c Richmond Sunlight » 2013 » Sex-selective abortions; penalty. (HB1316)

Sex-selective abortions; penalty. (HB1316)

Introduced By

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas) with support from co-patron Sen. Dick Black (R-Leesburg)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Sex-selective abortions; penalty. Provides that a person who performs an abortion with knowledge that the abortion is sought solely and exclusively on account of the sex of the unborn child is guilty of a Class 4 felony. The bill also requires that the information that must be provided to a woman seeking an abortion prior to obtaining her informed written consent to the procedure shall include a statement that the physician would be committing a criminal offense if he performs an abortion solely on account of the sex of the unborn child. Amends § 18.2-76, of the Code of Virginia. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

  • 10/03/2012 Committee
  • 10/03/2012 Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/13 13100037D
  • 10/03/2012 Referred to Committee on Commerce and Labor
  • 10/10/2012 Impact statement from VCSC (HB1316)
  • 01/07/2013 Impact statement from DPB (HB1316)
  • 01/10/2013 Referred from Commerce and Labor
  • 01/10/2013 Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
  • 01/17/2013 Assigned Courts sub: #7 Constitutional Law
  • 01/18/2013 Subcommittee recommends laying on the table
  • 02/05/2013 Left in Courts of Justice

Comments

Stephen writes:

Another Republican trying to rule the world and womans rights.

whester writes:

Stephen, it appears to me that you are taking a lot for granted making a statement such as this. Not all Democrats agree with abortion.

Carolyn Caywood writes:

Basically, this creates an Orwellian thought-crime. It makes an otherwise legal act illegal because of what you were thinking. Government intrusion into states of mind is truly frightening. Imagine this law being carried out in court.

ACLU-VA Women's Rights and Reproductive Freedom, tracking this bill in Photosynthesis, notes:

The ACLU-VA strongly opposes HB1316 because it reduces access to abortion services, invades women’s privacy, and threatens the confidentiality of the doctor/patient relationship. The bill intrudes into the reasons behind a woman’s personal decision to have an abortion. The bill forces doctors into becoming unwilling partners in this invasion. If lawmakers are concerned about the inequality of women and girls, they should support policies that actually work (such as pay equity or civil rights laws). The real intent of this bill is to limit abortions and this is a tactic to make abortion more difficult to access by threatening medical providers. Bans on abortion, like this one, that purport to address the issue of son preference, trade on racial stereotypes about Asian-American communities. However, Asian and Pacific Islander women already suffer from cultural and language barriers that make obtaining quality health care difficult. This bill does nothing to address those issues. In fact, it would only exacerbate racial disparities in reproductive health care by erecting new barriers between Asian and Pacific Islander women and health care providers. It would sow distrust between doctors and Asian and Pacific Islander women, reducing access to a broad range of critical care. Put simply, this bill will do nothing to end discrimination based on sex. Instead, it will force doctors and allow government officials to intrude upon women’s private family decisions. The hypocrisy of this so-called “anti-discrimination” bill is that it will not prevent sex-selection abortion, but will inevitably lead to racial profiling and force health care professionals to treat women of color as automatically suspect.

Diane L writes:

Abortion has moved far away from allowing only for the health of the mother. Then it changed to anytime during the pregnancy (even up until birth) and now it's for sex selection. Where does this all stop!
The argument to not pass this bill is the same spiel that has been used over and over again. "If passed it will reduce access", "invades a woman's privacy", or the example of the 1 in a million horror story someone faced to try to justify why a bill is unjust.
You do not end a life just because it is the "WRONG" sex. We are better then that in America.
Please pass this bill.

Peter writes:

I'm sorry Diane L but I have to agree with the Roman Catholic Church, the fetus has no legal rights until it is born.

"Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights." http://tinyurl.com/bbwtdqh