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

By: Jim_Satterfield

Jim_Satterfield — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 03:27:55 +0000

And here we are provided with yet another example of the language of anti-choice true believers.

By: Jim_Satterfield

Jim_Satterfield — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:31:27 +0000

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.

By: gregpiper

gregpiper — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:38:55 +0000

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.

By: GeorgeSorwell

GeorgeSorwell — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:55:40 +0000

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.

By: casualobserver

casualobserver — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:11:33 +0000

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?

By: GeorgeSorwell

GeorgeSorwell — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:13:55 +0000

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 thin 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 hte largest entitlement program since the 1960's.

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

Pro-Lifers are being played by Republicans.