Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011

The Arizona House of Representatives passed legislation Monday that has many scratching their heads: prohibiting abortions on the basis of the fetus’ presumed race or gender.

The governor of Arizona has recently signed the bill into law, making this a bit more current.

Thoughts? Should states prohibit sex- (or race) based abortions? Assuming the legitimacy of abortions in general, is there any reason to limit the reasons for such abortions?

Note that China technically prohibits sex-based abortions (because it's becoming a very common practice), is there any legitimacy to this?

Sounds like one of those silly unenforceable laws as the only reason they would theoretically need is "I don't want a baby". Begging the question after that point doesn't do much when the conversation ends there.

There is legitimacy, but actually confirming the reason why one chose to go through with it is going to be rather difficult.

I understand the principle behind the law (and indeed support it, I guess), but I have to wonder if this is going to lead to people being forced to answer these questions or be refused at the door.

Then again, how many people tell their abortionists that they don't want a girl/boy? I'd think that's something that is processed in their mind alone.

Race based discrimination that also violates federal law? Yeah, this will last long.

Is there the possibility of charging those who voted this illegal law in with something?

It might make some other flouters sit up and pay attention if federal law stepped in and arrested these dimwits and slung their asses in the big house.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Is there the possibility of charging those who voted this illegal law in with something?

It might make some other flouters sit up and pay attention if federal law stepped in and arrested these dimwits and slung their asses in the big house.

Is there a law against passing frivolous laws? Would said law itself be frivolous? The delicious irony.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Is there the possibility of charging those who voted this illegal law in with something?

It might make some other flouters sit up and pay attention if federal law stepped in and arrested these dimwits and slung their asses in the big house.

Ever read the 10th Amendment?

India as well as China has a problem with girl foetuses being aborted because they are girls and families want boys.

In the UK, when you go for your scans, the ultrasound technician may refuse to tell you the sex of the baby.

From one angle, the bill looks like a sensible measure to protect the gender balance of future society.

When one looks at the wording, however, realises it is proposed by republicans, and understands that Arizona does not have a large Chinese or Indian immigrant population, it begins to look like a ham-handed try at an end run around the various protections to the right to abortion.

This may actually be targeted at sex selection IVF, in which case it would be quite enforceable.

Requia wrote:This may actually be targeted at sex selection IVF, in which case it would be quite enforceable.

It isn't. There are several articles about this online and offline about the new strategy of adding race to the abortion debate. It even was used here on Dakka before it was enough of a trend for journals to be writing articles about the anti-choice advocates new strategy of framing it as a minority apocalypse.

Requia wrote:This may actually be targeted at sex selection IVF, in which case it would be quite enforceable.

Sex selection IVF is a different medical process. This bill is not targeted at it..



Automatically Appended Next Post:

To address the original query, the dearth of girls in China has led to social ills such as bride stealing. Precautionary measures to preempt these problems would seem to be a "good thing".

If the intention is to maintain a natural balance of boys and girls in society, an easier way to do it is to forbid clinicians from revealing to parents the sex of the foetus.

The problem with embroiling abortion in the issue is that it interferes with women's legitimate rights.

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem with embroiling abortion in the issue is that it interferes with women's legitimate rights.

Would anyone really argue that there is a solid right for the mother to know the sex of the child?

I understand being aware of diseases and possible deformities, but should the sex/race of the unborn child be a non-issue?

There isn't a human right to know the gender of the foetus.

Some people like to know and others don't. (My wife and I decided to let it be a surprise.)

It is a problem if people use the technology to select the gender of their children and cultural preferences lead to a serious imbalance which causes social problems.

Like in China, yeah.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem with embroiling abortion in the issue is that it interferes with women's legitimate rights.

Would anyone really argue that there is a solid right for the mother to know the sex of the child?

I understand being aware of diseases and possible deformities, but should the sex/race of the unborn child be a non-issue?

On the other side of that coin you would need to explain where the government has the authority to tell the parent(s) that they aren't allowed to know. Do we really want to tell a mother that the government won't allow her to know what the gender is if she wants to know? What is the punishment for finding out anyway? Take the kid away? Put them in jail while they are carrying to supervise them? A fine?

This is impossible to efnforce, and therefore a waste of legislative time. Gataca-style perfectly bred society and all that kind of "what if" is a load of hypothetical that cannot be enforced. Are we to strap a pregnant woman who wants an abortion to a lie detector about the reasons? Further, if this is a contested disallowed abortion but it remains unquestioned in the case of birth defect deformity disease, it sends a message to everyone that downs syndrome people, muscular dystrophy people, spina bifida people etc are not protected from prejudice while healthy babies are.

This law isn't about eugenics or really even really concerned with it. It is, as you said, unenforceable. It is a political maneuver from beginning to end to try and make an end run around Roe as well as intimidate women. As the father, or parents of the father, can sue the women if she has an abortion that is considered to be becuase of race or gender the mechanism is in place and anti-choice advocates are just waiting in the sidelines. They won't win the case, but they don't need to win, they just need to be able to take it to court. Whether it is true or not is inconsequential.

biccat wrote:
Note that China technically prohibits sex-based abortions (because it's becoming a very common practice), is there any legitimacy to this?

On the one hand there are compelling social reasons to prohibit, at least, sex-based abortion. As you noted, China has a significant issue with an increasingly male-dominated populace.

However, a law of this type is basically unenforceable, as others have said, and really has no purpose other than linking abortion to other political issues.

Guitardian wrote:This is impossible to efnforce, and therefore a waste of legislative time. Gataca-style perfectly bred society and all that kind of "what if" is a load of hypothetical that cannot be enforced. Are we to strap a pregnant woman who wants an abortion to a lie detector about the reasons? Further, if this is a contested disallowed abortion but it remains unquestioned in the case of birth defect deformity disease, it sends a message to everyone that downs syndrome people, muscular dystrophy people, spina bifida people etc are not protected from prejudice while healthy babies are.

Actually in the UK abortion to term is legal if the child has Down's Syndrome..

... writing articles about the anti-choice advocates new strategy ...

Anti-choice brigade - they guys who oppose the pro-death movement you mean?

I don't like abortion at all, but I would agree with this law on the principle behind it. In theory its good but since I'm
not likely to be put in a situation where I need to think of this law, it doesn't affect me and so I don't particularly care.

Phototoxin wrote:

... writing articles about the anti-choice advocates new strategy ...

Anti-choice brigade - they guys who oppose the pro-death movement you mean?

So you're going to willfully distort what someone wrote, while quoting it above I might add, and respond to a statement using a common descriptive term with a pejorative?

How deliciously classy.

Ahtman wrote:This law isn't about eugenics or really even really concerned with it. It is, as you said, unenforceable. It is a political maneuver from beginning to end to try and make an end run around Roe as well as intimidate women. As the father, or parents of the father, can sue the women if she has an abortion that is considered to be becuase of race or gender the mechanism is in place and anti-choice advocates are just waiting in the sidelines. They won't win the case, but they don't need to win, they just need to be able to take it to court. Whether it is true or not is inconsequential.

Good point.

Good ol' bride-stealing.

No comment on Arizona law. Now Arizona has been in the news regarding illegal immigrants I am going to assume this is unrelated.

Besides "no comment" Arizona is honestly kind of freaking me out I was otherwise looking at maybe moving there get my feet wet in the ol' U-S-of-A.

Phototoxin wrote:

Guitardian wrote:This is impossible to efnforce, and therefore a waste of legislative time. Gataca-style perfectly bred society and all that kind of "what if" is a load of hypothetical that cannot be enforced. Are we to strap a pregnant woman who wants an abortion to a lie detector about the reasons? Further, if this is a contested disallowed abortion but it remains unquestioned in the case of birth defect deformity disease, it sends a message to everyone that downs syndrome people, muscular dystrophy people, spina bifida people etc are not protected from prejudice while healthy babies are.

Actually in the UK abortion to term is legal if the child has Down's Syndrome..

... writing articles about the anti-choice advocates new strategy ...

Anti-choice brigade - they guys who oppose the pro-death movement you mean?

Stop this childish bickering about who is pro- or anti- whatever, you're embarrassing the other Brits on here.
Secondly, yes, that kind of abortion is legal in the UK, but many parents choose not to use it for ethical/parental/etc. reasons.

dogma wrote:So you're going to willfully distort what someone wrote, while quoting it above I might add, and respond to a statement using a common descriptive term with a pejorative?

He responded to a statement using a common prejorative with a similar prejorative. If you don't want people to use an unappealing term for your side, don't use an unappealing term for their side.

dogma wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

... writing articles about the anti-choice advocates new strategy ...

Anti-choice brigade - they guys who oppose the pro-death movement you mean?

So you're going to willfully distort what someone wrote, while quoting it above I might add, and respond to a statement using a common descriptive term with a pejorative?

How deliciously classy.

... and perfectly demonstrating my point as some notice;

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

dogma wrote:So you're going to willfully distort what someone wrote, while quoting it above I might add, and respond to a statement using a common descriptive term with a pejorative?

He responded to a statement using a common prejorative with a similar prejorative. If you don't want people to use an unappealing term for your side, don't use an unappealing term for their side.

Is it pejorative to describe the anti-abortion movement as anti-choice?

Surely the basic philosophy of the anti-abortion movement is that choice in that area is a bad thing, and should be limited.

The term would seem to be merely descriptive.

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it pejorative to describe the anti-abortion movement as anti-choice?

Surely the basic philosophy of the anti-abortion movement is that choice in that area is a bad thing, and should be limited.

The term would seem to be merely descriptive.

No different than calling the pro-abortion movement "pro-death". Or, anti-life, if that's what you prefer.

Obviously the basic philosophy of the pro-abortion movement is that abortions are a good thing and should be continued.

The term would seem to be merely descriptive.

If it's also race-based, given Arizona, does this mean that you'll only going to be able to get an abortion if you scream out "Mah baby will be born a mexican illegal immigrant! Kill it now, before it can steal your job!"