Arizona Congressman Trent Franks yesterday reintroduced a bill into Congress that would make it a crime to have an abortion based on the gender or race of the fetus.
While abortions based on race or gender have been a problem in countries like India and China, there's no evidence to suggest that it's a problem in the United States.
Rather, as pro-choice advocates argue, legislation like Franks' "Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act" are designed to further vilify women who get abortions.
See our story on Franks' bill here.
A commenter on our post took it further, claiming that bills like Franks' are "a sideways attack on the medical privacy rights of citizens who want to get an abortion" because "Republicants won't attack abortion head on."
The commenter says Franks' bill is nothing more than "a pill to get those concerned with bigotry issues to come along on the anti-abortion bandwagon."
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
Either way, as abortion experts have repeatedly told New Times, while nobody wants to see a baby aborted based on its race or gender, there's nothing to suggest that it's actually happening in the United States.
So, we want to know what you think: is a seemingly non-existent problem like race/gender-based abortions worth Congress' time -- especially given its handling of the current economic crisis, which has earned it a dismal approval rating of roughly 12 percent?
Cast your vote below.