Choice?

The following is from the NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) explanation of the "Freedon of Choice Act"


Freedom Of Choice Act (FOCA)

Following the Supreme Court’s closely divided decision to uphold the first‐ever federal ban on abortion1, it is clear that the stakes have changed and 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’s protections and guarantee the right to choose for future generations of women.

• Recognizing that a woman’s right to choose is being chipped away both by the courts and state lawmakers, the pro‐choice community – led by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D‐CA) and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D‐NY) – is working to enact a federal law2 that would restore the right to choose as expressed in 1973 in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

• Since Roe v. Wade was decided, a woman’s right to choose has been systematically eroded by anti‐choice legislators in states around the country. In fact, more than 500 anti‐choice measures have been enacted in the states since 19953, essentially rolling back this fundamental right for many women.

• With a woman’s right to choose already in a precarious state, President Bush’s appointment of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court further threatens the constitutional protection for reproductive rights – a threat immediately made evident in the Court’s ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

• In the Carhart decision, the newly reconfigured Court – with Bush’s appointees Roberts and Alito casting decisive votes – upheld the first‐ever federal ban on a safe abortion method – with criminal penalties for doctors.4 More troubling, the decision effectively reversed Supreme Court precedent and rolled back key protections that were guaranteed by Roe v. Wade, including the long‐standing exception safeguarding women’s health.

• Dissenting in Carhart, Justice Ginsburg called the majorityʹs opinion "alarming," and stated that "[f]or the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a womanʹs health."5 Further, she said, the federal ban "and the Courtʹs defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court."6

• By enacting FOCA, we will establish a federal law guaranteeing reproductive freedom for future generations of American women. This guarantee will protect women’s rights no matter who occupies the White House or is in control of Congress.
January 1, 2009 1 Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 550 U.S. 124 (2007).
2 S.1173, 110th Cong (2007); H.R.1964, 110th Cong. (2007).
3 NARAL PRO‐CHOICE AMERICA FOUNDATION, Who Decides? The Status of Womenʹs Reproductive Rights in the United States (18th ed. 2009), available at www.prochoiceamerica.org/whodecides.
4 Carhart/PPFA, 550 U.S. 124 (2007).
5 Carhart/PPFA, 550 U.S. 124 (2007). (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
6 Carhart/PPFA, 550 U.S. 124 (2007). (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).


It's worth publishing the entire "FAQ" sheet partly because it reveals the psuedo intellectual nature of the far left (note all the footnotes). More important, it reveals how carefully people who do wicked things disguise their actions under euphemisms (basically nice words to cover up ugly actions--another good example being "Final Solution")

In the NARAL "FAQ" sheet the word abortion only appears once, otherwise we hear only of the "right to choose", "reproductive rights" without any explanation of what the "choice" involves and whose rights are denied.

The comfortable, mostly white, upper middle class women who make up the bulk of the NARAL membership would take umbrage to be compared with other (in)famous advocates for mass killing of the past century. Still, that is precisely what they are--advocates for mass murder under the name of "choice".

Now, most Americans are loathe to deny others their freedom to choose--and this is precisely why the abortion lobby cloaks its intentions under the banner of "freedom" and "choice". Who wants to oppose "freedom"--it is enshrined in our Constitution? And who wants to be denied the right to choose for him or herself the basic structure of his or her life?

Indeed, our system of government is based on John Locke's "natural rights" theory that everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and property (or, as Jefferson put it, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"). We are naturally appalled when those rights are infringed upon.

The problem is that abortion involves only one person's choice on a matter that always--always-- involves the violent death of another. Most Americans w0uld not support anyone who would claim such an unqualified "right" over another human being. Thus, the requirement for the euphemism, "choice". Abortion is simply a "choice"--like chosing the flavor of an ice cream cone, or, the color of one's clothing, or one's religion...etcetera. The fact that it is the supreme violation of the first right recognized in the Declaration of Independence--the right to life--is never, ever, mentioned. How could it be? Who would be for it, if the ugly truth were actually told?

It is bizaare that in this country "pro choice" means to be in favor of taking the life of an innocent person (without any choice on his/her part). It is even sicker that, on the rare occasions that the proponents of this "right" actually own up to what they are for, it is to deny the rights of their victims by denying their humanity.

Sound familiar? Over 100 million people died in the last century because evil regimes denied them their rights because they were Jews, or Christians, or members of the wrong class, and so on and on and on. In America nearly 40 million have died since 1973 because they were deprived of their humanity by the fiat of a court and the well financed campaigns of special interests.

The new president, a man of great eloquence and pursuasiveness, is an unabashed supporter of "choice". No one would compare him to the demagogues of the past--Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or, the Interhamwe of Rwanda. It would be unfair and unjust to do so. Germans, Russians, Chinese, and Rwandans who were caught up in the holocausts of the 20th century were deceived by the power of unscrupulous dictatorships and held hostage to brutal political organizations. Things are different here. Our demagogues are, for the most part, men and women of sophistication, well spoken and well educated. They do not have the power of a tyrant behind them. They have proven that euphemisms alone are enough to persuade (or lull) a free people into becoming accomplices of the greatest holocaust in human history. The Nazis, at least, tried to hide what they were doing behind barbed wired and far from the public eye. In America it is being done without shame and for all the world to see.