Jaw-dropping and chilling video, by way of The Daily Caller, of a Planned Parenthood counselor in Texas advising the undercover patient on how to get an abortion because the baby would be a girl.
It’s well established that sex-selective abortions in Asia result in skewed sex ratios there. One would be naive to think that all Asian immigrants to the U.S. leave those cultural attitudes behind. Sex-selective abortion, distressingly, is practiced in the United States as well, mainly by those of Asian descent (and one hopes it’s just a tiny minority of them). It’s most apparent when looking at the statistics of third births. Following is excerpted from a study at the University of Connecticut Health Center:
Results: The male to female sex ratio from 1975 to 2002 was 1.053 for Whites, 1.030 (p < 0.01) for Blacks, 1.074 (p < 0.01) for Chinese and 1.073 (p < 0.01) for Filipinos. From 1991 to 2002, the sex ratio increased from 1.071 to 1.086 for Chinese, 1.060 to 1.074 for Filipinos, 1.043 to 1.087 for Asian Indians and 1.069 to 1.088 for Koreans. The highest sex ratios were seen for third+ births to Asian Indians (1.126), Chinese (1.111) and Koreans (1.109).
Conclusion: The male to female livebirth sex ratio in the United States exceeded expected biological variation for third+ births to Chinese, Asian Indians and Koreans strongly suggesting prenatal sex selection.
The above-mentioned video refers to an Economist cover story from two years ago that laments the abortion-induced gender imbalance in Asia.
Two thing about that article. On the plus side, give The Economist credit for presenting a topic that you would rarely or never see presented by another publication or news outlet comprised of (presumably) mainly pro-legalized-abortion reporters and editors.
On the minus side, The Economist flatly states in the article, “For those such as this newspaper, who think abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” (to use Bill Clinton’s phrase)….”
But that’s a contradiction in terms. You’d think that editors, of all people, would recognize and avoid such oxymorons. If you think abortion should be legal, then you can’t expect that it will be rare – just as if you raise the speed limit to 75 mph you can’t expect that people won’t drive that fast. Before 1973, most unwanted children were given up for adoption, which is why one meets a lot more adopted children who were born in America before 1973 than after. After 1973, most unwanted children have been, to use the euphemism, terminated.
The Economist – and Bill Clinton – must think abortion is reprehensible if they think it should be rare. But if they really want it to be rare then they have to support making it illegal. I guess wanting to have it both ways fools themselves into helping them sleep better at night.
As for wanting abortion to be safe, by definition it’s not safe. That’s like saying killing should be safe. Oh sure, legalized abortion may make things safer for the mother who wants to carry out the killing, but as noted above, when you legalize abortion, you make the practice much more common. That means far more human lives are subject to terribly unsafe living conditions when the abortion doctor comes ‘a calling.