Tag Archives: Pro-Abortion

The worldwide war on baby girls

This article is from the left-wing magazine The Economist, which is pro-abortion and pro-Obama.

Excerpt:

Gendercide—to borrow the title of a 1985 book by Mary Anne Warren—is often seen as an unintended consequence of China’s one-child policy, or as a product of poverty or ignorance. But that cannot be the whole story. The surplus of bachelors—called in China guanggun, or “bare branches”— seems to have accelerated between 1990 and 2005, in ways not obviously linked to the one-child policy, which was introduced in 1979. And, as is becoming clear, the war against baby girls is not confined to China.

Parts of India have sex ratios as skewed as anything in its northern neighbour. Other East Asian countries—South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan—have peculiarly high numbers of male births. So, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, have former communist countries in the Caucasus and the western Balkans. Even subsets of America’s population are following suit, though not the population as a whole.

The real cause, argues Nick Eberstadt, a demographer at the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank in Washington, DC, is not any country’s particular policy but “the fateful collision between overweening son preference, the use of rapidly spreading prenatal sex-determination technology and declining fertility.” These are global trends. And the selective destruction of baby girls is global, too.

Boys are slightly more likely to die in infancy than girls. To compensate, more boys are born than girls so there will be equal numbers of young men and women at puberty. In all societies that record births, between 103 and 106 boys are normally born for every 100 girls. The ratio has been so stable over time that it appears to be the natural order of things.

That order has changed fundamentally in the past 25 years. In China the sex ratio for the generation born between 1985 and 1989 was 108, already just outside the natural range. For the generation born in 2000-04, it was 124 (ie, 124 boys were born in those years for every 100 girls). According to CASS the ratio today is 123 boys per 100 girls. These rates are biologically impossible without human intervention.

The national averages hide astonishing figures at the provincial level. According to an analysis of Chinese household data carried out in late 2005 and reported in the British Medical Journal, only one region, Tibet, has a sex ratio within the bounds of nature. Fourteen provinces—mostly in the east and south—have sex ratios at birth of 120 and above, and three have unprecedented levels of more than 130. As CASS says, “the gender imbalance has been growing wider year after year.”

Make no mistake. Pro-choice is anti-woman.

MUST-READ: An overview of Obama’s radical pro-abortion record

I found this post at The Blog Prof. (H/T Nice Deb)

Excerpt:

Once again, for the umpteenth time, on Obama and abortion, it is indisputable that in his very short time in office, the most viciously pro-abort zealot to ever sit in the Oval Office did the following:

The multiple pro-infanticide votes are the most egregious of the above egregious acts, and he did so without any pity for those babies born alive only to be left in soiled linen closets to die.

Think of all the pro-life people who voted for Obama because they wanted free health care, paid for by their neighbors. This is the price of it.

Here’s one of the videos in the post:

There are a TON of videos of Obama talking about the abortion issue in the BlogProf’s blog post.

This image made me sad:

It’s the born-alive baby who was abandoned in a utility room to die. That’s not what you do with babies, for God’s sake. Obama opposed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. He is most pro-abortion President ever.

NRLC says that new version of Obamacare is even more pro-abortion

From LifeSiteNews.

Excerpt:

A new health care bill proposed by President Obama Monday threatens to expand abortion even more drastically than the health care bills stymied in Congress over the past several months, says the National Right to Life Committee.

[…]”Any member of Congress who votes for the final legislation proposed by President Obama will be voting for direct federal funding of elective abortion through Community Health Centers, and also an array of other pro-abortion federal subsidies and mandates,” said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson in a statement Monday.

[…]Among the president’s proposed “targeted set of changes to” the Senate bill, Johnson said, none “diminish any of the sweeping pro-abortion problems in the Senate bill, and he actually proposes to increase the funds that would be available to directly subsidize abortion procedures (through Community Health Centers) and to subsidize private health insurance that covers abortion (through the premium-subsidy tax credits program).”

“If all of the President’s changes were made,” said Johnson, “the resulting legislation would allow direct federal funding of abortion on demand through Community Health Centers, would institute federal subsidies for private health plans that cover abortion on demand (including some federally administered plans), and would authorize federal mandates that would require even non-subsidized private plans to cover elective abortion.”

Obama loves abortion, and he wants you to pay for it, even if you are pro-life.