If Republicans in the state Senate wish to reduce the number of abortions being performed — a worthy goal — they are going about it the wrong way.
While giving quick attention to one bill that offers nothing more than a solution in search of a problem, the chamber has been ignoring another bill that could provide measurable benefits for the people of Washington.
Let’s start with a bill introduced by Sen. Ann Rivers, R-La Center. Senate Bill 6612 would prohibit abortions sought solely for the purpose of choosing a baby’s gender. It would make it a Class C felony for a doctor to knowingly perform an abortion for such a reason, and would make the practice punishable by up to five years in prison, a $10,000 fine, and the loss of the doctor’s license.
While it is not clear whether this is a pressing issue in Washington, it is obvious that the bill is playing to racial stereotypes and demagoguery. Proponents note that India, China, and other nations have taken measures to prevent the abortion of female fetuses, but claims that the practice is prevalent in this state are specious at best. Still, the language of SB 6612 includes: “A large population of young, unmarried men can be a cause of increased violence and militancy within a society.”
Indeed. But in 2014, according to the Washington State Department of Health, 51 percent of the babies born in Washington were boys — the same as the national average. As NPR reported last year: “It’s been a mystery why that ratio isn’t 50:50, since that’s what basic biology would predict. But scientists have noticed a tilted sex ratio at birth since the 17th century.”
So, unless Rivers and other senators have evidence of gender-specific abortions dating back 400 years, this would seem to be an unnecessary bill. Even Rivers told the Associated Press in a text message: “I don’t think this bill will go anywhere, but I would like to keep the profile raised on this very important issue.” So, the Senate Committee on Law and Justice gave the bill a public hearing on Tuesday — and that points out the chamber’s misplaced priorities. Because while a nonsensical bill received a hearing, SB 6369 has been languishing.
That proposal, which has received bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives (HB 2465), would require private health insurers and Medicaid to provide women with up to a 12-month supply of birth control at a time. Currently, prescriptions have to be refilled every month or every three months.
The importance of this proposal was demonstrated in a 2011 study from the University of California at San Francisco, where researchers found that women who received a one-year supply of birth control instead of the standard supply had a 30 percent reduction in unwanted pregnancies and a 46 percent lower rate of abortions.
Despite this information, the Senate’s Health Care Committee has not taken any action on SB 6369. The House, meanwhile, has held a public hearing on the companion bill and has scheduled an executive session.
This does not speak well of senators’ true motivation in giving attention to gender-specific abortions. If the goal is to prevent abortions rather than simply develop a tool for attacking abortion providers, the more effective tactic would be to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies. Instead, Ann Rivers is leading the way in an embarrassing round of abortion politics.
