Georgia Considers Outlawing Abortions Based on Race, Gender

Georgia Considers Outlawing Abortions Based on Race, Gender

By Stephen Clark
- FOXNews.com

Georgia lawmakers are poised to take up a controversial bill that would outlaw abortions prompted by the baby's race or gender, an issue that has inspired a billboard campaign claiming a racial conspiracy is behind the termination of pregnancies.

http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Politics/021110_abortion_billboard_doomsday_604x341.jpg
{In this photo made Thursday, Feb. 11, 2010, an anti-abortion billboard is shown in Atlanta. The eyebrow-raising ads featuring a young black child are an effort by the anti-abortion movement to use race to rally support within the black community. (AP)}

Are health care providers using abortion to curb the growth of the U.S. black population?

That question will be at heart of a debate among Georgia lawmakers, who are poised to take up a controversial bill that would outlaw abortions prompted by the baby's race or gender.

The issue that has inspired a billboard campaign claiming a racial conspiracy is behind the termination of pregnancies. The billboards have drawn national attention for claiming black babies are an "endangered species."

As for the bill, it barely made it out of committee this week, in a 7-6 vote and it still needs to clear the Rules Committee before heading to the full House, but proponents are emboldened by the recent committee vote.

"I'm excited," said the author of the bill, Republican state Rep. Barry Loudermilk. "I think this is one of the most difficult hurdles to face."

. . .

Davis said she is "flabbergasted" by the intensity of the opposition to the bill.

"You can still get an abortion," she said. "Is there all this hoopla because these doctors are doing what I suspect they're doing?" she said. "Otherwise, why are they up in arms about our campaign?"

Davis, who is black, said she just wants to see an end to what she called a racially motivated practice.

"If they will stop targeting my people, I will fade softly into the background," she said.

Full article

.

Many people from Asian cultures request in utero test for gender, so I can understand how the law might work in that respect.

But as far as race goes, I am a little perplexed. If the mother is black, there is better than a really good chance that the baby will be too.

What if the mother is white?

[quote="Ahimsa, post:3, topic:190494"]
What if the mother is white?

[/quote]

So the law-making effort is aimed at white mothers having black babies then?

[quote="Darryl1958, post:4, topic:190494"]
So the law-making effort is aimed at white mothers having black babies then?

[/quote]

I don't know. Is such a thing possible?;)

Well, yes, if the mother is one race and the father is another race, it is possible. But presumably, if the mother has such a strong racial preference she won’t be having sex with a person of another race.

Of course, in the case of rape, choice is not involved. But is the bill aimed at forbidding abortion due to rape?

I understand the idea of banning abortion based on gender, as that is happening in some countries, and perhaps in the US. But the clause banning abortion due to race seems very odd.

How incredibly dishonest. The purpose of this bill seems to be to use this outrageous "conspiracy" claim to discourage doctors from performing abortions on black women, out of fear of "fac[ing] up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $25,000."

I guess I should be fair. It's possible that the person behind this bill is not dishonest, but simply stupid (and, to be even fairer, these options are not mutually exclusive). Have a look at this hysterical extract:

Davis noted that in 2008, blacks made up 30 percent of the population in Georgia but more than 57 percent of the abortions.

"Those numbers are so horrific," she said. "There has to be something else contributing to this number."

Yes, blacks have a disproportionate number of abortions. The natural lunatic conclusion is that there is a conspiracy to wipe them all out.

Of course, the non-idiotic conclusion is that a disproportionate number of black are in a low economic position, and people in low economic positions tend to have more abortions. No conspiracies. There's not a shred of evidence that a "conspiracy" is underway here.

And, as others have indicated on this thread, a "conspiracy" charge makes absolutely no sense, even in terms of internal consistency. Does this woman seriously expect us to believe that all these black mothers are choosing to have abortions out of a hatred for their own race?

As I said, the only conclusion that makes any sense at all is that this bill is attempting to use a ridiculous "conspiracy" charge as an excuse to discourage doctors from performing abortions. It's dishonest, underhanded, and it's something that I hope pro-lifers would be ashamed of.

If you're actually serious about reducing the number of abortions, the place to start is better sex education, better access to contraceptives, and economic policies that favor the poor, rather than continually cut the taxes of the richest one percent.

[quote="Ahimsa, post:5, topic:190494"]
I don't know. Is such a thing possible?;)

[/quote]

Yes, genetic screening in utero is possible I guess. I am not sure if the concept of race is genetically discernable or more of a social construct.

But I guess what I am (unsuccessfully) getting at is who the law is aimed at. Black people have black babies in general, and nobody is forcing abortions on them just because they are black.
I am all for expectant parents to be counselled that there babies are precious and we as a society want you to give them life. Skin tone is irrelevant to the sacredness of life.
That just doesn't seem to be much of a legal argument to me though, but rather a spiritual and a humanistic one.

If you're actually serious about reducing the number of abortions, the place to start is better sex education, better access to contraceptives, and economic policies that favor the poor, rather than continually cut the taxes of the richest one percent.

This may seem to be a reasonable secular response, but it is not an altogether Catholic one. Catholics don't want black women to choose artificial contraception as a response to abortion, but to choose life, to keep their sexuality open to the possibility of new life.

And Catholic values would say that the best sex education and the best response to poverty is family values. As long as sexuality continues to be defined as socially acceptable outside of the bonds of sacred matrimony, and fathers will choose to be players outside of the family unit, poverty is inevitable.

Taxing the rich into the poorhouse won't do a thing to change that. It is not a material want that leads to this situation but a spiritual one.
In fact, President Obama did a very good job addressing this last Father's Day.

Georgia can consider anything it wants, if only for the publicity. :coffeeread:

But just in case your reality cheque bounced, I would remind you that ANY bill in ANY state that restricts abortion in ANY way will sooner or later, probably sooner, be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, who will have the final say. :tsktsk:

Of course, the founder of Planned Parenthood and chair of the “Negro Project” (Margaret Sanger) was a white-supremacist and eugenicist who wanted to wipe out the “dysgenic” or less-valued colored and poor. While she also advocated forced sterilization, touchingly she drew the line at euthanizing the “dysgenic.”

.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood today, unless you are saying the organization has a secret agenda.

The United States was founded, in part, on legal slavery. Many of the Founding Fathers owned slaves. That doesn’t mean that the United States today wants to keep blacks or other non-white races in servitude.

Margaret Sanger’s racial and eugenics ideas were horribly immoral. The Founding Fathers support for slavery was horribly immoral. Neither has anything to do with what happens in this modern era.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.