American Gendercide

Pages: 1 2

As the nation’s largest taxpayer-funded abortion provider, with an annual budget of $1 billion, Planned Parenthood, according to the organization’s 2010 annual report, is able to sell abortions to nine out of every 10 pregnant women it encounters, earning the organization $164 million in revenue in the process.

So, absent any moral qualms and given the financial stakes, it wasn’t surprising that PPFA worked feverishly in urging its Democratic allies in Congress and the White House to oppose the passage of PRENDA.

For its part, the Obama administration, voiced its strenuous opposition by releasing a statement prior to the vote which claimed PRENDA would “subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations” for an abortion, adding, “The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”

While some may applaud the Obama administration’s newfound commitment to opposing government overreach in matters of healthcare, it should be noted that PRENDA specifically states that a healthcare provider has no “affirmative duty to inquire as to the motivation for the abortion…absent having knowledge or information that the abortion is being sought based on the sex or gender of the child.”

Of course, Obama’s reluctance to protect the rights of the unborn should come as little surprise given his track record in ignoring the rights of the newly born, evidenced by his opposition as then-Illinois State Senator Obama to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, an Illinois bill meant to provide protection for babies born alive after attempted abortions.

While Obama has since claimed that he opposed that bill because it was unnecessary, given that Illinois law already provided protection for infants born alive, he failed to mention that at the time, protection extended only to babies whom physicians deemed to have “sustainable survivability.”

Thus infants who were not expected to survive could be killed or left unattended to die, a practice brought to light by Jill Stanek, an Illinois nurse who exposed the abortionist practice of abandoning babies born alive after failed abortions by leaving them to die in hospital utility closets.

Yet, despite the efforts of Planned Parenthood and its Democratic allies to minimize the importance of curtailing sex-selective abortions, there are some voices in the abortion industry that recognize the problem as not just the province of pro-life advocates.

Those voices include the pro-choice research group, Guttmacher Policy Review, which acknowledged in a 2012 report that sex-selection abortions pose a serious problem in the United States, as well as the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, who recently admitted that “sex-selection abortion is a real problem…and it needs to be addressed.”

Unfortunately, the response they advocate to address the gendercide problem is relegated to fighting any legislative efforts to stem the detestable practice, a practice which Republican Representative Marsha Blackburn has said is “sick, it’s discriminatory, it’s sexist and it is blatantly anti-woman and anti-human.”

Despite the awful accuracy of that description, given the recent failure of Congress to pass PRENDA, it’s still not enough to make sex-selective abortions illegal.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • Jane Larson Baer

    PInk Pagodas helps save some Chinese girls from gendercide. I dreamed last night of two babies who drowned becaseu no one cared … actually one was almost dead and one possibly going to live shivering…the boy baby was drowning in a crib left outside when I found him and the girl baby was left in the street in a mud puddle…I thought I was to blame for the girl baby because I had been too busy ot check on her and someone put her in the street. I know those who have had abortions and suffer from it subconsciously even the would- have- been relatives of the aborted fetus who find out about it later get bothered.

  • StephenD

    It wasn't that long ago here in America we looked on abortion for anything other than saving the life of the mother as abhorrent. Now we have folks selecting gender. I expect it could go to hair or eye color eventually. What is to stop it? If we look at the unborn as simply a mass of cells there is nothing to inhibit such practices. (Continued)

  • StephenD

    Here is my challenge; knowing it is wrong to kill a teen we all would look on killing an infant with more revulsion. Yet the differences are only 4. The infant is smaller, less developed, more dependent and less mobile. These are the EXACT same 4 differences between an infant and a fetus but we hesitate only momentarily before killing it. I know pro-abortionists would love to say my argument is religious but the truth is really very simple. If we all believe that murder is defined as the "purposeful taking of an innocent human life" than we must stop the wholesale slaughter of the unborn. If the mother’s life is at risk the fetus is no longer "innocent" but a threat in which case we should have no problem with the mother deciding the issue. Other than that, there is no excuse. Anyone willing to ignore these facts to my mind has the morals of a jackal and will find no friend in me.

    • RoguePatriot6

      After this post, their isn't to much to say, Stephen. I think you nailed it.

    • fightwarnotwars

      So by your statement, I must then conclude that you're staunchly anti-war and advocate for non-violence.

      • intrcptr2

        Soldiers can fight back, you dolt.

      • StephenD

        Fightwar, you understand the difference between the "purposeful taking of INNOCENT human life" and warring soldiers right? Even if innocent lives are taken UNINTENTIONALY this would not rise to the level of “murder” as does Abortion on demand; abortion for any other reason than saving the life of the mother.

  • RoguePatriot6

    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    Take this for whatever it's worth:

    Beware of people around you that would take a human life that poses no threat to them but be especially cautious of people who would do this and justify it with "it's not really a human being".

    A while ago, a man with a Charlie Chapman mustache, black hair and dark eyes used this reasoning and ruthlessly ordered the deaths of over 6,000,000 people. He too said, "….they really aren't human".

    If doctors could do this to innocent helpless babies because they're girls, boys or would be an inconvience to raise, imagine what someone like that is capable of doing to you or your kids.

    • fightwarnotwars

      Hilarious, sadly, a fertilized egg is no more human than a chicken egg that you eat for breakfast.

      It's funny to me that you people imagine that all women that decide to have an abortion are somehow just doing it because it's convenient when the truth of the matter is that it's an extremely difficult decision that many women take simply when they are not in a physically or psychologically healthy state. A lot of times they do it, because what's going in their bodies could be a cause of death. Expecting women to "self sacrifice" so you can feel better about yourselves because you think "abortion is murder" is just as bad as war mongering and then sending everyone else's children to go die in a war for you.

      • intrcptr2

        "…a fertilized egg is no more human than a chicken egg that you eat for breakfast. "

        If this were true, then you'd have had no need to identify the second egg as chicken…
        But then, I'm sure you are aware that breakfast eggs aren't even fertilized, right?

        What is pitiable is that you can still think that abortion opponents caricature women who get abortions that way.

      • StephenD

        " it's an extremely difficult decision that many women take…."

        Fightwar, Why on earth would it be difficult at all if it were not human? The science says you are wrong. Please, your argument is invalid.

        • fightwarnotwars

          "The science says you are wrong. Please, your argument is invalid. "

          Really? I've read otherwise… "Life does not begin at conception. It’s an utterly nonsensical position to take. There is never a “dead” phase — life is continuous. Sperm are alive, eggs are alive; you could even make the argument that since two cells (gametes) enter, but only one cell (a zygote) leaves, fertilization ends a life. Not that I would make that particular claim myself, but it’s definitely true that life is more complicated than the simplistic ideologues of the anti-choice movement would make it."

          There is also a lot of debate regarding when once could really say that one truly becomes a "human individual" instead of just a pile of flesh. This of course involves putting aside the religious superstition regarding the existence of "soul". Which really, is just a man-made invention to make ourselves to be more important on this Earth than we truly are.

          Scientifically speaking, a fertilized egg is not a human being. Developmental biologists pretty much agree on this.

  • RoguePatriot6

    "Hilarious, sadly, a fertilized egg is no more human than a chicken egg that you eat for breakfast."

    Typical liberal insanity or numbness due to their wallowing in the death they self-righteously create.

    Only a liberal would compare a a human embryo to a chicken egg in it's significance and value. Since many of them don't believe or choose not to believe in God, the fact that a human embryo or fetus has a soul, is just a joke. Most of the women I knew of that did this were doing it because they simply did not want to raise a kid or their boyfriend convinced them to do it. They are accomplices to murder as well as those who actually perform the procedure.
    Also, a fact that you fail to realize is, the chicken eggs we eat are actually, unfertilized.

  • mmichlin66

    As much as I hate it I must agree with Obama. Abortions are legal if performed within a period specified by the law – this is fact. I understand that religious people may be dismayed at that, but this doesn't make them illegal. Now, the law cannot define an action to be legal or not based on the person's intentions – I am not a lawyer, but I believe they teach it in law schools.

    Yes, it is disgusting when a PP employee says "if you don't like the gender, just perform an abortion"; however, it is legal if, again, the abortion is performed within the period specified by the law.

    • intrcptr2

      Defining actions as illegal based on intent is the basis of "hate crime". But then, such has always been a part of Western jurisprudence anyway; it is the difference between murder1 and manslaughter.

      The new angle is the disapprobation of certain thoughts; where our grandparents considered sexual perversion to be immoral, now we are being forced to accept it, on pain of punishment for bigotry.

  • buy steroids uk

    shocking that any american would abort based on sex of the unborn baby.