Pro-choice, except when not

Out on the margins of our most deeply held beliefs are situations that can test those beliefs. For journalists, unconditional love for the First Amendment is tested by those loons who, citing free-speech rights, stage senseless, homophobic demonstrations at military funerals. I hate being on their side, but, when it comes to their right to express their views, I am.

For abortion-rights advocates, genderselection abortion presents a similar test. Isn’t the standard pro-choice line that a woman’s reason for having a legal abortion is nobody’s business?

But Planned Parenthood, a leading pro-choice voice, opposes genderselection abortions. Planned Parenthood, it seems, is pro-choice unless it doesn’t like one of the choices. Isn’t it inconsistent for the organization to pass judgment on women’s reasons for seeking an abortion? For better or worse, it is legal to choose to have an abortion because you have a gender preference for your child.

It’s an issue that cropped up recently in South Austin and the U.S. House.

Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region was hoaxed by Live Action, an antiabortion-rights organization, that sent a young woman with a hidden camera into a South Austin, Texas, clinic. Pretending to be pregnant, she said she wanted to have the baby only if it was a boy. A Planned Parenthood staff member aided and abetted her, ending with, “Good luck, and I hope that you do get your boy.”

Planned Parenthood fired her for not adhering to protocols. The organization would not say which ones.

In Washington, Democrats recently killed an effort to make gender-based abortion a federal crime carrying a five-year prison sentence for performing such a procedure. The bill failed largely along party lines, though 20 Democrats voted for it and seven Republicans voted against it.

“The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in criticizing the bill. That’s the consistent, pro-choice position.

But in opposing gender-selection abortions, isn’t Planned Parenthood injecting its values into private reproductive decisions? And isn’t that exactly what Planned Parenthood complains about when anti-abortion-rights groups seek to inject their values into reproductive decisions?

Sarah Wheat, interim local CEO of Planned Parenthood, told me the organization opposes “anything tied to valuing a particular gender child over another.” But what if a woman, in a private decision, chooses to do exactly that? Wheat referred me to this Planned Parenthood statement:

“Planned Parenthood opposes racism and sexism in all forms, and we work to advance equity and human rights in the delivery of health care. Planned Parenthood condemns sex selection motivated by gender bias, and urges leaders to challenge the underlying conditions that lead to these beliefs and practices, including addressing the social, legal, economic and political conditions that promote gender bias and lead some to value one gender over the other.” That’s good. I’m for ending racism and sexism. But until we do, it is legal to choose to abort a fetus based on gender. Isn’t that a private choice that “pro-choice” organizations should support?

I suppose it’s possible to oppose something but support somebody else’s right to do it (see my First Amendment example above). So I asked Planned Parenthood if, despite its opposition to gender-selection abortion, it supports a woman’s right to choose to have such a procedure, which seems the pro-choicey thing to do.

Spokesman Eric Ferrero referred me to statements that opposed gender-selection abortion but were silent on a woman’s right to choose such a procedure. FYI, Planned Parenthood opposed the defeated Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act. The Guttmacher Institute (which supports abortion rights) recently reported genderselection abortions are highly uncommon in the U.S., a conclusion based on birth-gender ratios “squarely within biologically normal parameters.”

“Son preference is a global phenomenon that has existed throughout history,” the report said. “There is some evidence—although limited and inconclusive—that the practice may occur among Asian communities in the United States.”

As science marches on, there will be more tough issues to deal with in abortion politics. University of Washington research is leading to a prenatal test to screen for 3,000 hereditary conditions, sparking ethical debate about whether women should be allowed to abort based on the test. Will pro-choicers have a problem with women who choose not to bear a child who tests show could develop one of a wide-ranging list of conditions of varying severity?

Are you pro-choice enough to say that’s okay?

Weigh in if you’d like. I’ll support your right to say it, even if I disagree.

Ken Herman is a columnist for the Austin American-Statesman.