Endorsements and editorials are made solely by the ownership of this newspaper. As is the case at most newspapers across the nation, The Spokesman-Review newsroom and its editors are not a part of this endorsement process. (Learn more.)

Editorial: Abortion bill may target a nonexistent problem

Tue., Feb. 9, 2016

Here’s the first question any legislative body should ask when considering a bill: Is there a problem? A Washington Senate measure that would ban “sex-selective abortions” doesn’t pass this test.

SB 6612 has an innocent-sounding title, the “Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act.” But it’s really a creative attempt by anti-abortion proponents to erect another barrier to a legal procedure.

The alleged problem is that some cultures value male babies over female babies. China had a one-child policy for 35 years that ended last October. Women were forced to have abortions. But there is no government-sponsored coercion in the United States, much to the delight of many foreign-born Asian-American families.

The bill states that “women should not be not be discriminated against in the womb.” This is accomplished by limiting the choices of adult women when they’re pregnant. And it opens up the possibility motivations – any motivations – will become grounds for denying a woman an abortion.

The bill is careful not to attack women or make them criminally liable. In fact, it treats them as victims, granting them anonymity and access to legal action against their doctor. The sponsors apparently imagine that doctors are pushing such abortions.

The bill would turn these doctors into felons, subject to a jail sentence of up to 364 days and/or a $10,000 fine. Their medical licenses must be suspended or revoked.

The bill offers no evidence that sex-selective abortions are an American problem. Supporters cite one study that shows Americans of particular Asian backgrounds end up with more male babies.

Whether this is achieved through abortion is unanswered. There are other ways to accomplish this deliberately – a process called sperm sorting and another called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, for example – but the bill targets only abortion.

Furthermore, research at the University of Chicago shows that foreign-born Asian-Americans don’t have birth rates that are biased toward boys. In fact, they have more girls than white Americans.

Eight states prohibit sex-selective abortion, including Illinois and Pennsylvania, but the University of Chicago study found that bans in those two states did nothing to alter birth rates by gender.

So, it’s not even clear the bill is aimed at an actual problem, or that this would be a solution if there were a problem.

That aside, it would be impossible to enforce such a law. How is the state going to determine that doctors are asking patients why they want an abortion? The bill doesn’t say, and the very idea is profoundly disturbing. Are American women to be profiled based on an unsubstantiated theory and past practices in some Asian countries?

Unsurprisingly, the bill’s sponsors are against abortion generally. If they truly want to curb them, they should urge their colleagues to get moving on a couple of bills that would make birth control more accessible.

Based on its swift passage out of committee, it’s the motives of SB 6612’s sponsors that ought to be questioned.