The forced birthers* are at it again!
*I refuse to use the terms "pro life," "pro lifers," etc., to designate people who want to outlaw and/or drastically restrict access to abortion. Those terms are highly offensive to me because they imply that those of us who support a woman's right to choose are all "pro death," a notion I find both ridiculous and highly offensive. That is actually what the people who came up with that terminology MEAN to imply with it, and I've decided I'm just not going to play along any more. Ymmv.
Indiana Considers Banning Abortions for Down Syndrome
In this month's federal and state legislative anti-abortion frenzy, it takes a lot for a bill to stand out, but Indiana state senator Travis Holdman has managed to pull it off. Holdman introduced a bill that would make it a felony for a doctor to abort a pregnancy for sex-selective reasons or because of "a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability." According to RH Reality Check, "The term 'any other disability' includes: a mental disability or retardation; a physical disfigurement; Scoliosis; Dwarfism; Down syndrome; Albinism; Amelia; and physical or mental disease." Like many other anti-choice bills percolating through the state legislatures, this one is based on model legislation crafted by Americans United for Life.
Bills banning sex-selective abortions are trendy among the anti-choice set because, while those abortions aren't actually common in real life, it's politically expedient to traffic in ugly stereotypes of daughter-hating Asian immigrants. But even though abortions because of a fetal diagnosis are far more common, anti-choice legislators tend to avoid going there. Indiana considered a similar bill last year and killed it. Missouri also saw a similar bill fail. North Dakota is the only state to pass such a bill into law.
But while these bills are still struggling to get off the ground, the fact that they're showing up at all is indicative of the growing boldness of anti-choice legislators. Banning the non-existent problem of sex-selective abortion is an easy way to grandstand and score "pro-life" points while preening about how pro-woman you are. But banning abortions for fetal abnormalities could negatively affect all sorts of women-and their husbands-including those that tend to vote Republican.
No one is well served when children with disabilities are forced on families that know they don't have the emotional or financial resources to help them. And this entire bill, which is supported by anti-choice groups in Indiana, would only truly impact the most vulnerable families-those who don't have the money or ability to travel out of state to get these abortions elsewhere.
Source does not feel comfortable judging other peoples' reasons for terminating a pregnancy and thinks the government needs to stay out of women's uteri.
Indiana Considers Banning Abortions for Down Syndrome
In this month's federal and state legislative anti-abortion frenzy, it takes a lot for a bill to stand out, but Indiana state senator Travis Holdman has managed to pull it off. Holdman introduced a bill that would make it a felony for a doctor to abort a pregnancy for sex-selective reasons or because of "a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability." According to RH Reality Check, "The term 'any other disability' includes: a mental disability or retardation; a physical disfigurement; Scoliosis; Dwarfism; Down syndrome; Albinism; Amelia; and physical or mental disease." Like many other anti-choice bills percolating through the state legislatures, this one is based on model legislation crafted by Americans United for Life.
Bills banning sex-selective abortions are trendy among the anti-choice set because, while those abortions aren't actually common in real life, it's politically expedient to traffic in ugly stereotypes of daughter-hating Asian immigrants. But even though abortions because of a fetal diagnosis are far more common, anti-choice legislators tend to avoid going there. Indiana considered a similar bill last year and killed it. Missouri also saw a similar bill fail. North Dakota is the only state to pass such a bill into law.
But while these bills are still struggling to get off the ground, the fact that they're showing up at all is indicative of the growing boldness of anti-choice legislators. Banning the non-existent problem of sex-selective abortion is an easy way to grandstand and score "pro-life" points while preening about how pro-woman you are. But banning abortions for fetal abnormalities could negatively affect all sorts of women-and their husbands-including those that tend to vote Republican.
No one is well served when children with disabilities are forced on families that know they don't have the emotional or financial resources to help them. And this entire bill, which is supported by anti-choice groups in Indiana, would only truly impact the most vulnerable families-those who don't have the money or ability to travel out of state to get these abortions elsewhere.
Source does not feel comfortable judging other peoples' reasons for terminating a pregnancy and thinks the government needs to stay out of women's uteri.