WASHINGTON (AP) – The House on Thursday fell short in an effort to ban abortions based on the sex of the fetus as Republicans and Democrats made an election-year appeal for women’s votes.
The legislation would have made it a federal crime to perform or force a woman to undergo a sex-based abortion, a practice most common in some Asian countries where families wanting sons abort female fetuses.
It was a rare social issue to reach the House floor in a year when the economy has dominated the political conversation, and Republicans, besieged by Democratic claims that they are waging a war on women, struck back by trying to depict the vote as a women’s rights issue.
“It is violence against women,” said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., of abortions of female fetuses. “This is the real war on women.”
The White House, most Democrats, abortion rights groups and some Asian-American organizations opposed the bill, saying it could lead to racial profiling of Asian-American women and subject doctors who do not report suspected sex-selection abortions to criminal charges.
Because there is no worse sin than racial-profiling. Killing a child because they are the wrong sex is acceptable just as long as there is no possibility of racial-profiling. Good thing our culture has its head screwed on right and all the priorities correct.
“The administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision,” White House spokeswoman Jamie Smith said in a statement. “The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”
Ah, so they have seen the light in regards to hate crime laws now also. Oh wait you can prosecute people on motive in regards to race, but not in regards to gender-based abortion. Yeah totally consistent. Though on a practical level such a law would have been difficult to enforce.
Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House’s No. 2 Democrat, said he thought the bill was introduced because “somebody decided politically that this was a difficult place to put people in.”
No doubt this is certainly true to some extent, but that is because if you have an inconsistent opinion it is really annoying to have the inconsistencies shown to light.
This is an area where even abortion supporters become uncomfortable. Then Sen. Clinton who ironically called the Partial Birth Abortion Ban a “slippery slope” has spoken out against Gender-based abortion before.
Clinton: “…Obviously, there’s work to be done in both India and China, because the infanticide rate of girl babies is still overwhelmingly high, and unfortunately with technology, parents are able to use sonograms to determine the sex of a baby, and to abort girl children simply because they’d rather have a boy.” (Hat tip: Thomas Peters)
Well it is not just India and China since it happens here also (but to a much lesser degree). The designer family is more and more of a mindset where ideally you have one of each – a kind of matched set. Two of the same kind spoil it and having three children or more is of course destructive to the environment.
The inconsistencies of the abortion supporters queasiness with this form of abortion selection is partly a real moral queasiness and the discomfiture of knowing that they can’t justify it based on their pro-abortion viewpoint.
- If’s it only tissue mass, a result of conception, or any of the other obscuring phrases. Then it does not matter if the chromosomes are XX or XY.
- If the women has total autonomy over her body, than she also has total autonomy to make a decision regardless of the reasons or motivations.
- If it really is not a human being until born, than the gender of the fetus is also a non-issue. It is not like it is a “real” human female or male.
- If viability is the determination to accept abortion, chromosomes don’t affect this viability.
- If the ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights, than gender-based abortion is also a civil right.
- If personhood begins at birth as abortion-advocates proclaim, then once again what is the big deal?
- Some have argues that abortion reduces crime. So aborting male-children helps the crime rate since males commit most of the crimes.
- If women can choose an abortion for financial reasons such as financial inconvenience than if it is true girls cost more to raise than boys – choosing to kill a girl is perfectly acceptable.
Now you can almost admire the President for his evil consistency. I only wish we could have a President as pro-life as President Obama is pro-abortion. That might be difficult to do for even a very pro-life candidate. When it comes to abortion the President will let nothing get in his way including the First Amendment.