• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Isn't It Time to Outlaw Gendercide?

    Think sex-selective abortions—known as gendercide—happen only in China? Wrong. This week, Live Action films produced an undercover video of a Texas Planned Parenthood employee explaining to a patient how to easily obtain an abortion if her unborn child were a girl and not a boy. The employee also gave the patient guidance on committing Medicaid fraud while she waited to find out the baby’s sex—but that point deserves a separate discussion altogether.

    Sex-selective abortions have been publicly debated recently due to forced abortion opponent and Chinese dissident Chen Guangchang. Guangcheng found himself in danger because of his opposition to China’s one-child policy that often perpetuates gendercide. It has caused a heated and necessary discussion of the issue worldwide.

    Americans aren’t taking sex-selective abortion lightly. Tomorrow, a bill that would ban sex-selective abortions in the U.S. is up for a vote in the House. The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) would also punish doctors if they perform gendercide, which usually occurs in the second or third trimester, when the baby’s sex is clearly determined.

    The option may seem rare, but the facts speak for themselves. For Chinese, Korean, and Indian parents having families and raising children in the U.S., researchers found that a firstborn girl often skews the sex ratio of the following children. For second births, the male-female ratio was 117 to 100, and for third births, it was 151 to 100 if the couple already had two girls.

    Girls receive the brunt of gendercide due to cultural stigma, and that’s not going to change. Unless sex-selective abortion is outlawed, the human rights of unborn children, especially girls, will continue to be violated in the United States.

    Earlier this year, Heritage reported a sobering statement from Steven W. Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute. In a congressional hearing, Mosher said that until recent negative publicity, “It was not unusual to find abortionists advertising the availability of sex-selective abortions in newspapers such as The New York Times.”

    Thankfully, such publicity surfaced, and now America can debate this horrific practice in the light of day. Today, the world is missing more than 160 million women because of gendercide. While the U.S. can’t end the practice worldwide, it can restore human rights to unborn children in America.

    The PRENDA bill is sponsored by Representative Trent Franks (R–AZ), who said, “As Americans, all of us know in our hearts that aborting a little baby because…she is a little girl instead of a little boy is fundamentally wrong, and represents a betrayal of the precious truth that all human beings are created equal.”

    Pro-abortion feminist organizations like NARAL are claiming that PRENDA discriminates against women by interfering with their “choice” to abort female babies. It is hard to imagine a position more retrograde toward women than one that allows for their systematic elimination.

    As Heritage’s Jennifer Marshall and Sarah Torre wrote recently, “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.”

    On behalf of the millions of girls whose lives have been taken, let’s finally unite behind the clear and uncontroversial principle that gendercide is wrong and that America should do something to stop it.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    14 Responses to Isn't It Time to Outlaw Gendercide?

    1. jr4949 says:

      Nice try. You picked a fine time to become progressive feminists. Just admit this is a desperate attempt to whittle away at abortion rights by pointing to a non-existent phenomenon.

    2. Laurie Davis says:

      Nice try yourself….. a non-answer from you. Do you approve of gender selection abortions? It's that simple.

    3. texasmamma777 says:

      @jr4949 Did you watch the video? It's chilling. And proves that selective killing of females is not a "non-existent phenomenon".

    4. Noel A says:

      How do you determine the intent that drives an individual’s decision to have an abortion?

      Is she telling the truth or lying? What reason-able standard of evidence will the enforcement of such a legislation necessarily entail?

      The Heritage Foundation have no difficulty in understanding the inherent evil of Statism on politics and economics. It is disappointing to realize they fail to see that private life is the intersection of both.

    5. edwardzlove says:

      Let us take an example of Texas. The "Penny Health" is quite popular in Arizona. It provides so many offers for the low income people.

    6. Ron says:

      I would just like to know why liberals are predominantly pro-choice yet opposed to the death penalty?

      Thanks!~

      • Todd says:

        Because liberals want a society of No Consequences.

        Have sex – don't worry about the baby, you have a choice.

        Kill somebody – don't worry about the death penalty, the state will take care of you the rest of your life.

        Don't work – the government will give you free money so you don't have to work or do anything to take care of yourself or family.

        Absolutely no consequences for you or anybody else's actions. It is really a pathetic society if you think about it.

    7. Todd says:

      It is a child – not a choice. No matter what gender it is.

    8. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      Yes, it is.

    9. Bobbie says:

      Don't understand how anyone can doubt who values human life more? One man supports abortion, partial birth abortion, botched abortion killings and just out preferential gender killings and puts all responsibility on the woman or female, to call it "womens rights," the other wants to overturn roe vs wade, get rid of planned parenthood (who's name doesn't fit it's services and more appropriate to be named government planned womanhood,) gives honest opinions regarding the issue knowing if it becomes federal law it becomes the country's responsibility as unshared sacrifice where the President doesn't mention the man at all. Now we find out money from tax funded programs donates millions to the President. One man clearly protects women/girls to keep it a states issue, while the other exploits nationally. One man doesn't care about anyone's morals he's obligating costs, while the other wants women/girls to work out their morals without easy access to kill that guilts the conscience. It''s time to handle these matters as states issues.

      The pp woman working was trained enough to give the client information and wasn't fired for doing her job, she was fired for getting caught. I wonder if she's getting paid which she shouldn't be but I wouldn't mind if she sued civilly. Talk about a government controlled program who's title itself is misleading, well handled poorly, manipulating morals without ethics. Choosing not to take part in yet forced in the name of the President's termed "women's rights?" Let those work out their own rights because the right to kill is nauseating while the leader of the free country condones it.

    10. Lisa says:

      I feel nauseous after watching that. How sad…how very, very sad. The pp woman even admitted that the baby is fully developed but yet she is all happy and smiles about killing the baby. We can all see that satan is alive and well. He/She can take many forms and say it all with a smile.

    11. O2BMe says:

      If a single cell were found on another planet, it would be proclaimed life and it would be given protection. A baby is labeled fetus and is disposable as not a life We approve the death penalty as that individual is not fit to live. This all comes under morality and I don't see how it can be legislated. How a woman can turn on her child, whatever sex, I don't understand. In a large part of the world women are treated as property. That was true in the United States once upon a time. This is a story of a woman turning on her own sex and proclaiming if the child is female it isn't fit to live. However, you can't legislate against this because only the person making that decision can now the motive

    12. We must continue to share these facts!

    13. Jake Fontana says:

      Nope. Men should be the crazy ones fighting over women, not the other way around. the usual male to female ratio in the US is 107:75- which means men should work harder to get a wife while women should get a husband easily. Women benefit better when there are more men than women in the world, not the other way around.

    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.

    ×