Baltimore, MD(LifeNews.com) -- Meeting on the second day of their annual conference, the nation's Catholic bishops urged an aggressive campaign to oppose the pro-abortion bill expected to be the centerpiece of the Barack Obama administration. They also mentioned concerns about Catholic hospitals being forced to do abortions.
The FOCA bill, known as the Freedom of Choice Act, is the number one goal of abortion advocates, who feel emboldened by Obama's election.
It would not only make unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy a national law but it would overturn the laws in all 50 states designed to reduce abortions.
During the meeting, the bishops appeared united in their call for an aggressive campaign to defeat the measure in Congress or to take it to court if it becomes law.
Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco urged his colleagues to oppose FOCA “early and often, both with members of Congress and with the new administration.”
At the end of the discussion, the bishops voted to authorize Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, the president of the national conference of bishops, to release another strong statement against the bill as the USCCB has done already.
The statement included talking points saying that the Catholic bishops were willing to work with Obama on common issues like the economy, immigration and health care, but ready to strenuously oppose any efforts to expand abortions further.
“The church is also resolute in opposing evil,” and the bishops are “completely united and resolute in our teaching and defense of the unborn child from the moment of conception.”
The bishops also expressed concern about FOCA because it could overturn protections for Catholic hospitals that don't want to do abortions.
Some of the bishops, during the discussion, went as far as saying the Catholic Church should be willing to close some health facilities rather them allow them to be subject to a mandate to do abortions from the Obama administration.
Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago spoke up about the threats to Catholic health care under the bill.
“It could mean discontinuing obstetrics in our hospitals, and we may need to consider taking the drastic step of closing our Catholic hospitals entirely,” Paprocki said. “It would not be sufficient to withdraw our sponsorship or to sell them to someone who would perform abortions. That would be a morally unacceptable cooperation in evil.”
“I do not think I’m being alarmist in considering such drastic steps,” he said. “We need to respond in a morally appropriate, responsible fashion.”
During the campaign, Obama promised the bill would be the first he would sign as president. The FOCA measure would overturn state laws such as bans on taxpayer-funding of abortion, parental notification and consent, informed consent for women, and conscience protections for medical facilities and personnel.
Are you for the effort to stop passage of the Focal Measure?
Please answer the first and second questions.
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred (arcura)
Experts say FOCA could increase abortions as much as 125,000 per year.

The Catholic Church, and as for as that goes are in their right to decide what and where there moneys are spent for.

Churches should not be forced to do things against their teachings.

Fr_Chuck,
Thanks much.
I agree but there are those who think that Christian prelates should not get involved with politics from their "soap boxes".
I assume that you also are in favor of trying to stop passage of the FOCA measure.
I think Pres. Bush would veto it if it came to his desk before leaving office, but will congress get it passed before then?
I doubt it but they will try to get it passed after that lame duck is out of the waters of the White House.
Peace and kndness,
Fred.

Refusing to fight what is wrong according to the teachings of Jesus Christ is not political is it? Besides Jesus was politically radical was he not? So Yes the church needs to step up it's efforts to abolish the legalized murder of the innocent. Like I posted earlier, how many Einstein's or Billie Grahams have we (as a country) murdered in the last 30 years?

This isn't about political appeasement or even a power move, it's a moral issue that our country has responsibility to uphold.
The slippery slope started with roe v. wade, and after that it's only a matter of time until we tidily dispose of living 'trash'.

Psa 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, [saying],
Psa 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

Yes,
Thanks.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Hello,

As most of you probably know, I am not a Christian. However, I'd like to comment on this topic. Please be kind! :)

First, the Bishops, Catholic Church, et all, have the right to oppose this piece of legislation in any way they see fit. If they feel this legislation should not be passed, by all means, they are "right" in opposing it.

However... I'm interested in where the facts from your article came from, fred. I found the FOCA bill, and read it. It does not indicate anywhere in it's language the things you reference in your post. I think we have a case of misrepresentation and possibly inflammatory journalism here.

FOCA does not say all doctors will be required to perform abortions. It also does not allow for "unlimited abortions throughout a pregnancy" (which implies a woman who is 30 weeks along can have an abortion because she feels like it). It also mentions nothing about "taxpayer-funding of abortion, parental notification and consent, informed consent for women, and conscience protections for medical facilities and personnel.".

What it does say is that the government will not interfere in a woman's right to obtain an abortion prior to viability, or after viability when the life of the mother is in danger. Here's the link to the bill, if anyone would care to read it:

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2020:)

Again, I'd like to say anyone who wants to oppose this legislation is free to do so, and should, if they feel that is the right thing to do. My post is only to demonstrate the article posted is a little misleading, and, in my opinion, alarmist. If someone has an alternate version of the bill (let's face it, there are a lot of fakes on the internet, my link might be one!), I would be interested in reading it to see if it more closely resembles the statements in the article.

Let me try and answer a couple of your concerns on this piece of legislation.
Sect 3 para 3 calls the child a "fetus" Christians believe that it is not a fetus but a child from the moment of conception.
Sect 4 totally ignores the child's right to life. By using the term "fetus" they are trying to legitimize the fact that they are allowing murder on a scale never seen in the world. Not even Hitler murdered this many of his citizens. Apathy is rampant in this country. And sadly even in the christian community. Again, I firmly believe that the Catholic church is right in their attack of this bad piece of legislation.

let me try and answer a couple of your concerns on this piece of legislation.
sect 3 para 3 calls the child a "fetus" Christians believe that it is not a fetus but a child from the moment of conception.
Sect 4 totally ignores the child's right to life. By using the term "fetus" they are trying to legitimize the fact that they are allowing murder on a scale never seen in the world. Not even Hitler murdered this many of his citizens. Apathy is rampant in this country. And sadly even in the christian community. Again, I firmly believe that the Catholic church is right in their attack of this bad piece of legislation.

I'm assuming your response was directed at me - if not, please ignore!

Yes, the terminology is medical, which is why it says "fetus", and I understand Christians prefer to use the term, "baby" or "unborn child". But that wasn't the point of my post; I just wanted to point out that the article (in my opinion) is misrepresenting what the legislation is intending to do. I wanted to post the link to the bill so people can read it for themselves, and decide for themselves what the intent and practice is/will be.

jillianleab,
Perhaps you did not notice at the beginning of the article it mentions where it come from.
"Baltimore, MD(LifeNews.com)"
Are you are lawyer?
Life news have people who fully understand the intent of the FOCAL legislation.'
It has been thoroughly looked over and understood what it can do if it passes.
I trust the LifeNews people because they have no need to misrepresent that bill IF indeed it is harmless.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The bill assumes it's good for the mother to have her own choice.
It's good for them to be able to go to their clinics to get their birth control.
It's good that they can still have protected sex for unintended pregnancies.
It's good that if they get pregnant, they can have a choice to continue with it, or abort it.
It's good that they have ease of access to abortion clinics without having to cross state lines.
It's good that their doctors can send for needed medicines over state lines in case the abortion has complications.
So the mother's choice is basically to have the safest sex with all safeguards in place. This is apart from rape.
Or is it good? Why are there no, I repeat, no laws for the fetus? Because they deem it as an object, not human. Unless it can sustain survival outside a woman, the fetus is a candidate for abortion.
It should be called 'the freedom of bad choices by doctors, politicians, women, and anyone else who does not know when life begins, and agrees that fetuses are not alive, and therefore not american so they have no rights, act'.

One more thing:
We now have a black president, after centuries of human rights limitations on blacks. This is a time of moral and national growth, giving more and more rights to everyone.
Why do we seem to be digressing regarding the rights of the unborn?
I would agree with 450donn, we could be assassinating a future president.

cogs,
Yes America has come a long was with the election of a black man for president. But there have been several Congressmen, Senators, Mayors, Governors, and Supreme Court Justices whose existence paved the expectation that it could and would happen.
BUT...
Abortion is an intrinsic evil that needs to be stopped not supported.
Peace and kidness,
Fred

jillianleab,
Perhaps you did not notice at the beginning of the article it mentions where it come from.
"Baltimore, MD(LifeNews.com)"
Are you are lawyer?
Life news have people who fully understand the intent of the FOCAL legislation.'
It has been thoroughly looked over and understood what it can do if it passes.
I trust the LifeNews people because they have no need to misrepresent that bill IF indeed it is harmless.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I missed the link when I first read the article.

Never mind. I've caused trouble when I didn't intend to. My only point was to post the actual language of the bill, rather than going off what people are guessing it's intent is.

Carry on (without me).

No, thank you for posting the bill. And speaking of bills, I wonder if it isn't money driving this illegitimate agenda toward more and more 'procedures'.

Cogs,
Your suspicion about money may be correct.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The Catholic church is not the only church organization that opposes abortion on demand.

I suppose most church organizations are with the Catholics on this one.

I certainly am.

Hello,

As most of you probably know, I am not a Christian. However, I'd like to comment on this topic. Please be kind! :)

First, the Bishops, Catholic Church, et all, have the right to oppose this piece of legislation in any way they see fit. If they feel this legislation should not be passed, by all means, they are "right" in opposing it.

However... I'm interested in where the facts from your article came from, fred. I found the FOCA bill, and read it. It does not indicate anywhere in it's language the things you reference in your post. I think we have a case of misrepresentation and possibly inflammatory journalism here.

FOCA does not say all doctors will be required to perform abortions. It also does not allow for "unlimited abortions throughout a pregnancy" (which implies a woman who is 30 weeks along can have an abortion because she feels like it). It also mentions nothing about "taxpayer-funding of abortion, parental notification and consent, informed consent for women, and conscience protections for medical facilities and personnel.".

What it does say is that the government will not interfere in a woman's right to obtain an abortion prior to viability, or after viability when the life of the mother is in danger. Here's the link to the bill, if anyone would care to read it:

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2020:)

Again, I'd like to say anyone who wants to oppose this legislation is free to do so, and should, if they feel that is the right thing to do. My post is only to demonstrate the article posted is a little misleading, and, in my opinion, alarmist. If someone has an alternate version of the bill (let's face it, there are a lot of fakes on the internet, my link might be one!), I would be interested in reading it to see if it more closely resembles the statements in the article.

Why the need for FOCA when there is Roe v Wade?

Section 2 #13 about ENSURING a woman's right... available - is so vaguely written - this could be interpreted as being available at Catholic hospitals.


As to the OP

1] bishops, if citizens, also have a right to free speech and free expression.

I absolutely agree with voting down this measure.

comments;

1] Freedom of Choice ? Whose - certainly not the fetus' right to live and be born.

2] abortion is "racist"

Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2002 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm)


The abortion rate for black women (29 per 1,000 women) was 3.0 times the rate for white women (10 per 1,000), whereas the abortion rate for women of other races (20 per 1,000 women) was 2.1 times the rate for white women


3] why is it that if someone murders a pregnant woman it is double homicide in some states?

inthebox,
Thanks for that post.
I agree that FOCAL should be voted down.
Fred