I woke up to some scary stupid stuff on my RSS reader:
The video, of course, is incredibly misleading. "Over 100 million girls are missing today. These girls were victims of 'female gendercide'", the video purports. The video quotes an atrocious article from The Economist with a palpable Western and anti-abortion bias: "You would never dream of killing a baby daughter, as they do out in the villages. But an abortion seems different. What do you do?" Sigh.
The rest of the video features a pregnant female actor going to a Planned Parenthood in Texas and attempting to get an abortion of a female fetus. A portion of the film focuses on coaching from one person at one Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas, who helps the actor to get the state Medicaid for pregnancy to pay for the ultrascan to check for the fetus' sex. However, since the "women" is pregnant, what's the issue?
The remainder of the video attempts to vilify out-of-context quotations from the same person at Planned Parenthood. The short of it is this: Planned Parenthood will not judge or prevent a woman from obtaining a legal abortion (or other services) for whatever reason. The organization in no way endorses gender–specific abortions and, frankly, neither did the individual in the video. The individual does wish the actor good luck in bearing a male child, but that was only because the actor had already stated that she "wanted" a male child. Again, another non-issue.
Let me also point out that the methodology of the video is extremely questionable. There are obvious points where clips have been spliced together. Even if the promotional video doesn't include all of the footage, shouldn't Live Action at least make it available for download? (Also, can someone please get Live Action a camera that records video over 480p quality?)
There are two studies that the group points to for alleged proof of this being a widespread issue in the United States. The first is from the Lozier Institute, which has a nice, "scientific" sounding name, right? It's actually the "education and research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List" (from their header), an anti-abortion group. Not very objective, if you ask me.
The second study is actually from a legitimate source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. However, as with many of these sorts of studies, misinterpretation or misapplication is quite easy to do. Sneha Barot explains:
Sex-selective genocide is a real issue in some parts of the world. There are heart breaking stories and human rights abuses that still exist today – I would really encourage everyone to read about it. However, banning sex-selective abortion is bad policy. Not only would this limit women's ability to control their own reproductive system (i.e. banning abortions after women receive ultrasounds) but it would also lead to a lot of speculation on the part of doctors (i.e. anti-abortion doctors making decisions for women).
The idea of getting a sex-selective abortion prior to the viability of a fetus sickens me because of the pure misogyny involved in that decision, but not due to the ethics of abortion. A fetus prior to viability does not possess the rights of a legal person. Therefore, the reasoning behind a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy is entirely irrelevant.
If Live Action actually wanted to solve the problem, then they should* consider endorsing a South Korean approach:
* This, of course, assumes that Live Action would be willing to stop using racism to make Asians seem crazy and evil. That's a big assumption.
** South Korea, unlike the United States, actually faced a potential population crisis, which justified these policies; otherwise, the government should simply let women make up their own minds. Context is key.
Live Action says Planned Parenthood and other U.S. abortion providers are willing to assist in the termination of baby girls for pregnant women who choose abortion because they want to have baby boys. And the pro-life abortion watchdog says its video series and a new website will expose it all.
“This was a multi-state, national investigation demonstrating that this is a widespread problem across our country,” Live Action president Lila Rose told The Daily Caller in an interview Monday.
“First of all, the statistics and studies indicate that we are adding to the growing problem across the world of sex-selective targeting of unborn girls for abortion. We are going to be demonstrating — starting with this video from Texas — that the abortion industry in the United States is aiding and abetting this horrific problem.”Anti-abortion group Live Action is at it again, using dishonest tactics to rally people against safe and legal abortion in the United States. The tactic de jour is to rally folks against the non-issue of American sex-based genocide.
 |
| Source. |
The rest of the video features a pregnant female actor going to a Planned Parenthood in Texas and attempting to get an abortion of a female fetus. A portion of the film focuses on coaching from one person at one Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas, who helps the actor to get the state Medicaid for pregnancy to pay for the ultrascan to check for the fetus' sex. However, since the "women" is pregnant, what's the issue?
The remainder of the video attempts to vilify out-of-context quotations from the same person at Planned Parenthood. The short of it is this: Planned Parenthood will not judge or prevent a woman from obtaining a legal abortion (or other services) for whatever reason. The organization in no way endorses gender–specific abortions and, frankly, neither did the individual in the video. The individual does wish the actor good luck in bearing a male child, but that was only because the actor had already stated that she "wanted" a male child. Again, another non-issue.
 |
| Source. |
There are two studies that the group points to for alleged proof of this being a widespread issue in the United States. The first is from the Lozier Institute, which has a nice, "scientific" sounding name, right? It's actually the "education and research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List" (from their header), an anti-abortion group. Not very objective, if you ask me.
The second study is actually from a legitimate source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. However, as with many of these sorts of studies, misinterpretation or misapplication is quite easy to do. Sneha Barot explains:
Beyond that salient fact, two studies using 2000 U.S. census data to examine sex ratios among Chinese-, Indian- and Korean-American families found that although the ratio for first-born children in such families was normal, there was evidence of son preference in second- and third-order births, if the older children were daughters. Notably, the authors do not pinpoint the cause of the disparate ratios—whether prepregnancy techniques involving fertility treatments or sex-selective abortions. In addition, they comment that these three ethnic communities constitute a very small proportion—less than 2%—of the U.S. population.There's also something incredibly racist and xenophobic about the way that Live Action exploits these immigrants' culture (even the misogynistic parts) for their own political gain.
 |
| Source. |
The idea of getting a sex-selective abortion prior to the viability of a fetus sickens me because of the pure misogyny involved in that decision, but not due to the ethics of abortion. A fetus prior to viability does not possess the rights of a legal person. Therefore, the reasoning behind a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy is entirely irrelevant.
If Live Action actually wanted to solve the problem, then they should* consider endorsing a South Korean approach:
South Korea stands as a useful example of a country that has made real progress in improving a highly imbalanced sex ratio. The country’s already elevated sex ratio at birth climbed even higher during the 1980s, when sex detection—and therefore sex-selective abortions—became commonplace. The ratio peaked at almost 116 in the mid-1990s, but declined to 107 by 2007. (Nonetheless, the ratio remains outside the normal biological range, and even greater imbalances persist among later order births.) Korea’s approach to its sex ratio problem is instructive because the government espoused a multitude of economic, social and legal avenues. Although the government pursued concerted attempts to enforce its laws against prenatal sex detection, researchers give much of the credit for the turnaround to the country’s industrialization, urbanization and rapid economic development, which together played a major role in fundamentally altering underlying social norms. Other trends that increased the status of women included more female employment in the labor market, new laws and policies to improve gender equality and awareness-raising campaigns through the media.South Korea's restrictive abortion laws are nothing to be proud of, but their policies to end sex-selective abortion** are. Live Action, however, does not actually care about the actual issue of sex-based genocide – its modus operandi is to criminalize abortion. Exploiting foreign-sounding cultures and using the issue of sex-based genocide are just their most recent tactics to do so.
* This, of course, assumes that Live Action would be willing to stop using racism to make Asians seem crazy and evil. That's a big assumption.
** South Korea, unlike the United States, actually faced a potential population crisis, which justified these policies; otherwise, the government should simply let women make up their own minds. Context is key.
