Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.
Militantly anti-abortion rights group Live Action sure acted like it had exposed some big-time fuckery in its latest Planned Parenthood hidden camera sting operation. From a casual observer’s perspective, the sting captured what appears to be footage of a Planned Parenthood employee enthusiastically endorsing sex-selective abortion for a woman who claimed that she didn’t want another baby girl. But this edition, like every other undercover sting video Live Action has ever produced, was edited heavily, omitting key moments in the interaction and artificially making Planned Parenthood look artificially bad. I’m shocked!
Not that the original sting video Live Action released was that damning to begin with — a swift response statement from Planned Parenthood clarified that employees of the family planning organization are to follow a specific protocol in sensitive situations like the one presented by the Live Action actor, and that the employee featured in the video didn’t follow protocol.
Regardless, the employee did do a few things that weren’t included in Live Action’s final cut. For one thing, the employee asked the pregnant woman if they’d considered adoption instead of abortion. She also declined to give credence to tests that purport to help couples determine the sex of the fetus early in pregnancy. She also asked the woman if she was sure, 100% sure, that she wanted to terminate her pregnancy. When the Live Action actress asked the Planned Parenthood if there was a specific doctor she’d recommend to perform a sex-selective abortion, the Planned Parenthood employee said she didn’t know of any provider who specifically specialized in sex selection.
Read the informative article about the supposed “sting” operation here.
Whaat? Live Action - blatantly lying? I never thought I’d see the day.
- yeah… Today, the House of Representatives voted 246-168 in favor of a bill that would make it illegal for doctors to perform abortions if the sole motivation for the abortion is dissatisfaction with the gender of the fetus.
- but… The bill, nicknamed PRENDA (for Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act), was brought up under a suspension of House rules, thus requiring a two-thirds majority for passage. It was thirty votes shy of that, so it didn’t pass. source
» For and against: The bill’s sponsor, Trent Franks, claims that America is “the only advanced country left in the world that still doesn’t restrict sex-selective abortion in any way.” But Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowski voted against the bill, saying that it ”includes a provision that would allow a women’s husband or parents, by merely alleging that an abortion is because of gender, to seek injunctive relief to prevent the doctor from performing abortion procedures.“
Bolded for emphasis. It was a bill that allowed people other than the pregnant person to prevent them from getting an abortion. They just did it under the guise of “we’re protecting girl babies!!!” Sex-selective abortion happens in America, but not at a statistically significant rate. We don’t need a law to restrict it, and we certainly don’t need a law that pretends to restrict it while actually punishing pregnant people.
No, abortion is what caused the shortage in the first place because countries like China and India don’t like girls.
The article is explaining how bad this selection has become, basically, so let’s not bring that technology to China and India. Although I suppose if they’re going to be doing it anyway, choosing the sex beforehand is better than aborting a fetus because it’s female.
Abortion is often a symptom of a problem. In the US, the problems are lack of education, lack of resources, rape, etc. In other countries, it’s because boys are valued over girls. Those are the problems we should be addressing. Starting from the tail-end will either get you nowhere, or somewhere you really don’t want to be.
You can’t really choose the sex of an embryo/fetus that is already developing, FYI. All those techniques involve IVF or strategies like timing of intercourse, diets, supplements, and positions. I don’t know if that’s what you were suggesting, but I see a lot of anti-choicers throwing out “solutions” like this without doing any research into what they actually involve.