Abortion is Everything. Women — or At Least Baby Women — Are Nothing.

Oklahoma passed a law against sex-selected abortions, a few years back. 

When we did, the bill was opposed by … “pro choice” advocates claiming they speak for “women’s rights,” including, of course, representatives from Planned Parenthood. 

Imagine my lack of surprise when I learned that Planned Parenthood is, once again, opposing a bill that is against sex selected abortions. I would guess that you know this, but in case you don’t, misogyny has long included a willingness to kill baby girls. In the days before Christ, it was a commonplace in much of the world to “expose” baby girls. What that means, basically, is toss them out and let them die from exposure, hunger, thirst, wild animals, etc.

Christians, with their stubborn insistence on the worth of every human being, ended this by the simple facility of refusing to do it themselves, going out and rescuing these little girls and raising them, and, of course, by condemning the practice in a manner that today would be called “judging.” It took time, but the practice of dumping baby girls along with the household refuse stopped. This has been true everywhere Christianity is embraced.

It’s taken two long millennia, but the practice of baby girl killing is rearing its ugly head once again in the so-called Christian world. The manner and means of accomplishing this slaughter is two-fold: Identifying that an unborn baby is, in fact, a girl, and then performing an abortion to do way with her.

This practice is called sex-selected abortion, or gendercide, and it is so widespread in places like India and China that it has unbalanced the population ratio, leading to a shortage of young women to be brides. Misogyny is such a stubborn evil that, instead of making these cultures value baby girls more and stop killing them, this shortage of girls has led to kidnappings, forced marriages and families of brothers “sharing” one wife.

What does this have to do with the United States and Planned Parenthood? Just this. Birth ratios in certain ethnic groups are becoming out of whack here in much the same way they have in other parts of the world. This leads to the conclusion that sex-selected abortion is probably being used on baby girls in those populations. Planned Parenthood clinic workers have been videoed by Live Action helping women arrange to abort a baby because it is a girl.

At the same time, Planned Parenthood and “pro choice” activists always seem to show up to oppose legislation to that would make sex-selected abortion illegal.

A case in point is a current piece of legislation in Florida. That’s the same Florida which is considering a bill to require that babies who survive an abortion be given medical care and not just killed; the same Florida where the Planned Parenthood lobbyist famously spoke against this local Infant Born Alive act.

The short title to the legislation is here. For those of you who don’t want to traipse over to look at it on another web site, here is what it says:


SB 1072: Termination of Pregnancy Based on Sex or Race of the Unborn Child


Termination of Pregnancy Based on Sex or Race of the Unborn Child; Citing this act as the “Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act”; prohibiting performing, inducing, or actively participating in a termination of pregnancy knowing that it is sought based on the sex or race of the child or the race of a parent of that child, using force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection termination of pregnancy, and soliciting or accepting moneys to finance a sex-selection or race-selection termination of pregnancy; providing criminal penalties, etc.


Planned Parenthood tried to play coy about its opposition to this bill. They always do. Here in Oklahoma, they said they opposed the bill because it was “unnecessary.” It Florida, they say the bill is “harmful.” They layered on a bit of what Planned Parenthood is always about in Florida by adding that instead of “wasting time” on “harmful” bills like legislation that would end sex-selected abortion, Florida lawmakers should focus on “expanding health care.”

I personally think that anytime Planned Parenthood talks about “reproductive health” they mean abortion. I also think that anytime they talk about funding for “health care” or expanding “health care,” they mean more money for Planned Parenthood. 

So, I see their alert on Florida’s bill to ban sex and race selected abortions as a one-two punch for Planned Parenthood. Tell legislators to kill this ‘harmful’ bill, they say, and at the same time, encourage them to give Planned Parenthood more money.

The bottom line here is that abortion is more important than women’s lives to these folks. The only way around that conclusion is if you perform whatever moral lobotomy on yourself it takes to believe that killing baby girls before they are born simply because they are baby girls is somehow or other a good thing. You then have to take it a step further and convince yourself that ending this egregious practice is “harmful.”

The question I wanted to ask when I read this legislative alert was “Harmful to whom?” Who does it harm to make it a crime to abort a baby girl just because she’s a baby girl? It seems to me that the “harm” is all on the other side of this equation. 

In addition to the alert, I’m going to put an oldie but a baddie down below. Here is a video of a Planned Parenthood worker advising a young woman as to how to go about obtaining an abortion just to “get rid of” a baby girl. 

YouTube Preview Image

My Dead Will Stay Undecorated.
Breaking: Federal Court Forces Notre Dame to Follow HHS Mandate
I Left the Legislature a Year Ago and Nothing Has Gone as Planned.
Dems for Life Calls on Hillary to Open Up Democratic Party to Pro Life People
  • pagansister

    Totally oppose the “reason” for an abortion to be the gender of the child. I think PP should rethink their position and not offer their service if the ONLY reason for a termination is the gender of the child. Gender cannot be determined before 3 months, thus IMO TOOOO late to have an abortion. For a woman to want to not give birth to a female child is saying girls/women are not equal to boys/men—which means she doesn’t think much of herself either!

  • Sus

    This is sick.

    That video is much older than 2012. I saw it years ago. liveaction.org has the best intentions but lying about sources negates the issues.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Sus, I’m not sure what you’re thinking of, but the date on the video is April 11, 2012. The press release is dated May 29, 2012. The first time I ran it on this blog was last summer some time. (I could look it up, but I’m lazy.) If you do a google, you’ll see the dates for news coverage of the video and responses from Planned Parenthood and their supporters are from that same time period. I’m guessing that you’re thinking of something else, either that, or your sense of time got confused. It happens to me sometimes.

      • Sus

        I looked too but not very long. Maybe I’m thinking of something different.

        I doubt I would have had any kids if the gender was so important to me that I had to try and control it. My first baby I did have uneasy feelings when I found out the gender but only because it made the baby seem real to me and I was scared of becoming a parent. It had nothing to do with the gender.

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          I knew my babies’ sex before they were born every time. But I wouldn’t have cared if they’d had two heads. I wanted them soooo much.

          • pagansister

            If I could have changed anything about my 2 pregnancies—it would be #1, knowing gender and seeing them with the new technology and #2, being able to have the babies in the room with me. Babies were still kept in the nursery and Daddies weren’t allowed to touch them until it was time to go home! GERMS, don’t you know!! My son and his wife had the baby in the room, and both were able to hold him anytime they wanted. So much better. I had no gender preference—but did have one of each—-much to my surprise, as there were more girls on both sides of the family.

          • Sus


  • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

    You are starting from the premise that women have, and must have, a special solidarity that ought to overcome all other claims on their loyalty. That is a feminist premise that does not actually work in real life, where women compete with other women in family and social environments. A ribald Indian proverb says that, “no matter what happens, the fault is the youngest daughter-in-law’s”. In countries like India, where social rank is everything, there is far more distance between the senior grandmother in the family and the junior daughter-in-law, than there is between the grandmother and the senior men, with whom she is ALWAYS in agreement. (Or it might be said that they tend to be in agreement with her! Forceful persons, these older Indian ladies.) But this is only an extreme version of something that is natural and inevitable in society: women, my mother said (and my mother is a classical feminist) are always women’s worst enemies.

    What I am saying is that there is no contradiction between making a shibboleth of “women’s right to choose” an abortion, and gendercide. The women who make that choice are in the same position and make the same choices as those older women in the family who victimize the younger daughters-in-law. It is a relationship not only of power, but of making the weaker party pay for whatever burden the family has to carry. If there is an onerous job to be done, the youngest daughter-in-law has to do it. If there is something broken, she has to repair or repay it. And if the family in their wisdom decide they can’t afford a daughter, then the yet unborn daughter pays the price. The mechanism is always the same. And don’t tell me it doesn’t obtain elsewhere. Just look at how women behave to each other in a workplace dominated by women (“The Devil wears Prada”).

    Feminism is at best a hopeful ideal introduced in a Hell of mutual backbiting and oppression, and at worst a mere delusion. We must be careful not to give to it the character of an acquired fact, or else we simply won’t be able to understand what is going on under our own eyes.

  • Imperious Dakar

    Another thing to keep in mind is that while misogynistic systems hurt women as a group, individual women are often rewarded for supporting them.

    To use a Western example, think of all the money that Anne Coulter has made by saying and writing things like “women shouldn’t vote.”

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Did she really say that?

      • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

        No, but Debbie Schlussel pretty nearly did. At least she said that most women are too dumb. But then she would probably say that most men are too dumb as well.