“Good luck and I hope that you do get your boy” (sex-selective abortion in America?)

Posted on June 21, 2012 by elizabeth

At a well-check for my oldest son last week, I struck up a conversation with another mother in the waiting room. Her adorable baby girl was smiling and cooing at me and I couldn’t help remarking on her cuteness.

“She’s so tiny!” I said. “How old is she?”

“She’s one, but she was born super early.”

“My twins were preemies, too” I said. “They were born at 34 weeks.”

“My baby was born at 26 weeks,” she said. “She barely weighed one pound.”

“Well, she’s absolutely beautiful.”

“Thank you!” the mother beamed. “We were so scared for her, but the NICU doctors took such good care of her!”

We chatted for a moment about our shared NICU experiences and later, I thought about this wonderful miracle of technology: that tiny babies born at 26 weeks can be nursed to health.

And then, with a sinking heart I also realized that as technology advances and we are able to rescue prematurely born babies at earlier stages of development, late term abortion of these same babies is still legal–which means that the line between between ending a non-viable pregnancy and killing a human being is becoming increasingly blurry.

But this isn’t all. As The Economist reported, there is a worldwide war on baby girls. Baby girls are being aborted (or outright killed at birth) at a far higher rate than boys. And sex-selection isn’t just happening in China and India. It’s happening right here in America.

In fact, recent undercover investigations of Planned Parenthood clinics across America revealed that a woman could procure an abortion simply because the unborn baby was a girl. And the parents wanted a boy.

How can Planned Parenthood claim to be “pro-woman” while directly assisting in the sex-selective abortions of baby girls?

To me, being pro-woman means being pro-ALL-women, including the ‘unplanned’ ones. What baffles me about the logic behind the (“pro-woman”) “right to choose” is that it actually discriminates against women–especially in the case of anti-female, sex-selective abortion.

I mean, Planned Parenthood’s reasoning seems to be that it’s not their place to ask why a woman seeks an abortion. Any reason, apparently, is equally valid–including just not wanting another baby girl.

So, we’ll schedule you for an abortion and if the ultrasound reveals that it’s a boy, you can just cancel your appointment!

Yes, this is happening in America.

What can we do to protect our baby girls? Sign the petition to stop sex-selective abortion.

This entry was posted in Current Affairs, Pro-Life Issues. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://quietanthem.blogspot.com/ Renee Ronika Klug

    I signed the petition. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. 

    A proud mother of two daughters, 
    Renee

  • http://joyfulmothering.net Christin

    So they’re calling it “judgement” when someone tells the truth? Are you kidding me. I was tearing up watching this.

    I knew about the abortions happening based on gender, but watching this just makes it more in my face real. I’m just sickened.

  • http://grace-filled.net/ jen

    signed it a few weeks ago.

    i’m the mommy of a nicu baby (29 weeks) as well.  there were 4-5 sets of twins that came through while my son daniel was there.

  • annie kuruvilla

    I am from India and recently, we were watching an episode where they talk about it. It is long, but worth the time.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fp3V8YWFsA 

    • Christine

      Annie – thanks for sharing this video.  It is really worth the time.

  • http://www.diannaeanderson.net/ Dianna

    Um, yeah, Lila Rose? Not a trustworthy source. When this investigation happened (months ago), Planned Parenthood issued a press release stating that they were aware of the undercover work going on (Rose is not very subtle).

    Their stance is as it has always been: they do not pass judgment on a woman’s choice for an abortion, full stop. What would you expect them to do in this situation? Say, “Oh, no, we can’t give you this abortion now because you’ve told us it’s because you want a boy”? That would violate their philosophical stance on the issue – once you start making judgment calls on why women are getting abortions, you start shaming them for their choices, and that’s a rabbit not worth chasing.

    Additionally, you cannot tell the sex of a baby until 18-20 weeks into a pregnancy. The vast majority of abortions take place before 12 weeks. Abortions after 24 weeks are illegal in many areas, and done then only for the health of the mother.

    It’s also helpful to note that there’s a logical problem here aside from the volatile issue of abortion: you have an undercover investigation of women purposefully telling PP employees that their abortion is because of the fetus being shown to be a girl. They don’t stop the abortion procedure (as is policy). They offer no comment on the prevalence of sex-selective abortion frequency, and you have no statistics that this actually happens in America – again, you cannot tell the sex of the baby as early in pregnancy as most abortions occur. What you have, instead, is an “undercover” investigation that presents a leading situation, and no evidence as to whether or not this situation is replicated in America.

    Is sex selective abortion some thing that needs to be addressed? Sure! But it won’t be addressed by restricting abortion for women who need it. It will be addressed by making society one in which boys aren’t favored over girls, in which girls are welcomed into families as equally as boys and have as many opportunities to grow and honor their family in the same way that boys do. People in China and India don’t get sex-selective abortions because they want that perfect one boy one girl family. They do it because girls are outcast and shamed and considered unworthy. THAT is the problem, not the procedure they happen to use.

    • http://heretichusband.blogspot.com/ Heretic Husband

      “[Sex selective abortion] will be addressed by making society one in which boys aren’t favored over girls.”
      Yes!  I fail to see how passing a law forbidding sex selective abortion will accomplish anything.  Does a woman even need to give a reason when getting an abortion?  Couldn’t she just say “I don’t want the child” or “I can’t afford this child” instead of “I want a boy”?

      This is another useless law that Republicans will spearhead to make themselves look better to their voting base.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/6QXBWBG5USM4BVX4XJRSC3OMYM J S

        Question:  Does this societal change you mention appear to be coming quickly?  Babies are being aborted at a rate of about 3700 a day (in the U.S. alone); any ideas for what we should do while we wait?

        • http://heretichusband.blogspot.com/ Heretic Husband

          A fair point – no, it will take time.  What you do while you wait is your business.  But passing useless laws like this won’t help.  

          Unless we are talking about late term abortions, I don’t have a huge problem with abortion.  I don’t agree that life begins at conception (although I think it begins well before birth).  I think things like the morning after pill are perfectly fine.

          I’m against late term abortions in most cases, because, as EE says, the line between a fetus and a viable birth is getting fuzzier.

          • Christine

            Sex-selection abortions are going to be later-term abortions because that is when gender becomes visible on an ultrasound. 

            The whole issue has been revelatory with some pro-choicers acting horrified that anyone would think they would approve of such a selfish reason for the otherwise-noble act of abortion, and others taking Dianna’s more honest line that the reasons are irrelevant when a woman chooses abortion.

            Lila Rose and James O’Keeffe are doing good work, because no one in the media covers what actually goes on.  I have seen Lila Rose interviewed and found her to be very intelligent and reasonable, and even a good listener.  Maybe there are things I don’t know about her, though, of course.

            We have to create a culture where women don’t feel that this is their best or only option, and where unborn humans have just protection.

          • http://heretichusband.blogspot.com/ Heretic Husband

            Fair enough.  But I’m already against late term abortions, and laws that restrict them.  I’m not in favor of useless laws like this one, and I’m not  MORE against late term abortions that are sex selective.

          • http://www.youtube.com/user/NaomiChambers Naomi Chambers

            So, you are against 1 percent of abortions. Thats how many are late term. About one percent. 

    • Anonymous

       Hi Dianna, thanks for your input. A couple things, here:

      1. You stated Lila Rose is not a trustworthy source. Do you have evidence to support that claim? I’m sincerely interested.

    • Anonymous

       Ooops. Forgot the second part:

      2. Yes, if PP learns that a woman is having an abortion because of sex-selection, they SHOULD refrain from giving the abortion–even if it violates their “philosophical stance.” Why? Because if your ‘philosophical stance’ allows for sex-selective abortions (a practice you seem to agree is wrong), then what really needs to be corrected is the ‘philosophical stance.” To me, the greater moral wrong is NOT in violating an (immoral) philosophical stance but in performing a sex-selective abortion. This is why there ARE legitimate restrictions on abortion (ie. late term) recognized by law. In fact, in Arizona, sex-selective abortion is already law and PP is required to abide by it–even if it violates their “philosophical stance.”

      • http://www.diannaeanderson.net/ Dianna

        And in response, I point again to portions of my response: 1. Sex selective abortions would have to happen after 18-20 weeks, which is simply not occurring in the US all that often. This is a purely philosophical question at this point, especially where Planned Parenthood is coming from – it is invented by Lila Rose and such.

        And I can see that this is an issue that we’re going to have a lot of trouble finding common ground on, but here’s the deal: if we start refusing women abortions for a reason we disagree with, then we infringe on the rights of women everywhere.

        Like free speech, if I want to be able to have the right to write this comment, I also must support the right of the internet troll to swear and post shitty stuff. The philosophical battle is not waged by banning certain rights and unintentionally infringing upon the rights of all – it is waged, instead, by helping and changing the people we interact with in daily life.

        I don’t have to like the choice someone else makes with his right to…whatever, but I recognize that a restriction upon his rights is also potentially a restriction upon myself, and for that reason alone, I stand as a pro-choice person who does not like abortion, but recognizes that it is sometimes needed; in the meantime, I work around the problem to find other ways to reduce the numbers.

        • Anonymous

          I agree with you on THIS, for sure: that the philosophical battle is won by helping the people we interact with in daily life. :) YES YES YES.

          However, I would argue that ALL of us ought to be bound by SOME restrictions–and that we ought NOT have the “right” to take innocent, human life.

          Thanks for engaging, here, Dianna. I know this is a difficult topic. I appreciate your time.

        • http://www.adamshome.blogspot.com Erin Adams

          Dianna, just to keep facts straight, are you saying you cannot know the gender until 18-20 weeks?  Such ultrasound is often scheduled at that time, but it can be very possible to see earlier.  My doc could see clearly with our first born that he was a boy at 16 weeks.  And your last paragraph here is hard for me to understand.  If you can’t question someone choice to have an abortion, than how will you work to reduce the problems that make the abortion a so called “need”.  How are you going to work to make people want an unwanted child?  Particularly if they don’t want a child of a certain gender or a disability?  

      • http://www.youtube.com/user/NaomiChambers Naomi Chambers

        I am pregnant with a boy. I do not want boys…girls are better.

        I think I will abort the boy. 

  • Anonymous

    I did notice, however, that the FULL footage of these recent undercover ops are available–no editing. Yes, shoddy reporting has been done–and FYI: it’s not just Fox News. :) I don’t know why, exactly, you keep pointing out that the undercover jobs aren’t “subtle.” Why does that matter, really? If they uncover damning evidence, then subtlety plays second fiddle to efficacy, no?

  • birdsong

    In the book, “Fragile Beginings: Discoveries and Triumphs in the Newborn ICU” the author, Adam Wolfberg, MD, writes about a patient he had whose membrances ruptured at  23 weeks, 4 days.  She was advised of the risks and also told “your baby could do really well, or you could stay pregnant for weeks…”  The women asked the doctor what her options were:  she wanted an abortion because she did not want to risk having a child with disabilities.  The legal limit for abortion in Massachusetts is 24 weeks.  She had 3 days.

    He writes, “Grudingly, we disconnected the woman’s IV: she changed out of her hospital gown and got back into her street clothes, walked out of the hospital, and took a taxi across town, where on of my colleagues at another hospital performed her abortion.  (I believe he was a doc at Brigham and Women’s)

    He goes on to say that the nurses were wounded by this women’s rejection of their skills even though some of them were advocates of abortion rights.  It felt wrong to the nurses that this women ended the pregnancy because she did not want to risk the chance that her child would be disabled.  They felt she made the wrong decision but they did not question her right to make it.

    It is a growing trend to abort babies with suspected disabilities.

    The topic of premature babies does raise questions that do not always have black and white answers.  Some of the questions he raises are: How aggressively should doctors try to save the life of a premature baby who will be severely neurologically and physically impaired?  What might trhat child’s quality of life be like after millions of dollars on spent on her care?

    With the advancement of medical technology there are alot of questions.  I am prolife but understand that sometimes the best thing to do might be to not do aggressive interventions.  This is acceptable to me where as abortion in the case above is not.

    I am not a fan of Lila Rose and her methods.  I just wanted to share this because I just finished reading this book and it gave me alot to think about.

    • jeanelane

       I think being pro-life and being aggressive in saving life are two different things.  Do-no-harm means exactly that.  But not being aggressive in treating is not necessarily doing no harm.  This is a hard decision people have to make, taking in their faith and everything.  If you believe in an afterlife, a heaven with God, what is so horrible about letting life take its natural course to death?  Even if that natural course is at 1 week, 1 month, 1 year.  Abortion causes death whereas withholding aggressive treatment is not the cause of death.

      • birdsong

        “But not being aggressive in treating is not necessarily doing no harm. ”

        That is so true but I think sometimes it is probably hard to not want to do every single intervention to save your child. These are tough decisions.

        Withholding treatment is different from abortion, I agree

      • birdsong

        “But not being aggressive in treating is not necessarily doing no harm. ”

        That is so true but I think sometimes it is probably hard to not want to do every single intervention to save your child. These are tough decisions.

        Withholding treatment is different from abortion, I agree

  • Sharon O

    Because our grandchildren were preemie I always had a confused opinion about this whole topic. It angered me.
    How can we fight for every breath, every ounce of nutrition and yet on a different floor of a hospital remove life of a perfectly formed ‘soul’?
    Perhaps even the same doctor is doing both?
    How can that even happen?

    It is God’s rath… that we will feel for killing our babies.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/NaomiChambers Naomi Chambers

    This is Republican propaganda. 

    With a world population of 7 billion, we do not need more children. 

    • jeanelane

       This is not Republican propaganda.  It is HUMAN propaganda.  I’m a firm believer that if you don’t want any more children, keep your pants on!  Abortion is not birth control.  Fun with no consequences just proves how selfish one is.  And selfishness is what has gotten the world in the shape it is in.

    • Zaniam2003

      Then why do you have a baby? I just looked at your YouTube profile. If you think the world doesn’t need more children, stop having them!

  • Brambonius

    I might not be comfortable at our Belgian laws permitting abortion under 14 weeks (and later when the mother is in danger I suppose)  but I never understood how people could lump the morning-after pill, or even abortion in the first three months, together with something like late term abortion. Late term abortion, when the baby has a chance of being viable, is just unquestionably barbaric, and I don’t see how anyone could defend it (except when 1 out of 2 lives that would undeniably would be lost can be saved by it.)

    I don’t think I can believe in ‘ensoulment’ at conception (egg meets
    sperm) for various reasons, but I do know a fetus is not just alive, but a
    forming baby.  I do know that when I saw my daughter for the first time on the echography at 12 weeks that I was surprised at how alive this tiny ‘human larva’ was, swimming around. There was something in the way she moved then that we still recognise now. And that was the beginning of the fetal stadium.

    When you know the sex of the fetus already, you have to be midterm. That would not be legal here, and I completely agree with that. It’s just barbaric.

  • Danwrightpublisherservices

    Well said!  I recently became animated with my oldest daughter and wife, while discussing the plight of women in Afghanistan, should the Taliban regain its influence.  Is anyone discussing their very precarious situation?  Then I said, “Where are the women to speak out against these things.”  Thanks for calling it out!