An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Obama-Backed Freedom of Choice Act Draws a Clever Pro-Life Response: “What the FOCA?!”

As President Obama’s liberal base gets impatient with his moderate moves, he may be tempted to drop a nuclear policy bomb sure to draw gratitude from activists: actively push Congress to send him the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), as he promised to sign in a widely-shared Planned Parenthood speech. The bill is basically an abortion time-warp, returning the country back to the early days after Roe when states hadn’t yet tried to apply abortion restrictions. FOCA would write Roe into statutory law and basically gut the Supreme Court’s 1992 Casey decision – named after the pro-life Democratic governor of Pennsylvania – that gave a little wiggle room for states to apply abortion restrictions. (Statheads may remember that the abortion rate in the U.S. peaked in the late 1980s, and started a long, gradual decline in the 1990s for reasons that remain disputed.)

Though FOCA has united pro-lifers in a way they haven’t been since the partial-birth abortion ban vetoes by President Clinton, the message – epitomized by sites like Fight FOCA – has been forceful but not really memorable. All that changed when I saw a Facebook group started by Illinois Students for Life called “What the FOCA?!” which is kicking off its “WTF?! Project” with a “Day of Action” today. The allusion is obvious – “WTF,” that ubiquitous shorthand expletive found on t-shirts, IM conversations and undoubtedly shaved in some kid’s hair. It may be the most irreverent slogan to ever come out of the pro-life movement – if the movement, permeated by religion (as I’ve previously written), can embrace this bit of youthful impudence:

Isn’t ‘What The FOCA?!’ Offensive?

Yes, it references a phrase that is offensive. However, unrestricted abortion is much, much more offensive. Using this phrase points to that fact. In addition, “WTF” is common to the language of the culture. If we say… “Stop the Freedom of Choice Act!” that is meaningful to those of us who know about FOCA, but it is meaningless to those who do not. If we say…”What the FOCA?!” it piques the interest of the culture and conveys the ridiculousness of the Freedom of Choice Act all in just three words. Then, you can start to elaborate through dialogue.

The Facebook “Day of Action” listing even has an amusing photo of a baby making a face that conveys “WTF” with the letters superimposed. Two things jumped out at me at WhattheFOCA.com: the negligible references to religion. There’s an interview about FOCA with a lawyer from the Thomas More Society, a Catholic legal group, and a link the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which is heavily involved in federal and state lobbying efforts on abortion. That’s it. No crosses, no deities, no pictures of Mary holding the baby Jesus. The site and Facebook group could just as easily be mistaken for a protest against the World Bank.

And yet, chances are this wise-ass grassroots online effort won’t be mimicked soon by the better-organized pro-life institutions, which may well take their cue from the Apostle Paul that irreverent initialisms aren’t noble, just, pure, lovely or virtuous. Even if they work.

  • GeorgeSorwell
    Even if they work.


    Please define what that means. What would happen if "they work"?

    I'm constantly amazed that Pro-Life people continue to think they're getting anything out of their participation in the Republican coalition.

    Neocons got their wars.

    Libertarians got their reduced regulation.

    Tax-haters got their tax cuts even though there were also two wars and the initiation of the largest entitlement program since the 1960's.

    Pro-Lifers got a court decision in 1992 that gave them, as the author of this post says, "a little wiggle room".

    Pro-Lifers are being played by Republicans.
  • casualobserver
    I'm constantly amazed that Pro-Life people continue to think they're getting anything out of their participation in the Republican coalition.

    Pro-Lifers are being played by Republicans.

    1. So, you're telling us the pro-lifers would be better served by becoming Democrats?

    2. So, you're telling us that since the Republican Party has sought to soft play the divisive abortion issue, you, as a concerned bi-partisan, are upset by that?
  • GeorgeSorwell
    I don't think that Pro-Lifers are served by being in the tank for the Republican Party.

    And I don't think the Republican Party has soft played the abortion issue at all, not even a little. I think they're offering nothing but rhetoric.
  • gregpiper
    Republicans have offered a boatload of legislation, and there are some members - Sam Brownback, Henry Hyde - whose efforts have been integral to what little restrictions there have been on abortion at the federal level. Many of them are true believers. But I don't doubt that many of them - such as the lawmaker I interned for my first few months in DC - would get skittish if any particular bill that did more than nibble around the edges looked like it may sail through Congress and the president's signature. My larger point was that, culturally, pro-lifers have been stuck in a pre-Vatican II mindset - offering a good message, but in a language few people understand or want to learn.
  • Jim_Satterfield
    I understand the language of pro-lifers quite well. They know what God wants, they know when life begins, they know that everyone should have to live according to their beliefs. I also know that their core arguments against Roe V. Wade also apply to Griswold V. Connecticut and most of them want it overturned as well. I understand that they lie in the name of their beliefs. Greg provides evidence of their attempt to cover up their primary motivation himself.

    Two things jumped out at me at WhattheFOCA.com: the negligible references to religion. There’s an interview about FOCA with a lawyer from the Thomas More Society, a Catholic legal group, and a link the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which is heavily involved in federal and state lobbying efforts on abortion. That’s it. No crosses, no deities, no pictures of Mary holding the baby Jesus. The site and Facebook group could just as easily be mistaken for a protest against the World Bank.


    And as to FOCA, here is the actual bill. Decide for yourselves whether Greg's characterization of it is accurate.
  • Jim_Satterfield
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC