Feminists: Fighting For The Right To Kill Baby Girls!

A new bill that is working its way through the U.S. House of Representatives has feminists and pro-abortion advocates hopping mad.  The bill, The Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011, bans abortions performed because of race or gender. Sounds pretty straightforward, right?  Who would really oppose something like that?  After all, most Americans in this day and age are against discrimination.

The answer? Rabid feminists and abortion advocates who will fight against anything that may prevent abortions of any kind.  The NAACP has, rather shockingly, come out against the bill — which, remember, would ban abortions performed solely based on race.  You’d think that this would be something the NAACP would support, especially considering that a staggering 52% of black pregnancies end in abortion. But no, for those that support abortion, the so-called “choice” to kill your baby trumps all.

Likewise, considering that sex-selective abortion is a very real and rampant problem throughout the world–and one that specifically affects unborn females–you’d think that feminists would support this bill wholeheartedly. Michael Stokes Paulsen explains:

Millions of women obtain abortions because they do not want baby girls.

It’s shocking, but incontrovertible. Two decades ago, Harvard economist Amartya Sen, in an arrestingly titled article, documented the statistical reality that “More Than 100 Million Women Are Missing.” In a recently published book, Unnatural Selection, journalist Mara Hvistendahl convincingly demonstrates that the overwhelming reason for the increasingly large demographic disparity in the male-female birth ratio is sex-selection abortion. Hvistendahl estimates the number of missing or dead now to be 160 million and counting. Women have abortions because (among other reasons) they are able to learn the sex of their unborn baby and kill her if she’s a girl.

The phenomenon is most pronounced in certain Asian populations where the birth of girls is especially discouraged, but is not limited to Asia. Hvistendahl shows that sex-selection is not culturally or uniquely Asian. Male-child preference exists everywhere. Sex-selection abortion rises as birth rates fall, as wealth increases (especially in developing nations), and as technology for identifying a child’s gender in utero becomes more reliable and more available.

Sex-selection abortion occurs in America, too, and the practice is likely to increase. In August, a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that a simple blood test seven weeks into pregnancy can reliably identify the sex of the child. Watch for a spike in abortion rates over the next few years as parents find it easier and cheaper to “choose” to have a boy by killing the fetus if—in a bitter reversal of an expression of joy—“it’s a girl.”

Far from embracing a bill that protects the right of girls not to be killed simply for being girls, feminist blogs are coming out against it.  Ms. Magazine is even asking women to mobilize against it.  So rather than fighting for the rights of unborn girls to be born, they’re fighting for them to be killed — simply because they had the misfortune of not being male.  How on earth is that feminist?

One interesting aspect of the arguments against this bill is that we don’t need it. Babies aren’t aborted due to race or gender in the United States, supposedly. But Live Action’s investigations have shown that Planned Parenthood is all too happy to accept money that will specifically go towards aborting black babies.  And while sex-selective abortions may be rare outside of Asia, they do occur.  With prenatal testing getting better every year, it isn’t unreasonable to expect some expectant parents to use abortion as a means of getting the gender they want.  Feminists say most abortions are performed in the first trimester and therefore, this is a non-issue.  But there are ways of finding out the gender in the first trimester.  This, of course, will never be brought up.

Of all the reasons for someone to have an abortion, doing so because their baby is the wrong gender or race is perhaps the most horrifying.  But far from accepting a bill that prohibits this, abortion advocates are fighting it.  And why?  The bill doesn’t ban abortions.  But instead of wanting to protect the most helpless among us and those killed for the most abhorrent of reasons (their race or gender), pro-aborts are looking to declare open season.

Feminists aren’t interested in fighting for women — otherwise, why would they oppose this?  What they’re interested in is feeding their sacred cow: abortion.  Likewise, the fact that the NAACP has no problem with aborting black babies simply because they are black (even with the fact that over half of all black babies are aborted) shows just how powerful the abortion lobby is.  It also broadcasts a very uncomfortable truth that pro-aborts would rather no one know:  that abortion and eugenics go hand-in-hand.  And the people fighting against this bill are taking a stand on the side of eugenics.

This bill looks to ensure that babies aren’t punished for being born of the wrong race or gender.  Pro-aborts, on the other hand, have no problem with killing a baby just because she is a girl or because he is black.  You couldn’t ask for a better example of the cold-blooded heartlessness behind this movement.

  • TroubleAtTheMine

    Well then…you’re not totally pro-choice. I mean, I agree with you completely, but why not just outright own what you are saying?