The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • Times News Services
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out
  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Customer Service
  • Home
  • News
    • World
    • National
    • Politics
    • National Security
    • DC Area
    • Business
    • Entertainment
    • Technology
    • Investigations
    • Faith
    • Energy
    • Environment
    • Headlines
    • Citizen Journalism
  • Opinion
  • Sports
    • NFL
    • NBA/WNBA
    • MLB
    • NHL
    • Tennis
    • Golf
    • Motorsports
    • Soccer
    • NCAA
    • Olympics
    • Outdoors
    • Other
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Military History
    • Life
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Themes
  • Communities
  • Shopping
    • Stores
    • Coupons
    • Daily Double
    • Promotion
    • How It Works
  • Videos
    • Two Guys
    • Birnbaum on Washington
    • Liz Glover
    • Amanda Carpenter
    • Morning Briefing
    • Documentaries
    • Joe Giganti
    • Video Game Minute
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Audio and Radio
    • America's Morning News
  • Politics

    Sanford faces 37 charges on state ethics laws

  • Politics

    Lobbyists spending big to shape health care debate

  • National

    Green energy stimulus growing few jobs

  • National

    9/11 defendants eye platform

  • Entertainment

    Jackson wins 4 American Music Awards

  • Politics

    Unemployment taxes hit small firms hard

  • Sports

    Redskins' loss like a kick in the gut

Home » Opinion » Commentary

Monday, April 20, 2009

FRANKS: A 21st-century civil-rights battle

Rate this story

Average 0.00
after 0 votes
Login or register to rate this story

  • Font Size -+
  • Print
  • Email
  • Comment
  • Tweet this!
  • Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Click-2-Listen
  • Videos
Please stand by, images loading!
  • ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOTOGRAPHS
Images of babies line a fence in front of Mexico's Supreme Court in Mexico City last year during an anti-abortion protest. Such images haunt the state of California, argues TWT contributor Star Parker.

More Commentary Stories

  • BOOK REVIEW: An icon loved and feared
  • Security compromised
  • The right debates the war
  • In defense of 'hypocrisy'

By Trent Franks

COMMENTARY:

The most recent U.S. census reveals that abortion clinics are engaged in an insidious form of racial and sex-based discrimination.

In a report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Columbia University economic researchers Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund said they found a significant gender imbalance between males and females within immigrant populations in the United States, which they think provides "evidence of sex-selection, most likely at the prenatal stage."

The data revealed unnatural sex-ratio imbalances within segments of certain immigrant populations, including those originating from India, Vietnam, Thailand, Armenia and especially China, where government-enforced "one child" policies and a culturally engrained "son preference" have made sex-selection abortion so prevalent that boys outnumber girls by as much as a 2-to-1 ratio in rural communities.

One Harvard University economist estimated that more than 100 million women were "demographically missing" from the world because of widespread and underreported practices of prenatal sex selection, an astonishing figure.

Regardless of one's position on abortion, this form of discrimination should horrify every American. The idea of killing a baby simply because she is a girl is reprehensible. Unsurprisingly, a March 2006 Zogby International poll found that 86 percent of Americans supported a prohibition on sex-selection abortion. Indeed, what good are the hard-won liberties of voting and other women's rights if babies may still be aborted simply for being girls?

Ironically, we are doing a better job internationally on this issue than we are at home. At the United Nations' 2007 annual meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women, 51st Session, the U.S. delegation spearheaded a resolution calling on countries to eliminate sex-selective abortion. The commission has urged governments of all nations "to take necessary measures to prevent ... prenatal sex selection."

Congress also voiced strong disapproval of the practice when 362 members of Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, passed a resolution in 2006 condemning the "communist government of China" for "its one-child policy, which promotes sex-selection abortion and female infanticide on a massive scale, a 'gendercide' which has led to millions of 'missing girls.' " Notwithstanding this widespread revulsion of sex-selection abortion and despite proof it occurs in America, sex-selective abortion remains legal and, therefore, tacitly condoned.

Abortion is being used not only to abort boys and girls just because they are boys and girls. Equally reprehensible is the reality of race-based abortion. Last spring, some federally funded clinics were exposed as agreeing to accept funds from persons who expressly asked that their donations be used to reduce the black population by abortion.

The history of the American abortion movement is replete with evidence of the purposeful placement of family planning clinics in areas with high concentrations of minorities. In fact, as many as 70 percent of abortion clinics are located in inner-city or minority neighborhoods. The impact has been devastating to black families. Fifty percent - 1 in 2 - of black children are aborted today in America.

A September 2008 report by the Guttmacher Institute revealed that black babies are five times likelier to be aborted than white babies. A quarter of the black population is demographically missing.

Racism in any form should cause us to recoil, but the reality of these staggering figures should make us all violently ill. Do we realize that, primarily through federally funded abortion clinics placed in our inner cities, we are contributing to the deadliest form of discrimination in our country's history against the most-discriminated-against minority in American history by systematically eliminating fully half of all blacks waiting to be born?

The United States has worked hard to eliminate widespread and systematic race and sex discrimination, which we recognize as a detestable part of our past. In both race and sex discrimination, Americans ultimately responded in the strongest possible legal terms by enacting constitutional amendments to end slavery and give women the right to vote (the 14th and 19th Amendments), ending the government sanction of such discrimination. However, eliminating discriminatory practices still must be among our highest priorities.

It is past time to reject the discriminatory disgrace of aborting a child based on race or sex. To that end, I have introduced H.R. 1822, the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2009, which would prohibit the practice of, or solicitation or acceptance of funds for, race- or sex-selection abortion.

Americans can support the effort to address this unspoken evil by encouraging the Democratic Leadership, including Mrs. Pelosi, and their own members of Congress to address this insidious form of discrimination by enacting this legislation.

Selecting girls and only girls for elimination or reducing the population of a given ethnic group or race distorts the entire shape of our society and undermines the entire foundation of human dignity and equality.

If we cannot find common ground on such a bedrock American principle, regardless of our differing perspectives on abortion, what hope remains?

Trent Franks, Arizona Republican, is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

[Get Copyright Permissions] Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

Post a comment

There are comments on this article, submit your opinion!

Please login or register to post a comment

Ask a Question

You Report

Do you have another point of view, photos, audio, video or more information about a story?

Top Stories

Most Read

  1. Massive bill steals show in health care debate
  2. Report: D.C. schools chief Rhee mishandled sexual misconduct scandal
  3. Islamic center in Maryland keeps ties to Iran
  4. Religious leaders vow civil disobedience on anti-life issues
  5. EDITORIAL EXCLUSIVE: On terrorists, Justice recused
More Top Stories »
  1. KELLNER: New Apple mouse really is 'Magic'
  2. EXCLUSIVE: Hoffman considering recount claim
  3. Senate health care bill creates new marriage penalty
  4. EDITORIAL: Gunning for Sarah Palin
  5. Report: ACORN mismanaged grant money

Most Shared

  1. Ego of 'O': It's all about him
  2. Religious leaders vow civil disobedience on anti-life issues
  3. EDITORIAL: Schumer's change of heart
  4. Green energy stimulus growing few jobs
  5. Unemployment taxes hit small firms hard
More Top Stories »
  1. EDITORIAL: Death for being a Christian
  2. EDITORIAL EXCLUSIVE: On terrorists, Justice recused
  3. VMI faces probe into sexism
  4. Company that repaired Chairman Gray's house lacked license
  5. Islamic center in Maryland keeps ties to Iran

Most Commented

  1. Work site arrests of illegals fall dramatically
  2. ANALYSIS: Obama takes a bow, but applause is weak
  3. Senate Democrats win key vote on health bill
  4. Lobbyists spending big to shape health care debate
  5. Islamic center in Maryland keeps ties to Iran
More Top Stories »
  1. EDITORIAL: Gunning for Sarah Palin
  2. Schumer: Dems will pass health bill alone
  3. Green energy stimulus growing few jobs
  4. EDITORIAL: Schumer's change of heart
  5. Ego of 'O': It's all about him

Listen to Washington Times Radio

  • America's Morning News

    with John McCaslin and Melanie Morgan

Question of the day

White House officials and Senate Democrats met in private three times last week to craft health care legislation. Do you think these discussions should be more public?

Blogs & Columns

  • Hot Button Blog

    RNC: Breast cancer recommendations may lead to 'rationing'

  • Belief Blog

    Evangelicals OK civil disobedience

  • Out of Context

    Foods that might kill libido

  • On the Fly

    United lifts some 'award' blocking

  • Technology

    Facebook wins round against phishing spammer

  • Redskins 360

    Mason returns

  • SNOBlog

    Beyond 'Woody'

Videos

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.