Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1 FOCA and Catholic Hospitals 
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    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
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member MrsSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,428
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    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.
    -
    -
    -

    In actual dollars, President Obama’s $4.4 trillion in deficit spending in just three years is 37 percent higher than the previous record of $3.2 trillion (held by President George W. Bush) in deficit spending for an entire presidency. It’s no small feat to demolish an 8-year record in just 3 years.

    Under Obama’s own projections, interest payments on the debt are on course to triple from 2010 (his first budgetary year) to 2018, climbing from $196 billion to $685 billion annually.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    I hate HR Corporate Scum patriot45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Plant City, Florida
    Posts
    11,982
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    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.

    :Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive.
    ” I wondered why the rock was getting larger. Then it hit me.
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by patriot45 View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    I hate HR Corporate Scum patriot45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Plant City, Florida
    Posts
    11,982
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    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.

    :Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive.
    ” I wondered why the rock was getting larger. Then it hit me.
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by patriot45 View Post
    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/ht...0---a007-.html
    Last edited by wilbur; 12-02-2008 at 09:28 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    18,056
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    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.
    Last edited by wilbur; 12-02-2008 at 10:25 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member Celtic Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    481
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •