause included.
I am quite familiar with his antics... but mistakenly typed 'phil' instead of 'bill'. An easy mistake to make.
No, his concern is to run as much interference as possible in his typical vociferous, and obnoxious fashion, in order to prevent another abortion bill from passing... even if he has to stretch the truth thinner than joan rivers face to do so. The hospital controversy is the race card here.... a way to pretend to be a victim.
Except that the Catholics have a legitimate grievance. Don't believe that they are under attack? Just go stand by St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC on St. Patrick's Day and watch the activists try to force the doors. He's got every right to address what he sees as an attack on his faith, and your ad hominem attack doesn't diminish the validity of his case.

The dating service that settled without so much as a fight in court, despite having a decent case? And was also met from typical outbursts and faux victimization from the shrill, white Jesse Jackson.
The dating service that knuckled under the pressure of a state investigation that was instigated by the lawsuit and which imposed the settlement. Yes, that one. You keep pretending that they weren't under attack by the New Jersey civil rights establishment and that, even if they won the court case, the state had an obligation to follow the verdict. In fact, this was a clear case of double jeopardy, except that the state investigation didn't provide any of the legal safeguards for a defendent that the courts would, which stacked the deck. Spin it however you want, but they had about as much chance of beating the NJ investigation as Stephen Hawkings has running the 100 meters in the next Olympics.

Oh my how will we stand in a world made of so many slippery slopes! :rolleyes:
We won't. We will gradually slip and slide as we descend into the abyss.

On edit: Just in case you think that this will be limited to large institutions, a New Mexico wedding photographer was fined $7,000 for refusing to shoot a gay commitment ceremony.