House rejects bill penalizing doctors for sex-selective abortions

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.

**Frazzled**

To quote the Immortal Bard: "Gentlemen we have entered the surreal."

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/230283-house-rejects-bill-penalizing-doctors-for-sex-selection-abortions

House rejects bill penalizing doctors for sex-selective abortions
By Pete Kasperowicz - 05/31/12 02:15 PM ET

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 turned away 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, and in this case, would have required more support from Democrats.

Twenty Democrats voted for the bill, while seven Republicans opposed it. The bill needed roughly 30 more votes for approval.

Suspension votes are normally used for non-controversial bills, but the GOP-backed bill was clearly controversial. Republicans have occasionally put controversial bills on the suspension calendar in an apparent attempt to show that Democrats oppose certain policies.

In some cases, Republicans have rescheduled these bills for regular consideration after they have failed, allowing for passage by a simple majority. But Republicans gave no sign that they would try again with PRENDA.

Earlier in the day, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) indicated that the issue of stopping sex-selective abortion is important enough that the would try again, but he was not specific.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More from The Hill:
♦ President Bush returns to White House
♦ Pelosi defends $1M tax-cut threshold against liberal critics
♦ Romney makes surprise campaign stop at Solyndra factory
♦ Romney supporters shout down Axelrod at Obama event
♦ Obama to donors: Get off sidelines and send cash now
♦ Bill Clinton to campaign against Scott Walker in Wisconsin
♦ Warren: I told Harvard I was Native American after hiring
♦ Obama official: UN proposals could lead to Internet censorship

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"This is an important issue to the American people," Boehner said to reporters off the floor. "This type of sex selection most Americans find pretty repulsive, and our members feel strongly about it. That's why it is being brought to the floor."

During debate on the bill Wednesday, Republicans said the bill is consistent with the broader U.S. position that sex-selective abortion should be condemned around the world.

"In 2007, the United States spearheaded a U.N. resolution to condemn sex-selective abortion worldwide," said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the sponsor of the bill. "Yet, here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, we are the only advanced country left in the world that still doesn't restrict sex-selective abortion in any way."

While some Democrats made it clear that they oppose sex-selective abortion, they indicated that they oppose the bill's enforcement provisions, which they said would put in place an unacceptable limit on women's rights to choose abortion.

"We can all agree that women should not choose to terminate a pregnancy based solely on gender, but this bill criminalizes a legal procedure," Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) said Thursday afternoon.

"The bill includes a provision that would allow a women's husband or parents, by merely alleging that an abortion is because of gender, to seek injunctive relief to prevent the doctor from performing abortion procedures, sending an incredibly private and personal decision into the courts," Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) added Thursday.

"It is another Republican intrusion into a woman's right to choose," said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) of the GOP bill on Wednesday. "Women should be able to make such sensitive and private decisions with their families, their doctors and their god, free from the fear of the police."

Republicans voting against the bill were Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Charlie Bass (N.H.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Bob Dold (Ill.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), and Ron Paul (Texas).

Democrats voting for it were Reps. Jason Altmire (Pa.), John Barrow (Ga.), Dan Boren (Okla.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Jerry Costello (Ill.), Mark Critz (Pa.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), John Garamendi (Calif.), Tim Holden (Pa.), Larry Kissell (N.C.), Daniel Lipinski (Ill.), Stephen Lynch (Mass.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Silvestre Reyes (Texas), Mike Ross Ark.) and Heath Shuler (N.C.).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

123 Comments

Add New Comment
Optional: Login below.

**purplefood**

Women should have the right to choose whether they want to have a child or not but choosing the gender of your child and then aborting if it isn't that gender seems... petty and kinda wrong...

**Frazzled**

Democrats: "Republicans are waging a war against women. Look they want to stop a woman's right to proper health care! BLARG!!!"

Republicans: "Democrats are waging a war against women. Look they want to abort girls like China does! BLARG!!!"

Frazzled: "Forget them. Vote for me. I'll make the planes fly on time."

**dæl**

The Daily Telegraph recently ran a sting operation filming British doctors agreeing to perform sex selective abortions.

It is an absolutely appalling practice, and should not be allowed to continue.

**Kilkrazy**

This seems to be the problem.

"The bill includes a provision that would allow a women's husband or parents, by merely alleging that an abortion is because of gender, to seek injunctive relief to prevent the doctor from performing abortion procedures, sending an incredibly private and personal decision into the courts," Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) added Thursday.

In other words it's a ploy to insert a backdoor to allow women to be "got at" in order to delay abortions.

I wonder how other countries deal with the problem of gender-bias abortion?

Is it a very large problem in the USA?

**daedalus**

Yeah, reprehensible though it might be, it's still "thought crime". How do you prove ANY abortions after passing this aren't sex-selective.

**Melissia**

Through recording when or if any gender determination was made.

Mind you, with Republican lawmakers being what they are, Republicans in several states are essentially those who would go through with an abortion to have an ultrasound, which of course means that they're effectively encouraging sex-selective abortion.

**Frazzled**

daedalus wrote:Yeah, reprehensible though it might be, it's still "thought crime". How do you prove ANY abortions after passing this aren't sex-selective.

Actually its just politics. No one is intending to prove anything.

I just like the ethical loop de loops involved. Democrats who are pro women are voting to abort females. Republicans, who are pro women, are voting to restrict a woman's ability to have an abortion. Frankly if I were a woman I'd carry a gun and a "push off!" sign.

Actual conversation this morning.
Wife: "I'm worried. They have to drill two teeth."
Frazzled: Well they give you a shot."
Wife: "yea but its right into the nerve with the drill."
Frazzled: "Always worked for me, except that one time I woke up during oral surgery."
Wife "I'm still nervous."
Frazzled. "Simple. Just get in the chair. Put your Beretta on your chest and tell them, if you hurt, then they're going to hurt."
Wife (doing the exasperated sigh): "Thats probably not going to work."
Frazzled: "You're right. You should cock it hollywood style too."
Wife:

**daedalus**

That still doesn't prove that the abortion was a direct function of determining what the sex was, only that it is possible that it could be.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Actually its just politics. No one is intending to prove anything.

...oh. Now I'm sad. :(

**Frazzled**

daedalus wrote:That still doesn't prove that the abortion was a direct function of determining what the sex was, only that it is possible that it could be.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Actually its just politics. No one is intending to prove anything.

...oh. Now I'm sad. :(

Agreed. Although funny as hell, its a complete waste of time. On the positive lefties and righties haven't foamed about something for at least 420 seconds.

**Ouze**

It would appear that the Party of Small Government© is attempting to criminalize a private sector transaction for performing a legal procedure based solely upon suspicion of the patients motivations.

Clearly this will create jobs and turn the economy around. But hey, keep plucking that chicken, guys.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it a very large problem in the USA?

So far as I know it is utterly nonexistent in the USA. There is no real societally-driven preference for a specific gender here - women typically make somewhat less then men do but it's not as extreme as it is in Asia.

**Kovnik Obama**

Ouze wrote:It would appear that the Party of Small Government© is attempting to criminalize a private sector transaction for performing a legal procedure based solely upon suspicion of the patients motivations.

Clearly this will create jobs and turn the economy around. But hey, keep plucking that chicken, guys.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it a very large problem in the USA?

So far as I know it is utterly nonexistent in the USA. There is no real societally-driven preference for a specific gender here - women typically make somewhat less then men do but it's not as extreme as it is in Asia.

Unfortunately, this 'as far as you know', in cases of this type, usually doesn't go so far. What percentage of Internet users know about the onion network?

On a related note ; I disaprove of this. Bad, baaaaad people.

**Lynata**

I'm actually somewhat torn on this. If sex-selective abortions would be outlawed, it'd lead to a certain percentage of children growing up with parents who wished they were someone else. Better not being born at all than being born into a family where you are abused or which hands you over to an orphanage.

**Kilkrazy**

There are ill social effects from major gender imbalance which furnish an argument for preventing gender-biased abortions.

**Mr Hyena**

What is the difference? Does the fetus not die if gender-identified or not anyway?

It seems somewhat silly to claim Abortion is only ok in certain circumstances. Its either ok or it isn't.

**Kovnik Obama**

Usually, events are subject to either alleviating or aggravating circonstances, whenever we try to evaluate them morally. Regardless of you allegiance toward pro-life or pro-choice, it should be evident that refusing the baby because it's a girl isn't the same as refusing the baby because one cannot care for it (which is usually what's claimed to make one feel better about their abortions)

**Lynata**

Kilkrazy wrote:There are ill social effects from major gender imbalance which furnish an argument for preventing gender-biased abortions.

Shouldn't they work each other out, though? I recall having read an article where, in many regions of China, it has gotten so far that men have a hard time finding a girl to marry now. Meaning, the value of girls has increased. It's like the economy model of supply and demand. Could well be that, in another 10-20 years when this effect has taken root in people's minds, China's girls become the new boys and its boys become the girls, as far as preference is concerned.

Mr Hyena wrote:It seems somewhat silly to claim Abortion is only ok in certain circumstances. Its either ok or it isn't.

I think I can agree with this. Although it is easier to "defend" abortions in certain circumstances (such as rape or age), I guess the core question should be "is the child wanted". If yes, fine, continue breeding. If not, better to abort it than have it end with a kid who's not loved by his/her parents.

Whether the reasons for whether or not the child is wanted are based on parent preparedness, health defects detected in the foetus, or a gender wish, doesn't change much about the end result.

**Mr Hyena**

Kovnik Obama wrote:Usually, events are subject to either alleviating or aggravating circonstances, whenever we try to evaluate them morally. Regardless of you allegiance toward pro-life or pro-choice, it should be evident that refusing the baby because it's a girl isn't the same as refusing the baby because one cannot care for it (which is usually what's claimed to make one feel better about their abortions)

Does it change the outcome? I'm indifferent either way.

**Kovnik Obama**

Your indifference is noted, yet unimportant. Not all moral evaluations are based solely on the outcome. Otherwise courts of Law wouldn't bother with that petty thing called intent...

**MeanGreenStompa**

Ouze wrote:It would appear that the Party of Small Government© is attempting to criminalize a private sector transaction for performing a legal procedure based solely upon suspicion of the patients motivations.

Clearly this will create jobs and turn the economy around. But hey, keep plucking that chicken, guys.

I think I love you...

**Shadowseer_Kim**

Don't post things like this on Dakka.

**Kovnik Obama**

Holy craps is there a lot of Scaremongering(tm) in that post ; I'm positively terrified of all those nurses who want to murder black feotuses!

**Shadowseer_Kim**

...

**dæl**

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
Even if there were legislation against it would it still happen? Yes. Should we just pretend it does not happen and ignore the facts? No.

Sex-selective abortions have been illegal in the UK since the 60s, and yet it still happens.

**Kovnik Obama**

The intent wasn't there because it was perfectly integrated from the news source you cite. In results, calling the fact that minorities use abortions more than WASP a 'black genocide' is still fearmongering ; it's selecting the worse out of all possible interpretations of the facts, without any evidence.

Mentionning the Nazi when refering to Eugenics, when there's been exemple of eugenical trends throughout history (and even beyond, Gorrillas are said to commit pogroms), is pretty disengenuous. You could've equally mentionned the U.S., France and about every other country in the last 3 centuries, with the exception of the Brits. (hum there might have been restriction on miscegenation between English and Scotts, and English and Irish, anyone knows of any?)

**Shadowseer_Kim**

...

**Chowderhead**

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Snip.

3% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions. the other 97% Is... Well... Planning for Parenthood. Many communities need help with that (They do Birth Control, condoms, sex education, planning for motherhood, breast exams, STD/STI checks, etc etc) stuff.

So yes. I think you can safely take off that tinfoil hat of yours.

**MrDwhitey**

Using a site with the title "Black Genocide" as a source.

What.

**Kovnik Obama**

You know, MrDWithey, it's even more hilarious since that bird in your avatar is basically the perfect MFW to the situation

**MrDwhitey**

That's actually a live webcam of my face.