In his letter, "Democrats will protect abortion at any cost," the letter writer weighs in against sex selective abortions as featured in "The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act." This bill, sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), was meant to deal with a "war on little girls" that is not occurring!
In fact, a brief look at the facts shows that both Rep. Franks and the letter writer are railing against a problem that shows no signs of existing in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study "Trend Analysis of the Sex Ratio at Birth in the United States (June 14, 2005) disinclines a reasonable person to agree with the letter writer and Rep. Franks.
The sex ratio of children born has shown very little variability over the last 60 years. The average over the life of the study has fallen between 105.5 females to 104.8 females born to each 100 males. In other words, the data indicates that despite the letter writer's complaint there are more female babies born than males and that trend has held in the United States for more than 60 years. Perhaps next the letter writer should inveigh against nature's casual disregard for the rights of unborn males somehow.
This is not to say that there haven't been oddities in the data. For white women older than 40 there was a sharp decline in the number of females born compared to males. In that outlier in the late 1960s the ratio of female babies to male babies born hit a low of 103 females per 100 males born. That represented a drop of a bit over 2 from the beginning of the study in 1940. Still, even with that at the endpoint of the research in 2002 white women over 40 showed gains in females born to such an extent that they "led the pack" with more females born that any other group in the study.
So, in short, the letter writer and Rep Franks are again setting themselves firmly against events that are not in existence! They are wasting their own time and that of their readers/constituents. It leads one to wonder why such a thing would occur.
Honestly, it's not hard to figure that out. By both the letter writer's and Rep Franks own admission the goal is not that female babies should be protected but rather that political points should be scored. Franks, quoted in The Washington Post ("Bill banning 'sex-selective abortions' fails in the House," May 31, 2012) admits that he brought the bill up for 'strategic' reasons and not in a serious attempt at passing legislation. The letter writer, similarly, in his closing paragraph and his casual swipe at "liberal female voters" reveals that his intent in the letter is political and not policy based.
In short, both are approaching an issue that doesn't exist with no intention of treating even the non-existent issue seriously. The hypocrisy shown by Rep. Franks and mirrored by the letter writer reveal them as the shallow political animals they are. They are more concerned with advancing their own power than influencing government and policies. This is the shallowest form of political manipulation and it damages debate, the concerns of those legitimately concerned with abortion policy (on both sides), and it damages the reputation of both Rep. Franks, the letter writer, and those who would support them.
Nate Wooley
Moncks Corner, S.C.
