In reading about the so called Freedom of Choice Act, I'm quite frankly nauseated.  Freedom?  For who?  For women?  For expectant mother's?  What about the unborn child who doesn't get a say in this decision?  Who's protecting their freedom?   I'm flabbergasted by their rhetoric.

(1) "The United States was founded on core principles, such as liberty, personal privacy, and equality, ..."
Isn't it life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?  No surprise that they've left out *life*.

(2) "One of the most private and difficult decisions an individual makes is whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy."
Here's the *solution to a problem* attitude again.  What happened to look before you leap?  In a society that puts the emphasis on decision making where it belongs - before we decide to partake in an activity - we wouldn't need to legislate the right to kill our babies.

(5) "...Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, an estimated 1,200,000 women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortions,..."
Forced?  Are the millions of drug users who show up in our emergency rooms every year because of overdose forced to resort to their illegal drug use?  We better think seriously about legalizing these drugs.  These people have a constitutional right to their personal pursuit of happiness.

(6) "In countries in which abortion remains illegal, the risk of maternal mortality is high."
According to Dr. Ron Paul, who delivered over 4,000 babies in 35 years, he never had the life of a mother threatened due to her pregnancy.  How many women do you know that die because of their pregnancy?  What is the medical technology like in the countries they're citing here?  We have the most advanced medical care in the world.  Does "maternal mortality" refer to death during child birth?  Those deaths could not be prevented by committing abortion, because a woman giving birth chose life.

(7) "The Roe v. Wade decision also expanded the opportunities for women to participate equally in society.  ...the Supreme Court observed that, 'the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.'."
If I understand this correctly then abortion has allowed women to 'participate equally in society' and 'control their reproductive lives'.  That's a less than dignified illustration of women.

(8) "Even though the Roe v. Wade decision has stood for more than 34 years, there are increasing threats to reproductive health..."
There certainly are increasing threats to reproductive health due to abortion: breast cancer, mental health risks, and much more.

(10) "Legal and practical barriers to the full range of reproductive services endanger women's health and lives. ... Currently, 87 percent of the counties in the United States have no abortion provider."
How many counties in the United States have no hospitals?  The insinuated lack of access to abortion doesn't seem to be effecting the number of abortions committed each year.

(13) "...Congress may, where authorized by it's enumerated powers and not prohibited by the Constitution, enact legislation to create and secure statutory rights in areas of legitimate national concern."
There's a misnomer for you = "legitimate national concern"?  What about those of us who are concerned with protecting the unborn?

(14) "Congress has the affirmative facilitate interstate commerce and to prevent State interference with interstate commerce, liberty, or equal protection of the laws."
How does interstate commerce figure in?  Is this the real concern?  Big business.

(15) "Federal protection of a woman's right to choose ... falls within this affirmative power of Congress, in part, because--
(A) many women cross State lines to obtain abortions...
(B) reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that regularly purchase...from out-of-State suppliers; and
(C) reproductive health clinics employ...personnel who travel across State lines..."
Is it illegal to do business or travel across State lines?  Does this "State line" business seem like an excuse to involve our Federal government?

Please visit to sign the petition against this federal act that our president-elect has promised to sign.  "This act will apply to every Federal, State and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of the act."  So much for freedom.

No comments: