Talk:Freedom of Choice Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I completely agree with User 24.174.21.20. All bias/POV should be removed. Both sides find it difficult to keep Wikipedia neutral; they can't resist an opportunity to make a cheapshot at the other side. We need to maintain neutrality here. Personally, I don't believe this article is biased, but then again, I just glanced through it. Crimthand (talk) 9:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive me if this is not the right place or format to enter this information. I am old and new to Wikipedia, but I believe this might be of interest in explaining the other side: http://www.fightfoca.com/AUL_Model_Resolution_FOCA.pdf HarbingerOfHope (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure why there's a POV/neutrality claim on this article. Shouldn't the article be stripped of all POV and just outline what the Freedom of Choice Act actually is? Everything else should be eliminated. 24.174.21.20 (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Obama quote, from the speech at Planned Parenthood, appropriately captures its context. He was responding to a question specifically about his intentions regarding abortion, not his broader intentions as president. As a result, the line "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" appears, here, to mean something other than the context of the response suggests. I recommend revising this. 24.121.216.70 (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, and a good edit was made, adding to context. CrimsonLine (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else notice that all the sources for this article make it very one sided??? They are almost all pro-choice organizations, and John Mccain who is pro choice. If you're going to post an article, don't show any bias, and be impartial. Get sources from both sides, because unless I can see info from other than "conservative" sources, I can't take this article seriously —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memanzo17 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any "sides" to be taken. Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, meaning that factual information about a topic is written about - not opinions. -- Jamesia (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lengthy section here on why there is opposition to this bill. It only makes sense that such a section would mostly reference opponents to the bill, no? The sections describing the bill itself reference documents in favor of the bill, documents opposed to the bill, and neutral documents. This article does not seem to be biased to me in its citation of sources. CrimsonLine (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is ridiculously biased and should be changed. Whoever wrote this is clearly criticizing this act. "The act is expected to kill millions more unborn and newborn babies and physcially, emotionally and psychologically hurt millions of women and fathers." I mean honestly, that is ridiculous and clearly shows a bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spunkjockey (talk • contribs) 02:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is wikipedia. If there's objectionable material in here, alter it, and reference the alterations (with facts, not Op-Eds). Then again, these bills would make it possible to sue doctors and hospitals for not doing abortions, thus violating their interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath and hence the First Amendment, and would make it possible to sue people who offer counseling in which abortions are discouraged, thus violating the First Amendment again. It is very curious that the language in the bills is such that the sponsors expect these aspects to be struck down. So, if the sponsors already know aspects of the legislation are unconstitutional, why do they offer such legislation?Weyandt (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The text you are quoting does not appear anywhere in the article, so far as I can see. CrimsonLine (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone actually took my advice. Wow! Weyandt (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This article, while factually correct, does leave a very pro-life/anti-abortion taste in one's mouth. These articles are intended for gaining information on subjects, not being exposed to only one half of an argument. The opposition section is three times as long as the support section (which provides no real facts other than Barack Obama has endorsed the bill). I believe this article should be flagged as being biased by omission. Evans3256 (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there more to be said in the Support section? Is there anything specific in the Opposition section that is counterfactual or misleading? It's hard to substantiate a claim of bias by omission without any specifics proffered about what is being omitted. CrimsonLine (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is 'fetal viability' defined in the context of this bill? Kiyarasabel

From the text of the bill: "(3) VIABILITY- The term "viability" means that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman." CrimsonLine (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

87.192.56.84 (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC) This article is highly partisan and should be viewed as little more than an anti-abortion hatchet job on the FOCA. There is no breakdown of the bill's contents, and no analysis other than to note that it would have the effect of removing a number of state restrictions which are currently in place. The debate section is overwhelmingly negative in most respects, and gives no indication of pro-choice opinions or rationale. For this reason, the article has been marked as POV.[reply]

Please feel free to make appropriate additions to the article, to rectify the situation. Have you read the bill? What aspects of the bill are not covered in the article? Since the bill is in the Judiciary Committee and no hearings on it are currently being held, most of the public discussion about it IS negative. CrimsonLine (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just gone back and re-read the bill. It's a short bill. It really doesn't say more than this article summarizes, IMO. Comparing the text of the bill to the text of this article, I don't understand the request for a "breakdown of the bill's contents." CrimsonLine (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I think the article meets WP:NPOV. Spotfixer (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only real complaint I have with this article is that at least one of the references (#17) is a secondary source and makes me wonder if the primary source was checked to ensure the referenced statement is accurate. I don't recall that we at Catholic News Service made such a claim, but I could be wrong. Mjtaryan (talk) 18:36 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I have done a search via Google, found the CNS article that TIME magazine referenced, and replaced the secondary source citation with the story itself. CrimsonLine (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good edit, CrimsonLine. I had tracked down that article when I added the TIME reference and forgot to update the reference.EditorCasual (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect needed[edit]

We need a redirect for "FOCA" to this article. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Kmiec[edit]

Is anyone particlarly attached to calling a man who was denied Communion in the Catholic Church and who campaigned for Barack Obama a conservative? Why not just call him a legal scholar? Furthermore, does anyone object to me breaking the sentence "Although those who oppose the Act have interpreted it as an attempt to obligate religious hospitals to either "do abortions or close",[1] supporters point to conscience clause laws[2] that would protect religious hospitals." into two sentences? - Schrandit (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a) your criteria for "conservative" aren't tenable. Those factors don't make Kmeic not a conservative; they make him someone with whom you don't agree. b) Kmeic identifies himself as a conservative and is home at conservative institutions; and c) the identifier "conservative" is important in this context because it asserts that one's position on FOCA is not necessarily defined by partisan history. My opinion about the sentence split is less strong, but I think it was complete and readable as "Although ...". EditorCasual (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do disagree with Kmeic, I make no bones about that and concede that might influence my argument. That being said, is he currently a member of any conservative institutions? Do we know if he still identifies as a conservative? He hasn't served a conservative government since the first Bush administration, he campaigned heavily for Barack and there is talk of him being appointed to an ambassadorship by the Obama administration. - Schrandit (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your questions make me wonder if you've actually read what Kmiec wrote about his endorsement of Obama, in which he repeatedly describes himself as Republican and pro-life. He remains a faculty member at Pepperdine University, and I've heard none of this "talk" about him being made an ambassador. All of this is pretty readily google-able, and much of it is linked from the wikipedia page on Kmiec. You can also read about his being denied Communion, and note that the priest who did so has apologized and said that action was inappropriate. Describing him as conservative is fair, and important in the context of this article. EditorCasual (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, sensible edit by Topynate on Jan 31 2009. As I indicated in the above discussion, I think that's important context for the arguments being made in this article. EditorCasual (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did my own research on Douglas Kmiec and there doesn't seem to be even the vaguest doubt that he's conservative. In fact, if not for his iron-clad conservative reputation, his endorsement of Obama wouldn't have been news in the first place. His only "crime" here is that he's not consistently conservative enough to suit some people, which is just too bad for them.
Take a look at http://townhall.com/columnists/DouglasWKmiec#ColumnistBio. This is his bio for a site he is a columnist on, and the title of the page says "Douglas W. Kmiec: Conservative Columns and News From Townhall". If he in any way objected to being characterized as a conservative, I cannot imagine that the title would remain in its current wording. For calibration, please note that it also calls Ann Coulter a conservative, which proves that it's not Opposites Day at Townhall. Spotfixer (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that he's a conservative in his own opinion and that of many (not all) other conservatives. However, calling him a "pro-life Republican" does the same work, or better work, in this article of showing Kmiec is not arguing to support the motives of the Act, and is slightly less subject to dispute, given that there are numerous documented cases of him defining himself as pro-life and Republican. topynate (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I get it. Under what relevant standard does he fail to qualify as a conservative? Spotfixer (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's undoubtedly conservative. I think identifying him as a pro-life Republican is a reasonable compromise in the face of persistent (if unfounded) argument against identifying him as conservative.EditorCasual (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)

I agree that "pro-life Republican" is accurate and probably clear enough. Having said that, I've been dealing with a whole lot of persistent and unfounded resistance from conservatives as of late, and to be frank, I'm not in a particularly conciliatory mood. I see no reason to give them an inch or a yard. Spotfixer (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And while we were wasting our time talking about it, some anonymous user removed "pro-life Republican". Note how I WP:AGF by not concluding that it's an obvious sock puppet. In any case, I'm not going to revert it yet, but you're entirely free to do so. Spotfixer (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the anonymous edit and pointed to talk. EditorCasual (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This "random" editor is a fine example of the sort of persistent and unfounded resistance we've been getting from conservatives as of late. Spotfixer (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Obama's Threat to Catholic Hospitals" Melinda Henneberger writing in Slate
  2. ^ "Sterilization or Abortion" US Code § 300a–7.

The picture[edit]

I think the present picture makes pro-lifers look crazy at best, possibly worse. Would anyone mind if I replaced it with a less controversial picture? - Schrandit (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're not denying that the picture is accurate, you just want the opponents of FOCA to look better? Wow, can you BE more blatant about your bias?
No, absolutely not. You do not get to whitewash this article. Spotfixer (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is accurate of that particular man's feeling but there were hundreds of thousands of people at that march, millions in the pro-life movement in this country. How is this encyclopedia served by singling that out one? This man gives an inaccurate image of the pro-life movement and doesn't mention FOCA. - Schrandit (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can view megabytes of inflammatory rhetoric aimed at President Obama every day from the so-called "pro-life movement," in press releases and other e-mails. It's quite appropriate to include a picture illustrating how the effect of that rhetoric, specifically aimed at Obama, was expressed on the street at the "March for Life." Mike Doughney (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Disclosure: I am the photographer, BTW) It is a very extreme expression of sentiment indeed. It should not be excluded because it makes pro-lifers, Obama, or anyone else look bad. It should be appraised for its interest and its informational value. I think it has both. Best of all, I think it's something that most people, no matter what their politics, would remember seeing. It's not boring. I support its inclusion. --Boston (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is not boring (Disclosure: I was there too and I remembered thinking "Wow! That guy is a loon") but does it neutrally contribute to the article? Does it bias a readers feeling one way or the other? I think it'd be balanced it we included a picture of an abrasive pro-abortion activist? How about that for a compromise? - Schrandit (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not whether it's a neutral contribution but whether it contributes to the neutrality. Censoring it would be an act of whitewashing. Spotfixer (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that we are censoring it; it is a NPOV issue. The NPOV page says that

In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. For example, to state that "according to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

By including a picture of an extremist, we would be giving "apparent parity between the supermajority view [of pro-lifers] and a tiny minority view [expressed by the extremist in the picture]."--Geremia (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Schrandit, the photo might give someone a bad impression of pro-lifers. But the fault rests with the sign holder. We can't censor stuff. If there was a pro-choice, pro-FOCA photo that seemed interesting and informative, it might be included too. Try to dig one up. However, more importantly, good Wikipedia editors put their POV on the shelf when they edit. Imagine that photo was comparing some Serbian politician you and I never heard of to Hitler because of some controversy we didn't care about. Would your concern level be the same? At any rate, I really don't think it's going to sway opinion one way or another in any significant way. Boston (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another question is: "Does this picture even belong in this article?" It has nothing to do with FOCA directly.--Geremia (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo does not have the word "FOCA" in it but is directly related to anger at Obama for promising to sign it. If it was a sign at a random event, or at inauguration (etc), it would not be relevant. --Boston (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, do you know that? There are plenty of reasons that fellow could be angry at Obama, do we know that FOCA is one of them? - Schrandit (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Schrandit, I think we both know why the sign was made and where the picture was taken, so it is best we be honest. You may remove the pic if you want, but I am confident another editor will restore it given the conversation that has transpired here. --Boston (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to do anything rash, but back to the point. Yes, I was there with you and clearly this man does not like Obama's position on abortion but this article is not about the broad topic of Obama and abortion it is specifically about FOCA. That man could be angry at Obama because of the Illinois Induced Infant Born Alive Act, he could be angry at Obama because of his promise to repeal the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, his general statements about abortion, etc. Do we know this sign pertains to the Freedom of Choice Act? - Schrandit (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only photo I have with the word "FOCA" visible. Perhaps this photo can replace the Obama-Hitler photo and make everyone happy? --Boston (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you and Boston were at the march, shouldn't you be thinking about COI when it comes to depicting it? I don't think anyone expects that this article will be edited by people with no pro-life/pro-choice view, but it's a bit different when we're talking about how representative an image is of a specific event you attended. topynate (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have we lost perspective? The picture has nothing to do with FOCA. There happens to be an anti-FOCA sign, but it is almost completely blocked by a woman's head. Perhaps if the actual anti-FOCA sign were present the photo would be relevant, but as such it is not. Furthermore, the image and caption are rather inflammatory and not representative of the event as a whole. Where are the dozens of signs that were respecting the office of Obama and pleading with him to change his mind on abortion policy? The editor who chose the image clearly wanted the people at the march to look foolish. The image should be replaced with a protestor who is actually protesting the subject of the article, or it should be removed. Tiki2099 (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We were both at the march and I took the photo and added it to the article. Schrandit is vocally wanting to have it removed. So what's your conclusion? That being said, I've already stated that I am fine with someone removing it, even though I've opined that it should be included. --Boston (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. It is dubiously relevant to the subject of the article, and presents an extremely biased view of the march itself. 99.5% of the signs were simple "Fight FOCA" or "Personhood Now", yet you chose a very unrepresentative sign to symbolize the march on another page. Why did you choose that picture instead of the nice picture you took of the nuns? Yes it may be "interesting", but if the March For Life should be represented on another page by a single photo and caption, a large crowd shot is far more appropriate. Tiki2099 (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nuns aren't holding a sign that can be read. Also, I didn't chose a generic photo of the march because the march is annual and hence not FOCA specific. Clearly, the photo I chose is a visual manifestation opposition to Obama's support of FOCA specifically (even if the sign doesn't have FOCA written on it). Nevertheless, if it is removed or replaced I won't revert. --Boston (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See photo and caption comment above for alternative that might be agreeable to many. ----Boston (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tiki2099, your statement that "The editor who chose the image clearly wanted the people at the march to look foolish" is a violation of our policy about assuming good faith. Also, since I went to the march, supported the march, took the photo, and added the photo to the article it should be evident that your accusation is also 100% false. No hard feelings, but please try to express your point in other ways.--Boston (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok then, I apologize. I think that picture is much more reasonable Tiki2099 (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if you were to crop that so that it put the "no foca" logo in the top left, the "Respect Life" logos in the top right and bottom left corners, it would make for a much clearer connection with FOCA. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the licensing on the image so you can crop and edit it as you wish. Please save with different file name. Warning: the photo quality isn't very good; that may be an issue if you crop, but go ahead and see what you get.----Boston (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new image is in. Looks fine from here. It could be cropped further, but the "no foca" sign is perfectly legible in the thumbnail at this size. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new image is great. Boston, thank you for your hard work and accommodating attitude. - Schrandit (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Let me remind you that Wikipedia is not censored, so there is no place for whitewashing. The original photo is just fine. Spotfixer (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding us. The new photo fits the page better. - Schrandit (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spotfixer, I agree with you that this encyclopedia must not be censored! I also feel that certain objections to the ObamaHater.jpg were clearly based upon a specific agenda and weren't appropriate objections in this context. However, the ObamaHater.jpg picture doesn't specifically show the word "FOCA", and the new one does, so I support the view that we're not censoring the ObamaHater.jpg, we are just replacing it with a more appropriate -- albiet less interesting -- picture. I don't think the issue is too important either way, so I'll leave other editors to edit war over it if that's what happens. --Boston (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't think it'll make the slightest difference either way. My opposition comes from how painfully obvious that the initial assumption of good faith has been shown unwarranted. Like Rick Warren, this article is suffering from a gaggle of religious partisans intent on whitewashing the verifiable and relevant facts. I oppose this, which is why I will not stand by as the article is censored.
You personally took that photo, so you know it's about FOCA. Logically, there is no reason why a sign that says "Oppose FOCA" is needed, and to be frank, it shows the reader little in comparison to the violation of Godwin's law. The only motivation for removal is censorship. Bluntly: subtle bigots who are embarrassed by association with more obvious bigots don't want it to be seen. Spotfixer (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spotfixer, your statement had my sympathy until the last sentence. That sentence is highly inappropriate. Firstly, the pro-life position is a legitimate (political, religious, and/or philosophical) stance. You may disagree with it, but calling it bigotry is a gross misassessment. Secondly, it is entirely uncivil to address fellow editors in that manner. Please refrain from doing so. --Boston (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The legitimacy of his stance is precisely the issue here. He's embarrassed to be associated with people like the one you photographed, because that person is an obvious bigot. Spotfixer (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a legitimate point to raise about Schrandit's involvement, but the problem is with the "subtle bigots" jibe at him. topynate (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't think his bigotry is the least bit subtle and I'm sorry if I mistakenly left you with that impression. No, Schrandit does NOTHING BUT insert POV into articles in support of his religious and political conservatism. Good faith has long since left the building, with regard to him. In particular, one of the topics he edits in favor of is anti-Mexican bigotry, which is pretty overt. Spotfixer (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess you are entitled to that opinion. No one else here seems to share it but getting back to the point at hand. The current picture is pertinent to FOCA, why should we remove it and replace it with a picture that does not pertain to FOCA? - Schrandit (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Breath. Breath again. Now let's take it down a notch. Let's wrestle articles, not editors. There have been several missteps on both sides of this debate. Focus on the simple question at hand, which is whether "ObamaHater.jpg" or "No FOCA crop.jpg" better serves this article. Does it? Let's be honest with outselves before opining. --Boston (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're great pictures and they do pertain to abortion, but not specifically to FOCA. Why go with something else when we've got something that directly comments on FOCA? - Schrandit (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're complaining that the Obama one doesn't mention FOCA, then these two are much worse. Be consistent and honest. Spotfixer (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I said as much...-Schrandit (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will state that I think the ObamaHater.jpg is specifically about FOCA while File:CrucifiedInfantJesus.jpg and File:LadyCarryingCross.jpg are not. --Boston (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Informal Poll on photos[edit]

Two days after the Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration, a protester at the March for Life accuses Barack Obama of being like Adolph Hitler and calls for impeachment.

Does "No FOCA crop.jpg" better serve this article than "ObamaHater.jpg"? And remember NO CANVASSING! --Boston (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weakly agree that it does. --Boston (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - "No FOCA crop.jpg" directly relates to this article, "ObamaHater.jpg" only tangentially relates to it. - Schrandit (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no interpretation of your statement that does not yield a patently false proposition. A photo of an anti-FOCA protester necessarily related directly to FOCA. Any statement to the contrary is a lie. Spotfixer (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know he is an anti-FOCA protester? - Schrandit (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is due to statements like the one above that I characterized your stated reason for opposition a "lie", not merely a falsehood. AGF is not a suicide pact. Spotfixer (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What other explanation is there? Please be as honest as possible; it is the best way to advance an editorial position and it is the best thing for Wikipedia in general. --Boston (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't like Obama, probably over something to do with abortion. But that doesn't make him an anti-FOCA protester. There are many other elements of the abortion debate to make folks angry at Obama. There are other issues too, some folks come to the March For Life as anti-war protesters or to protest euthanasia. I think they're at the wrong march, but still, they're there. This guy was probably there to protest the broad injustice of abortion, the protester in the other picture was there specifically to protest FOCA. - Schrandit (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The stated purpose of the march was to remind Obama that these people would be unhappy if he passed FOCA. Spotfixer (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't. - Schrandit (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, a powerful rebuttal. Will you now claim that these protesters are happy with Obama's support for FOCA? Spotfixer (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "The stated purpose of the march was to remind Obama that these people would be unhappy if he passed FOCA." is objectively false. That is all I claimed. - Schrandit (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly disagree that it does. Moreover, as much as we must initially WP:AGF, it seems hard to deny that the primary motive for removing the ObamaHater image at this point is to whitewash the FOCA opposition. I'm sorry, but that's what I see and I'm not going to lie about it for the sake of pretending that all is well here. All is not well. The bottom line is that both images pertain to FOCA, but the NoFocaCrop is bland and uninformative. In contrast, ObamaHater shows the intensity of feeling involved, as well as the fact that this issue has become personalized. Spotfixer (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments. The 2nd photo is bland and uninformative, and the 1st photo does show this issue has become personalized. That's why my feelings on the subject are close to be on the fence. I may change my opinion to Neutral. However, in the case of the comment above, characterizing a different viewpoint "a lie" is uncivil. You have to use words carefully here; it's an essential part of the culture of this project. This is the second time I have called the civility policy to your attention. Please don't make we warn you formally on your talk page. --Boston (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be content if I called it a falsehood, which does not imply intent? Spotfixer (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My contentment is not the issue. "Falsehood" implies deceit, but it is certainly more civil than saying something is "lie". Better still to take the spirit of civility to heart and simply say that something is "incorrect" or "false" as that does not imply the intent to deceive. People often feel that those who have different opinions are being deceptive when, in fact, they just have a completely different perspective and assumptions upon which their opinions are based. --Boston (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly people who I disagree with but who have comported themselves with integrity. I cannot say that Schrandit is one such person. Visit my talk page and you'll see why. Now let's move on to the issue of what image to use with this article, please. Spotfixer (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I weakly disagree that NoFocaCrop is a better image for the article than ObamaHater. From the language that I have read in opposition to FOCA, I get the impression that the anti-legislation focus is increasingly hostile as it relates to President Obama. The repeated out-of-context use of the "the first thing I will do as President" quote is evidence of this. FOCA and Obama's support thereof appear to be the issue motivating anti-abortion protests at this time, and so I think it stands to reason that a participant in the March for Life who is carrying a sign like ObamaHater's is not there for anti-war or anti-euthanasia purposes. Weighing in NoFocaCrop, I agree that it's a pretty bland image; my own personal impression of much anti-abortion protest is that it is anything but, so that image does not strike me as representative of the tone of the prominent anti-FOCA voices that are out there. EditorCasual (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that NoFocaCrop conveys a more WP:NPOV of the issue at hand.--Lyonscc (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only way I can see there's an NPOV issue here is if ObamaHater.jpg is so grossly unrepresentative of opposition to FOCA that using it amounts to an attempt to discredit fellow pro-lifers. I don't think it goes that far. topynate (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • NoFocaCrop can be truly said to be neutral, whereas I would disagree that ObamaHater.jpg is neutral, but rather that it is unrepresentative of opposition to FOCA. The primary focus of opposition to FOCA is to stop abortion, not to impeach Obama. Thus the NoFocaCrop seems the most neutral.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, neutrality is not the same thing as whitewashing. Hiding the verifiable truth is the opposite of neutrality. That poster is entirely representative of how personal this issue has become. The opposition to FOCA has extended to personally blaming Obama because he apparently supports this law. Pretending otherwise does everyone a disservice. Spotfixer (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its a verifiable truth that has little to do with this article. Why not throw in the abortion map of Australia. That too is verifiable truth. - Schrandit (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The more you deny that the Obama sign relates to FOCA, the harder it becomes to WP:AGF. I demand that you show a basic level of intellectual honesty. Spotfixer (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the more you accuse me of dishonestly the less inclined I am to have any respect for your positions. - Schrandit (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that NoFocaCrop is better suited to contributing to the NPOV of the article. --Polysyllabic (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a polite reminder, keep in mind that this is not a vote, so "ditto" statements that do not explain reasons are, well, worthless. If anything, they show that someone is jumping to a conclusion based on supporting a fellow partisan, which is precisely what the issue has been here all along. Ultimately, a "me too" is equivalent to a "not me", as it lends more support for what it opposes than what it attempts -- but fails -- to support. If you do have a legitimate reason for agreeing, however, then by all means share it. Prove me wrong. Spotfixer (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prove you wrong? Are you going to mark your territory after you're done chest thumping? I was under the impression this was an "informal poll" which would tend to indicate that the poll taker is soliciting opinions as to which picture better serves the article, which pretty much means everyone after the first agree and first disagree is "me tooing". Not to mention that its hard to come up with a better reason than NPOV for this particular informal poll. Perhaps you'd like a critique of the lighting, or camera angle? --Polysyllabic (talk)

13:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, prove me wrong by showing that you're not a ditto-head. State a clear, persuasive reason, as if you actually have one and aren't just trying to overwhelm by force of numbers. Convince me that assuming good faith is not a mistake in this case. Anyone can throw out "NPOV" as a reason, but without some explanation of why we should consider one more neutral than the other, this is idle puffery. Spotfixer (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It a poll dawg, some times folks agree with each other. - Schrandit (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they happen to agree because they have independently arrived at the same conclusion, fine. If it's simply a partisan ditto, let's not pretend it carries any weight. Spotfixer (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any real reason to believe that have not independently arrived at the same conclusion? - Schrandit (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who died and made spotfixer the arbiter of all things wikipedia? Why does anyone have to convince him of anything? Wouldn't the one who needs convinced be the informal poll taker? --Polysyllabic (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • AgreeI won't reiterate all that's been said but I do agree NoFOcaCrop is better for this article.User:chrishpaytas
Without even a stated reason, your opinion carries no weight. No wonder you're accused of being a sock puppet. Spotfixer (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're accusing (implying, whatever) that someone is WP:sockpuppet but no formal complaint has been made that's a HUGE breach of policy. If they are under investigation, please provide link so we can all know what's going on. If not, please retract statement. Thanks. --Boston (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the inconclusive Sockpuppet_investigations/Chrishpaytas. topynate (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not accusing, referring to an existing claim. I don't know whether it's true, but I can see why people might take his ditto-head behavior as evidence. Spotfixer (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing the link. Gee...it's hard to believe how much heated discussion one snapshot has generated here. Can I get a barnstar for that? (joke) --Boston (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a barnstar for "Most Trouble From A Single Photograph"? Spotfixer (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak agree. There are a couple of things to point out here. The first is, unfortunately, that Schrandit, who first questioned ObamaHater.jpg, probably has a conflict of interest due to being on the march (if he was simply an observer then I hopes he forgives me for assuming otherwise). This doesn't mean he's wrong - I simply want to raise the issue. The other thing is that there's a difference between relevance and neutrality. The person pictured in ObamaHater.jpg represents a significant number of people on the march. Check out all the bloody fetus pictures etc. on flickr if you doubt this. The picture isn't very flattering to pro-lifers, but that doesn't make it non-neutral. However, the question is whether it's the best picture to represent opposition to the FOCA. This is a highly subjective judgement. The best argument for ObamaHater.jpg's relevance is that opposition to Obama on abortion is focused on his promise to sign the FOCA. I would be inclined to say that that's just a part of what drives pro-life opposition to him. The best argument for No FOCA.jpg is that it explicitly shows anti-FOCA sentiment. On the other hand, that's all it does; it adds no real colour or new information to the article. Neither image is ideal, but the arguments for No FOCA.jpg are clearer and don't require further explanation in the article text, hence my weak agree. topynate (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that the "No FOCA" picture has an article-relevant specificity that the ObamaHater image lacks. Even in pro-life circles, there are a number of reasons people dislike Obama's positions, to the point of comparing him to Hitler. One key area of disagreement includes Obama's votes on the "Born-Alive Infant Protection" bill, which raises a great deal of ire, and for many pro-lifers is an issue that we find changes people's perspective on President Obama's stated desire to be a moderate voice on abortion. What I'm saying is, aside from the testimony that Boston was at the rally (a fact that a viewer of the picture would not know simply by looking at it) there is no evidence in the picture that the sign is specifically FOCA-related. CrimsonLine (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is a good point as it suggests a specific reason besides FOCA why someone would express the extreme sentimeny evident in the ObamaHater.jpg. --Boston (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article says the BAIPA became law in 2002. Obama became a senator in 2005. Am I missing something? topynate (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the issue is that the legislation which Obama voted against was a state bill already superseded by the federal legislation.EditorCasual (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While infants who have survived abortion are now protected by federal law the issue was first debated in the states where obama spoke/voted against the measure in 2001/2002. - Schrandit (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to provide a link, here's a FactCheck.org report on the controversy surrounding Obama's state senate voting history on this issue: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html. The fact that pro-life groups routinely call this voting record an example of Obama's support of "infanticide" in my view gives a plausible alternate motivation for an Obama-as-Hitler sign. CrimsonLine (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all three of you for clearing that up. I think it's very plausible the sign wasn't specifically about FOCA. Under those circumstances it's hard to see why it should be used to illustrate opposition to it. topynate (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets and dittoheads[edit]

The latest news is that User:Chrishpaytas is probably not an actual sockpuppet of User:Lyonscc, but they do know each other and use a shared blog to plan their attacks on Wikipedia. In short, they're an external mini-cabal. Spotfixer (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have proof of this? - Schrandit (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medicaid[edit]

The central issue with FOCA seems to be that Catholic hospital administrators (and other religious health care providers), due to Government interference with the free market (via Medicare) are being forced into a position where they must either follow their conscience or go out of business. Yet, the libertarian angle of this issue is completely absent from this article. Perhaps it should be added.-65.189.247.6 (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That would be a good component to add to the article with proper citation. However, even if Catholic hospitals were completely exempt from the situation, it would still be a concern among Catholics who believe abortion is the killing of person. --Boston (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like I am missing some information. I've seen several statements along the lines of "religious hospitals will be required to provide abortions against their wishes." What portion of FOCA lends itself to these assertions? Just because a right is guaranteed doesn't mean everybody has to provide it. For example, we have the right to bear arms but every retailer in the United States is certainly not required to sell firearms. Am I missing something obvious? --Jeff--72.222.240.210 (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source bias.[edit]

User:24.165.115.240 wrote: "*Note: all citations for this article are anti-choice, most of which are from Christian organizations. This article is biased against the Freedom of Choice Act. There are very few if any citations that are from strictly fact-based sources."

This person has a point, though they made it in the wrong place, which is why I moved it here. Do we have any neutral sources, or perhaps complementary ones to balance out the POV's? Spotfixer (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a wider variety of citations as well, but just to be fair - the bill is a straightforward one, quite short, and its implications are fairly clear. By far the most interesting thing about it is the controversy that surrounds it, and that is what will draw most people to wikipedia looking for information about it. Accordingly, the "Criticism" section is as long as the rest of the article combined. It's no surprise, then, that most of the citations come from anti-FOCA sources. CrimsonLine (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Boston. CrimsonLine (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said it's controversial, not universally despised, so why aren't there citations from supporters? Spotfixer (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are - footnotes 3, 15, and 16 are from Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro-Choice America, and two other pro-FOCA writers. Keenan's citation is a (from her POV) positive description of the bill, while footnotes 15 and 16 are counter-arguments to opponents of FOCA. CrimsonLine (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotfixer, If the article itself is fairly well-balanced, which I'd say it is, one can't really point a finger and say "add more sources." If you believe more sources are needed to improve the article, please add them according to the usual protocols while keeping it encyclopedic. --Boston (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status[edit]

...This may go under unknown. Anyway I started a search with Integer. Its meaning has two establishings; Whole; and Holism. I then went to Sociology then to Evidence then to Empirical although evidence could come after empirical. Next follow-up was Assertion, then to Community. Then I searched Identity, it came up but not alone it is as Identity (social sience). Next follow-up is International which actually came from search Political International. That came from Tax Rate, which was in interest with Statutory which came up as Statue. That came from Legislative which was of course directed to Legislature. My search now had been of declare, I did not get a definition of declare, only a T.V. show or episode? But I did put in Declare Policy in which was the terming I was introduced with from legislature but was actually of legislative. Now I ended up here at Freedom of Choice Act. I actually thought this would consider both male and female. I am acknowledgeing both Freedom of Choice and Freedom of Choice Act as to have an equal in Freedom of Choice. Could we have something in this article validating Freedom of Choice for the whole of society. We all venture about and search well known literature. But what happens when one comes here to this article and without knowing that there is another possible article of Freedom of Choice. My next search is liberated. Thank You. If you do not feel this message belongs here just ask me to delete it. I will arive here again and assume the potential.David George DeLancey (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what happened?[edit]

All this talk and yet the article never tells what happened to it. Did it ever reach a vote?. Don't bills die at the end of a legislative session if they don't reach a vote? My suspicion is that the Democrats quietly killed the bill when they realized that they didn't have the votes to pass it, but the present tense implies that it's still floating around the ether somewhere. Very sloppy writing. 73.137.170.88 (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freedom_of_Choice_Act&oldid=1195170640"