The National Abortion Rights Action League and other pro-abortion groups are calling FOCA a "codification of the principles of Roe v. Wade." The Act makes this claim in Section 2 - Purpose. In most cases, reporters do not question this characterization. A more skeptical examination reveals "marketing hype" designed to conceal FOCA's actual contents. FOCA does not codify the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on abortion. This precept is patently false. FOCA is, in fact, far more liberal than Roe v. Wade. The actual impact of FOCA can be found in Section 3 which contains a "general rule" that a state "may not restrict" abortion. The sponsors define a "restriction" as any state policy that delays or denies "access" to abortion for any woman or group of women. Any restrictive state law will be struck down unless 1) the state can meet a very strictly defined burden of proving that a given state law is "medically necessary" to protect the health of women, or 2) FOCA explicitly provides an exception. FOCA also requires the state to give every minor the option of consulting with any "responsible adult" of her choosing, rather than a parent or a judge! This could be an older boyfriend, an abortion clinic staff person, or any other adult -- even the abortionist himself. Since the legal requirement falls on the minor, this provision is unenforceable. The following table capsulizes valid "restrictions" which FOCA would remove. The next column shows the per cent of the American public which favors these restrictions and the number of states that have enacted appropriate regulations. The last column shows the Judiciary Committee vote on amendments that would have brought FOCA into line with Court rulings. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Waiting Periods 77% NA 17-17 Informed Consent NA 32 Parental Notice/Consent 80% 32 rejected Qualified abortionists NA 47 18-17 No abortion on demand 73-84% NA Public funding ban 72% NA 18-17 NA - Not Available All amendments were defeated. Polling data from: January 1991 Gallup poll, January 1992 Gallup poll, March 1992 Washington Post poll, November 1992 Wirthlin Poll, January 1993 Wirthlin poll, March 1993 CBS/NY Times poll. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The polling data and/or the number of states that have abortion regulations show the public favors these regulations. While Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton spoke approvingly of his state's parental notification law and supported an amendment to the state constitution that restricted state funding. Even on the presidential campaign trail, Clinton conceded - "Very few American believe that all abortions, all the time are all right. Almost all Americans believe that abortions should be illegal when the children can live without the mother's assistance." 2/19/93 Chillicothe, OH That FOCA deviates from Supreme Court rulings has not gone unnoticed - "This bill goes much farther than the Roe v. Wade decision . . .[it would] allow abortions after fetal viability if it were necessary to preserve the woman's health. The definition of health requires factors such as physical, emotional, psychological, familial and age to be considered; thereby, in my opinion, allowing abortions for almost any reason, contrary to what I believe is acceptable to most Americans." Sen. John Breaux (D- LA), Democratic Chief Deputy Whip, October 29, 1992 "I oppose the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" because this legislation would virtually guarantee abortion on demand." Rep. David Bonior (D-MI), House Democratic Whip, October 26, 1992 Even FOCA's sponsors boldly admit its deviance - Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the FOCA sponsor who offered this "purpose" section as an amendment in the Judiciary Committee, admitted that the plain language of the bill would overturn the 1977 Supreme Court decision in Poelker v. Doe, which upheld the right of government units to keep abortion out of public hospitals. Asked if that did not conflict with his "statement of purpose," Mr. Frank said, "Just a little bit . . . It's my week to tell the truth . . .When the bill in its own explicit terms overturns one of those (Supreme Court) decisions (from 1973-88), that clearly carries . . . Now, I think the Supreme Court had a very good run from 1973 to 1988, but no court's perfect." Further, Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization of Women, and Eleanor Smeal, president of the Fund for the Feminist Majority, contend religious-based hospitals would be compelled to provide abortions (only the Senate version provides an exemption). When Bill Clinton lifted the ban on abortions in overseas military facilities, not a single member of an obstetrics staff at a military hospital in Europe or Asia would perform an abortion. They were could say "no" because there is a "conscience clause," meaning military doctors cannot be coerced into participating. Last year, Patricia Ireland (D-CO) introduced a bill that would have forced medical personnel to participate in abortions despite conscience. The mindset of FOCA's supporters is obvious - mandatory participation by the public. FOCA does not allow a state to ban public funding as this would "restrict" access by poor women. While 55% of Americans opposed public funding, the percentage increased at lower income levels (May 1992 Wirthlin poll). By all accounts, the National Health Plan would provide unlimited abortions (while rationing health care). While "conscience" has precedent in our legal system for military service and participation in the Social Security system, FOCA's supporters wrongly intend the force of federal government to compel employers, insurers, private citizens, or health-care providers to collaborate in taking innocent human life. This act does not allow "Freedom of Choice." Curiously, President Clinton supports FOCA. And perhaps this proposed legislation was in mind when he said - "Sometimes I think the secret of success in this town is being able to say the most amazing things with a straight face." 4/19/93 I urge you to vote against H.R. 25/S. 25, the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act of 1993." This Act neither codifies Supreme Court rulings nor represents the wishes of most Americans. Its most alarming feature is mandating participation in an act that is intolerable to many voters. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Freedom of Choice Act (H.R. 25) as approved by the House Judiciary Committee on May 19, 1993 Section 1. Short Title. This Act may be cited as the "Freedom of Choice Act of 1993." Section 2. Purpose It is the purpose of this Act to establish, as a statutory matter, limitations upon the power of the States to restrict the freedom of a woman to terminate a pregnancy, in order to achieve the same limitations as provided, as a constitutional matter, under the strict standard of review enunciated in Roe v. Wade and applied in subsequent cases from 1973 to 1988. Section 3. Right to Choose (a) In general. -- Except as provided in subsection (b), a State may not restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy -- (1) before fetal viability; or (2) at any time, if such termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman. (b) Medically necessary requirements --- A State may impose requirements medically necessary to protect the life or health of women referred to in subsection (a). (c) Rules of construction --- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to - (1) prevent a state from protecting unwilling individuals or private health care institutions from having to participate in the performance of abortions to which they are conscientiously opposed; or (2) encourage or prevent a State requirement that a minor involve a parent, guardian, or other responsible adult before terminating a pregnancy, but any State that imposes such a requirement shall implement a confidential and expeditious bypass. Section 4 Definition of "State". As used in this Act, the term "State", includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other territory or possession of the United States. --------------------------------------------------------------------------