(NC) Bill would bar sex-selection abortions

[alp227]

Source: Charlotte Observer

It would be illegal for doctors to perform abortions because of the sex of the fetus under a bill filed Wednesday in the state House.

The legislation would allow doctors and other health care providers to be sued for damages and fined heavily if they perform abortions where gender is a significant factor in the woman’s decision.

It’s uncertain whether there are many women who seek abortions based on gender. But about a dozen other states either are considering or have passed similar bills.

Rep. Ruth Samuelson, a Charlotte Republican who is the bill’s primary co-sponsor, said in an interview there are indications that sex selection is a significant problem. But she said there is a larger question.

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/04/11/3974603/bill-would-bar-sex-selection-abortions.html

---

Let's see, first the state religion bill, then the "stick it to Bloomberg" soda bill, now a fear-based "sex selective abortion" bill? With all this crazy right wing legislation coming out every week is NC trying to merge with SC now?

On the other hand, what has NC done about its citizens struggling to find work? According to Mike Malloy, jack sh*t:

[hrmjustin]

1. How do they know why you are having an abortion?

I have no experience with this so I do not know the procedure. Do clinics ask you before hand why you are doing this? Do they reject you based on your answer?

[Samurai_Writer]

2. This is ridiculous for at least two reasons

First, no provider EVER asks a woman why she wants an abortion.

Secondly, the gender of a fetus cannot be determined until AT LEAST 18-20 weeks... and that is only if the fetus is in a good position for viewing the genitals during the ultrasound. At 18-20 weeks, abortion is severely limited already via Roe v. Wade.

Gods, the stupid of the Republican party knows no bounds.

[HockeyMom]

3. Feel good legislation

for the pro-birth people. It is almost like requiring a woman see a sonogram before an abortion when the reason she is having one is for severe fetal deformities. You really think SEEING those deformities is going to change her mind???

Cannot reason with stupidity.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Shhhhhh! NC lawmakers will amend the bill to include

that every woman get a sonogram if she's 8+ weeks along, tell her the gender, and then ask her if it makes a difference whether it's a boy or a girl.

[Sheldon Cooper]

5. That's not quite true.

It can be determined by 16 weeks through ultrasound, my first one was at that stage and that was back in 1991. Also, more invasive testing can reveal gender as early as 10 weeks, which happened with my second one in 1996.

Your point about providers not asking women for a reaon is correct, however. And furthermore, this politician stated that there is evidence that abortions based on sex-selection is widespread, but provided no support for this claim. What a bunch of crap.

[Xithras]

8. Actually, gender can be determined at 4 weeks, but it's expensive.

A blood sample for the mother, to test cell-free fetal DNA within her bloodstream, can accurately determine baby gender as early as 4 weeks (more commonly 5-7 weeks) with nearly 100% accuracy. It's still an uncommon procedure in the U.S., and it's been banned or severely restricted in some countries like India because it was used for sex selection, but genetic analysis via CFF-DNA is gaining traction as an alternative to amniocentesis because there is less risk to the fetus and it can be performed much earlier. Because the test is DNA based, gender can be determined long before the sexual organs actually develop.

Having the test done in the U.S. will cost you quite a bit of money though, as there isn't an insurance company in the country that would cover the test simply because a mother wanted to know the kids gender. In the U.S. the tests are primarily used to screen pregnancies that are at very high risk for certain genetic diseases, and even then they don't usually check for gender unless it's requested (sometimes it does matter). Someone wanting to have it done simply for sex selection would probably pay thousands out of pocket.

[hrmjustin]

9. This is what i though.

It seemed to me this is feel good stuff.

[Chemisse]

10. Exactly. This is just to fire up the Republicans.

We've seen this before:

They rant against something that nobody actually does - but if they DID do it it would be just awful. Almost instantly (dumb) people are convinced it is happening all the time and become furious.

Then they go to the polls and vote Republican. Let's see, midterm elections are not all that far off . . .

[Ash_F]

15. Thanks

Just from reading the headline, I found the bill agreeable. But after reading your post, I read the full article with a critical eye and see that it is just BS. Kind of like those 'anti-sharia' laws that have been popular lately in the states.

[Yavin4]

18. If only we could harness Republican stupidity as an energy source

we could fuel the planet for eons.

[KittyWampus]

33. Not ridiculous: "The Impact of Sex Selection and Abortion in China, India and South Korea"

However, with the advent of ultrasounds that enable sex-selection, the sex ratio at birth in some cities in South Korea climbed to 125 by 1992 and is over 130 in several Chinese provinces from Henan in the north to Hainan in the south.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110314132244.htm

[Samurai_Writer]

34. This is a US law being proposed

We're talking about sex selective abortions in the US. Which IS a non-issue. I'm pretty sure everyone is aware of the problems in China, India, and other countries where this IS an issue.

[closeupready]

4. Like flag-burning amendments, lawmakers know it will be overturned,

but pass it anyway, knowing they can go to conservative voters in their districts and say, "See? I'm doing the best I can, but activist judges/the librul media/pro-abortion feminists are holding us back!"

[CRK7376]

7. Boy is my state

pissing me off the past 4 months. Since the Repubs took charge we have gone crazy stupid in the state. So embarassing.

[Pterodactyl]

11. I think sex-selective abortions are horribly sexist. Typically it is done to prevent a girl birth.

[alp227]

12. OK, is it a problem in America though? n/t

[Pterodactyl]

13. So far, it is mostly limited to immigrant communities. But I have little tolerance for sexism.

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2011/05/9903/pressure-bear-sons-leads-some-immigrant-indian-women-sex-selection-abortion-study

[alp227]

14. So it's really the state's responsibility to prevent abortion-by-gender now?

What's your point? Do you support this law NC introduced (and AZ has already passed I think)?

[Pterodactyl]

16. I didn't say it is the state's responsibility. But it is OUR responsibility, as citizens, ...

to fight sexism.

[Samurai_Writer]

17. But sex-selection abortion in the US in a NON-issue

Yes, we should fight sexism... in the workplace, in education, in society in general. But there are no known cases of a woman having an abortion because of sex-selection in the US. EVER. This legislation is a bunch of BS.

[Pterodactyl]

22. Never ever? Science disagrees.

From UCSF:

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2011/05/9903/pressure-bear-sons-leads-some-immigrant-indian-women-sex-selection-abortion-study

Researchers interviewed 65 immigrant Indian women in California, New Jersey and New York who pursued fetal sex selection between September 2004 and December 2009. This qualitative study found not only that 40 percent of the women terminated prior pregnancies when they found the fetus was female, but that, of the women who discovered they were pregnant with a girl during the interview period, 89 percent underwent an abortion. These results were consistent among all education levels; approximately half the women interviewed held jobs outside the home.

In addition, women who carried a female fetus to term said they were subject to varying degrees of verbal and physical abuse.

[Samurai_Writer]

23. Fine, you want to nitpick...

Of the 1.25 million abortions done each year, you can only find 65 that were for sex selection. From a culture that is well known for sex selection abortions in their native country. I'm assuming the study was for 1 year and not over multiple years.

So, .000052% of abortions are done for sex selection in the US. Again, as I said... a non-issue. There is no reason for this bill to regulate sex-selective abortion. Besides, when a woman goes to a clinic for an abortion, no one asks her why she is getting one. Abortion is a legal right, as defined in Roe v. Wade. She doesn't have to justify her legal right to abortion. Period.

[wickerwoman]

24. The 65 abortions were over 5 years,

so a whopping 13 a year.

[Pterodactyl]

30. 13 women forced into reproductive actions that are not their choices are too many for me.

And it was a very small sample of a much larger population. About three people were killed by gunfire in my town last year. Does that mean only three people were shot in my state? Of course not!

[wickerwoman]

31. Who says it wasn't their choice?

We're talking about voluntary sex-selective abortions, not forced termination of pregnancy.

As much as we might disagree with that choice, I think we still have to respect it. And any person who doesn't want to raise a daughter certainly shouldn't be forced to do so. Do you honestly think it's a better outcome for a kid to be raised by parents who frankly don't want them and don't respect them for something they had no control over?

"To kids. May they all be wanted and loved because anything else is hell on earth as we well know."

[Pterodactyl]

32. Who says? The University of California San Francisco.

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2011/05/9903/pressure-bear-sons-leads-some-immigrant-indian-women-sex-selection-abortion-study

Women identified female in-laws and husbands as sources of significant pressure to have male children. This was especially true when in-laws lived nearby, but also occurred if they remained in India.

“When my second child was also a girl, she [mother-in-law] did not want to hold her after the birth,” one woman commented. Another spoke of going for testing to find out if the baby she was carrying was male. “If not, I will have to get an abortion because he [husband] does not want another daughter,” she said.

A choice made in response to cultural pressure or threats of abuse is not a choice. I'm sure that there are women who choose to abort girls on their own volition. But sexist actions by women is still sexism. "Deselecting" girls is bad regardless of who commits it.

[Pterodactyl]

29. That was a tiny sample from a limited population over a short period of time.

The actual number each year would of course be much larger. Also women are being pressured, sometimes with abuse with violence, to have abortions that are not their choices. I'm not OK with that.

[Samurai_Writer]

35. Quit trying to change the subject

Of course we aren't OK with women being forced to have abortions. This is about a stupid law being presented by Republicans to their idiotic base.

[Pterodactyl]

41. Not changing the subject. MY subject is that targeting girls for abortion is sexist.

Some people are OK with that horrible practice because they incorrectly believe that it never happens or they are OK with it as long as it isn't a "major" problem.

[Samurai_Writer]

43. I'm done with you

I NEVER said it never happens or it is OK with it as long as it isn't a major problem. I'm keeping the discussion to the OP's original post, regarding a law in the US. You're trying to hijack this thread to make it about a much larger issue.

[Pterodactyl]

46. Allow me to quote Samurai_Writer:

Here is what you wrote.

But there are no known cases of a woman having an abortion because of sex-selection in the US. EVER.

You said it was a "non-issue". Guess what? It's an issue. You said there are no known cases. EVER! Now that you know that there are actual cases, you can only pretend that you don't know it.

[LanternWaste]

19. Fighting sexism via the mechanism of abortion is about as valid

Fighting sexism via the mechanism of abortion is about as valid, practical and wise as it would be to reduce the number of worldwide shark attacks by asking all the good citizens of Nebraska to carry shark repellent with them to the office.

But hey... if it's "fighting sexism" let's do regardless of how idiotic is actually is...

[Pterodactyl]

21. I guess I'm just less tolerant of intolerance than you are.

[whathehell]

28. Thank you.

There are many here who couldn't give a flying fook about women or sexism.

[wickerwoman]

25. Except shark repellent actually works.

There's not way for health care providers to know a woman's motivation for seeking an abortion even if they did ask. She could just say poverty or escaping an abusive relationship.

[Pterodactyl]

20. Yes, it is starting to happen.

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2011/05/9903/pressure-bear-sons-leads-some-immigrant-indian-women-sex-selection-abortion-study

[moobu2]

26. The reason for the choice to have an abortion is no ones business

no matter what the reason is.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. I disagree. Abortion because it's the woman's body is fine

Abortion because she (or they) want the baby to have certain characteristics is quite different. That is not a question of the woman wanting control over her body; it's her wanting to do a bit of eugenics on her offspring. She's willing to go through a complete pregnancy; she just doesn't want one sex for her child.

[IdaBriggs]

38. See reply #37. I disagree with you. nt

[moobu2]

42. Doesn't matter.

The supreme Court ruled that a woman had the right to have an abortion based on the right to privacy and the due process clause of the 14th Amendments and it's concept of personal liberty and restrictions on the states ability to intrude into a persons life unnecessarily. That you or anyone else finds whatever reason the woman exercises her constitutional rights distasteful or immoral does not matter and isn't reason enough to override her constitutional rights to make her own decisions about her own body. Just the way I see it.

[IdaBriggs]

37. My Head Just Exploded!!! F*CK THIS SH*T!!!

It has been a long time, but I remember talking with a family who had to make a decision because the woman was a carrier for a rare genetic disorder that was a DEATH SENTENCE if she passed it on to MALE offspring (but would leave a daughter "just a carrier&quot .

I will never forget her anguish. SHE HAD ALREADY BURIED ONE INFANT SON WITH THE DISORDER. She *wanted* children, and was definitely using reproductive technology to increase her offsprings chance of survival, which basically meant she wanted only daughters.

It has been years since I had to think about this - I talked with a lot of people while we went through eight years of infertility treatments - and I don't remember the details except for her being scared to death while she waited for results, and her husband holding her. There is precious little privacy sometimes in these situations, especially when you are sitting in a hospital gown with curtains surrounding your bed, pretending you don't hear the whispers/tears of the people next to you....

Let me be blunt: MEDICAL DECISIONS ARE PRIVATE and should NOT be legislated by idiots who read an article in the newspaper and then decide to make BAD LAW.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. That, however, would be an abortion based on the health of the child

and no different from finding out about other fatal genetic disorders. The abortion would not be because to the sex; it would be because of the likelihood (or certainty) that the child would not survive long, and would be severely ill before death.

[IdaBriggs]

40. Technically, it would be "sex based" (especially from the anti-everything crowd)

which is why these things are NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS.

People make decisions for a multitude of reasons. You and I might not make the same decisions - I am pro-choice sixteen ways to Sunday, but risked death/went against doctor's orders to give my twins an extra 24 hours inside of me, with explicit instructions to my husband and doctor that their lives were to be the primary concern (which did NOT go over well with the husband, but that is a different story) - but I am going to stick with my very firm "Medical Decisions Should Not Be Made By Anyone Other Than the Patient and Physician" because this story was simply one example of how having only "a piece" of the story could influence the perception of it: "The woman was going to abort any Male Children" versus the real story: "A male child was nearly guaranteed to carry a deadly rare genetic disorder that had already claimed the life of one child for this family."

Not my business to do anything but offer support, and count my blessings that I didn't have to face that kind of nightmare.

Sigh.

[Horse with no Name]

44. In my entire life....other than in China...I have NEVER heard of someone doing this

these douche nozzles are trying to frame the argument that abortion is something women do lightly and frivolously.

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. It's significant in Korea and India too

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f1957

2011 ratio for children aged 0-6 is 911 girls per thousand boys - well outside the expected ratio. In one state it's 883 (a natural ratio would be about 950). The imbalance in Korea is declining, however: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110314132244.htm

And there's evidence it sometimes happens in Britain (though it is illegal here): http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/abortion/50940/britains-unwanted-girls-stats-point-sex-selective-abortion

[Pterodactyl]

47. Here is a link to a U of Cal study that says it is happening in the US.

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2011/05/9903/pressure-bear-sons-leads-some-immigrant-indian-women-sex-selection-abortion-study