Your bag is empty.
It seems to defy argument from all but the most committed misogynists: A female fetus should not be aborted simply because it is female. This apparently simple, even apparently feminist logic is what lawmakers are relying on when they introduce Prenatal Nondiscrimination Acts, also known as PRENDA or sex-selective abortion bans.
Currently nine states have enacted these laws, which criminalize the practice of seeking an abortion based on the sex of the fetus. What, exactly, could be so bad about that?
A closer look reveals that sex-selective abortion bans are simply part of a larger shift in the anti-abortion movement’s strategy over the past 10 years. Instead of trying to outlaw abortion at the federal level, activists have focused their efforts on eroding the rights of pregnant people, state by state, piece by piece. Abortions after the first trimester? Abortions performed at physicians’ offices? Abortions in cases of genetic abnormalities? Chip chip, whittle whittle. And banning sex-selective abortions falls right in line with this master plan to carve away at a pregnant person’s bodily autonomy.
Is terminating a pregnancy because of a preference for sons actually an issue in the United States? Supporters of PRENDA, including Vice President Pence, point to the shortage of women in China and India: Aborting girl fetuses, they imply, is a savage custom of East and South Asians, one that they have surely brought over to the United States along with malodorous food and unsanitary habits. There is no factual basis for this. Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, a 2014 study by the University of Chicago Law School and the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum found that Asian-Americans as a group actually have a higher ratio of girl children at birth than white Americans.
These laws aren’t about “protecting girls”; they’re about limiting access to abortion by any means possible.
PRENDA supporters also point to research based on the 2000 Census that determined that foreign-born Korean, Indian and Chinese Americans were more likely to have a boy as their third child if their first two children were girls. While that is true, the study also shows that the sample group was even more likely to have a girl as their third child if their first two children were boys. This seems to suggest (and, as Republicans love to say, I’m no scientist) that foreign-born Korean, Indian and Chinese Americans do not have a preference for sons, but they may be willing to select for sex to have offspring that are a mix of girls and boys. This process, known as “family balancing,” is as common as it is controversial, and it is practiced by white people, Asian people and Kardashians alike.
Parents interested in having a “balanced” family have options other than abortion. Sperm cells might be centrifuged, separating the lighter Y-sperm from the heavier X-sperm. Or a couple undergoing in vitro fertilization might opt to implant only female or male embryos. If lawmakers are so concerned about eliminating a preference for male babies, why then haven’t they introduced bills to end other methods of family balancing like their colleagues in China, India, Canada, Australia and the UK? The answer is that these laws aren’t about “protecting girls”; they’re about limiting access to abortion by any means possible. And the way PRENDA goes about it is particularly insidious and effective.
In states where sex-selective abortion bans are on the books, the onus falls on the health care provider to ferret out why a pregnant person is seeking an abortion. Dr. Colleen McNicholas is the Chief Medical Officer of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri, a state that earlier this year enacted a “reason ban” that criminalizes abortions based on race, sex or the presence of Down sydrome. “These attempts to create a false narrative, where some abortions are deemed acceptable and others are not,” she said in an email to Playboy, “force providers to interrogate patients, destroying the foundation of trust essential in a health care setting.”
Simply put, parents are more likely to have girls if girls aren’t perceived as worthless.
It’s easy to see how this might have a chilling effect. People seeking to terminate a pregnancy could be understandably reluctant to submit to an inquisition of their motives, especially if they are non-native English speakers. And for health care providers, the threat of prosecution could lead to their racially profiling their patients.
“Not only do these bans open the door for politicians to further intrude into personal health care decisions,” says Dr. McNicholas, “but they also spread false information and perpetuate racist stereotypes about communities of color.”
It’s those racist stereotypes that anti-choice lawmakers rely on when they characterize sex-selective abortion as a rampant problem in America. But even if son preference were a problem in the United States, these laws would still be trash—another case of old white dudes putting their Cryptkeeper hands all over the rights of women and, in this case, especially women of color. The root of these sex-selective abortion bans is the same as the root of the son preference problem that does exist in parts of Asia: the methodical devaluation and oppression of women by a patriarchal system.
“My patients deserve access to high-quality abortion care,” Dr. McNicholas said in a statement recently released by Planned Parenthood, “and they deserve the space to make those decisions based on their values, life circumstances, support system and faith, free of government scrutiny…. We will continue to defend the truth: EVERY reason to have an abortion is a valid reason.”
It is worth noting that, according to the World Bank, in South Korea in 1990, 116 boys were being born for every 100 girls. That’s abnormally high, pointing to some kind of fetal sex selection. By 2012, that rate fell to 106 boys for every 100 girls—a normal ratio. Similarly, in 1985, 48 percent of South Korean women said they “must have a son.” By 2003, that percentage had fallen to a not-great-but-still-better 17 percent. These changes cannot be attributed to a sex-selective abortion ban; they’re the product of a transformation of cultural norms that increased the value of women in South Korea. Over this time period, women saw improved access to education and job opportunities, and a number of equal-rights lawsuits raised their standing in society. Simply put, parents are more likely to have girls if girls aren’t perceived as worthless.
If American politicians really cared about bringing more women into this world, they would take steps to ensure women aren’t second-class citizens. They’d give us equal rights, equal pay and equal protections, and they’d keep their hands off our reproductive rights.