Congress to vote on federal sex-selection ban TOMORROW; make calls TODAY
In a surprise move, House Republicans announced this past Friday they would call for a vote on a federal ban against sex-selective abortion, aka the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, H.R. 3541*, tomorrow, May 30.
PRENDA will be considered under “suspension of the rules,” meaning no amendments can be added. The bill must be voted on as is, straight up or down, and a two-thirds majority will be needed to pass it.
Pro-lifers must now pull out all stops and urge their members of Congress to vote for PRENDA. This morning the National Right to Life Committee issued a nationwide call alert. Click on the link to easily get the phone number for your representative as well as talking points. No time for emails.
NRLC is also issuing an informative letter to Members of Congress.
In 2005 the UNFPA reported there were 163 million missing women in Asia alone since 1950 due to sex-selective abortions and infanticide.
Lest you swallow the pro-abortion lie, “It’s not happening here,” consider this section of the NRLC letter:
Dr. Sunita Puri and three other researchers at the University of California interviewed “65 immigrant Indian women in the United States who had pursued fetal sex selection.” They wrote: “We found that 40% of the women interviewed had terminated prior pregnancies with female fetuses and that 89% of women carrying female fetuses in their current pregnancy pursued an abortion.”
This powerful study discusses in detail the multiple forms of pressure and outright coercion to which such women are often subjected: “Forty women (62%) described verbal abuse from their female in laws or husbands…. One-third of women described past physical abuse and neglect related specifically to their failing to produce a male child.” As a result, “women reported having multiple closely spaced pregnancies with terminations of female fetuses under pressure to have a male child.” (“‘There is such a thing as too many daughters, but not too many sons’,” Social Science & Medicine 72 (2011), 1169-1176)
If you do nothing else today, take 30 minutes to read that study. It will stick with you. It is awful. And it is happening in America.
Please make your call.
*The section banning abortions on basis of race has been removed. This is now solely a bill on sex-selective abortions.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
”a two-thirds majority will be needed to pass it.”
So this is not going to happen. :(
Wow!!
Praying.
I’m not so sure I like this as a law. It’s the kind of thing where I just wonder what the unintended consequences might be. Not to mention unenforceable. However, during a year when the POTUS is riding the parade in the PP car, the brouhaha could be interesting.
Thought you folks didn’t like “big government?” It doesn’t get any bigger than government telling a woman why she can’t have an abortion. Thought the new tea party congress was elected to reform government and get rid of the deficit. Once again, they show that all they’re interested in is getting inside the uteri of American women – and, in this case, it looks like they’re targeting ethnic minorities. Besides, if a law like this is passed and gets through legal challenges, women will lie when they’re asked their state mandated question about whether or not they’re having the abortion for sex selection purposes. You folks will stop at nothing to interfere with a woman’s right to an abortion.
CC – Anything from you about the women who are being forced to have abortions by their ‘loving’ family? Not only those for sex selection, but did you read about the woman in the Detroit area who was set on fire and shot while just 3 weeks from her delivery date? ‘Loving’ baby’s dad was involved. Any comment at all??? For … against … or just “no comment”???
“Forty women (62%) described verbal abuse from their female in laws or husbands…. One-third of women described past physical abuse and neglect related specifically to their failing to produce a male child.” As a result, “women reported having multiple closely spaced pregnancies with terminations of female fetuses under pressure to have a male child.”
Shush, Patty. Mustn’t interrupt CC’s morning reverie. She’s the only person who, I seriously suspect, falls asleep on Christmas eve with visions of abortions dancing in her head.
There are no male and female fetuses. In the abortion advocate’s world it is up up to the baby to decide for himself what he wants to be.
Oh CC… there is no “right” to abortion. How can it be anyone’s “right” to kill a preborn child? How?
And how is it you’re honestly not the least bit disturbed by girls being targeted for killing simply because they are girls?!? What about the rights and choices of those girls?? You have no voice for them? No interest in defending them? How very hypocritical and self-serving.
CC, the basic purpose of government is the safety of it’s citizens. You are absolutely correct, we will stop at nothing until rights are protected in law and violations of those rights stop, just as the government does with theft, rape and murder. You can stand in the way but you’ll be tomorrow’s Jefferson Davis or Nathan Bedford Forrest. You still have a chance to be Abraham Lincoln or William Wilberforce though, and you’ll feel a lot better doing it, why don’t you join us?
“And how is it you’re honestly not the least bit disturbed by girls being targeted for killing simply because they are girls?!?”
And what exactly is this legislation going to do to prevent that? Wouldn’t women who want a so-called “sex-selective” abortion simply lie and give a different reason?
CC’s point about the hypocrisy of “small government” conservatives is salient. Symbolic legislation like this does nothing to further the cause of limited government and fiscal responsibility. To the extent that it has any affect at all, it impedes that purpose. How many additional bureaucratic paper pushers will be needed to manage this new, and demonstrably impotent, regulatory scheme? How many extra pages in the already bloated United States Code will it add?
OOh, Joan’s using words like “salient”, folks. This could be a good one!
The section banning abortions based on race have been removed? That’s bad news! They need to put that back in. What about the African American girl, or the Native American girl who is pressured to abort by a social worker, doctor, or nurse, just because of her ethnicity? What about the white girl who is pregnant by her black boyfriend? She shouldn’t be pressured to abort, just because of the ancestry of her baby.
There’s a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth, on this blog, about women who are coerced into abortion. Yet, there is no concern about those women who are threatened with violence if they have an abortion from the guys who think that their sperm is sacred. There is no concern about women whose boyfriends sabotage their birth control. Oh, right. These are real men who just want their wimmin folk to accept their god given roles…
But seriously, what say you about a man who, by physical or psychological intimidation, keeps a woman from having an abortion? Bueller? Bueller?
But seriously, what say you about a man who, by physical or psychological intimidation, keeps a woman from having an abortion?
If a woman (pregnant or not) is in a relationship with a man who is abusive and controlling, she should get safely away from him. That can be an extremely difficult thing to do. Thankfully there are many people willing to help women in these situations. I would condemn any medical professional that does nothing to help a pregnant woman in the situation you’ve outlined above just as I condemn PP or other abortion clinic staff that don’t help the women that are being coerced into an abortion. Of course, I don’t think the medical professional should “help” the woman by seeing to it that she gets her abortion. Then she’s a post-abortive woman in an abusive relationship instead of a pregnant woman in an abusive relationship. That’s not help.
How about the guy/father who will gladly care for his child, wants his child, and pleads with the mother not to kill his child? Is that the “monster” you’re speaking of, CC? Cause where are all these guys who are supposedly preventing women from getting abortions (especially since fathers have no legal rights at all toward their preborn children!)?
The guys doing violence to women over abortion are the ones forcing them to abort or else; and if she doesn’t comply, well, he just shoots her in the stomach, or beats her with a bat, or runs her over with his car, etc., etc. Whatever gets the job done, right?
But again, what does this have to do with preventing the targeting of girls in the womb? We’re talking about selectively killing girls here… just because they’re girls. Where’s the sisterhood? Where are the feminists?
But seriously, what say you about a man who, by physical or psychological intimidation, keeps a woman from having an abortion?
I believe they would say that it’s a tragedy that the absence of legal “fatherhood rights” forces men to resort to such measures.
One-third of women described past physical abuse and neglect related specifically to their failing to produce a male child.
Unfortunately, the House of Representatives is attempting to facilitate such abuse by removing the protections that the Violence Against Women Act extends to immigrant women who are not yet citizens. After all, if a pregnant woman is deported because her abusive husband withdrew his sponsorship of her residency, the fetus will not be an American citizen and is therefore of no interest to the House.
I hear that China wants to end sex-selective abortion. Maybe they should try making it against the law.
Praying!! We all need to keep on our knees about this and all other moral issues until the day the Lord comes… what a priviledge to be a part of God’s work.
I called Mike Rogers’ office (R-AL) and the guy I spoke to there was both very much in favor of PRENDA (yay!) and very confident it would pass the House. He said something to the effect of, “It will pass. There’s a strong pro-life majority in the House.” So, they’re confident at least, which is nice.
The Senate is another story, and we already know the President is A-OK with killing baby girls for the crime of being too female, so… Well, we’ll see.
“You folks will stop at nothing to interfere with a woman’s right to an abortion.”
Wow, except for the word “right”, I have to say that Joan/cc are finally getting it!!!
But seriously, what say you about a man who, by physical or psychological intimidation, keeps a woman from having an abortion?
You mean like the psychological abuse my brother tortured his girlfriend with when she became pregnant? You mean when he cried and begged on his knees and promised to raise the child alone if she only would choose to allow their child to live?
Do you want to tell my niece what an abusive father she has, CC? Do you want to tell my niece’s mom that she was weak for listening to my brother who told her they could do this? Do you want to tell this mom who chose life that she should have killed her only child, the adult child she is now best friends with?
What is the name of the support group for all these women who were coerced by evil men to allow their children to live?
Sweet Marmot wrote, “The section banning abortions based on race have been removed? That’s bad news! They need to put that back in. “
They’re simply narrowing the focus, which narrows the debate and increases the chances of success. Never fear that a ban on race-selective abortions will be back.
How would this be enforced? Does anyone know? Or is it merely symbolic? I mean, can’t a woman just not tell the truth about why she wants the abortion? A couple people have asked this question and no one has attempted to answer it.
Wow, except for the word “right”, I have to say that Joan/cc are finally getting it!!!
The Supreme Court, in 1967, conferred the right of interracial couples to marry. A few years later, they established a legal right to an abortion.
Joan, try to keep your identity straight. And try the real quote and see if you can find the word “right” in it. Go on, we’ll wait.
SamH, robbery is against the law and we can’t always apprehend robbers. Should we make robbery legal? Of course not. A law that is just is not less just because people can lie and circumvent it.
Doh! typo in my 3:35 comment: It should read …the words “right to abortion”
Further, trolls, even though interracial couples may marry, it didn’t give interracial siblings the right to marry, or interracial polygamists. What that has to do with abortion is anybody guess! Who knows what vermin lurk in the brains of the anti-lifers?
The section banning abortions based on race have been removed?
Perhaps they were moved by the Eagle Forum’s assertion that it is “not a good thing” that the majority of babies born in the US are non-white.
How would this be enforced? Does anyone know?
The same way that states have tried to enforce laws against pregnant women using drugs: by mandating that health care workers serve as government informants.
Oh, now I get it, Lisa! PP doesn’t report the sexual abuse of minors because they’re just too durn noble to become government informants! How grand of them! Let’s give Cece a big fat medal for it!
Oh, and you know those teachers who notice the children in their class who are neglected and show signs of abuse? If they report it, they are dirty rotten snitches, aren’t they?
Protect children? Ba humbug!*
*sarcasm alert.