A New Front in the Abortion Wars - Banning Sex-Selection Abortions
Commentary by Steven W. Mosher
September 30, 2008 (pop.org) - On September 23rd, 2008, two congressmen, Trent Franks from Arizona and Jeff Fortenberry from Nebraska, introduced a bill to "prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or race." The event was overshadowed by debate over the proposed bail-out of America's financial sector, and so drew little press attention. But those who hold pro-life sentiments should take note of the "Susan B. Anthony Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2008," for it arguably opens a new front in the abortion wars. Like the ban on Partial Birth Abortion, it will stimulate public debate on grounds favorable to the pro-life cause. Moreover, it introduces into the pro-life arena existing U.S. jurisprudence on the elimination of discrimination on the basis of sex or race. Who would gainsay that the worst form of discrimination, bar none, is to deny unborn women or Blacks the right to life precisely on account of their innate characteristics of race or gender?
Some may believe that sex-selective abortion is only found in countries with a strong preference for sons, such as India, China, and Korea. But sex-selective abortion is also practiced in the U.S. by immigrant populations who bring with them their prejudices against girls, preference for boys, and find here that the ready availability of both ultrasounds and abortions makes it easy for them to act on these prejudices. Moreover, although it is difficult to come by hard evidence, I have no doubt that selfish and secularized American couples sometimes use sex-selective abortion to give birth to their preferred sex. As far as race-based abortions are concerned, Planned Parenthood has located most of its clinics in minority neighborhoods, and has been more than willing to accept donations specifically targeting Black babies for elimination.
Overwhelming numbers of Americans oppose the practice of sex-selective abortion, with a 2006 Zogby/USA Today poll showing that 86% would like to see it banned. I have no doubt that a similar super-majority would support a ban of race-selective abortion.
Some pro-lifers, I am certain, will disparage this incremental approach. They say that we should only mobilize our forces for total victory, and that working for anything less undermines our larger prospects. Politics, however, is the art of the possible. We should never, when it comes to protecting the unborn, let the perfect be the enemy of the good. As Robert George has recently written in the pages of the National Review, "The goal must be to accomplish in law and policy all that can be accomplished in the prevailing circumstances, while working to move public opinion in the directions more respectful of human life so as to make possible further advances in law and policy. Indeed, it is the small victories in the political domain that help get public opinion moving in the right direction, thus establishing the conditions for greater achievements."
In recent years the pro-life movement has passed laws, after years of legislative effort, banning particularly heinous forms of abortion. Partial birth abortion is no longer legal in the United States. Professor Hadley Arkes' Born Alive Infant Protection Act is another magnificent example of this legislative approach. The absolute numbers of babies that will be saved is not great in either instance, but both have served to move public opinion in a pro-life direction. The debate over partial birth abortion helped to uncover the ugly reality behind such euphemisms as "the termination of pregnancy" and "choice." The Born Alive Infant Protection Act forced abortion supporters to defend the indefensible: the killing of abortion survivors after birth in the name of "choice."
Bearing all this in mind, I propose that we--the pro-life movement--adopt as our next goal the banning of sex-and race-selective abortion. By formally protecting all female fetuses from abortion on ground of their sex, we would plant in the law the proposition that the developing child is a being whose claims on us should not depend on their sex.
Of course, this suggestion is not original with me. It was originally made by the redoubtable Hadley Arkes, who wrote in the pages of First Things in 1994 that "we seek simply to preserve the life of the child who survives the abortion. From that modest beginning, we might go on to restrict abortions after the point of "viability," or we could ban those abortions ordered up simply because the child happens to be a female. We could move in this way, in a train of moderate steps, each one commanding a consensus in the public, and each one tending, intelligibly, to the ultimate end, which is to protect the child from its earliest moments."
Banning sex- and race-selective abortion will force supporters of abortion to publicly address a question that they will find profoundly disturbing: Is the right to abortion a license to destroy children for any and all reasons, including that of their sex or race? Most people of moderate persuasion, even those inclined to be "pro-choice," will agree that the right of the unborn child to life should not depend on whether she (or he) possesses the requisite genitalia or skin color. Even those who believe in the absolute right to destroy the child under any and all circumstances, it is safe to predict, will be uncomfortable defending such an extreme position.
This sense of contradiction will be further heightened among radical feminists, the shock troops of the abortion movement. They may believe that the right to abortion is fundamental to women's emancipation, but many will recoil at the thought of aborting their unborn sisters. How can they, who so oppose patriarchy and discrimination on the basis of sex, consent to the ultimate form of patriarchy and discrimination, namely, the elimination of baby girls solely on account of their sex? Many, it is safe to predict, will be silent, while others will raise their voices, but with less conviction.
While the pro-aborts are stammering and stuttering, we pro-lifers will be advancing new moral and logical arguments against the exercise of the "right" to an abortion solely on the grounds of sex or race. For those who are immune to moral arguments, we can also use the examples of China and India, where sex-selective abortion is creating enormous societal problems. The debate over sex- and race-selective abortion will also help to focus the public's attention on how unregulated the abortion industry is. In these and other ways, the debate over this legislation will not subtract from, but add to, the larger goal of reversing Roe v. Wade and, ultimately, passing a Human Life Amendment.
Politically, the timing is right for such a move. Barack Hussain Obama has broke the last color barrier by becoming first African American to be nominated for president , while Sarah Palin is poised the shatter the glass ceiling. It is paradoxical that, at this time of great achievements, that civil rights protections for women and minorities should be eroding at the very beginning of life, in the womb. Decades of progress on both fronts are being threatened reversed by technology that allows people to act on their deepest prejudices in secret.
In any event, legislation has been introduced, and the battle has been joined. And the coming debate will be salubrious for our cause.
PRI's special video on this subject can be found on our web site: http://www.pop.org, or on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/colinpri1.
Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute
TORONTO, September 30, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Canadian pro-life hero Linda Gibbons has just been acquitted by a provincial court judge in Toronto on a charge of obstructing a peace officer and has walked out of court a free woman. Justice Clements rightly ruled that Gibbons's conduct of being peaceful and silent could in no way be interpreted to mean she was making any peace officer's job more difficult when she was arrested outside the Scott "Clinic" abortuary in Toronto earlier this year.
With the vigil being held outside the busiest abortion facility in Los Angeles, leader John Anthony says he was aware of the trials he and his team faced, but said his prayers were answered with the arrival of Eduardo. 
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Another Catholic law professor has endorsed Barack Obama despite the fact the presidential candidate has a solid pro-abortion view. Duquesne University School of Law dean Nicholas Cafardi will likely earn the same rebuke from pro-life Catholics as has Douglas Kmiec. In an editorial appearing in the National Catholic Reporter, Cafardi contends he believes abortion is an "unspeakable evil" yet he supports Obama, who has pledged to keep abortion legal another 35 years. "Despite what some Republicans would like Catholics to believe, the list of what the church calls 'intrinsically evil acts' does not begin and end with abortion," Cafardi writes," he writes. "In fact, there are many intrinsically evil acts, and a committed Catholic must consider all of them in deciding how to vote." Cafardi also claims Obama is not actually pro-abortion, even though he wants 50 million more abortions and has 
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- With the vice-presidential debate coming up this week, Planned Parenthood continues to trash Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on abortion. The abortion business is also repeating the false claims that Palin somehow went after women who were victims of sexual abuse by making them pay for 
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Barack Obama claims he is the best candidate when it comes to improving health care for Americans and he touted better health care during the first presidential debate. However, his record is blemished with a vote against extending a health care program to cover pregnant women and their unborn children. The State Children's Health Insurance (SCHIP) is a federal program that provides funds to states to provide health care services to children of low-income families. Under a Bush administration proposal, states have the option of extending that coverage to unborn children -- which automatically qualifies pregnant women for coverage as well during their pregnancy. Because this is an administrative rule and could be changed by a future president, like Obama, Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado offered an amendment earlier this year to put the rule in existing law and make helping pregnant women and children permanent. While senators from across the political spectrum -- including Democratic Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Ben Nelson of Nebraska-- voted for it, Obama opposed the measure. The vote provided another clear contrast between Obama and Sen. John McCain, who supported pregnant women and their unborn children by backing the amendment. 
On September 23rd, 2008, two congressmen, Trent Franks from Arizona and Jeff Fortenberry from Nebraska, 
Olympia, WA (LifeNews.com) -- The leading group in Washington battling against the November ballot measure to legalize assisted suicide has launched its first set of radio ads. The spots feature actor Martin Sheen, a pro-life Democrat known for his role as the president in the popular television drama West Wing. "Hello, this is Martin Sheen with an urgent message about Initiative 1000," he says in the ad. 
Salt Lake City, UT (LifeNews.com) -- A pro-life member of the Utah state legislature is ready to lead the fight against abortion once it heads back into session after the November elections. Rep. Stephen Sandstrom plans on a handful of bills including one that would ban most abortions. He says he thinks the time is now to get an abortion ban in place to challenge the Supreme Court on the Roe v. Wade decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy. "It's not a guaranteed deal, obviously," he told KSL-TV. "But if the court changes hands and we have a couple of people retire, then the door would be shut forever on a court challenge." The abortion ban would mirror the one proposed on the November ballot in South Dakota, which prohibits abortions except in cases of rape, incest, and very limited but severe health circumstances. Another bill is similar to the ballot measure Colorado voters will consider next month, in that it defines an unborn child as a human being at the moment of conception. 
Moscow, Russia (LifeNews.com) -- Russia has long been a world leader in terms of the percentage of pregnancies that end in abortion and experts say those figures are still high. They say the abortion epidemic is leading to a problem of hundreds of thousands of women suffering from infertility. Marina Tarasova is the deputy head of the St. Petersburg Research Institute For Gynecology and Obstetrics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. On Monday, she spoke at an international conference and explained how the use of abortion as birth control among the Russian people has led to more than 5.5 million infertile couples. She explained that, each year, more than 64 percent of pregnancies in Russia end in abortion -- a contrast with the 20 percent that end in abortion in the United States and even fewer in most European nations. Researcher showing abortion's link to infertility is plentiful and the Russian statistics bear that out. "Over the past five years, female infertility in Russia has increased by 14 percent, and over 1.5 million Russians need advanced medical technology to become pregnant and maintain a healthy pregnancy," Tarasova said. The number of infertile women in Russia is growing by 200,000 to 250,000 each year -- with the main cause complications from abortions, she said. 
Why are the retro-feminists in the left-wing media, the National Organization of Women, and the abortion lobby, among other hysterics, militating so violently against Sarah Palin? It's because they value abortion-on-demand over every other subject on earth. This "value" started in the late 1950s - before abortion became de rigueur - when the Food and Drug Administration approved the birth-control pill developed by Dr. John Rock and two collaborators. For the first time in human history, women had a measure of control over their fertility, which gave them a greater chance to pursue economic independence and escape bad marriages. But in just a few years - aided by the even-then left-wing media - feminists managed to convince a gullible public that most of the bedrocks of American life were bad. Of course, the first most-cherished tenet of the feminist movement has always been abortion-on-demand - the "right" of women to put their "interests" (and moods and convenience) before giving birth to an unwanted child. This "inconvenience" has cost over 50-million babies their rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness since the Supreme Court enacted Roe v. Wade in 1973. This "right" is heartily endorsed by Barack Obama, who has: Said that women shouldn't be "
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A group of pastors issued endorsements for John McCain on Sunday morning in a concerted effort to overturn a decades-long rule prohibiting endorsements from the pulpit. The pastors are aided by a pro-life law firm, the Alliance Defense Fund, and say the rule violates their free speech rights. Pastor Luke Emrich of New Life Church in West Bend, Wisconsin told his congregation on Sunday that he supports Senator John McCain because of his pro-life position on abortion. Rev. Ron Johnson Jr. also joined in the national campaign, known as "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," and he is the senior associate pastor at Living Stones Church in Crown Point, Indina. Johnson also said abortion is the key issue in the campaign for Christian voters and highlighted the division between Obama and McCain. "If a candidate supports something that is evil and wicked from a biblical perspective," Johnson said, "then I have the right to call out the wickedness, and I have the right to say this is what this person stands for -- this is wrong." The Rev. Jody Hice of Bethlehem First Baptist Church outside of Atlanta also endorsed McCain and said he based his recommendations on McCain's opposition to abortion compared to Obama's strongly pro-abortion position. "These are not political issues," Hice said. "They are are moral issues." 
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The Supreme Court on Monday will decide whether or not it will hold a hearing on an appeal in a case involving an abortion practitioner who misled a woman. Abortion practitioner Sheldon Turkish told potential abortion patient Rose Acuna that her unborn baby was "nothing but some blood." 
Sacramento, CA (LifeNews.com) -- The second poll in as many days shows a plurality of California voters support Proposition 4, a ballot measure that would allow parents to know when their minor daughters are considering an abortion. The measure draws the support of 49 percent of California residents thanks in part to Latino voters. A new Field Poll of 830 likely voters finds the measure leading 49-41 percent with another 10 percent of voters undecided. Among Hispanic voters, who now account for 17 percent of all voters in the state, support for the parental notification measure jumps to 62-31 percent. That could help push the poll over the top after it lost twice in 2005 and 2006. "Latino voters are more supportive of the measure than in the past elections," Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, said about the new survey. "The timing of the vote also helps, since Latinos make up a larger proportion of the voters in a presidential election." DiCamillo also noted that many of the undecided voters opposed the notification measure after last-minute ad campaigns by abortion advocates and that they are expected to do the same thing this time around. The Field Poll also showed that Republicans favor the measure by a 69 percent margin while 50 percent of Democrats are opposed to it. While 80 percent of conservatives back the measure, 66 percent of liberals oppose it. 
Brisbane, Australia (LifeNews.com) -- A judge in Australia is coming under heavy criticism for allowing a 12-year-old girl to have an abortion. Queensland Supreme Court Justice Margaret Wilson has ordered that doctors in the Australian state be allowed to give the young girl the dangerous abortion drug mifepristone (RU 486). The decision came in a closed-door hearing last week and the court heard how the girl in question is 18 weeks pregnant. The girl sought the abortion at a public hospital and apparently has the support of her parents. State government attorneys brought the case before the judge on behalf of the physicians and said the court had to approve the abortion because of the girl's young age. According to local media, the girl in question is mentally disabled and the court was told that she may not have a full understanding and appreciation of the situation. Although the girl was an obvious victim of sexual abuse, Judge Wilson granted the abortion request and said taking the baby's life was in the girl's best interest. 
