Federal Legislation

What is the Practical Impact of FOCA?

Among the more than 550 federal and state laws that FOCA would nullify are:

1. *Partial Birth Abortion Ban, 2003
2. *Hyde Amendment (restricting taxpayer funding of abortions)
3. *Restrictions on abortions performed at military hospitals
4. *Restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion for federal employees
5. *Informed consent laws
6. *Waiting periods
7. *Parental consent and notification laws
8. *Health and safety regulations for abortion clinics
9. *Requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions
10. *“Delayed enforcement” laws (banning abortion when Roe v. Wade is overturned and/or the authority to restrict abortion is returned to the states)
11. *Bans on partial-birth abortion
12. *Bans on abortion after viability. FOCA’s apparent attempt to limit post-viability abortions is illusory. Under FOCA, post-viability abortions are expressly permitted to protect the woman’s “health.” Within the context of abortion, “health” has been interpreted so broadly that FOCA would not actually proscribe any abortion before or after viability.
13. *Limits on public funding for elective abortions (thus, making American taxpayers fund a procedure that many find morally objectionable)
14. *Limits on the use of public facilities (such has public hospitals and medical schools at state universities) for abortions
15. *State and federal legal protections for individual healthcare providers who decline to participate in abortions
16. *Legal protections for Catholic and other religiously-affiliated hospitals who, while providing care to millions of poor and uninsured Americans, refuse to allow abortions within their facilities

Notably, pro-abortion groups do not deny FOCA’s draconian impact. For example, Planned Parenthood has explained, "FOCA will supersede anti-choice laws that restrict the right to choose, including laws that prohibit the public funding of abortions for poor women or counseling and referrals for abortions. Additionally, FOCA will prohibit onerous restrictions on a woman's right to choose, such as mandated delays and targeted and medically unnecessary regulations."

          -- Information from Americans United for Life, http://www.aul.org/FOCA

 

Legal Brief:  The Impact of the Federal Freedom of Choice Act on Massachusetts Policy

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), as filed in the current 2007-2008 term of Congress (110th Cong., S.1173/H.R. 1964), would establish as “the policy of the United States” that “the right to choose” between childbearing and abortion must be protected as a “fundamental right.” 

The legislation would prohibit any denial of, interference with, or discrimination against the exercise of this choice “in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information” by any public institution or by any private entity “acting under color of law.”  When introducing FOCA in 2004, U.S. Senate sponsor Barbara Boxer declared that the legislation would supersede at the federal and state levels “any law, regulation or local ordinance that impinges on a woman’s right to choose.”  FOCA will “sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies” according to the abortion rights group National Organization for Women, referring to sensible limits on abortion that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld as consistent with Roe v. Wade, its 1973 decision legalizing abortion.  FOCA is so broad that it would mandate what “information” is to be conveyed or taught and what “services” are to be offered by government agencies consistent with the new national “policy” on abortion.  Public schools, healthcare providers and social service agencies would be forced to promote and provide access to abortion, and in the case of minors, to do so without parental knowledge or consent.  The bill also would provide a new federal basis for protecting and funding reproductive cloning as a fundamental right.By invalidating federal and state freedom of conscience guarantees, FOCA would also force religious and other private institutions to provide or accommodate abortion access and other conscientiously opposed procedures or else be denied any government support such as tax exemptions or financial assistance.Therefore, FOCA would impose radical legal changes in the Commonwealth by, among other effects:

• nullifying current common law and statutory policies in Massachusetts requiring informed consent for medical procedures related to childbearing or abortion;
• nullifying a state statute requiring minors seeking abortions to obtain the consent of at least one parent or guardian, or absent parental consent, a judicial decree finding that the minor is mature or that the abortion is in her best interest;
• nullifying a state ban on coverage for partial-birth abortions under state employee health insurance plans;
• nullifying any state safety regulations deemed to “interfere” with abortion access;
• nullifying state statutes guaranteeing freedom of conscience protections for private institutions and individuals;
• compelling conscientiously opposed private institutions to participate in abortion, sterilizations and contraception or else be denied public assistance, tax exemptions or benefits; and
• nullifying a state ban on cloning for reproductive purposes.

FOCA, § 4.

Statement of Sen. Boxer, 150 Cong. Rec. S187 (Jan. 22, 2004).

National Organization for Women, “Freedom of Choice Act Would Guarantee Roe Protections in U.S. Statutes,” April 30, 2007, available online at http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/070430foca.html. 

Statement of Sen. Boxer,, supra note 2, specifically referring to FOCA sponsors’ intent to abolish informed consent and parental consent requirements.

Office of the General Counsel, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Memorandum 4 (Aug. 15, 2008), available online at http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/FOCA/analysis.pdf.

USCCB Memorandum, supra note 4.

FOCA would revive the opportunity to file “color of law” claims against private parties similar to those granted in Doe v. Bridgeton Hosp. Assoc., Inc., 366 A. 2d 641 (N.J. 1976) (requiring private hospital to perform abortions) and initially in Taylor v. St. Vincent’s Hospital, 369 F. Supp. 948 (D. Mont. 1973) (reversing upon passage of a federal conscience clause that would be superseded by FOCA the court’s earlier order forcing Catholic hospital to perform sterilizations).

 

 Act Now To Prevent the Freedom Of Choice Act from Being Brought Up In Congress!!

Make sure that the Freedom of Choice Act is never brought up in Congress! It is the most important thing you can do for life in the near future – maybe, ever!

 

We are arranging visits by local constituents with Congressmen Lynch, Dellahunt, Neal, Olver, and Capuano.   If you live in one of their districts, call the MCFL office for information about meetings in your district.

• If you in the districts of Congressmen Markey, or Tierney, contact Anne Fox, kdfox@comcast.net.
• If you live in the districts of Congressmen Frank, Tsongas, or McGovern, we will not be visiting them. It is still very important to contact them.
• If you are unable to visit, or as an educational piece before or after your visit, you should  contact your Congressman by mail or phone.
• Please read “What is the Practical Impact of FOCA?" The Freedom of Choice Act Will Nullify 550 Federal and State Laws. (above)  Pick an issue that is important to you, like Parental Consent , Partial Birth Abortion, or Informed Consent.  Send a brief statement to your own Congressman explaining the impact of the Freedom of Choice Act on your concern.  Urge your congressman to oppose the introduction of the Freedom of Choice Act.  It will have more impact if you refer to the Act by its whole name as much as possible.

 

Some forms  of contact are much more effective than others.  We strongly suggest you follow this priority in deciding what method of approach you will use:

(1)FAX your letter – handwritten is ideal 

(2)Mail your  letter

(3)Call the Washington Office – ask for the person who handles the life issues.  If there isn’t one, you still want a legislative aide.(4) Call the local office and try to get the most appropriate person.

We have found that email is by far the least effective.

 

Contact Information for Massachusetts Congressmen

Senate

• Brown, Scott - (R - MA) Class I
  317 RUSSELL sENATE OFFICE BLDG.
• WASHINGTON DC 20510 - 2102
  
• WWW Homepage:http://scottbrown.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contactme 
• Twitter: No Known Twitter Account
  

District Office:
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Suite 2400
55 New Sudbury Street
Boston, MA 02203 Voice: 617-565-3170
FAX: 617-723-7325

 

• John Forbes Kerry (D)
  Address: 304 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510
  Telephone: 202-224-2742
  Fax: 202-224-8525
  E-mail: john_kerry@kerry.senate.gov

 

House of Representatives

• John W. Olver (D-01)
  Address: 1111 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515-2101
  Telephone: 202-225-5335
  Fax: 202-226-1224
  E-mail: web form
• Richard E. Neal (D-02)
  Address: 2208 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515-2102
  Telephone: 202-225-5601
  Fax: 202-225-8112
  E-mail: web form
• James P. McGovern (D-03)
  Address: 438 Cannon House Office Building, Washington DC 20515-2103
  Telephone: 202-225-6101
  Fax: 202-225-5759
  E-mail: web form
• Barney Frank (D-04)
  Address: 2252 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC 20515-2104
  Telephone: 202-225-5931
  Fax: 202-225-0182
  E-mail: web form
• Niki Tsongas - Massachusetts (5th Cong. District)
  

  Niki Tsongas - Massachusetts (5th Cong. District)
  1607 Longworth House Office Building | Washington, DC 20515
  Washington, DC 20515
  Phone: (202)225-3411  Fax:  (202) 226-0771
  
• John F. Tierney (D-06)
  Address: 2238 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC 20515-2106
  Telephone: 202-225-8020
  Fax: 202-225-5915
  E-mail: web form
• Edward J. Markey (D-07)
  Address: 2108 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC 20515-2107
  Telephone: 202-225-2836
  Fax: 202-226-0092
  E-mail: web form
• Michael Capuano (D-08)
  Address: 1414 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515-2108
  Telephone: 202-225-5111
  Fax: 202-225-9322
  E-mail: web form
• Stephen F. Lynch (D-09)
  Address: 221 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515-2109
  Telephone: 202-225-8273
  Fax: 202-225-3984
  
• E-mail: stephen.lynch@mail.house.gov or web form
• William D. Delahunt (D-10)
  Address: 2454 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515-2110
  Telephone: 202-225-3111
  Fax: 202-225-5658
  E-mail: William.Delahunt@mail.house.gov