I was listening to a conversation between a man and his son the other day. I've spent a fair amount of time with them over the years and was interested in what they had to say. The man was reassuring his son that change is good even though sometimes it can be frightening. That seems like a reasonable enough position I suppose. But is change always good?
Take this Freedom Of Choice Act for example. Just like the man's statement that change is good, it sounds great. It's wholly American - Freedom and Choice. Liking both I read it for myself to see what exactly it says. First I found that in Section 4 it says that the government may not interfere with a woman's right to choose to either bear a child or have an abortion. Okay, abortion is legal now. Nothing new there. Subsection b2 is a little more interesting. It says the government may not "discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information." Personally, I find this one a little confusing. What does all that really mean?
To understand the effect of b2 you have to take a look at the Hyde Amendment. In 1976 passage of the Hyde Amendment prevented tax dollars from being used to fund abortion procedures through Medicaid. This seems an equitable balance. No citizen can be forced to fund abortions via their tax dollars. However, if the FOC Act says that the government cannot discriminate against the exercise of these rights in the provision of benefits, then the FOC Act and the Hyde Amendment are in conflict. Hyde is established law - already on the books. It wins, right? Actually, no. This is where Section 6 comes in with the retroactive knockout punch. Section 6 says that the FOC Act applies to all previous federal legislation, in effect negating the Hyde Amendment. In short, the Freedom Of Choice Act would make abortions conducted for any reason, not just maternal health and the other usual exclusions, available through Medicaid. But, strangely enough, that's the least scary part of this change.
SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.
This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
It also applies to every "State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action". Not only does it negate the Hyde act, it also sets aside every state restriction on abortion as well. Those exclusions include so called "conscience provisions" that allow healthcare personnel to opt out of participating in abortions without fear of losing their jobs. It also includes requirements for parental consent for minors or even counseling prior to the procedure. And what about limits on late term abortions? All are swept aside thanks to the FOC Act's prohibition of government interference "prior to viability", the frontier of which is pushed back before our eyes thanks to advances in medical technology.
Of course you can you can guess by now, I'm pro-life. I'm also strongly in favor of leaving as much power in the hands of the individual States of our Republic. Like it or not, the Freedom Of Choice Act takes more than it gives. It takes away my choice to not participate in or support abortion through my tax dollars. It also takes away my voice at the state and local level of government. And what of the choice of like-minded healthcare workers that agree there are better alternatives to abortion?
So what does all this have to do with the conversation between the man and his son? Just this: in a speech before Planned Parenthood on 7/17/2007, in response to a question from the audience, Barack Obama said, "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom Of Choice Act." Am I afraid of this kind of change? Absolutely. Are you?