JesudasonS.WeitzT., “Eggs and Abortion: The Language of Protection in Legislation Regulating Abortion and Egg Donation in Debate over Two California Laws,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics43, no. 2 (2015): 259–269.
2.
In this commentary, I am using the term “woman-protective” to mean actually saving female fetuses from being destroyed, as this is how it has been raised in the sex-selective abortion context. The term has been used with a different meaning in another context by Reva Siegal. Seigal refers to woman-protective language as language that paternalistically suggests that women need to be protected from their poorly reasoned abortion decisions (which she convincingly argues violates the equal protection clause). See SiegelR., “The New Politics of Abortion: An Equality Analysis of Woman-Protective Abortion Restrictions,”University of Illinois Law Review2007, no. 3 (2007): 991–1053, at 994.
3.
KalandryS., “Sex Selection in the United States and India: A Contextualist Feminist Approach,”UCLA Journal of International Law & Foreign Affairs18, no. 1 (2013): 61–85, at 81.
4.
MohapatraS., “Global Legal Responses to Prenatal Gender Identification and Sex Selection,”Nevada Law Journal13, no. 3 (2013): 690–721
Unfortunately, sex-selective abortion is a real issue in some countries, such as India. India's government has responded to such actions with the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act (now known as the PreConception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act) (“PNDTA”.) This Act prevents the use of ultrasound or other prenatal techniques to reveal a baby's gender prior to birth. Although it has been in effect for many years, enforcement has been lax. I have argued elsewhere that curbing son-preference by educating girls and enforcing dowry bans may be more effective than PNDTA's bans on gender identification. See Mohapatra, supra note 4, at 715.
9.
Id.
10.
The research for the report consisted of (1) conducting desk research; (2) analyzing quantitative data from the American Community Survey (ACS) from 2007 to 2011 and the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) from 1979 to 1993; and (3) conducting in-country interviews of physicians, lawyers, government officials, social activists and academics in India. See International Human Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, and Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Replacing Myths with Facts: Sex-Selective Abortion Laws in the United States, (June 2014), available at <http://napawf.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Replacing-Myths-with-Facts-final.pdf> (last visited April 10, 2015).
International Human Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, and Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Replacing Myths with Facts: Sex-Selective Abortion Laws in the United States, (June 2014), available at <http://napawf.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Replacing-Myths-with-Facts-final.pdf> (last visited September 23, 2014).
14.
Id.
15.
Id.
16.
Id. One of the studies referenced is Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund's study “Son-Biased Sex Ratios in the 2000 United States Census,” 105 PNAS 5681, (April 2008) where researchers compared white, Chinese, Korean and Asian Indian birth rates at the first, second, and third child, finding that for second and third children in Chinese, Korean, and Asian Indian families, there appears to be a son preference. The report studies the same question with the newer census data and finds no such son preference, and actually finds Asian families have more daughters than other groups.
17.
PuriS.AdamsV.IveyS.NachtgallR., “‘There Is Such a Thing as Too Many Daughters, but Not Too Many Sons:’ A Qualitative Study of Son Preference and Fetal Sex Selection Among Indian Immigrants in the United States,”Social Science and Medicine71, no. 7 (2011): 1170–1172. See Florida Staff Analysis, H.B. 1327, (Jan. 25, 2012), Legislative History (House Bill 1327 created Florida's proposed sex-selective abortion ban, the “Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity for Life Act”). See also 158 Cong. Rec. H3180–08 (May 30, 2012) (statement of Rep. Franks); H.R. REP. 112–496, H.R. Rep. No. 496, 112TH Cong., 2ND Sess. 2012, 2012 WL 1939420 (Leg. Hist.) (PRENATAL NONDISCRIMINATION ACT (PRENDA) OF 2012).
International Human Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, and Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Replacing Myths with Facts: Sex-Selective Abortion Laws in the United States (June 2014), available at <http://napawf.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Replacing-Myths-with-Facts-final.pdf> (last visited April 10, 2015) (hereinafter cited as International Human Rights Clinic).
21.
Id.
22.
Id.
23.
Id.
24.
Id.
25.
Id.
26.
Id.
27.
Id.
28.
Id.
29.
Id.
30.
See Mohapatra, supra note 4, at 711.
31.
Id.
32.
See International Human Rights Clinic, supra note 20.
33.
Id.
34.
Id.
35.
Id.
36.
Id.
37.
Id.
38.
S.B 43, 81st Leg., Reg. Sess. (W. Va. 2013).
39.
See International Human Rights Clinic, supra note 20.