Regulating Abortion May Be OK But Not To Avoid Sex-Selection

Sex-selective abortion raises a multitude of overlapping ethical concerns regarding eugenics, population control, and provider privilege or knowledge. It was also, until recently, an issue we linked mostly to China, Korea, and India. Not anymore. Recent news coverage indicates that the son-preference that has led to sex-selective abortions abroad is alive and well in some ethnic communities within the United States.

This has generated a new discussion about what to do -- indeed, what to think -- about the practice here.

This week, one commentator -- William Saletan -- raised an essential issue in that regard: "Absolutists on both sides need to think carefully. If you're pro-life, how far are you willing to go in regulating abortion? If you're pro-choice, how far are you willing to go in leaving it unregulated?"

Full disclosure: I am a pro-choice European transplant to the United States. I am also a human rights advocate and researcher, and have spoken to dozens of resource-poor women about their reproductive choices. My answer to Mr. Saletan's question is invariably colored by this background and experience. And it falls in two parts.

1. The effect of abortion regulations depends on the context and motivation.

Regulation on abortion, or any other medical procedure for that matter, isn't bad per se. From a human rights perspective, the regulation of medical procedures and interventions is legitimate and indeed often necessary so long as they are based on full respect for the full range of human rights.

In the context of abortion, this, in some cases, has more to do with the context of the regulation than with the regulation itself. Many pro-choice commentators in United States have traditionally criticized the trimester-based regulation on abortion that is the norm in most of Western Europe. Generally, the criticisms are based on the fact that restrictions imposed on access to abortion after the first trimester in those European countries subject female decision-making to medical authority.

I have never had a problem with the European model as such. For one thing, it is, most often, implemented in the context of universal health care, comprehensive sex education, and parental benefits such as leave and childcare support. As a result, women seem to have more control over their parental choices to start with. For another, the social workers and doctors who make up the panels to whom women must apply if they want an abortion in the second or third trimester are generally directed to base their decision on the best interest -- health, life, broadly speaking -- of the woman involved. While there surely is much to criticize about the European model, it is not the fact that regulation exists.

By the same token, the relative lack of blanket bans or federal regulation on abortion in the United States does not mean that abortion access is easy, or, indeed, that woman can decide on their fertility without interference. In fact, studies indicate that the United States rate of unintended pregnancies is higher than the world average, and much higher than that in other industrialized nations.

Moreover, despite the apparent illusion that abortion is unregulated in the United States, it is actually already pretty heavily regulated. Many women and girls face serious legal or financial obstacles to accessing safe abortion services because of burdensome regulations, lack of providers, insufficient funding, or political opposition. Also, US restrictions on abortion, whether at the state or federal level, are not motivated by concern for women, and are often implemented in a context in which lack of access to health care generally and to contraceptives specifically make it even harder for women to control their fertility prior to a crisis pregnancy.

2. Regulating sex-selective abortion by banning it would not eliminate the practice.

In the face of news that the gender balance of certain ethnic groups in the United States is starting to tilt, it is perhaps tempting to hope that banning sex-selective abortions would safeguard the gender balance of future generations. However, the criminalization of abortion for whatever reason has in the past led only to underground and unsafe practices. In fact, the criminalization of sex-selective abortion would put the full burden of righting a fundamental wrong--the devaluing of women's lives--on women.

The fact is that many women who choose to abort a fetus because it is female believe they will face violence, exclusion, or stigma if they don't produce a boy. Some--rightly or wrongly--see the financial burden of raising a girl as detrimental to the survival of the rest of the family, a sentiment that can outlast generations even after an ethnic community has been transplanted to the United States.

The solution to the prevalence of sex-selective abortion is to remove the motivation (emotional or real) behind the procedure by advancing women's human rights and their economic and social equality. Choosing the blunt instrument of criminal law over promoting the value of women's lives and rights will only place further burdens on individual women for something that essentially is a social wrong.

So, in short, I support regulation that serves the purpose of furthering the human rights of women to health, physical integrity, equality, as well as the right to decide when and if to become a mother. I also support regulation that brings down the need for (and number of) abortions.

My experience tells me a blanket prohibition of abortion of any kind -- even if to limit a practice as ethically questionable as sex-selective abortion -- would accomplish neither.

Comments

[zanzig]

While I agree with Ms Mollman's article, can I point out that the NYT article (and the research underpinning it) was singularly devoid of any empirical data to say that this sex-selection abortyion was actually happening in America. The 2 or 3 couples who were cited/quoted in the article had natural births which resulted in the gender result that made them happy. None of them said that they had had an abortion or fertility treatment to select the sex of their child. In all the quotes from the researchers and cited medical professionals, every one of them makes "assumptions" about a cultural practice without a shred of evidence.

[propitiousmoment]

Thanks, Ms. Mollmann, for a very thoughtful perspective on this issue. I am coming to think of outlawing abortion in this country as an unfunded mandate, a requirement that women produce certain results without providing them the means with which to do so. It's really a strange inconsistency to scream and howl about how every life is precious, but to then stigmatize a woman for becoming pregnant under less than "ideal" circumstances. If life is so wonderful, we should make every pregnancy a cause for celebration, and throw money and resources at both mothers and children to make their progress through life as thriving as our collective wealth can provide. Perhaps we could start de-funding some unnecessary and immoral wars in order to achieve this goal.

[EdCoughlin]

The solution to this is not to outlaw abortions but to make procedures like sperm sorting more widely available. Instead of trying to stop a practice seen as a "social ill" and force it underground, why not make sure the issue does not arise? If we had better in-vitro options for couples set on having a child of a certain gender, sex selective abortions would never come up as an issue.

The gender selection sword cuts both ways too, while some cultures are culturally predisposed towards wanting a male, in many cases families have a male child and want to ensure a female for family balancing reasons. Whether they want a male or female should be their choice, since it is, after all, their family. I see nothing morally wrong with using something like sperm sorting to choose a male or female child and it is greatly preferable to the idea of sex selective abortions which are in far more murky moral territory.

Even with sex selective abortion though, which is worse? Having fetus aborted in the 11th week due to gender or having a child grow up in a hostile environment because its mother was forced to carry it to term against her will?

[martinfrosa]

Marianne, you are wrong. Even President Obama would like to reduce the number of abortions in this country, as would I. Abortion should not be allowed for frivilous reasons such as sex selection - what does this say about us as a society?

Enlightened women can and should have control of their bodies - what would happen if they exercised that choice before engaging in sex by using condoms or other methods of birth control? They are cheaper than an abortion and don't come with all the ethical baggage that abortion does. Just asking.

[commonsenselives]

"Enlightened women can and should have control of their bodies - what would happen if they exercised that choice before engaging in sex by using condoms or other methods of birth control? "

Birth control fails. All the time.

And I venture to say that enlightened people, no mater their gender, would not care what the sex of the child was as long as it was healthy.

[jmpurser]

Outlawing murder hasn't eliminated the practice either. But we still humor ourselves by trying.

Clearly there is sex selective abortion going on in this country. Clearly it's NOT in the best interest of the nation to allow this to go on. We need to intelligently regulate this in order to reduce it as far as possible.

[HPdevotee]

Great article and I couldn't agree with you more. I would like to add;

What pro-choice advocates need to do is remind President Obama of his promise. On the campaign trail he stated that signing the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would be one of his priorities. About a month ago he was asked, during a presser, if there was any movement on the FOCA. He stated that it was "not on his immediate agenda." Very disappointing.
This piece of legislation is very important in keeping abortion legal in the US. Without codifying Roe v. Wade into law, the issues you bring up in your article are moot, I fear, because the very right itself is still in play.

Once codified though, it will be settled law and this private health care issue will no longer be used as fodder by every pandering politician like a child's game of 'keep away'. Women (and men) will then be able to move on and use their energies and resources towards raising awareness, education and changing the social mores that would compel a woman to choose an abortion soley on the sex of the fetus in the first place.

The passage of the FOCA is long overdue.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

The right to choose should be conditioned on why the choice is being made.

[Malkin71]

So what you are saying is...

I prefer a son over a daugher is not acceptable but....I don't want to be bothered would be?

Slippery slope there.

I'm pro choice, but I see where a lot of pro choice feminists are going to have a tough time answering this.

Your answer in untenable. Either a person can get an abortion based on their own personal choices or they can't.

[crowepps]

Some 'sex selection' abortions are done because of sex-linked genetic birth defects which affect males but not females (hemophilia for instance).

[jimrs6]

Maybe, but what about the other 99%?

[RedDogBear]

I don't see this as much of an issue. I'm pro-choice. I believe a woman has the ultimate authority on what to do with her body. If that means she doesn't want to carry a pregnancy through to delivery that is her choice. The reasons she makes that choice aren't the business of the government. That doesn't mean I approve of aborting a baby based on its gender but unless its my body its not my choice to make.

[THREEXMOM]

Not much of an issue? A perfectly healthy life being destroyed because it's not the s.e.x a woman wants. When does the innocent baby get a choice? Government is supposed to protect all of us. I'm so sick and tired of all this "it's my body, or it's her body" nonsense. Don't get pregnant in the first place if you're not willing to accept the outcome!

[commonsenselives]

"I'm so sick and tired of all this "it's my body, or it's her body" nonsense. Don't get pregnant in the first place if you're not willing to accept the outcome!"

And I'm so sick of people like you that seem to think it is ALL the woman's fault she got pregnant! It takes two to tango and if the GUY doesn't want children, maybe HE should be responsible too.

As far as that 'nonsense', it is called personal choice. My body, what I do with it is my business and YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO JUDGE. So kindly get OFF your high horse.

Question, MOM, would you demand your underage daughter have her rapist's baby? Or would you respect the fact that she has a choice and give it to her?

[jhNY]

For all who would tilt at Saletan's windmills, my sympathies.

[RedDogBear]

What does that mean?

[HPdevotee]

Tilting at windmills is an English idiom which means attacking imaginary enemies, or fighting unwinnable or futile battles. The word “tilt”, in this context, comes from jousting.

The phrase originated in the novel Don Quixote, by Miguel de Cervantes. The phrase is sometimes used to describe confrontations where adversaries are incorrectly perceived. The phrase is sometimes used to describe courses of action that are based on misinterpreted or misapplied heroic, romantic, or idealistic justifications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_at_windmills

From the above article:
This week, one commentator -- William Saletan -- raised an essential issue in that regard: "Absolutists on both sides need to think carefully. If you're pro-life, how far are you willing to go in regulating abortion? If you're pro-choice, how far are you willing to go in leaving it unregulated?"