HR 1822: Proposal to Ban Sex and Race Selection Abortions
China's one child policy has led to a terrible problem with sex selection abortion, leading to tens of millions fewere females than males, causing a crisis in gender distribution that threatens to undermine China's stability. From the story:
Selective sex abortion causes 32 million excess males in China April 10th, 2009 Selective abortion in favour of males has left China with 32 million more boys than girls, creating an imbalance that will endure for decades, an investigation released on Friday warned. The probe provides ammunition for those experts who predict China's obsession with a male heir will sow a bitter fruit as men facing a life of bachelorhood fight for a bride.It seems to me that such sex selection is ipso facto bigoted and sexist, and should be prevented. They not only do discrimination-based abortions fly in the face of human exceptionalism, but further the drive to establish a new eugenics.
A House bill, H-the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2009 (don't ya just love the way legislation is named?) would prevent sex and racially-based abortion. From the bill:
Sec. 249. Discrimination against the unborn on the basis of race or sexCivil penalties would also apply as well as injunctive relief.
(a) In General- Whoever knowingly-- (1) performs an abortion knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent of that child; (2) uses force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion; or (3) solicits or accepts funds for the purpose of financing a sex-selection abortion or a race-selection abortion; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
I think this is a good thing because the message of passing such a law--even in the face of difficulty in enforcement--would promote universal human equality. But the bill should be expanded to include discrimination against sexual orientation--in case a test is ever developed to determined whether a fetus will have a predisposition to being gay--as well as disability. Such a law would pull us back from the eugenic notion that not only do we have a right to have a baby, but to have only the baby we want.
But I know this is spitting in the wind, at least with the current Congress and with President Obama wanting zero federal and state regulations over abortions. Alas, even the most blatant and lethal discriminatory attitudes are countenanced by our cultural elites if they are imposed against fetuses.
Meanwhile, Oklahoma may soon pass a sex selective abortion ban of its own. If it does, expect the lawsuits to fly.
Labels: HR 1822. Sex Selection Abortions. Race Selection Abortions.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 12:58 PM
15 Comments
15 Comments:
A simple solution. Ban abortion world wide.
I know Australia has recently started funding overseas abortions as part of their AID money. It makes me wonder how many abortions are for the purpose of sex selection.
This is a particularly absurd piece of legislation, since it requires proof of one's intent to procure an abortion for the purpose of racial or gender selection. Do the legislators seriously expect someone to say "I don't want a female child," when under existing law they can have an abortion for virtually any reason they want during the first trimester? As usual, it's all posturing and no substance.
About all they can do is "posture" under the current legal circumstances. Nonetheless, I think the message of equality sent by such a bill, and the odd chance of prevention would be worth the doing: For example a father could possibly enjoin an abortion if he could prove that his partner wanted it for, say racial reasons. Thus, it seems to me to be worth the doing.
Besides, if it was nothing but posturing, why not pass it and have pro choice legislators look like they too want to protect equality?
I think bills like this are a bad idea. It doesn't ever seem like a good idea to pass such an ambiguious piece of legislation.
Also it is creating contradictions and tensions in the law.
After all, what is the difference between aborting a child based on a criteria like race vs financial struggle ? Seems like both still kill an unborn child. Either abortion itself is morally wrong because it kills a human being or it is morally permissible because it doesn't. This sort of half arsed measure amounts to saying "killing the unborn is fine as long as you only do it for reasons we approve of". How is that different from the argument for eugenic abortion ?
Plus of course you have a serious problem with enforceability as you now have a new law that effectivly punished "wrong ideology". That is _really_ dangerous
How can you not endorse a bill like this? There should be no legislator (if only for political expediency) against these measures. Sure, it would be difficult to enforce, but it makes an important statement about the equality of human life.
I say, pass the bill and add disability and sexual orientation to the list. Now.
I agree SAFEpres. Please, please can we add disability and sexual orientation?
We all know that late term abortions aren't being done to maintain "bodily integrity," so don't we directly challange them via legislation blocking abortions performed to kill the disabled?
I've had this idea for a while: I'd like to see a law that prohibits women from having an abortion once she's undergone prenatal testing. After all, the prenatal testing is "supposed to" be for information. This would prevent abortion based on gender, sexual orientation, disabilities, etc.
It would also put the pro-aborts on the offensive. How can they oppose a bill that seeks to address discrimination?
heart cells
I think I'd really have to oppose any law that prohibits certain behaviors based motivations that cannot be easily ascertained.
This legislation amounts to attempting to prosecute "thought crime". Surely no good will come from this sort of legislation.
Bad legislation passed with "good intentions" is still bad legislation.
MM Mom, that is actually a really good idea. If you want a useful law that can actually be meaningfully enforced, then that is a good way to do it.
Getting the testing done (although I am guessing some tests like sex can still be determined without genetic screening) as a signpost for foregoing the abortion option is a great idea. Much better than this dangerous piece of legislation.
It would at least be interesting to see the reaction to such a law.
HistoryWriter:
Did you know that the KKK and certain white supremecy groups regularly donate money to Planned Parenthood with the express command that the money is to be used to abort Jewish or Black babies only? Planned Parenthood takes the money and uses it as requested, whether the workers there agree with the sentiment or not.
So this law IS good. It discourages people who are blatently anti-black, anti-Jewish, anti-Hispanic, etc., from putting the money out there to encourage race based abortions as a type of "racial control."
I don't believe it's enough, as I believe that all life is precious and abortion should be banned in general, but it does handle a very specific issue.
Also, Margaret Sanger supported eugenics, including forcibly sterilizing the handicapped and influencing black people to use contraception so that there would be less of them. She even went as far as to speak at a KKK meeting. I am always a bit frustrated when women look to her as a bearer of women's rights, as one of the people that she advocated taking rights away from.
If we want to straighten out China, we have to stop trading with them. Plus, stop contributing to their economy and their population problem is apt to abate anyway. I don't think they're worth straightening out and I already thought we should stop trading with them anyway -- and never should have started. The more I see of what's going on the more I think the whole S&B conspiracy thing is true, including Nixon and Obama.
They don't think in terms of time the way we do. A decade to them is like a year to us. A generation to them is not what it is to us. They are looking to the future. They may have the son obsession, but I think it's more than that. Have fewer males than females, can still end up with more children than want. Have fewer females, the potential number of children is more limited. As for the excess males, well, not comfortable for their lives, but it's the future that count, and they can go into the military, marry foreigners and live in other countries, etc., which also helps increase China's worldwide influence.
Obama will likely adopt many of the same policies as the Chinese government. After all, Communists tend to emulate each other.
*rim shot*
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home