Despite having absolutely zero evidence that sex-selective
abortions are a problem in South Dakota, state legislators are
trying to pass a bill banning such procedures. The measure (House
Bill 1162) was
approved by the Republican-controlled House last week by a vote
of 60 to 10.
Sex selective abortion (also referred to as “gender-based
abortion”) is the practice of terminating a pregnancy because of a
fetus’ predicted sex. It’s common in places such as China and
India, where male offspring are more highly prized than
females.
Obviously, the sex selective abortion rate in America is hard to
track, since women seeking abortions aren’t required to provide a
reason why they want to terminate their pregnancies. But
based on the sex ratios of babies born here, the practice seems to
be rare.
That’s not to say it doesn’t happen. But—at the risk of sounding
like a sociopath—so what? A woman’s reproductive rights aren’t
invalidated just because we may not like her motivations. Women
terminate pregnancies for all sorts of reasons—economic hardship,
medical conditions, simply not desiring to have a child. And,
perhaps, to try again for a more preferred sex next time. Who are
government officials to say which reasons are valid and which are
not?
The whole thing reeks of thought policing: You can have an
abortion, but only if we deem your attitudes toward it appropriate.
I’ve never been a fan of rape exceptions for the same reason.
Either abortion (up to whatever point) is legal, or it isn’t. The
business of why shouldn’t come into play. If sex selective
abortions were so common as to create widescale gender imbalance,
perhaps the issue might warrant attention (perhaps). But that is
nowhere near the case in the United States.
South Dakota’s potential gender-based abortion ban is a solution
in search of a problem. Here’s the bill’s sponsor, State Rep. Jenna
Haggar, when asked in a hearing last Wednesday whether gender-based
abortions actually happen in South Dakota.
REP. JENNA HAGGAR: “Yes, as of right now, if a woman were to
walk into an abortion clinic and say, ‘I would like to have an
abortion for no other reason than my unborn baby is a girl’…she
absolutely would get an abortion.”REP. TROY HEINERT: “Do you have an instance of where that
occurred?”HAGGAR: “What I know is that abortions up to 14 weeks right now
are currently legal, so yes, I do believe that occurs.”HEINERT: “I guess that proves to me that is based on
assumption…The prime sponsor just said that she believes it
happens, but can’t prove that it happens.
Haggar was undeterred, pointing out that international data
“consistently (show) higher ratios of males over
females…particularly in certain Asian countries.” But since when
do we set American policy based on what people are doing in Asian
countries? Quick, somebody draft legislation banning betel
leaf!
South Dakota wouldn’t be the first state to pass a bill banning
sex selective abortion. Seven states (Arizona, Illinois, Kansas,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma) have
already done so, and the issue was brought before the U.S.
House of Representatives in 2012. But the laws are—at best—little
more than a feel-good circle-jerking opportunity for legislators
(and at worst
a time-wasting ploy to paint opponents as promoting a war on little
girls). Because women aren’t required to state why they want an
abortion in order to get one, gender-based abortion bans accomplish
effectively nothing.
And even if women were forced to justify their reasons for
terminating a pregnancy (under the South Dakota law, physicians
would be required to ask those seeking abortions whether they’re
doing it because of the sex of the fetus), what’s to stop them from
simply concealing their true motivation? Do we start outfitting
Planned Parenthood clinics with lie detectors? As
Ed Kilgore wrote at Washington Monthly: “Proponents of
this kind of legislation must think Asians are not only misogynist,
but too stupid to come up with another reason for seeking an
otherwise entirely legal abortion.”
Unfortunately, it’s all too easy for politicians to drum up
hysteria and support for these types of pointless abortion
restrictions. I’m glad to see at least some South Dakota politicans
pushing back against the legislation.
“I think everybody in this room knows where everybody stands
when it comes to this issue. I don’t think anyone is ‘pro
abortion,’” Rep. Heinert said at last Wednesday’s hearing. “My
point is it takes courage to stand up and say, ‘This law is
unneeded.’ If this was happening in South Dakota, then bring it.
Show me some instances where this happened…but it takes courage to
say, ‘This is an unneeded law, it’s unneeded regulation.’”
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1fJ4GTs
via IFTTT