1921 diagram from the Eugenics Record Office
The virtue of hate crime legislation is a given on the Left. Criminals deserve stiffer punishments if they select victims based on race or sex, end of story.
But what if one of those criminals chose to abort a pregnancy based on the race or sex of the fetus? Oh, that would be a sacred right.
This is not hyperbole. Consider the depravity of this recent headline on Salon’s Broadsheet blog: Banning Race-Based Abortions is Wrong.
My body, my choice to abort based on race?
The Broadsheet piece by Tracy Clark-Flory is a reaction to the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, a proposed law that would outlaw abortion based on race, color, or sex in the state of Georgia.
The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act would apply to abortion “the same standards of nondiscrimination” that govern employment, education, government and housing, said Georgia state Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Republican who introduced the bill last month with bipartisan support.
If enacted, the bill would make it illegal to knowingly solicit, perform or accept funding for race- or sex-selected abortions.
So how does this translate into an assault on reproductive freedom? Clark-Flory explains:
Roger Evans, Planned Parenthood’s senior director for litigation and law, told me over the phone that his main objection is to “the notion that the government has a role in deciding what are fair reasons and unfair reasons for a woman to have an abortion.” First it’s race and sex — but what next?
Ah, yes, the slippery slope argument. First they come for our right to selectively abort female fetuses, and the next thing you know, it’ll be redheaded fetuses. Pretty soon we’ll have no right to abort eight-month-old fetuses that kick too much in the middle of the night.
On a more practical level, though, the bill “makes it exceedingly difficult for physicians or counselors to talk with women who have concerns or ambivalence about what to do,” he explains. “If [the patient] mentions the prohibited subject, it puts doctors in the position of saying, ‘I can’t talk to you about what you’re thinking’” — not to mention the position of refusing to perform an abortion on that patient for fear of being thrown in prison.
When a patient is desperate to get one of those racially undesirable fetuses out of her womb, the doctor will apparently have to say, “Sorry, ma’am, the wingnut antis have forced Planned Parenthood to stop knowingly abetting eugenics. You’ll have to go elsewhere for your race-based abortion. Hey, you’re not filming this for Lila Rose, are you?”
Clark-Flory insists the proposed legislation would require doctors to “cross-examine their patients so as to be sure a woman’s decision to abort isn’t motivated by sex or race.” Rubbish. In all likelihood, the law would simply add another form to the pile of clinic paperwork completed by each patient: sign here if your abortion was not coerced and is not motivated by race, sex, or color.
Tracy Clark-Flory isn’t the only one distressed about potentially losing the right to fetal discrimination. Staff writers at Double X are concerned about this bill “further stripping away women’s reproductive rights.” And leftist cheerleader Alan Colmes is promoting the lie that the bill would “require doctors to ask women why they want abortions and to record their answers.” What, suddenly Alan’s forgotten about the constitutionally protected right to privacy?
In the 1920s, the Eugenics Movement was in full swing in the United States. Terms like “compulsory sterilization” and “racial betterment” were acceptable in polite conversation, and eugenicists promoted anti-miscegenation laws to preserve the purity of human stock.
Less than 100 years later, the Left hopes to defeat a ban on race- and sex-based abortions and Democratic leaders argue that federal abortion funding will cut health care costs. (Babies from poor families can be awfully expensive – best to weed them out before birth.)
With such extreme rhetoric surfacing, is it any wonder that young Americans are trending anti-abortion?