Based on your arguments the US Gov't can ban the wearing of the burka. I don't want the gov't to limit freedom because a few dozen people over the course of a few years claimed they were pressured to do something that could be considered immoral. Tell me where are the hooded KKK members dragging black women to get abortions?

I am opposed to unenforceable feel good laws like this. If you want prosecutors to pry into your life to determine if a fundamentally legal action broke a law then you should move to a police state but I do not want to live in such a country. I do not see the difference between this law and a law banning forms of speech because some people find it immoral. If this an acceptable law then a law banning a preacher saying from the pulpit that homosexuality is a sin is also acceptable.

I have a friend from India who told me that a big reason there are so many girls either aborted pre-birth or murdered after birth by their parents is because the cost of weddings in India is so immense that parents see it as a burden too great to bear. He says it never occurs to them to just have a smaller wedding because it's so culturally ingrained that they have massive weddings. We both agreed that it's a sad day in the world when a family values their status and reputation over their children.

This is a chilling article, and I thank Mr. Mosher for disseminating the horrible but necessary information.

But I truly don't understand: race-selective abortion? What is the theory that anyone is pressured into an abortion because of the baby's race? Am I missing something?

From the article: Racism kills as well, to judge from the fact that the abortion rate among blacks is about five times higher than the American average. Blacks are only 12 percent of the population but have 37 percent of the abortions. This suggests that their abortions, too, are more than just a matter of personal choice.

Black women have more abortions, but is the author arguing that someone other than the black mother is making these decisions -- and making them on account of racism? If anyone is pressuring the mother, most likely it is someone black, isn't it? Such as a relative or (as in the majority of cases) a father who is black? I have read that Planned Parenthood applies pressure, and I understand that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist, but doing away with black people -- as opposed to doing away with babies generally -- doesn't strike me as a plausible aim of liberals today. If that is theory, I would certanily like to see it spun out. I am just rooting around for explanations here -- maybe the author is suggesting something entirely different, but I can't think what it could be.

I can imagine it, sad to say, but not when the mother is also black. That would at least be very peculiar.

Hey DavidJ: yesterday you were pushing me pretty hard to answer a question I wasn't paying much attention to because I thought It was kinda off-topic.

In short: The conventional wisdom on gay marriage is that it doesn't hurt the kids, and I'm unaware of any work on children in >2 arrangements. My gut tells me there might be problems, but then again, my gut tells me that there might be problems with two daddies or two mommies instead of one of each.

Seriously, I do think the administrative issue is for real. Sorry if you don't believe me. As to whether it hurts me that people get into these weirdsomes, no.

Does that work, or do I need to be more specific?

"What it is really about is allowing Indian, Chinese, Korean, and other women the freedom to have the babies of their choosing."

I'm proudly pro-life, but this is a silly argument. Restricting abortion does not give women "choice" no matter how you spin it. We want to end abortion because it is a horrible practice. You shouldn't have to sugar-coat it by saying it gives women "freedom" or "choices." Pro-choicers love it because they can turn the argument upside down saying if you really cared about "choice" then you'd let them have the choice to terminate their pregnancy.

A great (if tragic) post. Thanks for keeping this in the public eye.

A few thoughts:

I get the cleverness of turning the language of "reproductive choice" around on its purveyors. But I'd be wary of doing it too much, lest it seem like a capitulation (or, worse, unwittingly morph into one over time).

It's also nice to call out the hypocrisy of NOW during these terrible, upsetting stories. But I'd also love to see a quote from a pro-life woman's group, such as "Susan B. Anthony List" or the like.

Maybe if we do this, we can get such positive groups in the minds of the public. Why, when we think of women's issues and abortion, should we immediately think of NOW and not, say Susan B. Anthony List?

External Link 

This bill is effectively unenforceable. It is a conservative principle to only legislate things that will have an effect, not legislate for the sake of creating a "feel good" cause. Unless you really believe this women are telling the doctor beforehand that they have having abortions for reasons of sex selection? Somehow, given the family dynamics outlined, I'm guessing they are being "pressured" to lie.

This is a serioius problem, but if what we're dealing with is pressure from these families the remedy is to target those families. Launch criminal investigations in this communities if assault, battery, threats, etc were used to coerce women. Pass a bill that WILL do something, by criminalizing coercion over a woman in these matters.