The entire text of 'The Freedom of Choice Act' can be accessed here
In this post, I'm going to comment on section 3 (Definitions) and section 4 (Interference of Reproductive Health Prohibited)
Here is the full text of section 3:
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) GOVERNMENT- The term `government' includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official (or other individual acting under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State.
(2) STATE- The term `State' means each of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory or possession of the United States.
(3) VIABILITY- The term `viability' means that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.
It is important to notice the definition of "viability" set forth above in point (3). What we are being asked to embrace here is the idea that there is something about a fetus' ability to survive outside of its mother's womb that gives it human rights. As long as it is dependent upon its mother for its continued life, the mother's will is sovereign (although, as you'll see below in section 4, even after it becomes "viable" the mother's will remains sovereign). We must ask at this point what it is that happens in the moment in which "in the best medical judgment of the attending physician" the baby is able to survive outside of the mother that makes it into a living human person with all of the attending rights afforded by our nation's constitution. When President Obama (before he was the president) was asked by Rick Warren when he believed an unborn baby gets human rights, his response was: "That's above my pay-grade." It should shock the public to know that this monumental moral issue could be treated in such a cavalier way by the man who now occupies the head office of the world's most powerful nation. The propriety of this bill *depends* entirely on the justification of this definition of "viability." As you will see below in section 4, the bill assumes the immorality of "terminating" a "viable" "pregnancy."
SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.
(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--
(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--
(A) to bear a child;
Why does the legislation refer to the bearing of a "child" instead of a "pregnancy?" All that is in the mother's womb prior to its "viability" is a "pregnancy" or a "fetus." But what is born is a "child." I find it insulting that legislators think Americans are this stupid. Do they seriously think we can't see how they're playing with words here? Then again, perhaps most Americans want to be deceived on this issue. Being told and believing lies helps to quiet the conscience.
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
Here again the question cries out to be answered: what happens when a fetus becomes able to survive outside the mother that makes it somehow different than before? At any rate, as you're about to see in point (C), this question is about to become irrelevant anyway.
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman;
Here is where interpretation will lift abortion restrictions throughout all 9 months of normal pregnancies. If only the term "health" had been defined in the "Definitions" section above. Is this physical health, financial health, psychological health, or what?
Subtlety of speech is what we see here. It is truly amazing that what was once universally regarded as a crime against humanity is now fiercely defended as a constitutional "right." Children aren't murdered - "pregnancies" are merely "terminated." "Fetuses" and "pregnancies" become "viable" at a certain point in time when experts can supposedly tell if they'd be able to survive outside of the womb. We really shouldn't "terminate" such "viable" "fetuses" but if the mother's financial, psychological, spiritual, physical, social, or whatever "health" is in jeopardy, then the government (i.e. the laws of the land) cannot interfere with the "termination" of such "pregnancies" or "fetuses" even though they are now "viable" (i.e. living human persons). More respect could be afforded to the person who calls this what it really is instead of hiding behind all of this subterfuge. Of course, manipulation of language through the use of euphemisms and other rhetorical devices is nothing new. The twisting of language to hide evil is as old as the temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden. But what we have here is the mass marketing of the legalized torture and murder of living human persons. Once the egg is fertilized, nothing essential to its life is added throughout the entire 9 months of pregnancy other than nutrition. There is nothing added which at some point makes it become alive or become a living human person. Everything essential to and unique about that living human person is right there from the moment of conception forward.
I may post more thoughts on this later...