Originally posted on Source4Politics
Arizona recently passed an interesting law. It would ban performing (but not receiving an abortion) without first signing an affidavit certifying that the medical professional has no knowledge that the purpose of the abortion is race- or sex-selective.
I'm not quite sure how I feel about this. In the framework of the Thirteenth Amendment argument for abortion rights, can the state impose a duty on women to make their decisions about freedom and servitude without an eye towards race or sex? Or can a woman legitimately decide that she's willing to have certain things happen to her body in order to have a white boy, but not in order to have a black girl? If the effects on the woman's body are identical, can she legitimately consider race and sex?
On the other hand — and perhaps knowledgeable medical professionals can fill me in here — are the effects of a male pregnancy the same as those of a female pregnancy? If not — if one causes different hormones to be produced, say, in a way that will substantially change the pregnancy experience — would choosing to abort a male child because of the hormones be sex-selective? Or would it be hormone-selective?
Finally, does it make any difference that the law only criminalizes providing an abortion, rather than seeking or obtaining one? I'm inclined to say no: the effect of the law is still to prohibit abortions, and it really doesn't matter which side of the transaction you affect to make that happen. I'm open to other arguments, though.