Kansas Senate approves sex-selection abortion ban

Sen. Garrett Love

The Kansas Senate Tuesday debated and passed, on a voice vote,  Senate Bill 141, an act to save our littlest children from violent gender discrimination through sex-selection abortion. A recorded vote on final action will take place Wednesday.

UPDATE, Wed. Feb. 20:The Senate passed the bill 37-2-1. Senators David Haley (D-Kansas City) and Oletha Faust-Gaudeau (D-Wichita) voted no and Sen. Marci Francisco (D-Lawrence) ‘passed’.

Sen. Garrett Love, (R-Montezuma) carried SB 141 and referenced testimony he heard in the Senate Public Health and Welfare committee. ”Whether it be a boy or girl, every life is precious,” Love said.

“The concept of aborting a baby just because it is a little girl or a little boy is very concerning. Sex-selection abortions are wrong.”

Perennial abortion supporters offered two amendments to “protect abortion providers.” Sen. David Haley (D-Kansas City) wanted to eliminate oral evidence and Sen. Laura Kelly (D-Topeka) wanted to create a special crime of lying about someone’s reason for abortion. Both amendments failed, Haley’s by a vote of 7-33 and Kelly’s by 12-28.

Sen. Ralph Ostmeyer (R-Grinnell) commended Sen. Love for bringing the bill forward and said that it is our duty to speak up for the unborn. Sen. Julia Lynn (R-Olathe) also spoke in support of the bill saying gender-based abortion is “an anathema.”

After final action, SB 141 heads to a receptive House, which overwhelmingly passed the sex selection ban as part of a larger bill, the 2012 Pro-Life Protections Act.

The Senate Public Health and Welfare committee had heard testimony last week from Population Research Institute president, Steven Mosher, that sex selection abortion “is discrimination that kills. Men and women here are fundamentally equal and simply being the ‘wrong’ gender is not grounds for being eliminated.”

Mosher commented that anti-female bias was stronger in certain communities globally, but noted the 2008 National Academy of Science report analyzing “son preference,” which found “evidence of sex selection, most likely at the prenatal stage” and likely to be “more widely practiced in the near future.”  He said, other evidence besides that report suggests that, ” this ultimate form of misogyny is happening in the United States, and that it is ethically an excellent idea to say that we are not going to tolerate sex-selective abortion in our country, that we are going to defend the intrinsic dignity of unborn girls.“.

A series of undercover video “stings” by LiveAction at abortion clinics across the nation last year tested whether women who repeatedly expressed that they wanted an abortion only if the unborn child was a girl,would be able to obtain abortions. The videos appear to show they’d be able to do so with the clinic facilitating ultrasound to be sure a boy was not destroyed.

A 2006 Zogby International Poll, surveying over thirty thousand citizens, showed 86% public support for banning sex-selection abortion.

Read Full Post »

Kansas hears expert testify for sex-selection abortion ban

Gov. Brownback greets Mosher

The Kansas Senate Health Committee held a hearing Monday on Senate Bill 141, an act to save our littlest children from violent gender discrimination through sex-selection abortion. A 2006 Zogby International Poll, surveying over thirty thousand, showed 86% public support for enacting such a ban.

The lead off testimony came from Steven Mosher, President of the Population Research Institute and an internationally recognized authority on demographics and sex-selection abortion.

“What we are concerned with here is more than job or pay discrimination,” said Mosher, “this is discrimination that kills.”

Sex selection is generally banned in Europe, he noted, but the bans on such abortions in India and China have not been as effective as they could be in the U. S. When asked about how the actual numbers here can be ascertained, Mosher responded that the law is a great teacher and even if reports are anecdotal, just one death is too much.

Kansans for Life’s testimony cited a history of journal articles and studies that show sex selection abortion was a concern within 2 years of Roe v. Wade.  We testified that the issue of “choosing” gender is aggravated by the growth in ‘noninvasive’ prenatal testing (using sampling of the mother’s blood or urine) that are directly marketed to parents.

Also noted to the committee was the 2008 National Academy of Science report analyzing “son preference” that found “evidence of sex selection, most likely at the prenatal stage” and likely to be “more widely practiced in the near future.”  An undercover video “sting” showing alleged sex-selection abortion being abetted at an abortion clinic was shown to the committee. (see Undercover videos)

No conferees spoke against the bill, although N.O.W. lobbyists were in the audience.The abortion lobby says “they are focused on other measures,” but the truth is they really are stuck messaging this issue.  Abortion labeled as gender discrimination undermines their argument that the so-called “reproductive rights” movement exists to prevent discrimination against women.

The language of SB 141 was part of the Pro-Life Protections Act of 2012 which passed the House 88-31, but died in the Senate.  This year, as a stand alone bill, it has 21 Senate co-sponsors.

Read Full Post »

Kansas delegates support ban on sex-selection abortions

U.S. Reps Tim Huelskamp (Dist.1), Lynn Jenkins (Dist.2), Mike Pompeo (Dist.4), Kevin Yoder (Dist.3). Photo: CJOnline

The majority of the U.S. House–including all 4 members of the Kansas delegation– voted Thursday to ban sex-selection abortions, but the measure failed to reach the necessary 2/3 majority. The vote was 246-168 in favor of the bill.

The Prenatal Discrimination bill, (PRENDA) H.R. 3541, addresses a true “war” on women —the destruction of innocent little baby girls in the womb. Four states currently ban sex-selection abortions and Kansas offered such a ban as a provision in the Pro-Life Protection Act, which passed the House this session but was dropped for action in the Senate.

PRENDA would apply federal criminal penalties to any person who does any of the following four things:

1. performs an abortion knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex of the child;
2. uses force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection abortion;
3. solicits or accepts funds for the performance of a sex-selection abortion; or
4. transports a woman into the United States or across a State line for the purpose of obtaining a sex-selection abortion.

President Obama opposed the ban,

Read Full Post »