Oklahoma becomes 1st to pass sex-selection abortion ban

  • Thread starter Thread starter PLAL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PLAL

Guest
It’s hard to find news in MSM on this groundbreaking legislation today. Maybe it doesn’t understand the ramifications. Maybe it does.
10th paragraph down in Tulsa World today:
[Gov. **Brad] Henry also signed a measure banning abortion based on gender. That’s it. But I’ve checked with 2 national pro-life groups this morning, and to their knowledge this is the 1st sex-selection abortion ban to pass in the country…

It is well-known that sex-selection abortions are common in many** Asian **countries. Recently documented was that Asians have imported the practice to the U.S.
Now Oklahoma has become the first state to ban such a practice, and this really puts the other side in a bind. Will they sue to overturn this law as unconstitutional? In my mind they have to.
But according to Dan McConchie of Americans United for Life this morning:
The questions are not only will abortion proponents sue but if so, how will they sue? They’re not immune to the public relations angle. How can they argue the right to abort daughters and not sons? They have to figure out if they can frame the debate in such a way as to minimize the PR downside, if challenging this is worth the PR nightmare that will result by endorsing killing girls.The next question is if pro-aborts decide to sue, could this lead to a Supreme Court case challenging Roe v. Wade? According to McConchie, no:
There are 2 ways to challenge abortion in court. One is head-on, and the other is around the edges. This one would fit in the latter category. Personhood initiatives would fit in the former category. This is an abortion restriction. Challenging it would be similar to the challenge against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.So far there is absolute silence on this new law on the pro-abort blogs. Will the other side decide simply to ignore this, as they tried with the Born Alive Infants Protection Act? Stay tuned.
jillstanek.com/archives/2009/05/breaking_news_o_4.html#comments

LifeNews.com
 
A sex selection abortion is when a pregnant woman finds out the gender of her unborn child and if she wants to have a boy but her baby is a girl or vice versa she’ll abort her baby.
 
I am from Oklahoma. I am surprised our governor signed it. But hopefully this is just step one in banning all abortion.
 
PLAL said:
It’s hard to find news in MSM on this groundbreaking legislation today. Maybe it doesn’t understand the ramifications. Maybe it does.
10th paragraph down in Tulsa World today:[Gov. **Brad
Click to expand...
] Henry also signed a measure banning abortion based on gender. That’s it. But I’ve checked with 2 national pro-life groups this morning, and to their knowledge this is the 1st sex-selection abortion ban to pass in the country…

It is well-known that sex-selection abortions are common in many** Asian **countries. Recently documented was that Asians have imported the practice to the U.S.
Now Oklahoma has become the first state to ban such a practice, and this really puts the other side in a bind. Will they sue to overturn this law as unconstitutional? In my mind they have to.
But according to Dan McConchie of Americans United for Life this morning:The questions are not only will abortion proponents sue but if so, how will they sue? They’re not immune to the public relations angle. How can they argue the right to abort daughters and not sons? They have to figure out if they can frame the debate in such a way as to minimize the PR downside, if challenging this is worth the PR nightmare that will result by endorsing killing girls.The next question is if pro-aborts decide to sue, could this lead to a Supreme Court case challenging Roe v. Wade? According to McConchie, no:There are 2 ways to challenge abortion in court. One is head-on, and the other is around the edges. This one would fit in the latter category. Personhood initiatives would fit in the former category. This is an abortion restriction. Challenging it would be similar to the challenge against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.So far there is absolute silence on this new law on the pro-abort blogs. Will the other side decide simply to ignore this, as they tried with the Born Alive Infants Protection Act? Stay tuned.
jillstanek.com/archives/2009/05/breaking_news_o_4.html#comments

LifeNews.com

Sadly, there are those here who naively claim that women have abortions only through duress. Obviously there are those who kill out of spite.
Such a ban is a good example of making laws to protect the unborn from those who wish to kill them.
 
I, too, am from Oklahoma. Actions like this have me yearning to return to the home of my childhood.

Go Sooners!!! :okpeople:
 
Call me cynical, but this is a complete paper tiger. How in the world could you ever enforce such a law? Have they developed some kind of magic mind reader to determine the motivation of the woman seeking the abortion? Will they check the abortion male/female ratios and deny abortions to women carrying girls if the ratio indicates too high a female abort count? Will they be banning abortion for women who have already had an ultrasound that could have revealed the sex of the child (hardly a good thing for prolifers - we WANT women to see ultrasounds).

I think it’s not in the news because it is feel good legislation that has no hope of enforcement. Might make for good morale building in the troops, but isn’t going to deter one abortion, regardless of the motivation in the heart of the baby’s mother. 😦
 
manualman said:
Call me cynical, but this is a complete paper tiger. How in the world could you ever enforce such a law? Have they developed some kind of magic mind reader to determine the motivation of the woman seeking the abortion? Will they check the abortion male/female ratios and deny abortions to women carrying girls if the ratio indicates too high a female abort count? Will they be banning abortion for women who have already had an ultrasound that could have revealed the sex of the child (hardly a good thing for prolifers - we WANT women to see ultrasounds).

I think it’s not in the news because it is feel good legislation that has no hope of enforcement. Might make for good morale building in the troops, but isn’t going to deter one abortion, regardless of the motivation in the heart of the baby’s mother. 😦
Click to expand...
It is not much different from what the partial birth abortion ban was. It was meaningless as a practical way of stopping any abortions, but served as a “look what we’re doing” method of appeasement.
But the fact that this is even a consideration, illustrates perfectly that not all abortions are done because a women was forced into it by her *evil *boyfriend or her so-called selfish life dream was shattered because she became pregnant.
 
I disagree. Partial birth abortion was an actual procedure in use in some places. Banning it put a stop to it.

Granted, women will likely just abort sooner, but in that case I believe we actually checked the progress of abortion progressing to irrefutable infanticide. That was worth doing.

This one changes nobody’s behavior, just what they say before hand.
 
Cluny said:
Aborting a baby because it is the wrong sex.

Females are killed in utero all the time in India and China.

Some have called it “femicide.”
Click to expand...
The practice is illegal in India and China. In fact, in India and China it’s even illegal to reveal the sex of a fetus.
 
Parental notification requirements don’t work if a Judge can over rule them - the clinic will simply tell the client which sympathetic judge will give the rubber stamp. Likewise partial birth ban is paper if it allows for any exception that a sympathetic judge can use. This looks good / feels good - but will not stop many abortions.

On the other hand, if it stops even 1 - then it has done good.
 
Well, this is a usless law. Who the heck, will say they are going to have an abortion because of the babies sex. If they are going to have an abortion they will just say they are going to have an abortion becuase they don’t want the baby, and boom bypass the law.

It would be a usefull law in china where a lot of female babies are being aborted becuase of their sex. And the law prohibits them from having any more children. But, here it’s just a feel good law, don’t get too exited.🤷
 
manualman said:
I disagree. Partial birth abortion was an actual procedure in use in some places. Banning it put a stop to it.

Granted, women will likely just abort sooner, but in that case I believe we actually checked the progress of abortion progressing to irrefutable infanticide. That was worth doing.

This one changes nobody’s behavior, just what they say before hand.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there is a big difference between stopping a certain procedure and stopping an abortion. The ban served only to stop the procedure, though I would still believe it did absolutely nothing to save any lives. If anything, as you say, it helps to slow the progression of the public’s acceptance of infanticide.
That is why I think of the ban as having been not much more than a political maneuver without any real meat behind it.
 
peacefulwarrior said:
It would be a usefull law in china where a lot of female babies are being aborted becuase of their sex.
Click to expand...
They already have this law in China. But as we know, the Chinese justice system is very friendly to criminals, whereas Oklahoma can get this thing right.
 
BSHoop96 said:
But we are a conservative state. 👍
Click to expand...
Agreed, however, our governor has shown liberal tendencies. I have a feeling our next governor will be conservative. I’m surprised Governor Henry signed this, but I’m glad he did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top