Comments on: Rumors of Amendments Swirl, but FOCA Remains Unsalvageable

By: Dr. Spock

Dr. Spock — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:56:33 +0000

In case there is any doubt, the bill does all the *sad* things that Mary-Louise says. It goes well beyond Roe v. Wade. Section 15 provides that “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any other law to the contrary, the State or any municipality, political subdivision, or other governmental unit or agency shall not . . . deny or *interfere* with a pregnant woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy…”

Any restriction or regulation on abortion could readily be deemed an “interference,” even if is a common sense measure, such as: notification to a parent or guardian before her minor girl undergoes an abortion, regulatory standards for abortion facilities, or physician-only requirements. It is correct that each of these measures are not specifically repealed in the bill. There was no need. The bill simply establishes a broad and low threshold (“interference” with a fundamental right) which effectively strikes down any limits.

I anticipate that parental notice may have been the primary target of this provision. But the results of the provision are absurd. It would mean that a minor girl in Illinois could not receive an aspirin from a school nurse without parental *consent*, but her 22 year old boyfriend can push her into having an abortion to cover up his crime, and this law would say that her mother need not be told.

With respect to immunity for botched abortions that harm women, I do not see any legitimate reason why we should treat abortionists better than other medical professionals. If they harm a woman, the woman should have the right to recover damages. Why is this controversial? In fact, beyond providing *civil* immunity, Section 25 confers immunity from *criminal* penalties for “medical professionals” (not only physicians) that terminate the lives of unborn children. Shields from *criminal* liability go well beyond what we do for “Good Samaritan” physicians in free clinics or those providing emergency care. This is yet another obvious give-away that HB 2354 is an abortion-industry special interests bill. It must be defeated.

By: Dan Wurtz

Dan Wurtz — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:02:37 +0000

I filled with Joy!!!
Even in this period of tribulation!!
Your work and the end result is very pleasing!
This website and the tireless work you are doing is MUCH appreciated. I am sure you are loosing more sleep than I am, however I am tirelessly trying to educate, network and encourage others to be active.
I wanted you to know that your dedication is being joined on my part and in others I am sure.
WAY to GO!!
We must do what we can to change the culture of death in this country.

By: SoMG

SoMG — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 05:54:57 +0000

Sorry, forgot to add the passage I quoted is from Section 25a.

By: SoMG

SoMG — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 05:52:32 +0000

Please explain. I read the Act, and it does not, as you say “[Sweep] away ALL common-sense restrictions on abortion, including sanitary regulations for clinics, … and a law that only physicians are permitted to perform abortions.”

It just doesn’t do that. Anyone who reads it can see that. Quote me the passage that says non-physicians would be permitted to perform abortions. You can’t because there isn’t any such.

In fact it does the opposite. I’ll quote:

23 (a) Pregnancy terminations shall be performed in
24 accordance with accepted standards of medical practice,…

NEWSFLASH: “accepted standards of medical practice” means, sanitary conditions. Ask any doc. Illinois FOCA (as your web site posts it) REQURES sanitary conditions.

The “broad immunity” legal protections only apply so long as the doc works according to “accepted standards of medical practice”. That means, no more bullsh*t malpractice suits. If we were smart, we’d apply the same legal protection to all of medicine.