Ban against Sex-Selective abortions

The bill that I talked about here and the press-conference I was meant to be a part of was conducted in Washington as this report states:

With a national study showing the possibility that the practice of sex-selection abortions has made its way from Asia to the United States, a leading pro-life Congressman says a ban on the practice is needed. Rep. Trent Franks, an Arizona Republican held a press conference today on why the bill is necessary.

Franks is a member of the House Judiciary Committee and a ranking member of the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Subcommittee and he says unborn children are potentially being denied their civil rights.

In April, researchers Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund of the National Academy of Sciences say their analysis of the 2000 Census shows the odds prematurely increasing for Asian-American families from China, Korea and India to have a boy if they already have a girl child.

The data "suggest that in a sub-population with a traditional son preference, the technologies are being used to generate male births when preceding births are female," they wrote in the paper.

Responding to the problem, Franks has introduced the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, which would prohibit knowingly performing or financing sex-selection abortions.

On another note, a study suggests that property laws in India are more responsible for girls being unwanted than dowry is. That could be part of the explanation of why rich people practice female foeticide more than the poor in India. Ranjana Kumari, chairperson of Centre for Social Research in New Delhi, said that property and inheritance laws, which are biased towards men, make people not want a daughter at all.


Addendum:

I came across an article on catholic.org that speaks of banning Sex-Selective abortions in America ... and it resonates with exactly what we discussed earlier in terms of women's freedom of choice. It states:

While the pro-aborts are stuttering, we pro-lifers will be advancing new moral and logical arguments against the exercise of the "right" to an abortion solely on the grounds of sex. For those who are immune to moral arguments, we can also use the examples of China and India, where sex-selective abortion is creating enormous societal problems. We can also highlight the trivial reasons that drive most abortions by highlighting the most frivolous of them all. The debate over sex-selective abortion will also help to focus the public's attention on how unregulated the abortion industry is. In these and other ways, the debate over this legislation will not subtract from, but add to, the larger goal of reversing Roe v. Wade.

How scary is that!!!! *Shudderrr!!* Take away woman's right of choice completely under the guise of banning sex-selective abortions to begin with. Oh my.

Google India at fault?

The Associated Press reports:

Last month, activist Sabu George filed a petition against the Indian subsidiaries of Google, Microsoft and Yahoo with the nation's highest court, asking the companies to pull gender selection advertisements from their Indian search engines. On Aug. 13, the Supreme Court asked the companies to respond to the petition.

The response is yet to come, but the day after the court's order, the offending ads vanished from the Web, George said. On Thursday, however, they began to reappear on Google.

The company is, George said, "breaking the law and making money. Every time you click on that ad, Google is making money."

If you typed in the words "sex" and "selection" on Google India on Thursday, up popped a sponsored link to Urobiologics LLC, a U.S. company that sells urine test kits for $275 to $400 that it says can determine the sex of an unborn baby with 98 percent accuracy.

Dr. Kuldeep Wirma, the founder and president of the company, said by phone from the company's Livonia, Michigan, headquarters that Urobiologics cannot ship kits directly to India, but that a kit could be delivered to a U.S. address, and from there mailed to India. Samples mailed from India can be processed in 15 days, he said.

Asked by The Associated Press about the legality of advertising for a gender selection kit in India, he acknowledged the ad was illegal and vowed to pull it immediately. "We can stop it right away. We don't intend to do business in India," he said, though he added that he had asked Google to include India on the list of countries where his advertisement would run last week.

Roli Agarwal, a spokeswoman for Google India, said Thursday evening she could not comment immediately on the Urobiologics ad, referring questions to an official statement from Google in response to George's petition.

"The Google advertising program is managed by a set of policies which we develop based on several factors, including legal requirements and user experience. In India, we do not allow ads for the promotion of prenatal gender determination or preconception sex selection. We take local laws extremely seriously and will review the petition carefully," the statement said.

More here.

The company, Urobiologics, writes on the homepage of their website:

Welcome to Urobiologics! We know that when you tell family and friends regarding your pregnancy, the first question on everyone's mind is "Is it a boy or a girl?" Let Urobiologics help you address your curiosity in a safe, fast, and convenient manner. We offer the earliest and most accurate fetal gender test available in the market. We determine the gender of the baby by testing a sample of the expectant mother's urine mailed to us, from as early as the 5th week of pregnancy (or just one day after missed menstrual due date) upto approximately 15th week, with an expected accuracy of 98%.

No visits to the clinic are required, as the test can be performed conveniently over posal service. Once you place an order, you will receive a sample-collection package from us, and we will provide you with sample results within 4 days of receipt of sample. Click here to read more.

mmm hmm.

Legislation on sex selective abortions (US)

I was approached by the office of Congressman Trent Franks over the weekend to discuss whether I could be any assistance to them in introducing a bill in attempts to eliminate sex-selective abortions in USA. We've discussed earlier on this blog that the problem of female foeticide persists in South Asian groups in countries like USA, Canada and UK as well. I spoke to the lady (a very nice sounding lady in fact), who had contacted me from the Congressman's office, on phone today. The bill that the Republican Congressman Trent Franks is looking into introducing is a pre-natal non-discrimination bill that will legislate banning of sex-selective abortions in the United States with a penalty of upto 5 years in prison for doctors conducting them. I was kindly offered to be hosted in Washington to present this bill alongwith the Congressman's staff to the Democrats and win their approval. Later on, I could also be a part of a Press Conference happening in Capitol Hill on September 17 regarding this bill. All of it sounded great and exciting but, unfortunately, I had to say no.

The reasons for my refusal to the nice lady on the phone were:

1. Banning the sex-selective abortions is not a solution
First of all, there is no way of proving that the abortion being conducted is a sex-selective one unless the woman getting it done says it herself. In almost all of the cases where sex selective abortions are happening and will happen, women will not reveal any such details to their doctors especially when they know the act is illegal. Currently, in USA, a woman does not need to cite a reason for abortion or go to court until she has to go through a Partial Birth Abortion as it was banned under the Bush administration. However, if sex-selective abortions are banned, many genuine cases where mothers want to abort due to reasons other than gender discriminations would unnecessarily be hassled with the ban. Also, ban is never an answer to any problem. There are always illegal and UNSAFE ways of getting things done like coat-hanger abortions if legal bans are put in place.

2. Chances of prejudice against women of South Asian descent will increase
Studies have shown and it is a widely known fact that it is mostly South Asian women who are practicing sex-selective abortions. That is the bias this bill will be introduced with if it goes on floor. Now, let's imagine that this bill actually passes and becomes a law, it will significantly raise the chances of South Asian women being refused the right to abortion even if their reason to abort is other than sexual-discrimination solely on the suspicion that their reason MIGHT be sex-discrimination and that the doctor might get in trouble. You see how this bill could, in fact, be detrimental to the group that it is intending to help on surface? South Asian women's choice of abortion would/could be curbed just because they belong to a group that practices female foeticide.

3. Congressman Trent Franks is staunchly a pro-lifer
Trent was also the prime sponsor of one of the first pro-life bill in the nation designed to overturn Roe vs. Wade (described below), which passed in the Legislature. Need I say more? I cannot support him. I am not pro-life (as it is defined) by any means and neither would I ever stand behind anyone who has been so strongly pro-life in his past years. My principles don't allow me.

(For those who don't know, the central holding of Roe v. Wade (1973) was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks (although this has been altered by the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act mentioned above, courtesy President Bush)).


What should be done?
I've often asked this question on this blog. What do you think should be done? Should laws be legislated? If yes, then what? Where should we start? What solutions do you have to offer?

After much contemplation, the only approach I can see as viable at this point is the three-pronged approach of legislation, education, and empowerment. It is as follows:

1. Legislation
Legislate an environment that is safe for women to come out with the truth if they are being pressured in any manner to abort their child. A woman should not have to face the risk of being killed if she told anyone the truth or didn't abort her girlchild. Neither should she be made to suffer by her family if she chooses to not abort and give birth to her daughters. Instead, she should be given the tool to implicate anyone forcing her to abort against her own wishes and provided with a strong support system to help her adjust with the choices she had to make (especially in the Indian/South Asian societal fabric). It's understandeable that this law might be misused just like the 498a but it could help a great deal more than banning abortions altogether.

2. Education
By education, I mean awareness through workshops, seminars, discussion groups at universities, at big companies, local community centers, media etc. Make people aware of the problem that's existing, its consequences and implications for the future, the remedial measures, and confidence in the merits of a girl child.

3. Empowerment of women
This involves keeping tabs on the status of women in society through indicators such as: female foeticide, sex ratios, domestic abuse, dowry related abuse, literacy rate, mortality rate, occupational standing, economic or financial contribution etc. Keeping these indicators in mind, campaigns should be designed to promote awareness about issues affecting women the worst. Media should be involved to communicate the seriousness of the aforementioned issues to the society. Legislations that are in place to look after the needs of affected women must be adhered to. There must be more avenues where women can seek help when needed. There should be telephone helplines affordable by even the poorest women. Effective complaint registration and immediate follow-up is a must. Anonymity, when requested, must be respected.

Read more Potential Solutions Here.

What do you think?

Pakistani women buried alive ...

... because they dared to fall in love.

This news has made headlines on various newspapers.

Israr Ullah Zehri, who represents Baluchistan province, told a stunned [Pakistani] parliament that northwestern tribesman had done nothing wrong in first shooting the women and then dumping them in a ditch.

"These are centuries-old traditions, and I will continue to defend them," he said.

"Only those who indulge in immoral acts should be afraid."

The women, three of whom were teenagers and whose "crime" was that they wished to choose who to marry, were still breathing as mud and stones were shovelled over their bodies, according to Human Rights Watch.

The three girls, thought to be aged between 16 and 18, were kidnapped by a group of men from their Umrani tribe and murdered in Baba Kot, a remote village in Jafferabad district.

According to some reports, Baluchistan government vehicles were used to abduct the girls, and the killing was overseen by a tribal chief who is the brother of a provincial minister from the ruling Pakistan People's Party.

Some accounts said that two older relatives had tried to intervene, but they too were shot and buried alive with the teenagers.

Loving someone and choosing own partner to marry is immoral whilst killing is not???? Here is the picture of the man who defends killing but mocks a young person's desire to love ...

It was a woman senator Bibi Yasmin Shah who raised this issue in the Pakistani Senate.

How did the Senate react?

With silence. Only three other senators supported Bibi Yasmin Shah, the rest kept quiet.

...