If you had to name the biggest problems facing America right now, would you say unemployment and foreclosures? Perhaps education, international relations, or our military presence abroad? Well, the Republican Party is convinced that yet another abortion bill is more pressing than any of these, and this one is intended to save the black community from itself.

Representative Trent Franks (R-Ariz., pictured) is sponsoring the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011, or PRENDA. The bill seeks to “prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or race,” and will criminalize the failure of medical professionals to investigate whether women are aborting their babies on those bases.

In other words, any woman pregnant with what may be a black or female fetus can only be granted an abortion if her doctor is sure that she’s not seeking the abortion simply because the fetus is black or female. This would mean at the very least a series of questions aimed at any black woman seeking an abortion, and at worst the reluctance of doctors to treat certain patients at all for fear of prosecution.

At a Tuesday hearing, Franks called the fight to give female and minority babies the same right to life as white male babies the “civil rights struggle that will define our generation,” and presented well-worn anti-choice statistics likening the abortion rates among black women to genocide. Keep in mind that Franks is the same representative who once argued that, because of the disproportionally high rate of abortion in the black community, African-Americans were better off during slavery.

In response, the NAACP and 46 other civil rights groups wrote a letter explaining that it’s access to pregnancy prevention, not discrimination against unborn children, that causes black women to have a higher rate of unplanned pregnancy than white women (67% and 40%, respectively). Instead of stripping women of their right to choose, they argue, the answer is to arm women with the information and resources that will help them prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. They further argued that not only does gender discrimination play no role in American abortion statistics, the problem of black women who have abortions because they are pregnant with black babies is blatantly nonexistent.

Representative John Conyers (D-Mich), who has served in the House since 1964 and is one of the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus, openly asked why the memories of two of Americas most significant civil rights leaders are being used to promote the bill by saying “I know more about Frederick Douglass than you do and he didn’t say anything about prenatal discrimination.”

I’m no Frederick Douglass scholar, but I’m pretty sure he’s right.

Is this bill really meant to help the black community? Or has the Republican Party finally outdone itself with the faulty logic in this one? 

 

 

58
SHARES

21 Comments

  1. There are huge gender imbalances in places like India and China because couples do abort based on the gender of the baby. That gender being female. Some have called it gendercide. Before you guys sneer at this bill ( though is a bit odd in American since there seems to be a preference for female children anyway) you guys should consider the MILLIONS of baby girls that have been killed in and out of the womb because they werent born with penises.

    0
    • …and India and China will not be effected by this bill. So, sneer? No. Side eye? Yes.

      0
    • Misty Jean

      So black American women should have female babies because Chinese and Indian parents don’t want theirs? I’m confused. What will this bill do to help gender discrimination in poor countries?

      0
  2. Representative John Conyers’ statement is absolutely priceless and pretty much captures my response to this bill. Smh. These politicians are absolute headcases.

    0
  3. E.M.S.

    The republican party is out of control. What on earth makes them think black women are terminating because the child is black or female? They do it because the pregnancy was unwanted, not because the child is a certain color or has a certain set of genitalia.

    Instead of focusing so much on abortion, they need to be focusing on the availability of resources to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place. But oh wait, they’re trying to get rid of Planned Parenthood, which DOES THAT. Morons, the lot of them.

    Let’s also remember that unwanted pregnancy is not some epidemic solely among black women, it happens to women of all ethnicities.

    0
  4. WTF? I seriously doubt the government is trying to help BLACK women but instead try to choose how we make decisions. Even if a black woman wants to have an abortion for those reasons, have they not decided on what basis white women abort their babies? It’s always something with the government and the black community! Clearly, I believe a woman should be able to decide what happens with her body, black or white. Would I abort my baby, no, but if someone wants, then maybe they’ll have safer sex next time, but it’s still THEIR decision. The whole debate that “children should have a shot at this life too” is ludicrous because aborting a fetus is no different than a woman having her uterus taken out, taking the morning after pill, or going through menopause being that our eggs are ALL potential babies that may not have “a shot at this life.”

    0
  5. Simone

    LIke we really need the far right looking out for black people?? Anyone remember slavery?

    0
Comments are moderated, please be respectful. View our policy.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Read previous post:
Close