House to vote on sex-selection abortion ban

[dipsydoodle]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Legislation coming up for a House vote would make it a federal crime to carry out an abortion based on the gender of the fetus. The measure takes aim at the aborting of female fetuses, a practice more common to countries such India and China, where there is a strong preference for sons, but which is also thought to take place in this country.

The mainly Republican supporters of the bill characterized the vote as a sex-discrimination issue at a time when Democrats are accusing Republicans of waging a war on women. Abortion rights advocates argued that the bill exploits the problem of selective abortion to further limit a woman's right to choose.

The House Republican leadership brought the bill to the floor under a procedure requiring a two-thirds majority for passage, and the outcome was uncertain. To help assure passage, the authors removed a contentious provision of the bill that would have also banned abortions based on the race of the fetus.

Even if it passes the House, the measure faces a dim future in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GENDER_BASED_ABORTION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-05-31-03-19-08

[bluestateguy]

1. How would this be proven?

You would then have to ask every woman why she is getting an abortion. And if you made the woman fill out a sworn statement saying why she's getting the abortion, the woman could just lie if the real reason is that she wants a specific gender.

Then say 3 years later we find out that indeed she did abort because the baby was going to be a girl. Then what? Is she to be charged with signing a false affidavit? Or having an illegal abortion? Or both?

I just raise the question of the practicality of this proposed law. I'll keep my feelings on sex selective abortion private.

[dipsydoodle]

2. In the UK, for comparison ,

certain geographical areas deny parents ultra sounds to determine sex , on the NHS , to help prevent such occurrences. That's not selective in any way - its all parents in such areas.

The subject is an issue even here and has been so for years.

[Ilsa]

3. Oh brother. Something else to do to avoid

dealing with the real problems in this country.

[HockeyMom]

4. Didn't Arizona pass a gag law

where a doctor cannot tell a woman there is something wrong with the fetus because she might abort it? Women would have to give birth to a fetus with severe deformities, even those that had no hope of living. Doctors would not even be able to tell a woman that she has an ectopic pregancy which could kill her.

Chip, chip, chip.

[Capt. Obvious]

5. What a waste of time

They should be voting on proving Unicorns don't exist

[Lyric]

6. This is about forcing women to disclose a "reason" for having an abortion.

If we accept that we can ban abortion based on the "reason" for the abortion, then we open the door to adding more "reasons" to the pile.

It's nobody's business why a woman wants an abortion. Her own reasons are all the matter, and she should be able to keep them private if she wants to. Most of the time, there's more than one reason anyway. It's a complicated decision at best, and it's certainly not something that most women take lightly. But even if they *do*...it's her body. If she wants the embryo or fetus out, and she's not beyond whatever legal gestational-age limits are set for her state, then her "reasons" are irrelevant.

The only reason that matters--or should--is that it's her body and she doesn't want that body to be pregnant anymore. Period.

[Scout]

7. excellent

especially this:

The only reason that matters--or should--is that it's her body and she doesn't want that body to be pregnant anymore. Period.

[Ohio Joe]

8. +1 - nt

[DURHAM D]

9. Thank you. +1000