House Comittee Approves Bill to Ban Sex-Selection Abortions in the United States

Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona believes abortions based on race or gender should be outlawed. On Thursday, February 16, a House Committee approved Rep. Frank’s bill. According to Cronkite News, Franks thinks the issue is one of civil rights. “The effort of this bill here is to simply say we cannot discriminate against unborn children subjected to abortion.”

According to Cronkite News, the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011 (HR 3541) would:

1)   Make it a crime to knowingly perform abortions based on the sex or race of the fetus.

2)   Make it a crime to coerce a woman to undergo such a procedure.

3)   Make it a crime to solicit or accept funds to perform a selection abortion.

4)   Make it a crime to transport a woman across national or state lines for the procedure.

5)   Allow a woman to sue anyone who engages in such activity.

6)   Allow the father to sue anyone who engaged in such activity.

7)   Allow the maternal grandparent’ s to sue anyone who performed the procedure on their minor daughter.

8)   Impose penalties of up to five years in prison and a fine.

9)   Require medical professionals to report known or suspected cases, or face charges.

10)  Exempt a mother who undergoes such a procedure from criminal or civil charges.

Opponents of the bill were quick to question whether race or gender selection abortions are even occurring. But in an editorial in the January 16th issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, Dr. Rajendra Kale, the interim editor-in-chief noted “female feticide happens in India and China by the millions, but it also happens in North America in number large enough to distort the male to female ratio in some gender groups.”

Other opponents called the bill an attempt to give men power over women, citing the ability of the father of an aborted child to sue anyone who performed this type of abortion. This argument fails in light of the fact that this is an issue of the ending of life, not merely the removal of tissues and cells. Men have every right to stand up for life.

This commonsense legislation would accomplish two things:

  • If the opponents are right and no gender or race selection abortions are occurring, then the legislation will help prevent the practice from taking place in the future.
  • If the opponents are wrong and gender and race selection abortions are occurring as attested by Dr. Kale in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the legislation will help curb the tide of the practice.
  • Pingback: House Comittee Approves Bill to Ban Sex-Selection Abortions in the United States | Foundation Life

  • suzanne

    I agree that there should not be abortions based on race or gender or any other reason for that matter.  …. but we in this country test for Down syndrome and then 95% of woman who have a + test abort.  Why is there no law to prevent the the search and destroy mission we currently  use ?  

    I believe that is the purest form of genocide…. 
    What if there is a gene test for Autism.. will we then target them too? 
    How sad.  

    • Letscook1

       So you don’t feel like women should have access to all the information available to them when they are pregnant? But you feel that women should be forced to have a transvaginal ultrasound before abortion.

      • Ninek

        Sometimes a diagnostic tool is just a diagnostic tool.   Many women are in a dangerous position when they don’t know for sure the gestational age of their children.  An abortion meant to kill a 10 week old human is very dangerous to begin if the fetus is instead 16 weeks old, as just one example. 

        You just want to put women in danger so you can kill at will and you don’t care what happens to the mothers on the tables.

  • Pingback: Moe Lane » #rsrh QotD, Time To Divorce Abortion From Feminism, Leftists edition.