Replacing Myths with Facts: Sex-Selective Abortion Laws in the United States

Sex selection is the practice of attempting to control the sex of one's offspring in order to achieve a desired sex. One method of sex selection is sex-selective abortion. Laws banning sex-selective abortion are proliferating in the United States. Eight states have enacted laws prohibiting sex-selective abortion. Twenty-one states and the federal government have considered such laws since 2009. Those laws prohibit the performance of an abortion if sought based on the sex of the fetus and provide for both criminal and civil penalties in most cases.A great deal of misinformation exists regarding sex selection in the United States. We have identified six inaccuracies commonly associated with sex-selective abortion and laws prohibiting it. They appear, among other places, in statements made by legislators, testimony submitted to legislatures, and reports issued by legislative committees that have considered or adopted laws banning sex-selective abortion. We present each piece of inaccurate information as a "myth." This Report draws on legal research, empirical analysis of U.S. birth data, field-work, and an extensive review of scholarly publications in social sciences, law and other disciplines to replace these myths with facts

Sex-selective Abortion Bans are Not Associated with Changes in Sex Ratios at Birth among Asian Populations in Illinois and Pennsylvania

Legal prohibitions on sex-selective abortions are proliferating in the United States. Eight state legislatures have banned abortions sought on the basis of the sex of the fetus, 21 states have considered such laws since 2009, and a similar bill is pending in U.S. Congress. These laws have been introduced and enacted without any empirical data about their impact or effectiveness. Prior studies of U.S. Census data found sex ratios among foreign-born Chinese, Korean and Indian immigrants were skewed in favor of boys, but only in families where there were already one or two girls. Using the variation in the timing of bans in Illinois and Pennsylvania as natural experiments, we compare the pre-ban and post-ban sex ratios of certain Asian newborn children in these states over 12-year periods. We then compare these ratios with the sex ratios of Asian newborn children in neighboring states during the same period. We find that the bans in Illinois and Pennsylvania are not associated with any changes in sex ratios at birth among Asians. In Illinois and its neighboring states, the sex ratio at birth of Asian children was not male-biased during our study period. On the other hand, the sex ratio at birth among Asians in Pennsylvania and its neighboring states was skewed slightly in favor of boys, but the enactment of the ban did not normalize the sex ratio. This strongly suggests that sex-selective abortion bans have had no impact on the practice of sex selection, to the extent that it occurs, in these states. This finding is highly relevant to legislative and policy debates in the U.S. Congress and state legislatures where sex-selective abortion laws are being considered

Human Rights and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria: Meeting Report

On March 3-4, 2011, UN staff, donors, and civil society representatives met in New York to discuss how the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria might best operationalize the promotion of human rights and equitable access as one of its five strategic objectives.The meeting covered the following human rights issues related to the Global Fund's 2012-2016 strategy:Scope and content of the Global Fund's human rights commitment and obligation;Promoting human rights in Global Fund-supported programs and advocacy;Oversight and monitoring and evaluation of the Global Fund's portfolio according to human rights criteria;Addressing human rights risks and violations associated with Global Fund grants.Discussion papers on each of these issues, as well as a paper exploring the relationship between human rights and equity, were prepared for the meeting

TB STIGMA – MEASUREMENT GUIDANCE

TB is the most deadly infectious disease in the world, and stigma continues to play a significant role in worsening the epidemic. Stigma and discrimination not only stop people from seeking care but also make it more difficult for those on treatment to continue, both of which make the disease more difficult to treat in the long-term and mean those infected are more likely to transmit the disease to those around them. TB Stigma – Measurement Guidance is a manual to help generate enough information about stigma issues to design and monitor and evaluate efforts to reduce TB stigma. It can help in planning TB stigma baseline measurements and monitoring trends to capture the outcomes of TB stigma reduction efforts. This manual is designed for health workers, professional or management staff, people who advocate for those with TB, and all who need to understand and respond to TB stigma

Replacing Myths with Facts: Sex-Selective Abortion Laws in the United States

Several countries in the world have sex ratios at birth that are as high or higher than China and India, including countries with predominantly white populations. Nonetheless, immigrant communities in the United States from China and India are consistently accused of harboring a preference for sons. It is supposedly this preference for sons that leads Asian Americans to abort female fetuses. In response, eight states have enacted bans on sex-selective abortion and 21 states and the United States Congress have considered such bans. Proponents of sex-selective abortion bans claim that the United States is one of the few countries in the world where sex-selective abortion is not prohibited. However, our research reveals that only four countries explicitly prohibit sex-selective abortion and that, instead, many countries that are concerned with sex selection prohibit the practice even before the embryo is implanted in the uterus. Our research also reveals that sex-selective abortion bans are not likely to change sex ratios at birth. In a study we conducted on sex ratios in two states that adopted sex-selective abortion bans over 15 years ago—Illinois and Pennsylvania—we found that the laws were not associated with changes in sex ratios. Laws banning sex-selective abortion purport to combat gender discrimination. However, the text of the laws and the statements made in support of the bans during legislative hearings make it clear that they are intended to place restrictions on abortion services generally. Moreover, the laws purport to solve a problem that may not exist at all in the United States. Rather than changing behavior or addressing a purported problem, sex-selective abortion bans are likely to lead to the denial of health care services to Asian American women. Many of the laws require medical professionals to scrutinize a woman’s reproductive choices. Since it is difficult to determine the true reason a woman has chosen to terminate her pregnancy, medical professionals may err on the side of caution and deny care to women in order to avoid liability under the law, even when a woman is not seeking a sex-selective abortion. Laws banning sex-selective abortion have been enacted on the basis of misinformation and harmful stereotypes about Asian Americans. We do not support the practice of sex selection by any means, but rather than combating discrimination, sex-selective abortion bans perpetuate it

Replacing Myths with Facts: Sex-Selective Abortion Laws in the United States

Several countries in the world have sex ratios at birth that are as high or higher than China and India, including countries with predominantly white populations. Nonetheless, immigrant communities in the United States from China and India are consistently accused of harboring a preference for sons. It is supposedly this preference for sons that leads Asian Americans to abort female fetuses. In response, eight states have enacted bans on sex-selective abortion and 21 states and the United States Congress have considered such bans. Proponents of sex-selective abortion bans claim that the United States is one of the few countries in the world where sex-selective abortion is not prohibited. However, our research reveals that only four countries explicitly prohibit sex-selective abortion and that, instead, many countries that are concerned with sex selection prohibit the practice even before the embryo is implanted in the uterus. Our research also reveals that sex-selective abortion bans are not likely to change sex ratios at birth. In a study we conducted on sex ratios in two states that adopted sex-selective abortion bans over 15 years ago—Illinois and Pennsylvania—we found that the laws were not associated with changes in sex ratios. Laws banning sex-selective abortion purport to combat gender discrimination. However, the text of the laws and the statements made in support of the bans during legislative hearings make it clear that they are intended to place restrictions on abortion services generally. Moreover, the laws purport to solve a problem that may not exist at all in the United States. Rather than changing behavior or addressing a purported problem, sex-selective abortion bans are likely to lead to the denial of health care services to Asian American women. Many of the laws require medical professionals to scrutinize a woman’s reproductive choices. Since it is difficult to determine the true reason a woman has chosen to terminate her pregnancy, medical professionals may err on the side of caution and deny care to women in order to avoid liability under the law, even when a woman is not seeking a sex-selective abortion. Laws banning sex-selective abortion have been enacted on the basis of misinformation and harmful stereotypes about Asian Americans. We do not support the practice of sex selection by any means, but rather than combating discrimination, sex-selective abortion bans perpetuate it