Photo Credit: roniweb Creative Commons
Metaphors can be useful, unless they are allowed to override reality. In recent weeks, advocates for “reproductive freedom” have said that part of the Republican “war on women” is the proposal to let religious employers refuse to buy contraceptive coverage in their health insurance plans.
But who is the enemy? Most women, a New York Times/CBS News poll finds, agree that religious hospitals and universities should be free to opt out. Nearly half think any employer should have that prerogative.
If the effort to limit the contraceptive mandate were truly a frontal assault on women, a majority of them would not be endorsing the offensive. But the ideology of groups like Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women (NOW) sometimes ignores inconvenient gender realities.
Those advocates have been distracted from a different and far less figurative war on women—which, as it happens, is helped rather than hindered by one of the “reproductive rights” they champion. Legal abortion may empower women, but it has also become a powerful method for the mass elimination of females.
Modern technology allows prospective parents to learn the sex of a fetus, and many of them use that knowledge to exercise a preference for sons. Absent such intervention, about 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. But as Mara Hvistendahl reports in her 2011 book “Unnatural Selection,” the number for boys per 100 girls has risen to 112 in India and 121 in China.
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
On the Reason site at 8:16 AM on 15 March, commenter HeroicMulatto made an excellent point which everybody else attending on this discussion seems to have missed completely, writing:
Even in America, the expenses associated with the massive spending orgies known colloquially as “White Weddings” – which are by tradition suffered by the parents of the bride – associate with other costs of raising girl children to massively deter reproductive choices favoring the XX types.
One might see a teen-aged son out for an evening’s sexual prowl without fearing much more than a venereal disease and maybe his getting himself nailed for a couple decades’ worth of child support (both risks militated by the latex industry), but a daughter’s impregnation can have consequences only describable as “catastrophic.”
When given the ability to make a choice, parents in Western polities would tend quite reliably to select against the female fetus.
If anyone is considering the cold-blooded option of voluntary abortion at all, precipitating the fatal expulsion of a female larva is a good deal more economically sensible than is the termination of a pregnancy likely to result in a little boy.