The House Republicans today made news (here) with a letter sent to President Obama asking the latter not to sign the Freedom of Choice Act – a bill that has not been passed yet. The letter is signed b
y 80 anti-abortion GOP House members, but newly installed Rep. Anh Joseph Cao of Louisiana (pictured) is not among the signers.
The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is a proposal made in the Senate by Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, and in the House by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat. It has never been passed and is still unlikely to pass any time soon.
The letter (full text here) was sent by House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio to the President, and is signed by 80+ of his colleagues, asking the President not to sign FOCA.
However, because the bill has never passed, there’s really nothing to not sign. (Even though, if and when it does pass, the President has said he’d sign it.) At this time, the letter is seen as mostly a symbolic statement to mark the January 22 anniversary of the landmark case Roe v. Wade in which the U.S. Supreme Court established a woman’s constitutional right to choose an abortion.
Ánh Joseph Cao, a former Jesuit seminarian and the first Vietnamese-American member of Congress, was not among the signers. Maybe Boehner didn’t ask.
Cao once told InsideCatholic.com here that he’s “very anti-abortion” and would love for Roe to be overturned.
I respect Mr Cao immensely and am curious to know if he is against abortion outright. If so, on what moral grounds can he justify such a decision? Also, whose rights susperseed, personal or state?
If he makes an exception, then why not another and another? Being good, pious, or righteous is especially difficult in the world of gray.
I think Mr. Cao loves/respects life…a sign of another good moral character.
Junk Kim, you are a disgrace to our family. I regret to bring you to life. Your mom said she want to abort you when you still in her worm.
This is not about his moral character but the morality behind banning abortion absolutely. Is abortion not justifiable in extreme conditions?
That’s personal call ……..only excuse I may see is when mom’s life is in great danger.
Otherwise, pro choice people are normally nothing more than a ugly selfish baby killers.
Mr.Cao needs to be spending many hours meeting his VOTERS… like 24/7 with love and sincere servitude.
Being an former Jesuit Seminarian….. visit all churches in the district and show strong support for moral/family values.
JK, is the mother’s life the only reason? And that is an exception that shows blanket policy is not always the best route to lead society.
Tuan, a human life is the most valuable commodity on this earth and yes, we need to do everything to protect both born/unborn children’s lives. This is only right thing to do. I won’t initiate the pathetic blame games but we must adhere to the right principles all the time ..including today.
Let the painful past be forgiven ..cast off to a deep ocean but today, we will appreciate precious lives with unyielding devotion and great committment.
Jung Kim,
I appreciate your respect for human life. It is not the conclusion we argue over because each of us holds different values. By meandering and comparing our passage, do we share notes and understand each other better.
Now, in extreme cases such as (God forbid) rape and incest, do we force women to carry the child to full term? Has she no say in the matter?
If society allows one, two, or three exceptions, where do we stop? Can we empower women to choose and provide education on alternative solutions such as adoption?
Yes, alternate solution such as adoption is a great solution …..but not abortion.
Abortion not only in effect kills unborn baby but it also causes permanent scar to woman’s heart.
Same conclusion, yes, but how should society protect this right, by being pro-choice or anti-abortion? Not an answer that can be decided so readily. Just my simple thought.
Good night, Jung Kim.
Anti-abortion policy with education providing adaption option might do the trick here.
Many experienced doctors believe abortion has a direct link to the breast cancer causation.
Good night.
JK,
Keep up the good work and don’t let the turkeys bother you. They are a bunch of losers any way. Keep on trucking man. You own this dang blog. Bolsavik gets to post only to serve you man.
Fan, thanks…actually Bolsavik and I work together very well in serving our readers.
Bolsavik is a wonderful person with deep knowledge on our community issues and I try my best to help him out in certain situations. Maybe he can become Mr.Cao II….by knocking off ding dong Loretta in 2 years.
Hahaha. Bolsavik and Jung Kim don’t have orginality; they have to use others to promote themselves.
Gosh, I am sorry Billy……you are a great person too!
JK, everyone is great in his unique way, but none of us can match your greatness.
Ok, JK, let’s see how great you are.
When and how would society classify the clump of growing cells a fetus? Or are we talking about potential human life?
Go Tuan Nguyen! Take Jung Kim down from his imaginary thrown, along with Bolsavik! They’re both sleeper cell commies.
Tuan, you have given answer to your own question in above statement.
Your notion “grwing cells” reflects the presence of life..meaning the lifeless or dead of anything won’t grow…
F Student, you need to be sent to the sewage labor camp and recite ” I am a communist wannabe sicko” 100 times a day.
If that is the case, then menstruation is on par with early embryo development, so OK to abort.
The unfertilized female egg does not grow in it’s own capacity…not a good sign of life presence alone.
Neither is the fertilized clump of cells; it needs a host to survive. Therefore the host can choose to abort it.
Natural function of female’s body allows these dead eggs to be removed in a monthly menstration cycles.
The fertilized eggs with presence of life however, are nurtured by the complex body system with great care in auto pilot mode….. all without woman’s seperate intervention/decision
If the embryo grows abnormally, meaning deformity, is it wrong to abort it?
It depends…is it ok to kill off midgets because of their abnormality?
The “king” has been dethroned. Long live the “king”!
Ha Ha Ha you are too funny. Be a life cherishing/graceful person.
JK, I am old and clumsy so not light on my feet and graceful. Being grumpy, I cannot be gracious either. So, you’ll have to take me as I am!
Mr. Bolsavik,
Did you read about the video thing on the OC Supervisors in the LA Times? Do you plan to cover it? It’s in today’s newspaper.
Here it is:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-abortion-ban24-2009jan24,0,3692008.story
the age of Reagan is over :
Posted by John Farmer November 06, 2008 05:00AM
Categories: Opinion
Farmer is national political correspondent for the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J. (Newhouse News Service)
1980 campaign photo
Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election ushered in the era of conservative power. Has Barack Obama’s victory done the same for the liberal agenda?
To the extent that American politics and government can be measured in eras, one came to an end with this election.
The victory of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama has written finis to what Princeton historian Sean Wilentz described in his recent book as “The Age of Reagan,” a generation of American politics dominated by the rise and ascendancy of uncompromising conservatism under Republican auspices.
Voters appeared to have bought into Obama’s commitment to “change,” a word that became his campaign mantra. Indeed, in Ohio, which Obama won, exit polls found that among voters who cited “change” as the principal issue, Obama led Republican Sen. John McCain 92 percent to 5 percent.
Obama’s litany of promises — health care, education spending, tax cuts for the middle class, tax increases for the wealthy — is a classic liberal agenda. But the constraints he will face in office are monumental and over time could strain his relations with activist Democrats in Congress who have chafed under the GOP.
How skillfully a President Obama will navigate the passage between his promises and what the pressures of a collapsing economy will allow — and how well he sells his course to a restless Democratic Congress — is likely to determine how much of a “new direction” he can chart.
The Reagan presidency ended 20 years ago, but the impact of the Gipper was still very much with us — at least until Tuesday night. As Wilentz points out, it persisted even through the eight-year White House reign of Democrat Bill Clinton, who claimed credit for such conservative favorites as free trade and an end to federal welfare.
“The era of big government is over,” said Clinton, whose domestic agenda was remarkably modest for a Democrat.
The hallmark of the so-called “Reagan Revolution” was deep tax cuts, the aspect of the Gipper’s agenda that President Bush embraced most enthusiastically. Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 actually lowered rates for businesses and wealthy individuals below the Reagan levels.
No issue more sharply defined the differences between Obama and McCain than tax cuts. Obama pledged to raise the rates on wealthy individuals to Reagan levels; McCain promised to extend the Bush cuts, even add to them.
It’s an issue that’s been a perennial winner for the GOP. Pre-election polls, however, found that voters overwhelmingly felt the country was headed in the “wrong direction.” And Tuesday they overwhelmingly turned their backs on the tax-cut candidate — a signal, perhaps, that the issue has lost its allure for Americans facing a period of economic stress and uncertainty, even severe personal hardship if the slump worsens.
For Republicans, the results almost certainly mean the most agonizing of reappraisals. The GOP was competitive only in the Deep South and the Plains states and found itself under unusually heavy pressure in the once-reliable Mountain West.
The GOP suffered a shutout in New England and the Middle Atlantic states and lost all of the Midwest.
The West Coast trio — California, Washington and Oregon — also produced a shutout for Obama.
“Government,” the Gipper once famously said, “is not the solution, government is the problem.” Today, a new majority of the electorate has declared that it’s time for government to come to their aid.
** After getting $20 Billion welfare check from Commie Bush, Merrill Lynch CEO, John Thain handed out $3 Billions bonus to all of his associates, that is our money.
** has any seen the $50,000 toilet seat in John Thain bathroom ? That is your money paying for his 1 million dollar office remodeling.
** The National Debt is $10.7 Trillion as of January 7, 2009.
In Fiscal Year 2008, the U. S. Government spent $412 Billion of your money on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt.
Country First, our economy is in trouble due to our self serving unions…look at almost now defunct GM Motors… each car on the dealer’s parking lot has add on premium of $1,800 for retired union member’s pension plan!
How can GM survive alone?
We need a smaller union and less bailouts from the government because each bailout by the federal government increases our national debt!
** CEOs of the Big Three auto companies in November 2008 flew private jets to Washington to request taxpayer bailout money.
…
“We’re here today because we made mistakes,” CEO of GM, Wagoner admitted. “And we’re here because forces beyond our control have pushed us to the brink.
Wagoner also said: “We made mistakes, such as failing to build sufficient flexibility into our operations, and not moving fast enough to invest in smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles for the U.S. market.”
…
For more than 20 years, Americans are less and less likely to buy car by GM, Ford, & Chrysler :
1. Bad designs
2. Inferior quality
3. Gas guzzlers
GM is the epitome of what is wrong with the old American management ?
At the end of the day, so many corporations now look to Washington for social welfare bailout.
Listen to this one expert :
My father used to work for GM. We used to live in the Detroit area and only saw the same crappy cars always. We drove GM cars for years and are not surprised that the big three are in so much trouble now. So many people are saying that Detroit is making better cars blah blah blah. BS. My dad was an engineer at the GM Tech Center in Warren. He hated working there. The culture was so bad. Nobody worked and the company is beaucratic. The managers sit for years and don’t do anything. They are all fools.
The Japanese and Germans demand profit. If any employee (including managers) is underperforming then they will get fired. Detroit has no concept of that. They are all fools. So don’t say that the Detroit automakers are good and are making good cars. Cause that is total Bull.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4292379.html
Maybe we should let them file ch.11 and re organize to become smaller but more effecient company. Get rid of union handcuffs.
Not true. From a reliable source:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090110/AUTO01/901100383/1148/AUTO01
Unchanged – Union pension is one single greatest burden for our motor industry companies.
GM and its counterparts have had a history of undefunding their pension fund, using those moneys for operations. Had they done the right thing, the current pension contribution would not be as high.
Country First is correct to point to management’s ineptness and indifference. Here is an example back in 2005. This issue had existed before then.
http://www.globalaging.org/pension/us/private/2005/gm.htm
BTW, what is your source?
I am the source! Ask Toyota, Honda and Hyundai how much they are spending for the pension plan…per each car they sell? All these companies spend substantially less than our US Union- chained counterparts.
The less profit they earn from sales of new car ….there is less money to go around for crucial research & development of new models satisfying today’s everchanging consumers need/taste.
You raise a very good point. All foreign (Japanese and European) auto manufacturers took a huge risk to open plants in rural areas providing jobs to these local areas and succeeded. They should be respected for doing so.
They even allowed these workers to form unions, and the workers are getting a more rich compensation plan than their domestic counterparts. Remember that these foreign auto manufacturers had to provide training to all their workers to ensure the best craftsmanship on their vehicle.
Toyota is so innovative that it has opened on-site medical and dental clinics to minimize costs to the company and employee downtime and out of pocket expenses. This concept is not new, American created!
I think you missed the point – the domestic automobile manufacturers should not have taken pension money out of the coffer and use it. It should have been invested in more liquid investments like government bonds or CDs. That money belongs to the employees.
They put the remaining amount in the stock market speculating on the share price increase to inflate their true cash value. These are very bad people. If the Big 3 file chapter 11, these pensions may fall under an aggressive pension administrator who may not allow the pensioners to collect the full value of their pension, meaning a fraction of what they are entitled to.
Bottom line: Is this fair to the retired workers? Clearly not! Now, they use their created condition to usurp the government for financial bailout. Their logic is if we go under, there will be massive unemployment. These guys belong to a very small circle and live high on the hog. They do not allow innovative people to make the company better because that makes them look bad, and ultimately, the status quo company leaders may lose their job. They run their companies into the ground and are absolved from any responsibility.
Now, you want to protect these goons?
No, I don’t want to protect these goons but $1800 built in cost per car is absolutely crazy in today’s hard competing auto market.
Gutless JK; folds under pressure and deprives the common joes of their pension and rewards the abusers. Keep on yapping like a coward!
JK, another sycophantic company yes man!
Suzy Vo, did truth hurt your feelings? Get use to it !
Open your eyes to look at the whole picture and ask why union presidents take millions of dollars in salaries……a possible sign of corruption in upstairs playing hanky panky with corp. CEOs?
No medicine for ignorant minds…yes it’s you I am talking about!