Second video shows Planned Parenthood clinic advising on how to get a sex-selective abortion; Update: WH opposes sex-selective abortion ban bill
posted at 11:21 am on May 31, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Earlier this week, Planned Parenthood responded to an undercover video showing a staffer in its Austin, Texas clinic providing assistance for a sex-selective abortion by firing the staffer, requiring retraining for the entire clinic, and insisting that they do not support gender-based abortions. Looks like they’ll need to break out the pink slips again. Live Action released another undercover video this morning that shows a New York City clinic not only advising on how to determine the gender of a pregnancy, but the best way to make the determination in time to get an abortion — complete with referral to a practitioner to assist in the service:
Despite PP’s protestations this week, the staffer in the Margaret Sanger clinic in New York City says, “I can tell you that, you know, here at Planned Parenthood we believe that it’s not up to us to decide what is a good or bad reason for somebody to decide to terminate a pregnancy.” The video does include PP’s insistence that “Gender bias is contrary to everything our organization works for … Planned Parenthood condemns sex selection motivated by gender bias.” Looks like the staffers haven’t gotten that memo from corporate yet, huh?
Let’s muse on Planned Parenthood’s statement just a bit, though. They condemn “sex selection motivated by gender bias.” On what other basis would “sex selection” take place other than gender bias? Why would two girls be so much less desirable than a boy and a girl that one has to take the drastic step of an abortion unless one is applying a gender bias? What other possible explanation could there be? And let’s face it — while the selection cuts both ways on occasion, the cultural biases in play would tend to greatly disfavor girls rather than boys in this equation, which is what we see worldwide when abortion is used in sex selection.
I’d guess that Planned Parenthood will stop short of firing another staffer, especially since Live Action hints that they have a few more of these videos on the way.
Update: I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by this, especially from a President that once opposed a version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois:
The White House got back to me this evening to say the president opposes the bill.
White House deputy press secretary Jamie Smith says in a statement: “The Administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision. The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”
LifeNews explains the vote taking place today in the House on the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA):
The bill would make it a federal offense to knowingly do any one of the following four things: (1) perform an abortion, at any time in pregnancy, “knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex or gender of the child”; (2) use “force or threat of force. . . for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection abortion”; (3) solicit or accept funds to perform a sex-selection abortion; or (4) transport a woman into the U.S. or across state lines for this purpose. However, “A woman upon whom a sex-selection abortion is performed may not be prosecuted or held civilly liable for any violation . . .”
The bill also specifically states, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require that a healthcare provider has an affirmative duty to inquire as to the motivation for the abortion, absent the healthcare provider having knowledge or information that the abortion is being sought based on the sex or gender of the child.”
Unbelievable. This is the same administration that’s spent the last few months crying about a “war on women,” right? Well, here’s a fight in which females are taking real casualties, and … nothing.