Should abortions due to gender or race be banned?

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law what appears to be the first legislation in the nation to ban abortions over ethnicity and the fourth to ban it by gender.

From The Associated Press:

“The law makes it a Class 3 felony to knowingly perform or provide financing for an abortion sought because of the race or sex of the fetus or a parent’s race. The maximum punishment if convicted is 3 1/2 years in prison.”

“Supporters said the measure is an important statement against discrimination and for life.”

“We are a multicultural society now and cultures are bringing their traditions to America that really defy the values of America, including cultures that value males over females,” said state Sen. Nancy Barto, a Scottsdale Republican who supports the bill.”

“When the bill was being debated, supporters said they wanted Arizona to prevent discrimination-based abortions, and they disagreed with opponents over whether there’s evidence that race and sex selection-based agendas are actually occurring in Arizona.”

“Critics said there’s no evidence that selective abortions occur in Arizona, and doctors could face jail time if they lose a newly required affidavit that an abortion isn’t for selection purposes.”

“Planned Parenthood of Arizona said Wednesday it strongly condemns Brewer’s decision to sign a bill that is specifically designed by abortion opponents to polarize the public at the expense of the health needs of women and families.”

” ‘This law creates a highly unusual requirement that women state publicly their reason for choosing to terminate a pregnancy – a private decision they already made with their physician, partner and family,’ Bryan Howard, chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Arizona, said in a statement.”

“While we condemn racism and sexism in all forms, legislation that overrides the doctor-patient relationship is not in the best interest of Arizonans,” Howard said.

The New York-based Guttmacher Institute, which tracks U.S. abortion laws, said the statute is the first to adopt a race selection ban on abortions. Illinois, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania already have laws that ban abortion for the purpose of gender selection.”

So what do you think: Should women getting abortions have to explain the reason why? Should genders and races be protected in utero from abortion? Would you consider that racist or sexist? What do you think of this new law?

78 comments Add your comment

thebob.bob

March 31st, 2011
1:30 am

s there any evidence abortions are being carried out based on race or sex. Are women really aborting so many white, male fetuses that they need special attention?? I know that the recent census shows that white males are a decreasing fraction of Americans but is it really because they’re being targeted, in utero?

They should ban abortions if the mother is a virgin and she’s impregnated by an all-knowing and omnipotent sky ghost who wants to send a son to Earth so that he can tortured and executed by the civil authorities for destroying houses of worship. I mean, that happens. It’s rare but it happens, for sure! Dude! You can’t make this stuff up! Oh wait, they did!

A great distraction while Republicans are raping America.

NoWay

March 31st, 2011
6:24 am

Yep, what bob said.

tyrone from east point

March 31st, 2011
6:33 am

bob and NoWay are both morons.

Senior Citizen Kane

March 31st, 2011
6:51 am

Politically correct abortions! Is this a great country or what?

This is Mrs. Norman Maine

March 31st, 2011
6:56 am

Whoever heard of anyone getting an abortion due to race? This is a made-up issue by people who give less than a darn about the real needs of their constitutents to waste time on this nonsense.

shaggy

March 31st, 2011
6:58 am

I will only say that you women should decide what to do about abortion through some kind of all women referendum. We men need to take a back seat on this and just sit down and shut up. I don’t have a uterus and will never pretend to know how to manage one. That girls, is your job exclusively.

catlady

March 31st, 2011
7:05 am

Absolute poppycock! Just another transparent attempt to nullify abortion rights.

catlady

March 31st, 2011
7:06 am

Mine at 7:05 is missing.

RedNeck Rick

March 31st, 2011
7:08 am

Shaggy, it’s uterUS, not uterYOU.

Independent

March 31st, 2011
7:17 am

We need to focus on more important issues – like a law prohibiting people from having microchips implanted without their knowledge or consent. Also we nned a law prohibiting the number 666 from being tattooed on people without their knowledge or consent.

Susie

March 31st, 2011
7:31 am

tyrone from east point, now that I know that you think bob and NoWay are morons, could you please explain WHY you think they are morons?

HB

March 31st, 2011
7:34 am

This is a ridiculous law. Unenforceable laws should not be passed simply to make a statement.

Does Arizona law allow for gender selection with in vitro? Should that be allowed? If not, should there be any exception? I always felt it was wrong, but then I had friends who lost two sons (one a few days old, the other still born) to a horrible genetic disease that only affects boys. They are now considering gender selection to try and have a girl, and that doesn’t seem wrong to me since their reason is not about gender preference. They just want to have a healthy baby.

shaggy

March 31st, 2011
7:44 am

RedNeck Rick,

See, i don’t even know how to spell it right, so what right do I have to tell the girls what to do with it?
By the way, you don’t have one do you?

MomOf2Girls

March 31st, 2011
7:46 am

Well Theresa, looks like the blog’s been hijacked by trolls again and we’re in for a day of BS instead of serious conversation. That’s what happens when the link is on the homepage!

knowing

March 31st, 2011
8:03 am

you all know that any self respecting white daddy would never let his little girl have a baby with a black man.

what would the neighbors say?

JesusFreak

March 31st, 2011
8:04 am

All abortions kill. If you don’t believe that what you are killing is human, then no justification is necessary. If what you are killing is human, then all abortions are an abomination against humanity. An embryo is a person, just like a toddler. Would you kill a toddler? Why not? Just because it is a different size and in a different location from the embryo doesn’t justify having a more valuable life. A newborn that is 2 minutes old should be no more valuable than a baby that is 2 minutes away from being born. The abortion industry is just that, a money maker and doesn’t care about women, or human life. So many people don’t have a clue about what they are really doing. It is a child, whether it is at the beginning of its formation, or fully formed, or continuing to grow, as children tend to do for the next 18-20 years. When your 5 year old becomes an inconvenience, should you just kill him off too? We live in a sick society, this is proof thereof.

Old Sandra

March 31st, 2011
8:08 am

Well, There are quite a few cultures that prefer boys over girls and if they are aborting just because it is a girl (or boy for those who have several boys and only want a girl) then it should be banned. There was a case in Australia of a couple with three boys and whose only daughter had died soon after birth that aborted twin boys they had conceived through IVF. I don’t know if I am going to get into trouble for posting the web addy of the article but please just delete if I am. :-) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345057/Couple-sons-abort-twin-boys-IVF–try-baby-girl-daughter-died.html

RambleOn84

March 31st, 2011
8:14 am

Republicans are raping America, huh?

Wait a minute here…isn’t a Democrat in the White House?

Didn’t he win a (cue Heavenly Chorus) Nobel Peace Prize?

Didn’t he order an attack on Libya…WITHOUT Congressional approval?

Didn’t he (and his Vice President) call the same such attack (under Bush, of course) an “impeachable offense?”

The Democrats are as bloodthirsty as the Republicans and the Republicans are as wasteful as the Democrats…quit perpetuating the lie that they’re any different.

As for the subject at hand, Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist who believed abortion was a great way to keep the population of “undesirable” people (black, Mexican, Native American, general poor) low. So why should we start banning abortion based on race now?

thebob.bob

March 31st, 2011
8:18 am

One thing I should have added to my original post- I do think it’s good for blacks to have abortions. They breed at a far higher rate than more civilized segments of our society. We are rapidly running out of adequate food supply for all inhabitants of planet earth. In case you doubt that, have you checked grocery prices lately? In any event, we are not going to be able to continue to have an unlimited number of births. Mother Earth simply cannot support them all.

RambleOn84

March 31st, 2011
8:18 am

JesusFreak has a very logical point that most will ignore because they disagree with the bulk of his/her post.

If you believe that the fetus is just tissue and not a living human, then it has no race or gender. What does it matter?

This is truly a non-issue of you can justify abortion in that way.

Contrarian

March 31st, 2011
8:18 am

It looks like Republicans have found another no-lose, non-issue that will further solidify the base. While masking it as a bill to stop racism (and who can be against stopping racial selectivity?), they’ve managed to pass legislation that will destroy women’s doctor-patient confidentiality and subject them to public humiliation. There is no doubt in my mind that humiliation is their true objective as a tool to subvert women’s decisions.

The only question left is, when will our legislature take up the banner?

RambleOn84

March 31st, 2011
8:18 am

*should read “IF you can justify abortion in that way”

RambleOn84

March 31st, 2011
8:23 am

thebob.bob,
In addition to the fact that you are an racist fool, you are also an ill-informed fool. The food prices are rising because gas prices are rising. Gas prices are rising for one reason and one reason only: THEY CAN.

You see, oil is (we are told) a finite resource. It is owned by a certain few people and they make sure they get all the money they can for it. They also make sure to use their money and influence to keep down all funding for alternative energy. That is why despite all the big talk from politicians there is no significant funding going towards alternative fuels. At least not until the oil men get theirs.

Your Malthusian fears of finite food supplies have already been disproven centuries ago. There is plenty of food and land to go around for all of us.

embryo a human?

March 31st, 2011
8:26 am

An embryo ain’t a human. It goes nowhere without a uterus. Families around the world have embryos frozen awaiting the time they chose to begin the process of making it human. Think!

RambleOn84

March 31st, 2011
8:30 am

“Contrarian,”
Honestly, Republicans and Democrats are really one and the same. Fine, so many Republicans want to get rid of abortions for a moral reason you don’t understand. Do you not understand that many Democrats want abortion for absolutely selfish reasons (see “thebob.bob” above for disgusting insight into some people’s true intentions)?

Are you really so devoted to a single cause that you base every political decision on it? Is the right to terminate a fetus’ life so important to you that you can justify every other action?

Are you cheering on the missiles Obama is sending into Libya, killing countless innocent civilians because he supports the right to terminate fetuses?

The “Democrat/Republican” charade has pushed our country to the brink of self-destruction. We are completely broke and at each others’ throats over petty issues.

thebob.bob

March 31st, 2011
8:34 am

The truth hurts sometimes, but that doesn’t mean that you should shoot the messenger. Trust me. President Obama understands the importance of the food crisis and is working on it. He’s just not making a big deal of his efforts, but they will be appreciated by all very, very soon.

RambleOn84

March 31st, 2011
8:41 am

I call BS, “thebob.bob.”

There is no “food crisis.”

We are paying farmers NOT to farm crops. The rising food prices are a result SOLELY of rising gas prices.

The Ghost of Harry S. Truman

March 31st, 2011
8:43 am

A person wiser than myself once commented….

“If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacriment.”

Born with a tan.

March 31st, 2011
8:46 am

STAY OUT OF MY UTERUS.
WHY IS IT ANYONE’S BUSINESS WHAT I CHOOSE TO DO WITH MY UTERUS.

RambleOn84

March 31st, 2011
8:47 am

People who try to justify things they know are wrong ALWAYS use hypothetical situations.

DB

March 31st, 2011
8:49 am

(Wow, the crazies are out in force, eh?)

Re: the topic. It’s a completely useless piece of legislation. If a woman truly wants an abortion, she can find 16 other reasons to have one other than the purported race of the baby. She will lie. And any piece of legislation that takes a legal medical procedure and forces a woman to lie about her reasons for having it done it is bad legislation. What are they going to do — do DNA tests on the embryo to confirm the ethnicity of the baby?

DUMB.

RambleOFF

March 31st, 2011
8:54 am

RambleOn84 – stop lying! “Didn’t he order an attack on Libya…WITHOUT Congressional approval?”
Congress voted on Resolution 85 overwhelmingly.

On topic – Arizona is a joke. This is an invasion of privacy betweeen a woman and her physician.

TinaTeach

March 31st, 2011
8:56 am

Harry S.- Love it!

I am pro-choice to a point. I believe a woman should have a right to what goes on inside her body, including the right to abort a fetus (not a child, it only has the potential to become a child) in the first trimester. Later if the woman’s life is at stake and it’s a choice between the woman and the fetus (w/o the woman there wouldn’t even BE a fetus, right?).

I dislike and don’t agree with the idea of aborting do to gender, gender, or selective reduction (and yes, genetically that fetus has a gender and race from the moment the egg is fertilized, even when it’s not apparent immediately). That being said, I don’t feel I have the right to tell other women what to do with their bodies. I can scream, cry, and be mad when they do something like that. But, I don’t have the right to force a law upon them the inserts the government into their uterus.

TinaTeach

March 31st, 2011
8:56 am

meant to read “race, gender, or selective reduction”.

RambleOn84

March 31st, 2011
9:00 am

“RambleOFF,”
Cute name, but you are wrong. The United Nations passed Resolution 85. The United Nations is NOT, as you might guess, the US Congress.

Try reading…it will do you some good.

MomsRule

March 31st, 2011
9:08 am

No, I don’t believe a woman should have to explain the reason for her decision.

This legislation is a waste. A woman can state whatever she wants on a piece of paper. It doesn’t mean its accurate. How could anyone prove otherwise?

RambleOFF

March 31st, 2011
9:13 am

RambleOn84 – I do read and comprehend.

Official Summary
3/1/2011–Passed Senate without amendment. (This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.) Applauds the courage of the Libyan people in standing up against the dictatorship of Muammar Gadhafi and for demanding democratic reforms and respect for human and civil rights. Condemns systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms. Calls on Muammar Gadhafi to desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan people's demand for democratic change, resign his position, and permit a peaceful transition to democracy. Welcomes the vote of the U.N. Security Council on resolution 1970 referring the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court (ICC), imposing an arms embargo on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, freezing Gadhafi family assets, and banning international travel by Gadhafi, members of his family, and senior advisors. Urges:
(1) the Gadhafi regime to abide by Security Council Resolution 1970, and
(2) the Security Council to take such further action to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory. Welcomes:
(1) the African Union's (AU) condemnation of the disproportionate use of force in Libya and urges the AU to take action to address the human rights crisis in Libya,
(2) the United Nations Human Rights Council's (UNHRC) decision to recommend Libya's suspension from the Council and urges the U.N. General Assembly to vote to suspend Libya's rights of Council,
(3) Secretary of State Clinton's attendance at the UNHRC meeting in Geneva and urges the Council's assumption of a country mandate for Libya that employs a Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Libya, and
(4) U.S. outreach to Libyan opposition figures in support of an orderly transition to a democratic government in Libya.

RambleOn84

March 31st, 2011
9:13 am

All legislation is pretty much worthless.

Yet another reason that it would be a good thing if our government did shut down for a while (like ten years or so).

JATL

March 31st, 2011
9:14 am

Wow -I knew this would bring out all the crazies! This is almost like a joke to me -I mean, are women really walking into abortion clinics saying, “I want an abortion because my baby is going to be half____!” Seriously? Sounds like a lot of grandstanding in the AZ legislature and pandering to the pro-lifers to me. Most of the time in clinics, women aren’t asked and don’t volunteer as to “why” they want the abortion. It’s usually an “understood” that it’s because they don’t want to have a baby at that time in their lives. Duh. Almost all abortions are performed before a woman would know the gender anyway -unless she had CVS testing. No one owes anyone an explanation either way. This is just a dumb waste of time.

JATL

March 31st, 2011
9:15 am

Another interesting point to this that makes it seem even more stupid -if a woman is so upset about her child being half of another race, then why is she having sex with someone from that race? Unless it’s a case of rape (and in that case, RAPE would be the reason for abortion), the woman obviously doesn’t have issues with the particular race her child would be half of.

RambleOn84

March 31st, 2011
9:17 am

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/152061-congress-shell-shocked-at-home-as-us-forces-bomb-libyas-gadhafi

I’m not sure where you cut and pasted from, but all of that information doesn’t even mean anything without even context. Read the above or any credible news source and you’ll realize Congress wasn’t even IN SESSION when the attacks were carried out. Obama went behind Congress’ backs, and that’s why many on both sides are VERY angry with him now.

Nobel Peace Prize? What a joke.

jarvis

March 31st, 2011
9:21 am

The way I see it, you can’t be Pro-Life and also be Pro-In Vitro Fertilization. The two do not coincide. Only 35% of IVF’s produce a child…that means the other 65% “die”.

Me….I’m OK with both.

RambleOn84

March 31st, 2011
9:21 am

Isaiah 49:15

RambleOn84

March 31st, 2011
9:23 am

Really doesn’t make sense, jarvis…that’s like saying pro-life people should be against trying to conceive if they know they might have complications.

RambleOn84

March 31st, 2011
9:24 am

jarvis

March 31st, 2011
9:28 am

No RambleOn, statistically it’s saying that there is almost a 2/3’s chance that the fetus that there is a 100% chance of being created in a fert lab won’t survive.

You’re an engineer, I know you understand probability.

jarvis

March 31st, 2011
9:31 am

Sorry about that using a new laptop. My edit ended up in the wrong place.

There is a 100% chance that the fetus will be created in the case of IVF, and there is a 66% chance that it will die.

And I’m not even talking about the fact that usually 6 eggs are harvested and fertilized…..what happens to the other 4 embryos if mom gets pregnant in round 2?

MomsRule

March 31st, 2011
9:32 am

JATL, now that I think about it, I know someone who aborted and it was mostly because the child was another race. She had no problem sleeping with the guy…but she wasn’t about to have his baby.

So, I guess it does happen but again, there is no way to prove it so what is the point….

RambleOn84

March 31st, 2011
9:32 am

Still not the same, jarvis…hoping against odds and squashing life before it begins are not the same.

You’re a human being, I know you have a brain.

JATL

March 31st, 2011
9:32 am

@jarvis -I completely agree! Not only do a number of embryos die, but so often too many take, and they woman is advised to “reduce” for the overall health of two or three embryos and her. When they don’t, often horrible birth defects or the deaths of ALL the fetuses or babies occur. I also have HUGE issues with people who are such big Christians that they rail against abortion as a sin and murder, and particularly when they don’t support stem cell research and use for people with serious ailments and diseases, but they’re just fine with playing God when they want to get pregnant and can’t conceive. I’m fine with all of it as well, but I kind of think that if you believe using stem cells is “playing God” then maybe you need to take the fact that you can’t conceive as a GIANT message from above!