Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Future Civil Rights of Baby Girls ^ | May 31, 2012 | Maggie Gallagher

Posted on 05/31/2012 7:36:27 AM PDT by Kaslin

As I type, the House of Representatives is debating the future of civil rights: a girl's right to life itself.

Is it OK to choose to destroy a healthy unborn child simply because you or your husband prefer a boy?

Should it be legal in this country?

The Constitution gives to Congress the power to enforce the 14th Amendment's guarantees of equal protection by appropriate legislation. And this week, in a historic vote, the House is going to consider using that power to ban abortions based on gender.

The bill is called the "Prenatal Anti-Discrimination Act," or PRENDA, because it is being brought up under special rules. It will require two-thirds support in Congress -- a large bipartisan majority -- to pass.

The prospect is sending the hard left, which dominates the Democratic Party, into conniption fits.

Unborn babies are being targeted by their own parents for destruction simply because they are the "wrong" gender. The existence of sex selection abortion in this country is not seriously debatable. First, there is abundant personal testimony in South Asian immigrant women who feel pressured to produce boys and relay these concerns to doctors and researchers.

Sunita Puri and colleagues interviewed 65 South Asian immigrant women on the West and East coasts who had pursued fetal sex selection: 40 percent of them admitted they had aborted a prior fetus for being the wrong gender; 89 percent of the women who were carrying a female child in their current pregnancy aborted her.

Puri wrote: "The major themes that arose during interviews included the sociocultural roots of son preference, women's early socialization around the importance of sons, the different forms of pressure to have sons that women experienced from female in-laws and husbands, the spectrum of verbal and physical abuse that women faced when they did not have male children and/or when they found out they were carrying a female fetus, and the ambivalence with which women regarded their own experience of reproductive 'choice.'"

Jason Abrevaya's 2009 peer-reviewed study "Are There Missing Girls in the United States?" in the American Economic Journal concluded, "The observed boy-birth percentages are consistent with over 2,000 'missing' Chinese and Indian girls in the United States between 1991 and 2004."

Killing a baby because it's the wrong sex is not only wrong, it ought to be illegal. There is no more serious form of gender discrimination than that.

When the immoral act of choosing to deprive a child of life because it's the wrong sex is not illegal, it becomes normalized.

Lila Rose's Live Action released a video showing a Planned Parenthood clinic counselor advising a woman on how to get a sex-selection abortion, warning her that if she tells the doctor that's her reason for wanting an ultrasound, he or she may not cooperate. Planned Parenthood fired the woman for not following protocols.

Planned Parenthood, though, inadvertently testified to the effectiveness of laws banning sex selection abortion, telling The Huffington Post that while it condemns abortions based on gender, its policy is to provide "high-quality, confidential, nonjudgmental care to all who come into" its clinics.

HuffPo reports: "That means that no Planned Parenthood clinic will deny a woman an abortion based on her reasons for wanting one, except in those states that explicitly prohibit sex-selective abortions (Arizona, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Illinois)."

What good are laws against sex-selection abortion?

Will banning sex-selection abortion eliminate them? Probably not. But at least they will not be able to be pursued openly, as if it were a normal, decent thing to do. Gendercide will become an unmentionable act, and the law will affirm the equal dignity of both male and female in our society.

It's a great advance.

And even more importantly, when PRENDA is challenged in court, as the left's lawyers are sure to do, the Supreme Court will face a new argument: that the 14th Amendment gives to Congress the power to regulate abortions as part of its power to ensure the equal protection of all people in the United States, male and female, black and white, born and unborn.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: abortion; baby; bansexselection; gendercide; plannedparenthood; prenda; prolife; sexselection

1 posted on 05/31/2012 7:36:42 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All; Kaslin

This is part of my email which I received this morning from the pro-life Susan B. Anthony list:

“Take Action: Call your Representative to tell them to end the war on unborn girls by passing PRENDA (H.R. 3541).

Yesterday, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), H.R. 3541, which would ban sex-selective abortions, was debated on the House floor. Due to Congressional procedures, however, the vote has been moved to TODAY, which means we need your immediate help.

The House could vote on this life-saving legislation as early as this afternoon, so act now!”

Please make that call now!

2 posted on 05/31/2012 7:45:56 AM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This issue points up a huge problem with abortion. It’s shocking that somebody would have an abortion just because she is carrying a baby girl. Opening up abortion rights as we have done, just allows people to have an abortion for any absurd reason.

I wonder what the left thinks of this. The left loves abortion as some civil right. The left claims to advance women’s rights, yet some want to abort women before they are born. I look forward to the left explaining their position on this one.

3 posted on 05/31/2012 7:48:31 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Before someone jumps in...yes, this is a symbolic vote put out there to play partisan politics.

But, it will serve a purpose. It will frame the issue the same way the partial birth abortion debate framed the issue. It will open many eyes to:

1) the fact of just how extreme abortion has become
2) how extreme the left is in its defense of abortion

The left always argues abortion from the standpoint of a young, unmarried girl (or rape victim) being force to carry to term an unplanned pregnancy.

Abortion in the USA has moved way beyond that, and we need to highlight what it has become. It’s now a lifestyle choice, driven by someone’s current mood than desperate choice.

A child is not a fashion accessory, but that’s what sex selection abortions treat it as.

4 posted on 05/31/2012 8:00:57 AM PDT by Brookhaven (Don't mistake my vote for Romney as a vote FOR Romney, it's a vote against Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego; All

“..I look forward to the left explaining their position on this one.”

I would think even many of the Dems would not want to go on record as voting against a bill that BANS sex-selection abortions.

Tell you congressperson to vote YES on H.R. 3541 to BAN sex selection.

The vote will probably be today or tomorrow.

5 posted on 05/31/2012 8:10:55 AM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Since there are already laws that criminalize discrimination based on sex, shouldn’t the person requesting the abortion based on gender be the one to be prosecuted?

6 posted on 05/31/2012 8:59:36 AM PDT by Bob Buchholz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
I suspect many "abortion rights supporters" would have no problem with this, because they don't see this clump of cells as a baby girl. If it really is just a clump of cells and not a baby, what difference does it make why you choose to remove it?

I can understand those who believe there is a time between conception and the beginning of life. What I can't grasp are the ones that talk about special cases for rape and incest. They know they're supporting killing a baby.

7 posted on 05/31/2012 9:36:10 AM PDT by Darth Reardon (No offense to drunken sailors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson