Time Magazine has called the Freedom of Choice Act a ‘mythical’ bill and then mocks and questions the Catholic Church’s motives for standing up against FOCA with lines like these:
The Catholic Crusade Against a Mythical Abortion Bill…
The U.S. Catholic Church’s crusade against the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) has all the hallmarks of a well-oiled lobbying campaign…
There is only one hitch. Congress isn’t about to pass the Freedom of Choice Act because no such bill has been introduced…
At a time when the United States is gripped by economic uncertainty and faces serious challenges in hot spots around the globe, some American Catholics are finding it both curious and troubling that their church has launched a major campaign against a piece of legislation that doesn’t exist and wouldn’t have much chance of becoming law even if it did…
To many critics, it feels like the legislative equivalent of the the Dog That Didn’t Bark…
A chain e-mail of unknown origin soon began making its way into Catholic inboxes, warning of an imminent threat to the anti-abortion cause…
Priests started preaching against the legislation and churches began circulating petitions to oppose its passage.
In the midst of all this activity, the fact that there was no Freedom of Choice Act before the 111th Congress went largely unnoticed and unmentioned…
…even under Democratic control of Congress, the bill was not only never voted on but never made it out of committee…
Even if FOCA is reintroduced in the current Congress, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has indicated she has no intention of bringing it up for a vote. And even if she did, there are not enough votes in Congress to pass the bill…
So after all this mocking of the Church’s anti-FOCA efforts, Time Magazine finally drops a relevant piece of information all the way down in the tenth paragraph of the story (that’s 671 words in for those keeping score at home) which maybe makes the Church’s actions seem pretty appropriate:
In some respects, President Obama only has himself to blame for the current controversy. As a presidential candidate, the then-Senator himself pointed a spotlight on the legislation he co-sponsored when he told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in 2007 that “the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do.”
Oh. Well that explains things a little, doesn’t it. Not for Time Magazine but for any rational person without an axe to grind. But you see, Time Magazine shows that they don’t really believe a word that comes out of Obama’s mouth and that’s why a promise from him is buried while the majority of the story questions the motives of those who actually take Obama at his word.
After immediately changing the Mexico City policy, signing the largest spread-the-wealth scheme ever, and appeasing our enemies I think it’s just about time for America to accept that yes, Obama really did mean what he said.
February 19, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Well, catholic-bashing aside, maybe (hopefully) Time DOES have a point regarding the current econimic climate (I hate hearing “crisis” everywhere) in that if people are demanding a resolution to this first and foremost, maybe Obama won’t have any time/chance/support for FOCA. I seem to remember the same thing happened during the Clinton administration regarding the whole Insurance Reform thing.
If a few million Americans need to be out of work to slow or even end abortion, so be it.
February 19, 2009 at 8:01 pm
On a very very technical level, FOCA doesn’t exist in this legislative cycle.
But still.
February 19, 2009 at 8:11 pm
They can introduce it any time they want. And some of their biggest contributors (Emily’s List and Planned Parenthood) are pushing for it.
February 19, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Portraying the Church as the boy who cried wolf is devious to say the least as well all know how that story ended. We also know that the threat has real and has been temporarily averted by the timely & zealous efforts of the Church & other people of goodwill. So, TIME lied if the overall picture is to be considered – sans semantics & technicalities. There's a saying that a tree without fruits is not pummeled with stones. So, the Church has been fruitful these days so here come the stones.
February 19, 2009 at 8:36 pm
We should take this tabloid to task for the false impressions that it portrays. It is obviously in bed with some sore losers.
February 19, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Time is a rag for morons with pens to proclaim stupidity to morons with time to kill in waiting rooms.
Their opinions are completely irrlelvant.
Note: I have not purchased any MSM in years. I cannot justify supporting the fools that hate me and lie about me.
February 19, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Time is a rag for morons with pens to proclaim stupidity to morons with time to kill in waiting rooms.
Their opinions are completely irrlelvant.
Note: I have not purchased any MSM in years. I cannot justify supporting the fools that hate me and lie about me.
February 19, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Did you happen to read this post by Father Z about a letter he received from a congressional staffer:
As a Congressional staffer, I am extremely concerned that we pro-lifers are falling into what I am starting to see as the “FOCA Trap.”
…
As I said, anyone serious who knows the Hill knows it will never pass – including Obama. So, while the wagons are all circled around FOCA, Obama, the Democrats and the pro-abortion lobby can pick apart the incremental progress we’ve made over the years on partial-birth, overseas abortion funding, funding for abortions on military bases, embryonic stem cell research, etc. And they’ll do it while we’re all signing post cards in church about FOCA. It’s a brilliant diversion.
Then, one day, Obama will come out against FOCA and say it’s too extreme. Then he’ll be heralded as a moderate, all while our progress is wiped out, and millions more babies are murdered.
February 19, 2009 at 9:34 pm
FOCA will pass alright. It will just be in the form of non-germaine bill amendments, executive orders and judicial fiats.
February 19, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Steve’s correct — FOCA amendments will be as hard to find as Waldo (as in “Where’s Waldo?”) ….
BTW, Read yesterday that the Missouri State Senate is considering a resolution (SCR 11) that opposes FOCA, and states that it seeks to “circumvent the States’ general legislative authority as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution”.
Sweet.
February 20, 2009 at 1:16 am
There’s a disconnect here. I always hear from pro-choicers about how economic hardships cause abortion. Wouldn’t the current situation mean more women will want to (or are forced to by the men who’d rather kill their children then support them and their mother) have abortions? Won’t congressmen feel more pressure than before to expand our rights to murder babies?
February 20, 2009 at 1:03 pm
This act will, as gregg noted, be introduced incrementally, not as FOCA per se, but as one piece of the FOCA at a time. Rush Limbaugh, like him or not, has said that the Fairness Doctrine will be introduced piecemeal as well, allowing the substance of the whole “bill” or intended bill to become enacted in the long run. In their minds, the end justifies the means. And really what does it matter as long as what they get is what they want?
Conservative senators and congressmen (yes that is gender inclusive) are going to need to be very critical of EVERYTHING that comes across their desks. That means they’ll have to read everything, unlike what was done with the spendulus package.
February 20, 2009 at 11:54 pm
First, in a reply to my letter against FOCA, my pro-abortion congresswomen wrote why FOCA was a good thing and that she supports it.
Second, if a some Republican presidential candidate were to get up in front of The American Nativist Association and announce that “the first thing he would do” about immigration reform would be to the sign the “Pure America Act” which would allow for the immediate deportation of all non-citizens and the sealing of the borders. People would unhesitatingly call that candidate and dangerous yahoo and heap scorn upon him. Sure, such a bill would doubtless never pass congress, but the fact that he said he wanted to sign such a bill would be considered to be indicative of his character and policies.
February 21, 2009 at 12:54 am
The postcards not only urges the recipient to oppose FOCA but also any similar measure, and retain laws against federal funding and promotion of abortion.
If Time is whining, I take that to mean the campaign is causing Congress to rethink passing FOCA because of the volume of the opposition.
But yes, we need to remain vigilant and oppose en masse any and all pro-abortion measures.
PS Time ranks below toilet paper in its value. At least TP has a real purpose, lowly though it may be.