Eliminating Future Generations of American Women
Every industrial nation has restricted abortion based on sex-selection, except for the United States. America's de facto male only child policy is the topic of Richard Miniter's shocking column on Forbes.com today. First, the figures:
Two Columbia University researchers, Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund, were poring over U.S. Census data when they noticed a statistical anomaly: Americans from China, Korea and India have relatively few daughters.
...They published their findings in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “We find that the sex ratio of the oldest child to be normal, but that of subsequent children to be heavily male if there is no previous son.” The natural ratio of boys to girls at birth is 1.05:1. Among people of Chinese, Korean or Indian descent, the distribution of boys to girls fell in the normal range for the first child. But the second is child is much more likely to be a boy; the ratio of males to females was 1.17, Almond and Edlund note. For the third child, the distribution tilts even more male—boys outnumbered girls by 50% (1.51:1) if there was no previous son.
Behind these figures is an appalling story of coercion happening within the South and East Asian communities right here in America (and in this case, in my own neighborhood).
Four researchers from the both University of California at San Francisco and Berkeley won the permission of two clinics in areas with high South Asian immigrant populations to interview their patients. An eye-popping 89% of pregnant women who were carrying girls aborted their child during the study period.. For many, it wasn’t the first time. Half of women surveyed said that they had previously aborted females.
And, too often, it wasn’t their choice. South-Asian women, pregnant with daughters, reported incredible pressure by in-laws and husbands to produce sons and not daughters. Husbands threatened divorce or abandonment, others struck, choked or kicked their wives in the abdomen in the hopes of preventing a daughter. One woman said that her Indian mother-in-law threatened to take poison if she could not produce a son.
Today, Rep. Franks of Arizona held a congressional hearing on "The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act" (PreNDA), which would outlaw abortions based on the basis of gender and race. In his column, Miniter admits skepticism that such legislation could actually prevent any abortions, but believes that it could prove to be a deterrent against coercing women to abort female or minority babies.
On the other hand, pro-abortion advocates–who purport to support women's rights even as they assume a complicit role in the genocide of future generations of women–are predictably characterizing PreNDA as an "anti-choice" measure and a "cynical and offensive attempt to evoke race and sex discrimination when actually it's about taking women's rights away."
- Comment (20)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Nov '10
Re: Eliminating Future Generations of American Women
There was a pretty incredible piece in the wsj a few months ago, I think by Bill McGurn, which tallied up the millions of girls that have been selectively aborted around the world. India and China were, of course, the worst offenders. Shared it on Facebook and I ended up getting yelled at for being a misogynist. Go figure.
Aug '10
Re: Eliminating Future Generations of American Women
The problems with these kinds of legislation are two fold.
As you point out they are difficult to enforce. How do you police this kind of behavior? Do you ask abortion clinics to tell you when a woman informs them she is being coerced/forced into an abortion? How do you determine the motive for the abortion? How will having the law skew self-reports on reasons for abortions?
Secondly, it does little to win the real battle which is the battle of hearts and minds. While punitive written laws are one way to combat a behavior in society, they only have whatever deterrent effect that is associated with the punishment and can lead to narcissistic ideological rejection of the underlying premise in the form of "rights advocacy."
I think that the only way to truly create a culture of life is to create a culture of life. Let us praise births and children and love those who have unintended children without condemning or praising. Let us mourn those who suffer due to the culture of death, but let us do it with compassion.
Dec '11
Re: Eliminating Future Generations of American Women
Skewed gender ratios in specific Asian and Indian cultures are nothing new; my hope is that as these communities begin to embrace the 21st century, they will come to realize that sex-selective abortion is a recipe for cultural suicide. Who, after all, will be left to procreate? China is certainly on the way to discovering the destructive consequences of their "one child policy."
Dec '11
Re: Eliminating Future Generations of American Women
Nathaniel Wright:
As you point out they are difficult to enforce. How do you police this kind of behavior? Do you ask abortion clinics to tell you when a woman informs them she is being coerced/forced into an abortion? How do you determine the motive for the abortion? How will having the law skew self-reports on reasons for abortions?
I agree that legislation is not the answer to this problem as it would be impossible to enforce and do little to influence specific cultural mores. According to Forbes, "Some 86% of Americans surveyed believe that sex-selection abortion should be illegal;" perhaps, this country should be a bit more selective in who we allow to immigrate to our hallowed shores.
Edited on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:07pmRe: Eliminating Future Generations of American Women
EThompson
As (according to Forbes), "Some 86% of Americans surveyed believe that sex-selection abortion should be illegal," perhaps, this country should be a bit more selective in who we allow to immigrate to our hallowed shores. · Dec 6 at 3:59pm
What are you proposing here? That we disallow immigration by Indians, Chinese, and Koreans among whom sex-selection abortion is commonplace?
Apr '11
Re: Eliminating Future Generations of American Women
I can't picture abortion clinics turning away customers because the client said the reason for the abortion is for sex selection. Does a typical clinic even ask the reason for an abortion? If the law passes, word will just be passed along that when you go in to get your abortion, don't tell them it's because you wanted a boy. The solution to this is cultural, not legal. I don't know how to do it, but it will only stop when people accept the message that girls are not disposable garbage.
Apr '11
Re: Eliminating Future Generations of American Women
It can be a mandated disclosure, and there are a: a lot of people who be dissuaded by the theoretical possibility of prosecution and b: other people who could use it as a tool to defend their choice not to do it. It wouldn't stop all gendercide, but it would protect some unborn kids, and some pregnant women. Would it save enough to be worth it? Who knows? I do not advocate the law, but I do believe that it should not be unfairly dismissed.
Dec '11
Re: Eliminating Future Generations of American Women
Diane Ellis, Ed.
EThompson
As (according to Forbes), "Some 86% of Americans surveyed believe that sex-selection abortion should be illegal," perhaps, this country should be a bit more selective in who we allow to immigrate to our hallowed shores. · Dec 6 at 3:59pm
What are you proposing here? That we disallow immigration by Indians, Chinese, and Koreans among whom sex-selection abortion is commonplace? · Dec 6 at 4:09pm
I am proposing that we encourage and promote the immigration of individuals who show promise of assimilating into American society. The immigration laws of the early 20th century seemed to benefit this country quite nicely.
Edited on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:42pmSep '10
Re: Eliminating Future Generations of American Women
As you point out they are difficult to enforce. How do you police this kind of behavior? Do you ask abortion clinics to tell you when a woman informs them she is being coerced/forced into an abortion? How do you determine the motive for the abortion? How will having the law skew self-reports on reasons for abortions?
I've misplaced the reference, but one of the arguments in support of parental notification laws is that "don't ask, don't tell" meant that incestuous fathers could instruct their daughters/stepdaughters who they brought to the clinic to have an abortion, thereby eliminating the proof of paternity and the tissue or blood samples that would have proved it.
Dec '10
Re: Eliminating Future Generations of American Women
Why Diane, I'm surprised at you. You expect moral consistency from the left. Half of them have no idea what morality is and the other half don't think that it exists anyway. It is so hard for lefties to understand that they are sitting on top of the Moral Mt. Everest here in Western Civilization. The view is great but no matter which direction you go it's morally downhill. Margaret Mead's theory about wonderful feminine primitive society turned out to be a fraud. She used as a sample set the hired help who had already been converted to Christianity. Hillary Clinton says it takes a village. Oh if only Hillary could be parachuted into a Taliban village. She could tell the hyper-misogynists a thing or two about the equal treatment of women. That is until they killed her for it.
Edited on Dec 6, 2011 at 6:06pmDec '10
Re: Eliminating Future Generations of American Women
It's harsh to say it, but this is a problem that will self correct eventually.
The cause is rooted in culture, and having a demographic collapse will certainly drastically alter the culture, so . . .
Four or five generations and . . . problem solved!
Apr '11
Re: Eliminating Future Generations of American Women
The way they will ultimately seek to accomplish this will not be by attempting to determine whether women are being coerced into aborting a girl (given the obvious difficulties with doing that). Instead, the approach will be what it is in the UK and much of Western Europe - attempting to ban everyone from finding out the gender of their unborn baby in the first place. You cannot be informed of the gender of your unborn baby at an NHS hospital in the UK, for precisely this reason. So, while I acknowledge that I am not proposing any solution to this abhorrent practice, I also worry that this will follow the traditional big government playbook: take a noble attempt to address a problem affecting a few, and trample the liberties of the many. In this case, it would deprive millions of loving and devoted expectant parents of the joy and anticipation that comes from knowing whether they will be having a boy or a girl, and the extra sense of connection to their unborn child that results.
Jul '11
Re: Eliminating Future Generations of American Women
Why are people surprised about this? Are they going to be equally surprised when women start aborting children that do not have blond hair or blue eyes (or what ever their culture's definition of beauty is) once science is able to determine these things while the child is still womb? Are people truly so short sighted that they do not know where this leads?
Feb '11
Re: Eliminating Future Generations of American Women
I must agree with Fake John Galt.
This problem is one that was recognized before abortion was legalized. You can legally abort at almost any time in our country -- the "health of the mother" allowance basically means anything the mother wants -- and the for-profit abortionists have absolutely no incentive to stop women from aborting and every reason to encourage them.
There is no way to prevent this from happening while abortion is legal.
I certainly urge all people to help create a culture of life, where all human life is cherished and welcomed at all stages of human development. But that won't stop this from happening.
Edited on Dec 7, 2011 at 8:18amMay '10
Re: Eliminating Future Generations of American Women
EThompson
Diane Ellis, Ed.
EThompson
As (according to Forbes), "Some 86% of Americans surveyed believe that sex-selection abortion should be illegal," perhaps, this country should be a bit more selective in who we allow to immigrate to our hallowed shores. · Dec 6 at 3:59pm
What are you proposing here? That we disallow immigration by Indians, Chinese, and Koreans among whom sex-selection abortion is commonplace? · Dec 6 at 4:09pm
I am proposing that we encourage and promote the immigration of individuals who show promise of assimilating into American society. The immigration laws of the early 20th century seemed to benefit this country quite nicely. · Dec 6 at 4:40pm
Edited on Dec 06 at 04:42 pm
Er, ET, not all of them. There were limits, just not on Northern Europeans. The Chinese Exclusion Act, the most explicitly racist laws (the original 1882 law was revised, but retained, several times) in American history, were not ended till WWII when it was sort of awkward to be allied with China against Japan and Germany.
Dec '11
Re: Eliminating Future Generations of American Women
Duane Oyen
EThompson
Diane Ellis, Ed.
EThompson
As (according to Forbes), "Some 86% of Americans surveyed believe that sex-selection abortion should be illegal," perhaps, this country should be a bit more selective in who we allow to immigrate to our hallowed shores.
What are you proposing here? That we disallow immigration by Indians, Chinese, and Koreans among whom sex-selection abortion is commonplace?
I am proposing that we encourage and promote the immigration of individuals who show promise of assimilating into American society. The immigration laws of the early 20th century seemed to benefit this country quite nicely.
Er, ET, not all of them. There were limits, just not on Northern Europeans. The Chinese Exclusion Act, the most explicitly racist laws (the original 1882 law was revised, but retained, several times) in American history, were not ended till WWII when it was sort of awkward to be allied with China against Japan and Germany.
You are correct, but on a more positive note, the U.S. welcomed and absorbed millions of Northern European immigrants who made immediate and significant contributions to our economy and culture (gastronomically, in particular!).
Edited on Dec 7, 2011 at 1:15pmMay '10
Re: Eliminating Future Generations of American Women
True, ET. And we need to continue to welcome newcomers who are ready to contribute.
I actually think that Newt is pretty solid with these points as described by Mr. Navarette:
"withholding federal funds from “sanctuary cities” that prohibit local police from enforcing immigration law; building a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border with Mexico; making English the official language of the country; requiring from immigrants an understanding of American history and how it relates to U.S. citizenship; and speeding up deportations of illegal immigrants who haven’t been in the country long enough to qualify for leniency." I would add, waive claims on government benefits.
If you meet those qualifications, we should be open. They can take classes and take exams in Mexico or wherever, if they pass them all, c'mon over. You'll know more about the US than half of the population.
(edited to add link)
Edited on Dec 7, 2011 at 1:50pmDec '11
Re: Eliminating Future Generations of American Women
"And we need to continue to welcome newcomers who are ready to contribute."
Few are aware that the INS has established a "preferential" list and sets quotas for certain parts of the world. While speaking to a Cuban friend and naturalized citizen here in SW Florida, he mentioned that Cuban refugees seeking asylum are the lowest on the totem pole in terms of access to citizenship. Somalia and Sudan rank higher on the list!
Anyone who has ever lived in this neck of the woods knows that Cuban-Americans have an established history of promoting the values of hard work and sacrifice, entrepreneurship, and the protection of the family unit. Marco Rubio is not an unusual example of the many Cuban- Americans who have contributed to the prosperity of this country.
Americans should re-evaluate the requirements necessary to join "the club." After all, it is a privilege to live here and not a right; we would do well to make the distinction.
[Late revision of comment, I know. But this topic is of great importance to me and I wanted to further clarify my thoughts.]
Edited on Dec 7, 2011 at 7:40pmMay '11
Re: Eliminating Future Generations of American Women
What good would this law do? When you have people coming to your fine country, but you do not insist that they become "Americans" and they set up their own mini countries within the USA, why do you expect them to follow your laws? They choose to follow their own culture, not the American culture, so why follow the American law?
All they have to do is point out that this is a cultural identity thing and then the law would be branded as racist etc. If they keep this up then they will breed themselves out of existence, their loss.
May '10
Re: Eliminating Future Generations of American Women
EThompson: "And we need to continue to welcome newcomers who are ready to contribute."
Few are aware that the INS has established a "preferential" list and sets quotas for certain parts of the world. While speaking to a Cuban friend and naturalized citizen here in SW Florida, he mentioned that Cuban refugees seeking asylum are the lowest on the totem pole in terms of access to citizenship. Somalia and Sudan rank higher on the list!
Anyone who has ever lived in this neck of the woods knows that Cuban-Americans have an established history of promoting the values of hard work and sacrifice, entrepreneurship, and the protection of the family unit............
To be fair, EThompson, you should point out that this is because of political asylum issues due to active terrorism in those African states. The State Dept. seems to be bored with Cuba these days.
Stu, you reiterate a problem, as illustrated by court decisions, but these can also be overcome. What we are suggesting- and what Gingrich's proposal presents- is what we need to make happen, even if via constitutional amendment.
Tone matters; so much conservative rhetoric comes off as unappealing nativism, to our detriment.