Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet
icon backReturn to Entries

Freedom of Choice Act

The Freedom of Choice Act was first introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on January 21, 2004, by Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and in the Senate on January 22, 2004 by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) during the 108th session of Congress, and was designed to reinforce the Roe v. Wade decision.

The Freedom of Choice Act specifically states that a woman has the right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy before the fetus is viable, or to terminate a pregnancy after the fetus is viable when necessary to protect her own life or health. Additionally, it states that federal, state, and local governments may not deny or interfere with a woman's right to make these choices, nor may they discriminate against the exercise of these rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Finally, the act concludes by stating that these provisions should apply retroactively and that anyone who is harmed through a violation of this act shall be entitled to relief, even against a government, through filing a civil action. After being introduced into the House and Senate, the Freedom of Choice Act was referred in both cases to the Committee on Judiciary.

The 108th session of Congress ended prior to the act being passed by the Senate and the House, and therefore needed to be introduced again in a following session on Congress before it can be acted upon again. The Freedom of Choice Act was introduced again during the 110th session of Congress on April 19, 2007, in both the House and the Senate. Both bodies again referred the act to the Committee on Judiciary, and again it failed to make it out of the committee prior to the end of this session of Congress. As of 2010, it has not been reintroduced for consideration in either the House of the Senate.

Opponents

One of the largest opponents of the Freedom of Choice Act is the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). This group argues that the Act would invalidate laws that protect women from unsafe abortion clinics, require taxpayer monies to be spent on abortion services, require states to allow partial-birth and late-term abortions, allow abortions to be performed by nonphysicians, ban laws that protect conscientious objection to abortion, and deny parents the opportunity to be involved in their minor daughter's abortion decision.

Organizations like Planned Parenthood and NARAL that support the act refute all these arguments and argue that it would serve to protect a woman's right to have an abortion even if the Supreme Court reverses the Roe v. Wade decision. Independent analysts assert that the impact of the Freedom of Choice Act, if passed, is unclear since much of the language in the Act is vague and therefore open to interpretation. They also argue that some of the claims of the USCCB may not transpire with the passage of the Act as it only applies to governments and not to private hospital facilities. Additionally, they argue that the Freedom of Choice Act would not supersede the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion, and is reaffirmed each year by Congress.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Read next

More like this

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

close

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

close
close
close Signed In to profile You are signed in as:
close
Logged in Institution Institution