Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

Arizona Bill Would Ban Abortion for Gender or Race Reasons

3 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size

In Washington and in state capitols around the country, newly empowered conservative majorities are introducing and passing a variety of laws aimed at curbing abortion rights. Much of it is straightforward, but in Arizona, anti-abortion advocates have titled their bill after two historic figures, a suffragist and a civil rights icon, presumably to make their legislation more attractive to more people.

The "Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011" handily passed the Arizona House on Monday and is expected to win Senate approval and then the signature of Gov. Jan Brewer to become law. It basically bans abortion based on the sex or race of the fetus, and would impose penalties on abortion providers who knowingly perform such abortions.

The first part of the bill is based on the fact that abortion should not be legal to achieve sex selection. Interested parties can go to the Arizona website and pull up the committee hearing and see for themselves that the arguments the politicians make around sex selection are the classic ones. Sex selection is not a good reason to have an abortion, but it's hard to see how this legislation would address the problem to the extent it exists, which is debatable. We know it goes on around the world. In the United States there have been studies showing some gender selection in favor of boys, and more recently, a study got a lot of attention because it showed a shift to favoring girls.

The Arizona legislation would require a woman to sign an affidavit prior to the procedure saying sex selection is not the reason she is having an abortion. It's hard to imagine women walking in and saying otherwise, and the extra steps seem more of an attempt to vilify the procedure and undermine the judgment of a woman and the choice she has made. If you're trying to solve the problem of gender selection, the way to do it is to address the cultural norms that favor boys, or girls, if that's the direction we're going. And this bill doesn't resolve any of that.

Far more puzzling is the language concerning race and the bill's attempt to make legislation designed to intimidate the medical community look like it's a product of the civil rights community. The bill is attempting to draw attention to the higher rates of abortion in minority communities. But the reason that's the case is not because women are deciding their baby is a certain color and they don't want to have it anymore, which would be the corollary of the gender part of the bill.

Indeed, the Arizona bill is part of a larger effort around the country to win anti-abortion advocates in the African-American community. In Atlanta, billboards sponsored by an anti-abortion group say, "Black children are an endangered species." In New York City, a new billboard says, "The most dangerous place for an African American baby is in the womb."

A Planned Parenthood spokesperson speaking on background made the same point to me about race selection that she did about sex selection: "It doesn't address the problem. It's a way to raise the rhetoric and make it seem like doctors are targeting the minority community and women are victims of an industry." Higher rates of abortion in the African-American community are due to poverty, lack of access to health care and lack of education, which taken together put more women, and girls, in the position of having an unintended pregnancy. Those underlying conditions are harder to address than appealing to age-old fears of black genocide, last advanced by the Black Panthers and now taken up by an anti-abortion movement that sees it as a way to make common ground with African-Americans, who are culturally conservative on the issue of abortion.

Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass would no doubt approve of efforts to reduce the number of abortions, but given their experience in two of the nation's defining social movements, they would also understand the tension between fundamental beliefs and life's circumstances, and the futility of banning a procedure that too many people turn to, justifiably.

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

5 Comments

Filter by:
sfamilyent

It seems to me that the social conservative agenda is to ensure there is a ready supply of low cost manual labor...

February 26 2011 at 11:58 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
genowhitaker

From a strictly fiscal standpoint, why am I expected to support unwanted children put into the foster care system because their mother could not have an abortion? I might be more inclined to support reasonable restrictions on abortion if they were coupled with an outright ban on adoption outside of the US when so many American children remain in foster care unadopted, and then are dumped onto the streets when they are timed out at 18, and their foster parents will not longer be paid by government agencies to host them.

February 26 2011 at 11:46 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
tanirocker

This law is unconstitutional and will be overturned because of that. The legality of abortion is settled law, even according to anti-abortion USSC justices.

February 25 2011 at 10:39 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
dmjeffri

I have to say, I am disturbed by this new development. I am beginning to feel like America is no longer the home of the free, but the home of the scared. Am I the only one who sees the redundancy in this law? Conservatives complain about the spending on social services, but yet, are limiting one of the few options for those in crisis.

February 25 2011 at 10:56 AM Report abuse +9 rate up rate down Reply
dwuzze

So in Virginia, one Sen McWaters(R) sponsors SB1292 to allow restaurants to charge a "corkage fee" to bring your own bottle into a restaurant and it is now on the desk of Gov McDonnell(R) likely with the graces of atty gen Cuchenelli (R). WHAT does this have to do with topic? WHAT ABOUT JOBS ??? like all these people (R) campaigned on??? --they know nothing about JOBS --- just their social agendas --- and maybe their afterhours party agendas as in VA

February 25 2011 at 10:36 AM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily


  • Comics
robert-and-donna-trussell
CHAOS THEORY
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>