Sunday, October 5, 2008
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Freedom of Choice Act [tramples states' rights]
"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."
-- Senator Barack Obama, speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007
(from National Right to Life website)
"Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)
Following the Supreme Court's closely divided and bitter decision upholding the Federal Abortion Ban, it is clear that the right to choose is facing a new level of assault. That's why the pro-choice community is working to guarantee the right to choose through the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) – a measure that will codify Roe v. Wade and guarantee the right to choose for future generations of women."
(from NARAL Pro-Choice America website)
If FOCA was passed it would automatically overturn:
-- State abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states
-- Forty-four states' laws concerning parental involvement
-- Forty states' laws on restricting later-term abortions
-- Forty-six states' conscience protection laws for individual health care providers
-- Twenty-seven states' conscience protection laws for institutions
-- Thirty-eight states' bans on partial-birth abortions
-- Thirty-three states' laws on requiring counseling before an abortion
-- Sixteen states' laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion
("Freedom of Choice Act Would Remove All Limitations on Abortions")
Text of HR 1964 (Freedom of Choice Act)
All Cosponsors from All States
Bill Name: "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA)
Bill Number: H.R.1964
(here are the 105(1 R, 104 D) Co-sponsors of the bill)
[You can send a message to them at link above]
Summary:
Sponsored by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA), the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA) would invalidate any federal, state, or local government law, regulation, policy, or action that would "deny or interfere with" a woman's access to abortion prior to "viability," or which would "discriminate against the exercise of" this right in the regulation or provision of any "benefits, facilities, services, or information."
This ban would apply absolutely prior to fetal "viability," and also apply after "viability" to any abortion sought on grounds of "health," which is not defined in the bill and which therefore would include any physical or emotional factor whatsoever.
Although sometimes referred to as a bill to "codify Roe v. Wade," this is misleading, because -- the sponsors of the bill have acknowledged that it would invalidate many laws that have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court under Roe v. Wade, including laws restricting government funding of abortion, limits on abortion in public or military faclities, full-disclosure counseling requirements, and bans on partial-birth abortion.
It would also invalidate all laws requiring parental or judicial notification or consent for abortions performed on minors, laws that permit health care providers to opt out of participation in abortion on conscience grounds, laws prohibiting non-physicians from performing abortions, and waiting periods.
http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/bills/?bill=9653451&size=full
The Senate has introduced a version too:
Senate bill #S. 1173:
http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/bills/?bill=9668701&size=full
(Senate bill text)
Excerpt from "Freedom of Choice Act Would Remove All Limitations on Abortions":
When a candidate pledges to ... "sign immediately upon taking office" - the Freedom of Choice Act, Catholics and all people of good will have cause to question the sincerity of the candidate's determination to reduce abortions, when these already existing limits have caused a decrease of more than 100,000 abortions each year....
If FOCA was passed it would automatically overturn:
-- State abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states
-- Forty-four states' laws concerning parental involvement
-- Forty states' laws on restricting later-term abortions
-- Forty-six states' conscience protection laws for individual health care providers
-- Twenty-seven states' conscience protection laws for institutions
-- Thirty-eight states' bans on partial-birth abortions
-- Thirty-three states' laws on requiring counseling before an abortion
-- Sixteen states' laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion
There is evidence of a very significant reduction of reported abortions, particularly among teens, through the passage of parental involvement laws and the use of ultrasounds. The August, 2008, report of the Alan Guttmacher Institute notes the greatest decline in abortions over the last 30 years is among teens, attributable in large part to the above restrictions, as well as a later initiation of sexual activity....
-- Bishop Robert W. Finn
Kansas City-St. Joseph
-- Senator Barack Obama, speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007
(from National Right to Life website)
"Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)
Following the Supreme Court's closely divided and bitter decision upholding the Federal Abortion Ban, it is clear that the right to choose is facing a new level of assault. That's why the pro-choice community is working to guarantee the right to choose through the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) – a measure that will codify Roe v. Wade and guarantee the right to choose for future generations of women."
(from NARAL Pro-Choice America website)
If FOCA was passed it would automatically overturn:
-- State abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states
-- Forty-four states' laws concerning parental involvement
-- Forty states' laws on restricting later-term abortions
-- Forty-six states' conscience protection laws for individual health care providers
-- Twenty-seven states' conscience protection laws for institutions
-- Thirty-eight states' bans on partial-birth abortions
-- Thirty-three states' laws on requiring counseling before an abortion
-- Sixteen states' laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion
("Freedom of Choice Act Would Remove All Limitations on Abortions")
Text of HR 1964 (Freedom of Choice Act)
All Cosponsors from All States
Bill Name: "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA)
Bill Number: H.R.1964
(here are the 105
[You can send a message to them at link above]
Summary:
Sponsored by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA), the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA) would invalidate any federal, state, or local government law, regulation, policy, or action that would "deny or interfere with" a woman's access to abortion prior to "viability," or which would "discriminate against the exercise of" this right in the regulation or provision of any "benefits, facilities, services, or information."
This ban would apply absolutely prior to fetal "viability," and also apply after "viability" to any abortion sought on grounds of "health," which is not defined in the bill and which therefore would include any physical or emotional factor whatsoever.
Although sometimes referred to as a bill to "codify Roe v. Wade," this is misleading, because -- the sponsors of the bill have acknowledged that it would invalidate many laws that have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court under Roe v. Wade, including laws restricting government funding of abortion, limits on abortion in public or military faclities, full-disclosure counseling requirements, and bans on partial-birth abortion.
It would also invalidate all laws requiring parental or judicial notification or consent for abortions performed on minors, laws that permit health care providers to opt out of participation in abortion on conscience grounds, laws prohibiting non-physicians from performing abortions, and waiting periods.
http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/bills/?bill=9653451&size=full
The Senate has introduced a version too:
Senate bill #S. 1173:
http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/bills/?bill=9668701&size=full
(Senate bill text)
Excerpt from "Freedom of Choice Act Would Remove All Limitations on Abortions":
When a candidate pledges to ... "sign immediately upon taking office" - the Freedom of Choice Act, Catholics and all people of good will have cause to question the sincerity of the candidate's determination to reduce abortions, when these already existing limits have caused a decrease of more than 100,000 abortions each year....
If FOCA was passed it would automatically overturn:
-- State abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states
-- Forty-four states' laws concerning parental involvement
-- Forty states' laws on restricting later-term abortions
-- Forty-six states' conscience protection laws for individual health care providers
-- Twenty-seven states' conscience protection laws for institutions
-- Thirty-eight states' bans on partial-birth abortions
-- Thirty-three states' laws on requiring counseling before an abortion
-- Sixteen states' laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion
There is evidence of a very significant reduction of reported abortions, particularly among teens, through the passage of parental involvement laws and the use of ultrasounds. The August, 2008, report of the Alan Guttmacher Institute notes the greatest decline in abortions over the last 30 years is among teens, attributable in large part to the above restrictions, as well as a later initiation of sexual activity....
-- Bishop Robert W. Finn
Kansas City-St. Joseph
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Thank You, House Republicans [Mark R. Levin]
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Thank You, House Republicans [Mark R. Levin]
I have read the posts here and elsewhere. Sometimes these things are made to look more complicated than they really are. From an economic perspective, if the problem is liquidity and credit, there simply is no need for the federal government to assume massive amounts of debt on its book by assuming loans in anticipation that their holders or borrowers will default. This seems to me like a brand new expanse of government power that is not justified (if it ever is) by the arguments made on its behalf. The government controls monetary policy through supply and interest rates, among other things. It can further ease money supply and credit, thereby increasing the flow of capital. The government controls tax policy. It can increase liquidity and the flow of new money into the economy both from within the country and from foreign sources by eliminating the corporate income tax and the capital gains tax even on a mid-term basis. No matter what is done, some financial institutions will fail, as they did in the 1981-82 recession and have since. And the Fed and Treasury and other instrumentalities of government will have to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether to intervene and how to intervene. They will also have to determine whether other policies require modifying, such as the McCain proposal today, in which he suggests increasing federal insurance for individual depositors from $100,000 to $250,000. Other smart suggestions include modifying the mark-to-market rule requiring financial institutions to downgrade the valuation of assets. If the goal is to prevent panic in the economy by investors and depositors, then increase credit, liquidity, and the flow of capital, and deal with problem institutions that are significant enough in size that their demise could resonate to the wider economy. But the Soviet-style, top-down five year plan a la Paulson's proposal, and to a significant extent the proposal that was voted down yesterday, could easily do more damage to both the economy and our governmental structure. So, in this respect, I must depart from NRO's editorial.
Also, count me among those few here who want to thank the House Republicans for taking a bold stand against what had been a stampede on a scale I have never before witnessed on matters of huge consequence. Conservatism is more than a quaint belief-system to be embraced and debated over donuts at Starbucks. It is more than a list of talking points. It is the foundation of the civil society. The liberal uses crises, real or manufactured, to expand the power of government at the expense of the individual and private property. He has spent, in earnest, 70 years evading the Constitution's limits on governmental power. If conservatives don't stand up to this, who will? If they don't offer serious alternatives that address the current circumstances AND defend the founding principles, who will? The House Republicans have done both. And I, for one, thank them.
Incidentally, if you want to buy a home or car today you can. And if your credit is decent, you can get loans at a good rate. Last week we were told that if a deal was not struck by last Friday, our economy would collapse. It has not. That is not to say the evidence of economic troubles or worse should be ignored. It is to say that now is a time for reasoned decisions based on tried and true principles, not for abandoning them. I notice that the socialist, who, for the last 30 years, has insisted that private institutions make risky loans based on non-economic factors, still has not abandoned his policies. Socialism does not work. We shouldn't support more of it.
09/30 11:07 AM
Thank You, House Republicans [Mark R. Levin]
I have read the posts here and elsewhere. Sometimes these things are made to look more complicated than they really are. From an economic perspective, if the problem is liquidity and credit, there simply is no need for the federal government to assume massive amounts of debt on its book by assuming loans in anticipation that their holders or borrowers will default. This seems to me like a brand new expanse of government power that is not justified (if it ever is) by the arguments made on its behalf. The government controls monetary policy through supply and interest rates, among other things. It can further ease money supply and credit, thereby increasing the flow of capital. The government controls tax policy. It can increase liquidity and the flow of new money into the economy both from within the country and from foreign sources by eliminating the corporate income tax and the capital gains tax even on a mid-term basis. No matter what is done, some financial institutions will fail, as they did in the 1981-82 recession and have since. And the Fed and Treasury and other instrumentalities of government will have to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether to intervene and how to intervene. They will also have to determine whether other policies require modifying, such as the McCain proposal today, in which he suggests increasing federal insurance for individual depositors from $100,000 to $250,000. Other smart suggestions include modifying the mark-to-market rule requiring financial institutions to downgrade the valuation of assets. If the goal is to prevent panic in the economy by investors and depositors, then increase credit, liquidity, and the flow of capital, and deal with problem institutions that are significant enough in size that their demise could resonate to the wider economy. But the Soviet-style, top-down five year plan a la Paulson's proposal, and to a significant extent the proposal that was voted down yesterday, could easily do more damage to both the economy and our governmental structure. So, in this respect, I must depart from NRO's editorial.
Also, count me among those few here who want to thank the House Republicans for taking a bold stand against what had been a stampede on a scale I have never before witnessed on matters of huge consequence. Conservatism is more than a quaint belief-system to be embraced and debated over donuts at Starbucks. It is more than a list of talking points. It is the foundation of the civil society. The liberal uses crises, real or manufactured, to expand the power of government at the expense of the individual and private property. He has spent, in earnest, 70 years evading the Constitution's limits on governmental power. If conservatives don't stand up to this, who will? If they don't offer serious alternatives that address the current circumstances AND defend the founding principles, who will? The House Republicans have done both. And I, for one, thank them.
Incidentally, if you want to buy a home or car today you can. And if your credit is decent, you can get loans at a good rate. Last week we were told that if a deal was not struck by last Friday, our economy would collapse. It has not. That is not to say the evidence of economic troubles or worse should be ignored. It is to say that now is a time for reasoned decisions based on tried and true principles, not for abandoning them. I notice that the socialist, who, for the last 30 years, has insisted that private institutions make risky loans based on non-economic factors, still has not abandoned his policies. Socialism does not work. We shouldn't support more of it.
09/30 11:07 AM
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Attack! Our politicians at work! Time for the good old practice of Tar and Feathering !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)