Freedom of Choice Act

I have been hammering on H.R. 1592 that would give to Left Wing bureaucrats and authorities to intimidate or jail Christians for Free Speech; i.e. if the House Bill went through the Senate and found the President’s desk.

The President has promised to veto any such legislation.

Thanks to a friend forwarding an e-newsletter from Jay Sekulow’s American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), I have discovered the Lefties in Congress have proposed legislation to undermine the Supreme Court’s judicial decision that eliminates partial birth abortion. The legislation is called the Freedom of Choice Act.

“Freedom of Choice” is Pro-Choice feminist double-speak for murdering babies in a woman’s womb. Pro-Choicers have desensitized themselves by adopting medical terms for babies that have not been born with the word “fetus.”

The word “fetus” gives anti-Christian moralists the mindset that an unborn baby is merely an internal organ like the heart or the brain.

Jay Sekulow reports that the President of the United States has assured him he would veto such legislation if it (also) came by his desk.

Here is the ACLJ petition that is adding power to the voice of the Right. SIGN IT!

CWA Thanks President Bush for 'Hate Crimes' Veto Pledge

UPDATE: According to Christian News Wire report, President Bush has pledged to veto H.R. 1592 if it makes it to his desk.In the world of political compromise things change, so keep watching.

JRH

*******************************

CWA Thanks President Bush for 'Hate Crimes' Veto Pledge

Christian News Wire

May 3, 2007

WASHINGTON, May 3 /Christian Newswire/ -- "We thank President Bush for honoring our nation's constitutional tradition of equal protection under the law," said Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues at Concerned Women for America. The Executive Office of the President has issued a statement promising to veto "hate crimes" bill H.R. 1592 should it be approved in Congress today. The statement follows:

"The Administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion, or national origin. However, the Administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable. If H.R. 1592 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."

State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new Federal crime defined in section 7 of H.R. 1592, and many of these laws carry stricter penalties (including mandatory minimums and the death penalty) than the proposed language in H.R. 1592. State and local law enforcement agencies and courts have the capability to enforce those penalties and are doing so effectively. There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement, and doing so is inconsistent with the proper allocation of criminal enforcement responsibilities between the different levels of government. In addition, almost every State in the country can actively prosecute hate crimes under the State's own hate crimes law.

"H.R. 1592 prohibits willfully causing or attempting to cause bodily injury to any person based upon the victim's race, color, religion, or national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The Administration notes that the bill would leave other classes (such as the elderly, members of the military, police officers, and victims of prior crimes) without similar special status. The Administration believes that all violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and should be punished firmly.

"Moreover, the bill's proposed section 249(a)(1) of title 18 of the U.S. Code raises constitutional concerns. Federalization of criminal law concerning the violence prohibited by the bill would be constitutional only if done in the implementation of a power granted to the Federal government, such as the power to protect Federal personnel, to regulate interstate commerce, or to enforce equal protection of the laws. Section 249(a)(1) is not by its terms limited to the exercise of such a power, and it is not at all clear that sufficient factual or legal grounds exist to uphold this provision of H.R. 1592."

Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.



© 1999 – 2007 Christian Communications Network