Abortion has not been as significant an issue in this election cycle.  The global financial melt-down and the myriad of other issues, combined with a well managed and focused message from the Democrats that purposefully diminish the issue, has kept Abortion and the "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA) on the back burner for most of the electorate.

While I understand completely the right's genuine horror over Barack Obama's role in fighting against the "Born Alive" bills in the Illinois Senate, the claims that "Barack Obama Kills Baby's" or that he is "For Infanticide" doesn't help their cause.  This tactic just creates increased polarization, and furthers the vilification of Obama.  This is the same tactic the loons on the left (LOL, I call them) use to call Bush a "Baby Killer" and "War Mongering Fascist" over his Iraqi war decisions.  It is a mischaracterization and makes the assumption that at the root the individuals are truly evil, criminal people.  Do any of you believe that Barack Obama is really an evil person bent on the wanton death and destruction of innocence? Do any of you believe that George Bush sits up at night and plots on how he can get the most Iraqi civilians killed the following day? These are ridiculous ideas, and if either were true an armed insurrection should be justified against either leader.

There are however some serious differences between Barack Obama and John McCain on the issue of Abortion.  They are on completely different sides of the issue both constitutionally and morally.  The FOCA legislation that Barack Obama has promised to sign as his first act as the new president is what will be discussed here.  But before we delve into this legislation from a constitutional perspective, I want to personally express my bias:

1. I believe that life begins at conception.
2. I believe that all people are protected by the Constitution and all have the same inalienable rights.
3. I believe that abortion kills an otherwise living person.
4. I believe that there are times when I woman's life is at risk due to her pregnancy that she should be able to make an informed decision as to whether or not to risk her own life for the life of another.
5. I believe that the fundamental right to choose happens pre-copulation, and a woman has the right to decide with whom, when and how she will have sexual intercourse.
   

The FOCA is the Legislative Branch's attempt to circumvent the necessity to amend the constitution, which they all acknowledge they would not have adequate support of the citizenry to achieve. The House bill, H.R. 1964 was introduced by Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and the Senate version, S. 1173, was introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.).  It attempts to usurp a right not previously granted to the federal government by claiming that abortion and abortionist are covered under interstate trade laws.   If you click the above links that will take you to the bills (they will open in another window) and scroll down to Section 2. 13 - 15 you will find this is not hidden in any way.

The 10th Ammendment specifically grants all remaining rights, not detailed in the constitution (i.e. the right to unconditional abortion) to the states.

So by declaring it an interstate commerce issue the proponents of FOCA are taking an end-run around the States rights. They say that having to travel out side of ones county to procure (purchase) abortion services puts women's lives at risk, and violates a woman's equal protection under the law.  Currently the Abortion Business is only operating in 23% of United States counties. (according to Section 2, 10 of S. 1173).  Aside from the odd moral jump that this assertion makes, that somehow having to travel to purchase a service places a person at risk, it creates other commerce "inequities" at risk of becoming a right.  (I do not have an organic grocery store in my county, organic food is more healthy for you, my health and well being are endanger because I have to travel to another county to procure organic foods...)

The bills both also make it clear that Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton are landmark court decisions that have the potential to be done away with, either by States passing restrictions as South Dakota did in 2006, or by Federal laws being passed that restrict abortion in various ways such as the "dilation and extraction" or better know as partial birth abortion ban which the Supreme Court upheld on April 18, 2007 in Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America. 

There is a clear Constitutional pathway to assuring a woman's right to have an abortion.  You amend the Constitution with a simple, clear and declarative sentence that gives a woman the right to have an abortion. 

Why is this not being done?  Because overwhelmingly the American people are not for un-restricted access to abortion. 54% of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal with a few exceptions.  24% believe it should be legal most of the time with restrictions and only 25% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal and unrestricted. (NBC/Wall Stree Journal Poll conducted by Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R) Sept 6-8, 2008 MoE +/-3.3%). 

So with 78% of Americans favoring restrictions on abortion, a constitutional amendment would never pass.  So the will of the people to pass laws that reflect their morality is being abridged in the FOCA.

The FOCA also nullifies all past and present abortion laws nation wide.


This would nullify all state parental notification laws, all laws that allow a doctor not to perform an abortion if he choses not too, all laws that restrict late term abortions, all laws that define "health of the woman" or "health of the mother", all laws that have zoning restrictions regarding abortion clinics, all laws that prohibit public funding of abortion, all laws that cover health and sanitary conditions of abortion providers, all laws covering insurance companies obligations... the list goes on and on.  ANY law that deals with abortion would be nullified upon "the date of enactment of the Act.".

The most troubling feature of the FOCA, aside from the constitutional implications, is the lack of a definition of a "woman's health".  This has been used to include her "emotional health" as well.  Fetal viability has not been defined either.  Roe and Bolton both allow abortion up to the point of "fetal viability" or when the mother's health is at risk.  The late term abortion is a horrific procedure where an otherwise viable human being is either dismembered in the mother's womb or labor is educed and the baby is partially born and than killed before fully leaving the birth canal.

If abortion is a constitutional right, make it one in the full, free and open debate of ideas that will result in a specific constitutional amendment granting that right.  Do not use interstate commerce laws to create a right that has since been constitutionally reserved for the States and their citizens to determine.

Here is Barack Obama promising that he will sign the FOCA "first thing".

FOCA is a bad piece of legislations that a super-majority of Americans are opposed to in principal.  Lacking definitions for "mother's health" and "fetal viability" are just some of the moral problems with the legislations.  Usurping States rights is another.  Eliminating the existing laws that localities have enacted to reflect their beliefs and concerns with a single stroke of a pen is very concerning.

Your school has to get your permission to give your daughter an aspirin.  A tattoo parlor has rules about how old a customer can be before receiving a tattoo.  You have to sign a medical release form to get your grade schoolers tonsils out or to have them receive vaccinations.  Shouldn't a major decision, like having an abortion, include that same requirement?  Or at least shouldn't localities be given the freedom to determine that for their own communities? Not the Federal Government?

Lastly,  Obama and Planned Parenthood go way back. They endorse him and he in turn endorses them.  Barack Obama has a 100% report card from Planned Parenthood.  There is no indication that he will be a unifier on this issue nor will he push for a straight constitutional amendment to guarantee. limit or prohibit access to abortion, which I believe it the right path to take to end this debate, legally.

The moral debate will go on until the end. There will always be individuals who affirm that a baby has the right to live, and there will always be those who say that you are not a person until you are outside of the womb.  The science behind viability is fairly clear and straight forward, and anyone who looks at an in-utero photo of a 20-week old baby and denies that it is a person has greater issues than determining the appropriate constitutional course to guarantee, limit or deny access to abortion.