Category: Abortion

Thanks to a kindly reader down yonder, I now have had a chance to look at the text of Maine’s proposed "gay gene" bill, which would prohibit abortions based on the findings of a genetic test pertaining to the projected sexual orientation of the child.

If I’m reading things correctly, here’s what Maine’s law would be amended to read:

§1597-B.__Prohibited basis for abortion

An abortion may not be performed when the basis for the procedure is the projected sexual orientation of the fetus after birth, based on analysis of genetic materials of the fetus in which sexual orientation is identified through the presence or absence of a so-called "homosexual gene."

Now, I’ve highlighted the words "or absence" because it points up something I mentioned in the combox on the above-linked post: This bill does not only seek to protect babies who are foreseen to have homosexual temptations. It equally protects babies who are foreseen to have a heterosexual orientation.The law wouldn’t let you kill a kid because he’s foreseen to be straight or gay.

(The title of the bill may mention protecting homosexuals, but this is an obiter dictum. What counts is what the text of the law would be amended to read, and that protects both proto-straight and proto-gay babies.)

Would this survive the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Here’s the part of the amendment containing that clause:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Since both proto-straight and proto-gay babies are protected by the law, a textual reading would not indicate that either is being denied equal protection.

One could say that, well, the proto-gay babies are the ones who would by far benefit from such a law as most parents would not want to kill a proto-straight baby. True enough. But does the fact that one class of people benefit from a law more than another mean that the law is unconstitutional because of a violation of the equal protection clause? It would seem hard to argue this reasonably.

First, virtually every law advantages one group more than another:

• If you have a law against murder, that advantages the people who don’t want to be murdered over those that would like to murder them.
• If you have a law giving a government subsidy to wheat farmers (much against the advice of the Supergenius Thomas Sowell) then that advantages them over people not getting a subsidy in their line of work.

Laws against murder and in favor of wheat subsidies are certainly constitutional (regardless of the economic demerits of the latter), so whatever the equal protection clause means, it does not seem to mean that a law which on its face treats everyone equally could not work to the advantage of one group more than another. As long as both the would-be murder victim and the would-be murderer both have their lives protected from being murdered, equal protection is maintained. As long as anybody can become a wheat farmer and gain a share of taxpayer loot, equal protection is maintained.

The equal protection clause was originally introduced to keep states from having "Black Codes" that applied a different set of laws to blacks than to whites (e.g., with more severe punishment and less access to legal redress of grievances). Both classes had to have a common set of laws applying to them.

That is what we have here with proto-straight and proto-gay babies: Both get protexted.

Further, for the equal protection clause to be rationally applied to the unborn the courts would need to find that unborn babies are persons because the equal protection clause expressly applies to "any person within its [a state’s] jurisdiction." I would be most happy with such a finding.

That being said, do I think the proposed law is ideal?

No.

For a start, it speaks only of a "homosexual gene" (singular), but scientists might find that several genes or a combination of genes rather than a single gene may have an impact on sexual orientation.

Further, it ignores completely the possible role that hormones rather than genes may play in shaping future sexual orientation.

Finally, the such a law would have negligible effect since it only prohibits abortions "when the basis for the procedure is the projected sexual orientation of the fetus after birth." What the basis of an abortion may be is too hard to discover. A couple could get a gay gene test on the baby, find out the answer, go home, think it over, and come back with a completely different excuse for why they want to kill the kid. This bill does nothing to prevent that from happening.

Do I expect the law to pass?

Probably not, though I don’t know enough about Maine politics to know.

Do I think the law would survive court challenges?

No, that would be an extreme longshot given the proclivities of Darth Kennedy and Our Robed Masters.

Do I think the law or its attempted passage would start a productive national debate on abortion?

Heck, yeah! I suspect it’s already causing some rethinking in the gay community in a pro-life direction.

Oh, and for those who missed our earlier discussion: Do I believe that there is a "gay gene" that determines sexual orientation?

No. I think humans are too cognitive a species for that. Our sexuality is quite sensitive to cognitive conditioning, though I can’t rule out (given present science) that genes or prenatal hormones may play some kind of role in laying the groundwork for later homosexual temptations.

Thanks to a kindly reader down yonder, I now have had a chance to look at the text of Maine’s proposed "gay gene" bill, which would prohibit abortions based on the findings of a genetic test pertaining to the projected sexual orientation of the child.

If I’m reading things correctly, here’s what Maine’s law would be amended to read:

§1597-B.__Prohibited basis for abortion

An abortion may not be performed when the basis for the procedure is the projected sexual orientation of the fetus after birth, based on analysis of genetic materials of the fetus in which sexual orientation is identified through the presence or absence of a so-called "homosexual gene."

Now, I’ve highlighted the words "or absence" because it points up something I mentioned in the combox on the above-linked post: This bill does not only seek to protect babies who are foreseen to have homosexual temptations. It equally protects babies who are foreseen to have a heterosexual orientation.The law wouldn’t let you kill a kid because he’s foreseen to be straight or gay.

(The title of the bill may mention protecting homosexuals, but this is an obiter dictum. What counts is what the text of the law would be amended to read, and that protects both proto-straight and proto-gay babies.)

Would this survive the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Here’s the part of the amendment containing that clause:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Since both proto-straight and proto-gay babies are protected by the law, a textual reading would not indicate that either is being denied equal protection.

One could say that, well, the proto-gay babies are the ones who would by far benefit from such a law as most parents would not want to kill a proto-straight baby. True enough. But does the fact that one class of people benefit from a law more than another mean that the law is unconstitutional because of a violation of the equal protection clause? It would seem hard to argue this reasonably.

First, virtually every law advantages one group more than another:

• If you have a law against murder, that advantages the people who don’t want to be murdered over those that would like to murder them.
• If you have a law giving a government subsidy to wheat farmers (much against the advice of the Supergenius Thomas Sowell) then that advantages them over people not getting a subsidy in their line of work.

Laws against murder and in favor of wheat subsidies are certainly constitutional (regardless of the economic demerits of the latter), so whatever the equal protection clause means, it does not seem to mean that a law which on its face treats everyone equally could not work to the advantage of one group more than another. As long as both the would-be murder victim and the would-be murderer both have their lives protected from being murdered, equal protection is maintained. As long as anybody can become a wheat farmer and gain a share of taxpayer loot, equal protection is maintained.

The equal protection clause was originally introduced to keep states from having "Black Codes" that applied a different set of laws to blacks than to whites (e.g., with more severe punishment and less access to legal redress of grievances). Both classes had to have a common set of laws applying to them.

That is what we have here with proto-straight and proto-gay babies: Both get protexted.

Further, for the equal protection clause to be rationally applied to the unborn the courts would need to find that unborn babies are persons because the equal protection clause expressly applies to "any person within its [a state’s] jurisdiction." I would be most happy with such a finding.

That being said, do I think the proposed law is ideal?

No.

For a start, it speaks only of a "homosexual gene" (singular), but scientists might find that several genes or a combination of genes rather than a single gene may have an impact on sexual orientation.

Further, it ignores completely the possible role that hormones rather than genes may play in shaping future sexual orientation.

Finally, the such a law would have negligible effect since it only prohibits abortions "when the basis for the procedure is the projected sexual orientation of the fetus after birth." What the basis of an abortion may be is too hard to discover. A couple could get a gay gene test on the baby, find out the answer, go home, think it over, and come back with a completely different excuse for why they want to kill the kid. This bill does nothing to prevent that from happening.

Do I expect the law to pass?

Probably not, though I don’t know enough about Maine politics to know.

Do I think the law would survive court challenges?

No, that would be an extreme longshot given the proclivities of Darth Kennedy and Our Robed Masters.

Do I think the law or its attempted passage would start a productive national debate on abortion?

Heck, yeah! I suspect it’s already causing some rethinking in the gay community in a pro-life direction.

Oh, and for those who missed our earlier discussion: Do I believe that there is a "gay gene" that determines sexual orientation?

No. I think humans are too cognitive a species for that. Our sexuality is quite sensitive to cognitive conditioning, though I can’t rule out (given present science) that genes or prenatal hormones may play some kind of role in laying the groundwork for later homosexual temptations.

What’s the origin of homosexuality?

I dunno.

I suspect, in a species as highly cognitive as homo sapiens, that homosexuality has an origin that is significantly cognitive. That is: Though few individuals may have a moment where they deliberately choose to be homosexual, most find themselves faced with homosexual temptations that they indulge over the course of time and that result in a pattern of temptations toward their own sex.

If the researches of some psychological professionals are a guide, such temptations may be especially strong among individuals who fail, for whatever reason, to form a strong, healthy relationship with their parents–and particular with their fathers (this is true regardless of whether it is male or female homosexuality).

Though I recognize that humanity is a highly cognitive species with a sexuality that is significantly susceptible to cognitive training, I can’t rule out that there are other factors involved in the genesis of homosexual temptations. There may be a genetic or hormonal component that is independent of the environment in which an individual is raised.

Suppose there is.

Suppose that researchers one day produce significant evidence that there is a specific gene or combination of genes that inclines a child toward homosexual temptations. Alternately, suppose that they find evidence that a specific combination of hormones at a particular stage of gestation that affects a child’s later sexual orientation.

What should happen in such a situation?

Many parents would choose, given the right resources, to correct the situation. They would ask that their unborn child be given genetic or hormonal therapy to correct the problem so that their child would experience only the ordinary sexual temptations that affect normal people and thus not be faced with homosexual temptations.

But suppose that such genetic or hormonal therapy is not available.

What would parents do? Some might willingly shoulder the burden of raising a child who will likely have homosexual temptations. But some may not. Some parents might shy away from this burden and choose, instead, to abort the child they have conceived.

THAT WOULD BE MURDER.

I’m sorry, but one cannot kill someone–before or after their emergence from the womb–on the grounds that they have a particular sexual orientation.

Do you support laws against murder?

YOU SHOULD.

And I ask you to join me in supporting a Maine bill that would prevent parents from aborting their children should future science be able to show that their children may have a predisposition toward homosexual temptations.

No man is the sum of his temptations. Nor is any woman the sum of hers.

ALL individuals are human beings who deserve respect and compassion, regardless of what their particular temptations may be.

If science can help allieviate some of these temptations, it is a cause for rejoicing. But whether science can or cannot do this, nobody may be murdered to prevent the arrival of an individual because of the temptations he may face.

Conscientious Christians should therefore support the current Maine bill against aborting babies that might one day be shown to have a predisposition to homosexual tempations.

GET THE STORY.

What’s the origin of homosexuality?

I dunno.

I suspect, in a species as highly cognitive as homo sapiens, that homosexuality has an origin that is significantly cognitive. That is: Though few individuals may have a moment where they deliberately choose to be homosexual, most find themselves faced with homosexual temptations that they indulge over the course of time and that result in a pattern of temptations toward their own sex.

If the researches of some psychological professionals are a guide, such temptations may be especially strong among individuals who fail, for whatever reason, to form a strong, healthy relationship with their parents–and particular with their fathers (this is true regardless of whether it is male or female homosexuality).

Though I recognize that humanity is a highly cognitive species with a sexuality that is significantly susceptible to cognitive training, I can’t rule out that there are other factors involved in the genesis of homosexual temptations. There may be a genetic or hormonal component that is independent of the environment in which an individual is raised.

Suppose there is.

Suppose that researchers one day produce significant evidence that there is a specific gene or combination of genes that inclines a child toward homosexual temptations. Alternately, suppose that they find evidence that a specific combination of hormones at a particular stage of gestation that affects a child’s later sexual orientation.

What should happen in such a situation?

Many parents would choose, given the right resources, to correct the situation. They would ask that their unborn child be given genetic or hormonal therapy to correct the problem so that their child would experience only the ordinary sexual temptations that affect normal people and thus not be faced with homosexual temptations.

But suppose that such genetic or hormonal therapy is not available.

What would parents do? Some might willingly shoulder the burden of raising a child who will likely have homosexual temptations. But some may not. Some parents might shy away from this burden and choose, instead, to abort the child they have conceived.

THAT WOULD BE MURDER.

I’m sorry, but one cannot kill someone–before or after their emergence from the womb–on the grounds that they have a particular sexual orientation.

Do you support laws against murder?

YOU SHOULD.

And I ask you to join me in supporting a Maine bill that would prevent parents from aborting their children should future science be able to show that their children may have a predisposition toward homosexual temptations.

No man is the sum of his temptations. Nor is any woman the sum of hers.

ALL individuals are human beings who deserve respect and compassion, regardless of what their particular temptations may be.

If science can help allieviate some of these temptations, it is a cause for rejoicing. But whether science can or cannot do this, nobody may be murdered to prevent the arrival of an individual because of the temptations he may face.

Conscientious Christians should therefore support the current Maine bill against aborting babies that might one day be shown to have a predisposition to homosexual tempations.

GET THE STORY.

Down yonder, a reader writes:

I’m a protestant, so half of you probably don’t think im really a christian, but what seems to be missing in this whole debate is the entire rest of the issues. If it’s a sin to vote for a pro-choicer over a pro-lifer, why isn’t it a sin to vote for someone who won’t care for the poor, or who is for capital punishment or any number of other issues. Much less on how well they will actually help the country be a better place for everyone…And until you get bishops running for office, no one will ever follow strictly the Catholic Church’s guidelines/demands. Just my two cents.

First, thanks for posting. I hope you’ll visit again (in fact, regularly).

Second, the Catholic Church teaches that, as a Protestant, you are a Christian. That’s settled Catholic teaching and has been for centuries, so you should not be concerned on that point. Anyone who disagrees is disagreeing with the Church’s teaching.

Third, the issues you name are not all the same. Some involve issues that can be supported in some circumstances (like the death penalty) while some can never be supported in any circumstances (like abortion). There is a qualitative difference between the issues.

Fourth, there is also a quantitative difference between the issues. A handful of people may get executed in the U.S. each year, but 1.4 MILLION babies are killed by abortion (and that number may jump dramatically if embryonic stem cell research and cloning for research purposes get off the ground).

As a result of the fact that it kills more individuals than anything else (not the death penalty, not poverty, not the War on Terror, not anything) and the fact that it is intrinsically evil and can never be permitted, abortion superdominates the political landscape. It is the BIG EVIL that has to be taken down as soon as humanly possible. Work on ending lesser evils can proceed as long as they don’t interfere with taking down abortion.

I may have to suffer from a less-than-optimal environment while waiting for abortion to stop, but I can live with that. As long as millions babies are being slaughtered, I cannot ignore their plight at voting time in order to better my or others’ conditions in matters that are not proportionate to 1.4 million deaths a year.

Japan has one of the highest abortion rates in the world.

As a result, they have a rapidly greying population.

As a result, the wave of Japanese seniors frequently has no children to take care of them, or at least no children in their homes.

As a result, Japanese toy companies like Bandai have turned from making toys for tots to making toys for seniors, specifically: child-like dolls that seniors can interact with.

Excerpts:

Talking toys have become such a hit that some elderly people have embraced them as substitutes for the children who have grown old and deserted entire neighborhoods in the rapidly greying country.

The Yumel doll, which looks like a baby boy and has a vocabulary of 1,200 phrases, is billed as a "healing partner" for the elderly and goes on the market Thursday at a price of 8,500 yen (80 dollars).

Another toymaker, Bandai, in November 1999 launched the Primopuel doll which is meant to resemble a five-year-old boy who needs the same sort of attention, asking to be hugged and entertained.

GET THE (TRAGIC) STORY.

(Cowboy hat tip to the reader who sent it!)

A couple three more nuggets from the

NYT PIECE ON THE MAYBE-KINDA-SORTA DEMOCRAT ABORTION RETHINK.

Here’s the first:

Emily’s List and other groups have also sounded alarms about the direction the party leadership is taking over all. During the search for a national Democratic chairman, Ms. White posted a rallying cry on the group’s Web site: "We fought like mad to beat back the Republicans. Little did we know that we would have just as much to fear from some within the Democratic Party who seem to be using choice as a scapegoat for our top-of-the-ticket losses."

No. This issue is not a scapegoat. The Democratic Party is losing more votes than it’s gaining by its bloodthirty support of babykilling, and with thin margins of victory, that is what keeps them out of office.

It’s The Abortion, Stupid.

"The Democrats have to be very careful about this because they could end up undercutting themselves with the donor base," Ms. Stone [of Republicans for Choice] said. "The pro-choice donors in both parties tend to be the more wealthy."

Durhay!

Of course they have more disposable cash to give to political parties! They aren’t spending that cash on raising children! (They’ve also been brainpoisoned by the college and grad school degrees of liberal academia that are a key to greater wealth, and they have been putting their careers–i.e., wealth–ahead of raising children.)

But y’know what: Because they’re not raising children they’re not raising new votes. You can have your choice between short-term cash and long-term votes.

I choose the latter.

But abortion rights advocates warn of a bigger revolt within the party if its members start compromising on new abortion restrictions like parental notification laws or the fetal-pain bill. Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood, said some of her allies were saying that "to the degree that the Democrats move away from choice, that could be the real birth of a third-party movement."

Yes, which is part of why–though I haven’t talked about this publicly before–I think that depending on how things go . . . we may be nearing the breakup of the Democratic Party.

More on that later.

Okay,

HERE’S THIS PIECE FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES (which, for some reason, seems not to be subject to their NYTnoid registration hassle).

It’s all about the maybe-kinda-sorta-thinking-about-rethinking-but-also-wanting-to-just-deceive-voters rethink of abortion that is maybe-kinda-sorta happening in the Democratic Party. Maybe.

It has a number of interesting things in it, some from the Abortion Queen. F’rinstance:

Another large abortion rights group, Naral Pro-Choice, is reversing course, saying it will drop its opposition to the proposed Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, a bill that would require doctors to offer anesthetic for the fetuses of women seeking abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice, said the organization was saving its ammunition to fight judicial nominees who might overturn Roe v. Wade. "We are standing strong in the next Supreme Court battle," Ms. Keenan said.

WHOA.

That’s significant.

If NARAL is regrouping to save their ammo for the forthcoming Battles Supreme then it means they’re on the defensive. They’ve got limited resources and are feeling the pinch of needing to conserve them. (Thanks, Thomas Sowell, for reminiding us about the myth of unlimited enemies: Pro-lifers need to realize that pro-aborts Have Their Limits And Can Be Beat.)

It’s a significant capitulation, because if the law passes and doctors are force to anesthetize babies before killing them after 20 weeks then it’s going to inject a whole lotta awareness of the subject of fetal pain into popular consciousness, and that will significantly help pro-lifers.

READ THE WHOLE THING.

National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) head Nancy Keenan has written a letter to pro-lifers asking for their help (WARNING! Evil file format! [.pdf]).

Wellllllll now. . . . Isn’t that "special."

Let’s see what she has to say:

A MESSAGE TO THE
RIGHT-TO-LIFE MOVEMENT FROM
NARAL PRO-CHOICE AMERICA

PLEASE, HELP US PREVENT ABORTIONS

Hm. Help NARAL prevent abortions? They’ve seen the light and are joining our side? They’re changing their name to NURAL (National Unborn Rights Action League)? Doesn’t sound plausible. The credibility quotient of professional babykillers is low. Must be on lookout for incompetent attempts at deception.

For years, your groups and ours have waged one of the country’s most divisive political wars over a woman’s right to choose to kill her own offspring.

True.

We believe passionately that women have the right to decide for themselves when to bring children into the world kill their own children [sorry, the kids are already "in the world" as soon as they’re conceived] – without government interference. You disagree – passionately and sincerely.

Darn tootin’!

We will never resolve our differences on this basic question.

If by "we" you mean most individuals who are alive in the pro-abort movement right now and most individual pro-lifers, you are correct. Though some individuals may convert from one side to the other, most of the most committed members of both sides will remain where they are. On the other hand, if you mean our movements will always be locked in this struggle, no. Pro-lifers reproduce themselves while pro-aborts do not. Eventually, your movement will wither for demographic reasons (a phenomenon dubbed "the Roe effect"), leaving the pro-life movement free to protect unborn children again. The only question is how long it will take to stop the abortion holocaust you have initiated and how many millions of children will be murdered in the meantime.

But we should agree on an equally fundamental point: America would be a better country if no woman ever faced the difficult choices posed by an unintended pregnancy.

Yeah, and it would be a better country if there was no such thing as cancer, heart disease, obesity, or AIDS and in which nobody had to work for a living and nobody ever disagreed with anybody or had to do anything they didn’t want to do and we all had superpowers.

Furthermore, what’s all this dissing of "unintended pregnancies." Used to be a lot of folks would be excited when they got pregnant even though they weren’t intending to do so this month. Babies were looked forward to as positive things and as gifts from God. Some folks still take such attitudes, despite your propaganda campaign to equate "unintended pregnances" with unwanted babies.

What better way to end the debate (as if ending debate were an end in itself) over abortion rights than by eliminating the reasons women seek abortion?

You mean you want to change the facts that abortions are permitted by law and people have been propagandized to regard them as morally licit and to regard babies as an unwanted burden rather than as a positive contribution to humanity? Heck, yeah! I’m all up for changing those facts!

The time has come to join together in a new campaign to reduce the number of abortions.

DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!!! IMPENDING INCOMPETENT DECEPTION ATTEMPT!!!

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid – who slightly disagrees with us only so he can protect his Mormon base on the issue of abortion – has offered a commonsensedeceptive bill deceptively called the Prevention First Act which would help reduce unintended pregnancies unwanted babies through better access to often-abortifacient birth controlcontraception. This landmark legislation represents a serious first step in addressing the problemlaughably transparent attempt to score political points with the public by appearing to claim the moral high ground while advancing our anti-baby agenda through other means that actually will increase the number of abortions occurring early in pregnancy, and I hope you–the pro-baby patsy of this evil scheme–wi’ll join pro-choiceabortion Americans and me, the Abortion Queen, in foolishly offering your support.

Let’s work together to pass this bill, and <completely insincere offer>make it the first step in a dialogue</completely insincere offer> about preventing unintended pregnanciesunwanted babies.

I eagerly await your answer despite the fact I didn’t include my address, phone number, or e-mail on this letter.

Nancy Keenan
President
NARAL Pro-Choice America

GIVE NANCY KEENAN YOUR ANSWER.

TEXT OF THE "PREVENTION FIRST" ACT. (More fisking to follow)

[Cowboy hat tip: Pajama Hadin.]

Kewl!

From the story:

CHICAGO — All Alison Miller and Todd Parrish wanted was to become parents. But when a fertility clinic didn’t preserve a healthy embryo they had hoped would one day become their child, they sued for wrongful death.

A judge refused to dismiss their case, ruling in effect that a test-tube embryo (search) is a human being and that the suit can go forward.

Though most legal experts believe the ruling will be overturned, some in the fertility business worry it could have a chilling effect, threatening everything from in vitro fertilization (search) to abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research.

"If the decision stands, it could essentially end in vitro fertilization," said Dr. Robert Schenken, president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (search). Few doctors would risk offering the procedure if any accident that harmed the embryo could result in a wrongful death lawsuit, said Schenken, chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas in San Antonio.

While this one’s a real long-shot, here’s hoping!

GET THE STORY.