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

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

Association of systemic medication use with glaucoma and intraocular pressure: the E3 Consortium

PURPOSE: To investigate the association of commonly used systemic medications with glaucoma and intraocular pressure (IOP) in the European population. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of eleven population-based cohort studies of the European Eye Epidemiology (E3) consortium. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 143240 participants were included in the glaucoma analyses and 47177 participants in the IOP analyses. METHODS: We examined associations of four categories of systemic medications (antihypertensive medications: beta-blockers, diuretics, calcium channel blockers [CCBs], alpha-agonists, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers; lipid-lowering medications; antidepressants; antidiabetic medications) with glaucoma prevalence and IOP. Glaucoma ascertainment and IOP measurement method were according to individual study protocols. Multivariable regression analyses were carried out in each study and results were pooled using random effects meta-analyses. Associations with antidiabetic medications were examined in diabetic participants only. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Glaucoma prevalence and IOP. RESULTS: In the meta-analyses of our maximally-adjusted multivariable models, use of CCBs was associated with a higher prevalence of glaucoma (odds ratio [OR] with corresponding 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.23 [1.08 to 1.39]). This association was stronger for monotherapy of CCBs with direct cardiac effects (OR [95% CI]: 1.96 [1.23 to 3.12]). The use of other antihypertensive medications, lipid-lowering medications, antidepressants or antidiabetic medications were not clearly associated with glaucoma. Use of systemic beta-blockers was associated with a lower IOP (Beta [95% CI]: -0.33 [-0.57 to -0.08] mmHg). Monotherapy of both selective (Beta [95% CI]: -0.45 [-0.74 to -0.16] mmHg) and non-selective (Beta [95% CI]: -0.54 [-0.94 to -0.15] mmHg) systemic beta-blockers was associated with lower IOP. There was a suggestive association between use of high-ceiling diuretics and lower IOP (Beta [95% CI]: -0.30 [-0.47; -0.14] mmHg), but not when used as monotherapy. Use of other antihypertensive medications, lipid-lowering medications, antidepressants, or antidiabetic medications were not associated with IOP. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a potentially harmful association between use of CCBs and glaucoma prevalence. Additionally, we observed and quantified the association of lower IOP with systemic beta-blocker use. Both findings are potentially important given that glaucoma patients frequently use systemic antihypertensive medications. Determining whether the CCB association is causal should be a research priority

Differential Developmental Deficits in Retinal Function in the Absence of either Protein Tyrosine Sulfotransferase-1 or -2

To investigate the role(s) of protein-tyrosine sulfation in the retina and to determine the differential role(s) of tyrosylprotein sulfotransferases (TPST) 1 and 2 in vision, retinal function and structure were examined in mice lacking TPST-1 or TPST-2. Despite the normal histologic retinal appearance in both Tpst1−/− and Tpst2−/− mice, retinal function was compromised during early development. However, Tpst1−/− retinas became electrophysiologically normal by postnatal day 90 while Tpst2−/− mice did not functionally normalize with age. Ultrastructurally, the absence of TPST-1 or TPST-2 caused minor reductions in neuronal plexus. These results demonstrate the functional importance of protein-tyrosine sulfation for proper development of the retina and suggest that the different phenotypes resulting from elimination of either TPST-1 or -2 may reflect differential expression patterns or levels of the enzymes. Furthermore, single knock-out mice of either TPST-1 or -2 did not phenocopy mice with double-knockout of both TPSTs, suggesting that the functions of the TPSTs are at least partially redundant, which points to the functional importance of these enzymes in the retina

Harnessing the NEON data revolution to advance open environmental science with a diverse and data-capable community

It is a critical time to reflect on the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) science to date as well as envision what research can be done right now with NEON (and other) data and what training is needed to enable a diverse user community. NEON became fully operational in May 2019 and has pivoted from planning and construction to operation and maintenance. In this overview, the history of and foundational thinking around NEON are discussed. A framework of open science is described with a discussion of how NEON can be situated as part of a larger data constellation—across existing networks and different suites of ecological measurements and sensors. Next, a synthesis of early NEON science, based on >100 existing publications, funded proposal efforts, and emergent science at the very first NEON Science Summit (hosted by Earth Lab at the University of Colorado Boulder in October 2019) is provided. Key questions that the ecology community will address with NEON data in the next 10 yr are outlined, from understanding drivers of biodiversity across spatial and temporal scales to defining complex feedback mechanisms in human–environmental systems. Last, the essential elements needed to engage and support a diverse and inclusive NEON user community are highlighted: training resources and tools that are openly available, funding for broad community engagement initiatives, and a mechanism to share and advertise those opportunities. NEON users require both the skills to work with NEON data and the ecological or environmental science domain knowledge to understand and interpret them. This paper synthesizes early directions in the community’s use of NEON data, and opportunities for the next 10 yr of NEON operations in emergent science themes, open science best practices, education and training, and community building

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