NRL News

Sex-Selection Abortions’ “teachable moment”

by | Jun 12, 2012

By Dave Andrusko

Editor’s note. There is still time to register for the National Right to Life convention June 28-30 and to reserve a hotel room at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City in  Arlington, Virginia. Just go to


U.S. Rep. Trent Franks (R-Az.)

NRL News Today has carried a great many stories about sex-selection abortions for many reasons. Those who support this hideous practice—or at least resist laws to stop sex-selection abortions—typically respond by talking about everything but what is going on: the deaths of unborn babies because they are female.

Such is “The Lost Victims in the Sex-Selective Abortion Debate,” written by Mallika Kaur, that appeared in the Washington Post. Since this is the last post of the day, let me be succinct.

The fundamental error—alright, one of the fundamental errors—is found in the first paragraph. Kaur states flatly, “I have waited for some part of the debate to represent the women who are most affected by such abortions as well as the potential criminalization of their actions.” Not so. The bill explicitly immunizes the woman on whom the abortion is performed from all criminal and civil liability.

Her misrepresentation is of the same ilk which misrepresented what the obligation of others is. The bill also explicitly provides that healthcare providers do not have any “affirmative duty to inquire as to the motivation for the abortion, absent the healthcare provider having knowledge or information that the abortion is being sought based on the sex or gender of the child.”

It no doubt consoles people who are unnerved by sex-selection abortions to trivialize initiatives such as the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (H.R. 3541) as an “opportunity to score easy political points by painting their opponents as opportunistic abortion supporters, devoid of moral considerations,” as Kaur insists.

I’ll leave it to others to gauge the “moral considerations” of PRENDA opponents. But the issue is not whether their consciences are as pure as the driven snow or black as coal. The issue is that mothers, not just around the world but here at home, are coerced—subtly and overtly—into having abortions because their babies are females.

Kaur spends a lot of time on nonsense and non-sequiturs. Are we honestly supposed to take seriously someone who believes that “the differentiated (or ‘specialized,’ as our multi-billion dollar maternity and baby products industry would prefer) attention to baby boys and girls across U.S. society — the ‘tougher’ mechanical toys for boys, the frills for girls”—can “in some cultural contests” be “exacerbated” to “where a family is not ‘complete’ without a son and, worse, socially and economically insecure”?

Kaur petulantly lectures us that we’re missing “a teachable moment.” I disagree. The American public has been taught an immensely important point. To quote NRLC, “Shamefully, President Obama, and a minority of 168 House members, complied with the political demands of pro-abortion pressure groups, rather than defend the coerced women, and their unborn daughters, who are victimized by sex-selection abortions.”

Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at