• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Gendercide: The War Feminists Seemingly Refuse to Fight

    With the anniversary of Roe v. Wade this week — and as pro-life demonstrators assemble across the nation in defense of life — feminists should take note: Although women may have gained equality in many areas over the past decades, they haven’t gained it in the womb.

    While male unborn babies in Asia are often desired, prized, and esteemed, female unborn babies are often dreaded, despised and, increasingly, prohibited from even entering the world.

    If 160 million girls turned up missing tomorrow—eliminated solely for being female—wouldn’t a cry of outrage ensue? Feminists and women’s rights groups would be utterly beside themselves—as they should be.

    But the truth is, there are 160 million women missing from the world today, most notably in Asia. In what some call “gendercide,” the practice of sex-selective abortion is decimating the female population in some countries. Sometimes, pregnant women are forced into the procedure against their will.

    The same American feminists that expound upon women’s rights in other areas seemingly refuse to join calls to outlaw sex-selective abortion.

    In fact, feminists have been among those advocating international population control measures through abortion for decades. In Unnatural Selection, a book Heritage reported on in June, Mara Hvistendahl covers the devastating effects of worldwide gendercide and details how the West has played a part in it.

    In a Wall Street Journal review, Jonathon Last highlighted Hvistendahl’s research on the ways Western organizations like the Ford Foundation and Planned Parenthood were originally promoters of sex-selective abortion for population control purposes. Last wrote:

    In 1976, for instance, the medical director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, Malcom Potts, wrote that, when it came to developing nations, abortion was even better than birth control: “Early abortion is safe, effective, cheap and potentially the easiest method to administer.”

    Such a thought process has lead to this multimillion-person devastation.

    In China, there are now 120 male children born for every 100 females—a far cry from the natural balance of 105 to 100. In that country, like many others dealing with skewed sex ratios, researchers suggest the paucity of females is beginning to drive demand for trafficked brides and increased prostitution.

    And while China may be most infamous for gendercide, don’t let the headlines fool you: It’s happening in America, too.

    Heritage’s Jennifer Marshall and Sarah Torre recently reported on developments in gendercide in the United States, and the numbers are telling. They wrote:

    In a 2008 study, Columbia University researchers found that among children born in America to Chinese, Korean and Indian parents, a first-born girl tends to skew the sex ratio of the second or third birth. For second births the male-female ratio was 117 to 100, the report said, and for third births 151 to 100 if the couple already had two girls.

    Marshall and Torre’s report also delivered a nearly unbelievable quote from Steven W. Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, who said that before widespread discussion of the effects of gendercide on gender ratios, “it was not unusual to find abortionists advertising the availability of sex-selective abortions in newspapers such as The New York Times.”

    Why aren’t women’s rights groups stepping up for missing women in places like the country of Georgia, where Hvistendahl said that some women have had four abortions in an effort to birth a boy instead of a girl?

    Barbara Kay, a National Post writer, may have said it best in an online discussion of this topic:

    [Feminists] seem to feel that any restriction for even the best of female interests just has to be the thin end of a wedge leading to coat-hanger abortions. They are truly letting down the side on this one.

    Today, the world is missing 160 million would-be doctors, prime ministers, teachers, mothers, scientists, humanitarians, and more.

    Today, there are fewer women to advocate for the rights of their sisters in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran, where oppression suffocates the creativity and beauty of so many.

    Today, thousands of unborn girls are unheard, unnamed, and completely disregarded simply because they are female.

    As Marshall and Torre so elegantly said, “If there is equality between women and men, it’s rooted in our nature and purpose as human beings. Denying that fundamental dignity inherent in all human life destroys the very basis of equality.” It’s past time that feminist began standing up for the equality of the world’s most truly vulnerable girls.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    15 Responses to Gendercide: The War Feminists Seemingly Refuse to Fight

    1. Chris Rhodes says:

      One of the most heartbreaking things I've ever read. My heart feels like an 18-wheeler is sitting on it after seeing this.

    2. Jason says:

      Modern feminists can't speak against 'gendercide' since that would require acknowledging the fetus as a human being.

      But I agree that this is terrible, in any case.

    3. Cathy says:

      and my daughter would love to have a baby and can't truly sad state this world we live in.

    4. Dee McCollum says:

      How can we share this on facebook?

      • Anonymous says:

        Dee — If you go to the main page of the article, you will see a little "like" button in blue. When you click it to "like" the article, it will automatically post to your Facebook page. Let us know if you have any more trouble!

    5. Powerful article. It truly breaks my heart!!! Why can't feminists stand up for the mother's right to HAVE a baby if they want? I completely agree with Jason's comment above about why they don't stand up for the unborn girls, what about a "woman's right to choose"? Where is the choice now?!

    6. Bobbie says:

      More regression from the 21st century of humanity. What is their purpose to select male over female when the gender is human regardless. Brings to mind how as a nurse the mrs. wouldn't service abortions to girls that were incapable of handling them which was the immoral purpose of planned parenthood, but did service those that were capable. Building the welfare base, eh mrs?

    7. Bobbie says:

      is this the last of humanity? is this why the American government is so supportive of abortion in America?

    8. Jerome Bigge says:

      Things that are scarce are the most valued. Women living in a society where men considerably outnumber men will have far more "bargaining power" as to who their husband will be than women living in a society where the numbers of both sexes are more equal. This is assuming monogamy, of course.

    9. Joe says:

      Another thing that both Obama and Heritage fail to mention is that the Obama administration is issuing approximately 125,000 work visas to new immigrants each month and plans on increasing that number. So of the 246, 000 jobs created last month, more than half may have gone to new legal immigants and an unknown number may also have gone to new illegal immigrants.

    10. jpcarothinks says:

      Radical feminists won't because it means standing up to abortion. They are cowards and sellouts.

    11. Joel Alberti says:

      Please could you tell me what % of money come to PPH from abortions? Thanks.

    12. I get where the feminists are coming from in terms of risks of limiting reproductive freedom. However I have been arguing with so many people who actually refuse to accept the fact that gendercide occurs. I think that's the real issue. A law that is supposed to prevent something that nobody is willing to accept occurs will be less effective than making people aware of it occurring.

    13. Peter says:

      If you believe in someone's right to their body then you have to believe in the their right to select the gender of their child. You can't all of a sudden call it a feminist issue when you've agued the fetus is not a "person" in the first place. I'm not a big supporter of abortion but when you have a belief you must accept it in all it's forms. A dark secret is that probably most feminist secretly want a son even though they hate men.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×