-
Born-Alive Infants Butchered to Death — No News Here
April 11, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Refuting the Libertarian Argument on Marriage
March 28, 2013 | 2 comments
-
New, Young Faces of the Pro-Life Movement
February 20, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Friedman: Liberals Are ‘Pro-Life’ For Banning Soda
October 31, 2012 | 5 comments
-
Will Charlotte Taxpayers Be on the Hook For Democrats’ Party?
October 29, 2012 | 6 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The vast majority of Americans recognize sex-selection abortion for the loathsome practice that it is. A recent poll found that 77 percent of Americans oppose abortions sought strictly because the parent(s) don’t like the gender of the unborn child. It’s rare, in our nation divided down the middle on so many issues, to achieve that degree of unity.
For that reason, Republicans in the U.S. House have the wind at their backs as they take a vote on the Prenatal Nondescrimination Act, scheduled for today. The bill would subject abortionists who perform sex-selection abortions to fine and imprisonment for up to five years. Organizations — such as Planned Parenthood — that perform such abortions would forfeit federal funding under the proposal. Women who seek the abortions would be exempt from prosecution.
Having a debate over sex-selection abortion is important because it exposes core weaknesses in pro-choice philosophy. As I wrote in December, pro-choice ideology claims to place the highest value on women and womanhood. Yet they are forced to accept, as both moral and legal, the aborting of an unborn baby strictly because she is female. To do anything less would violate their core beliefs about the un-personhood of the fetus and the absolute autonomy of the parents (specifically, the mother) in deciding whether to terminate the unborn life.
The effort is likely to die in the U.S. Senate, but kudos to a cadre of courageous Republicans (chief among them Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona) for furthering the debate on ending this evil practice.
View all comments (19) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by David N. Bass
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/05/31/sex-selection-abortions-put-li
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Nancy in NC| 5.31.12 @ 11:34AM
Libs are all for women except when they are in the womb, at the mercy of the radical Islamists or if they happen to be Israelis. And the GOP is at war with women? Gimme a break.
JD| 5.31.12 @ 2:45PM
I'm reminded of Depression-era minimum wage laws that applied to women only. Liberals thought they were helping women by setting a minimum wage that applied only to women. They thought it would cause women to be paid more. What actually happened was their minimum wage was an above market wage for many jobs, so all the women in those jobs got fired and replaced by men. Thus was the advancement of women in the workplace retarded by the policies of, well, the retarded.
But of course, conservatives who fought against these women-only minimum wages were said to be waging war on women!
Occam's Tool| 5.31.12 @ 2:42PM
Nancy: Magnificently put, Madam. A tribute to the Women of The South you are.
JD| 5.31.12 @ 2:46PM
There is not one argument justifying abortion that does not also justify the slaughter of a 2-year-old.
CJW| 5.31.12 @ 3:13PM
It appears the only persuasive argument to liberals/lefties to oppose abortion is that abortion is being used to kill female babies. The stats show that since 1973, more black babies, per capita, have been killed through abortion, but that did not seem to bother Obama, Sharpton, Jacksons, and the Congressional Black Caucus.
If it is ok to kill babies through abortion then why is it not ok to kill a femae baby?
rightasrain| 5.31.12 @ 3:38PM
My thoughts exactly. For those who are in favor of abortion on demand, why would sex-selection abortion give them a moment's pause? And for those who oppose abortion, why would abortion for sex-selection be more odious than abortion for any other reason?
C Bowen | 5.31.12 @ 4:45PM
As the coming future is sure to declare that a "gay gene" has been discovered, it can be assumed that SWPL liberals (Stuff White People Like) will abort away.
I am leery of believing in a "gay gene" but there is no reason for Republicans to not be out in front on the notion and throw a monkey wrench into the Democratic constituencies.
Occam's Tool| 5.31.12 @ 5:59PM
BREAKING NEWS: RON ("PRO-LIFE") PAUL VOTES TO MURDER BABIES-----
from Weasel Zippers (a much better site):
"The House on Thursday rejected a Republican bill that would impose fines and prison terms on doctors who perform abortions for the sole purpose of controlling the gender of the child, a practice known as sex-selective abortion.
The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), H.R. 3541, was defeated in a 246-168 vote. While that’s a clear majority of the House, Republicans called up the bill under a suspension of House rules, which limits debate and requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass. In this case, it would have required more support from Democrats.
Twenty Democrats voted for the bill, while seven Republicans opposed it. The bill would have needed 30 more yeas to pass.
Suspension votes are normally used for noncontroversial bills, but the GOP-backed measure was clearly controversial. Republicans have occasionally put controversial bills on the suspension calendar in order to highlight that Democrats oppose certain policies.
Republicans voting against the bill were Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Charlie Bass (N.H.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Robert Dold (Ill.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), and Ron Paul (Texas)."
C Bowen | 5.31.12 @ 6:44PM
George W. Bush, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan, Ronald Reagan all supported subsidizing Planned Parenthood and military abortions.
It's not a federal criminal issue.
JD| 5.31.12 @ 7:47PM
That statement is sorely lacking in key context.
C Bowen | 5.31.12 @ 8:09PM
What is missing?
Occam doesn't want to broach the federalism issue, so a solid counter balance is to note that so-called pro-lifers (dubbed by conservative inc) passed budget after budget to actually subsidize abortion (far more awful then not expanding Federal criminal jurisdiction.)
Has Ron Paul ever voted for a budget that subsidizes abortion?
CJW| 5.31.12 @ 7:17PM
This is not news. Ron Paul said in the debates that he believes abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, with no government involvement.
I read that Barry Goldwater was one of the founders of Planned Parenthood in Arizona, and was pro choice later in his senate career. Abortion was not an issue in the 1964 election because Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.
This is an extreme form of libertarianism to oppose government involvment to protect the unborn just for the sake of opposing government involvement.
C Bowen | 5.31.12 @ 8:11PM
I will say again--Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Paul Ryan, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and so forth, voted on budget after budget to subsidize abortion via Planned Parenthood and military abortions.
But they are pro-life?
Red Phillips | 5.31.12 @ 10:25PM
"Ron Paul said in the debates that he believes abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, with no government involvement."
No he didn't. Link please.
CJW| 6.1.12 @ 7:56AM
I recall Paul saying in the debates that he is personally pro life, believes life begins at conception, but did not want the federal government involved, and that it should be a matter between the doctor and woman. If you recall differently, then maybe Paul has not been clear.
Red Phillips | 6.1.12 @ 4:04PM
Ron Paul has ALWAYS been pro-life. He introduced legislation to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over the issue. (This is actually something that would save some babies now. It would simply require 50% + 1 of both Houses and the President's signature. Why didn't that pass when Bush was Pres and both houses were Republican? Could it be because the "pro-life" GOP wants to keep it as an issue to keep the sheep in line every 4 years?)
"that it should be a matter between the doctor and woman"
I doubt very seriously he used that language because that is classic pro-choice language. He believes the Feds don't have jurisdiction over the issue (which they technically don't) and would like to see it turned back over to the states.
CJW| 6.1.12 @ 4:30PM
I agree he said he is pro life.
The bill he proposed to strip jurisdiction was not supported by anyone because it is unconstitutional. You cannot strip away the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to decide a an issue that the Court has ruled a constitutionally protected right. You can remove jurisdiction in non-consititutional rights cases such routine criminal and civil law cases.
If it was that easy to get rid of abortion it would have been done already.
The only way to outlaw abortion is to amend the constitution.
Even if the Supreme Court were to reverse Roe/Casey, that means the issue would return to the states. Not all fifty states ( or 57) would outlaw abortion, and then you have to deal with the supreme court of each state ruling on the constitution of each state.
He did vote the other day against the bill to ban gender based abortion. I don't know his reason.
Paul would have done much better if he had not blamed the US and Israel for the terrorism. His son, Rand, seems to have learned from his father's mistakes. He is sponsoring a bill to stop aid to Pakistan because of Dr Afridi's imprisonment.
Red Phillips | 6.1.12 @ 4:20PM
If I was in Congress I would have voted for this bill based on the fact that a lower procedural principle (federalism) should not trump a higher transcendent principle (life). Also, the ammo a no vote gives to demagogues like Occam who are not going to fairly present the nuance (note his all caps opening sentence) is not worth the upholding of the lower procedural principle in this one case.
That said, Ron Paul did not vote to murder babies and Occam the demagogue knows it. Ron Paul's vote was based on jurisdiction issues and was technically correct if perhaps foolishly consistent.
But why the sudden concern for dead babies from Occam? He obviously is not concerned about the Muslim babies that would die when he nukes the Aswan Dam as he suggested.
guthriej| 6.2.12 @ 2:08PM
Indeed. And so-called partial-birth abortion is murder, period, full stop.