NewsWithViews on Pinterest NewsWithViews on Google+

Additional Titles


Coming Soon











By Lydia Goodman
October 7, 2014

In New York City, colorful pink banners sway over city streets promoting “The International Day of the Girl,” which is observed every year on October 11th as declared in a resolution by the United Nations.

The stated mission from the ‘Day of the Girl’ organization:

“The Day of the Girl is a response to an urgent problem facing our world today: the neglect and devaluation of girls around the world. On October 11 of every year, we see dynamic groups across the world (led by girls, of course) acting to highlight, discuss, celebrate and ultimately advance girls’ lives and opportunities across the globe. When girls come together to talk about what really matters to us, we can teach ourselves and other people–adults, boys, and other girls all across the world–new ways of thinking about gender issues, which will help us take action to change the status quo. October 11 is not just a day; it’s a movement. A worldwide revolution...”

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Who wouldn’t want the disparities women suffer from in income, education, health, or basic human rights to be highlighted and remedied?


There’s a pesky little issue that no one seems to be talking about that has done more to devalue the lives of women than any other policy. Gender- selective abortion, or “gendercide” is one of the root problems in the way women are viewed and treated. China allows selective abortion (no matter the “relaxation” of the one-child policy or reports to the contrary) as does India and Pakistan, among other countries. In England last year, it was reported that a media group secretly filmed two doctors who agreed to perform abortions for sex-selection purposes because the parents wanted boys.

That leaves the United States; specifically San Francisco.

When PRENDA (Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act), was introduced in the House two years ago in an attempt to stymie the growth of sex-selection abortions; it failed to pass. Pro abortion advocates had hotly contested that gender-selection abortion was a non-issue and that there was not enough proof that women were seeking abortions solely based on the sex of the baby they carried. Dr. Alfreda King would beg to differ.

“Sex-selection is increasingly a reason women seek abortions, especially among immigrant populations from cultures that prefer a child of one gender over another. Growing evidence shows that many babies are now targeted for abortion for race-selection as well. In the ongoing battles to ensure that all Americans’ civil rights are protected, our focus must be on the horrific nature of race-selection abortion, and the deliberate targeting of minority communities. We publicly abhor slavery and mount campaigns to end racism, yet America often denies the little victims in the womb their civil rights to live...”

To counter the House’s failure to protect tiny girls in the womb, some communities began seeking ways to pass resolutions that would effectively ban gender-selection abortion. As could be expected, resolutions begat opposing resolutions. Case in point--liberal San Francisco. A resolution was recently proposed and passed to oppose any bans on gender selective abortions in San Francisco, thanks to City Councilman David Chiu. Why? You know the answer.

According to supporters of Chiu’s resolution, to ban gendercide would be racist. To ban gendercide would unfairly target Asian-American women by stereotyping them culturally. The end result of this ban would negatively effect their ability to exercise their free reproductive choice and be in direct opposition to Roe vs Wade. (Interesting to note, eight states already have such a ban in place. Those racists.) According to the SF Gate, Journalist Mara Hvistendahl, author of “Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men,” estimates that sex-selection abortions have “claimed over 160 million potential women and girls — in Asia alone.” That fact alone should be enough to reject accusations of stereotyping and being racist against those that find gender-selection abortion reprehensible and immoral. But, no. The hotbed for die-hard feminists, who are supposedly fighting the “War on Women,” finds it perfectly acceptable to murder baby girls in the womb in the name of abortion rights. Got it.

Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily Email Alerts

*required field

Gendercide is a world wide issue that can not be dismissed as simply being the result of cultural differences. A baby is a baby is a baby. Any woman, especially in the United States, that chooses abortion because she places a higher premium on the life of a baby boy over that of a baby girl is knowingly compounding the problems that women face. The time, money, and publicity spent on educating others about the violence and inhumane treatment of women around the world means nothing if the life of a girl means nothing.

Simply put, a society that doesn’t value girls in the womb will not value them outside the womb.

© 2014 Lydia Goodman - All Rights Reserved

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing


As a writer and commentator, Lydia Goodman is passionate about speaking out against progressive policies that threaten to erode our personal rights, freedoms, and traditions. Lydia has also written numerous articles on world human rights issues, in an effort to focus attention on the atrocities perpetuated against people of faith.




There’s a pesky little issue that no one seems to be talking about that has done more to devalue the lives of women than any other policy. Gender- selective abortion, or “gendercide” is one of the root problems in the way women are viewed and treated.