Time Magazine Bashed for Criticizing Pro-Life Advocates on Pro-Abortion FOCA

National   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Feb 20, 2009   |   9:00AM   |   WASHINGTON, DC

Time Magazine Bashed for Criticizing Pro-Life Advocates on Pro-Abortion FOCA

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
February 20
, 2009

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Time magazine is under fire for criticizing pro-life advocates who oppose the radical pro-abortion FOCA bill. Staff writer Amy Sullivan bashes pro-life groups, including the nation’s Catholic bishops, by claiming they are mobilizing against a "mythical abortion bill."

Because the so-called Freedom of Choice Act hasn’t officially been introduced in this session of Congress, Sullivan claims pro-life groups are creating a false battle over a bill that doesn’t exist.

However, the Freedom of Choice Act existed in 1993 when pro-life advocates rallied to defeat a previous version. The bill was also introduced in April 2007 in a previous session of Congress.

While the introduction of the measure hasn’t occurred yet this session, abortion advocates could introduce the bill at any time and abortion advocates have already put it on their priority list in their marching orders for President Barack Obama.

Sullivan also downplays the effects of the radical FOCA bill.

She writes that the bill "would essentially codify the Roe v. Wade decision by saying the government can’t place limits on abortions performed before viability."

Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review takes Sullivan to task for her description of the legislation and criticism of pro-life advocates.

"Actually, the bill would go well beyond Roe (and Roe itself goes beyond that description)," he explains. "It would invalidate parental-consent laws, state bans on taxpayer funding of abortion, and other pro-life policies that the courts have allowed."

"The Freedom of Choice Act is ‘mythical’ because it hasn’t been introduced in this Congress. So it will only be proper to mobilize against it when it’s moving through committee? Odd standard," Ponnuru adds.

He criticizes Sullivan for denying reports that FOCA could increase annual abortions by as much as 100,000 or more.

"It’s a guess, and not an implausible one. Taxpayer funding of abortion tends to increase its incidence," he says.

Ed Whelan, also of National Review, adds that the opponents of FOCA have also noted that the bill could be approved piecemeal.

"I’ll note that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ postcard campaign specifically (and correctly) warns ‘that this same FOCA agenda could be pursued in a series of smaller steps,’" he writes. "The postcards themselves call on members of Congress to ‘oppose FOCA or any similar measure, and retain laws against federal funding and promotion of abortion.’"

"The campaign is directed against very real threats," he explains.

Bill Donohue, the director of the Catholic League, also weighs in on Sullivan and Time’s condemnation of the opponents of FOCA.

"The fact is that Rep. Jerry Nadler and Sen. Barbara Boxer previously introduced FOCA, but they got nowhere," he explained. "The fact is that they have publicly pledged to reintroduce the same bill this term. The fact is that the reason they haven’t done so yet is due to pro-life Catholics who are honestly pro-life."

Noting the pro-abortion Catholics quoted in her column, Donohue added: "What it comes down to is this: pro-abortion Catholics are angry that pro-life Catholics have succeeded so far in intimidating FOCA supporters from going forward."

ACTION: Contact Time magazine with your comments by going to https://www.time.com/time/contactus2

Sign Up for Free Pro-Life News From LifeNews.com

Daily Pro-Life News Report Twice-Weekly Pro-Life
News Report
Receive a free daily email report from LifeNews.com with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here. Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.