Pro choice used to mean pro choice. Not pro abortion, but pro choice.
Pro choice should mean anti forced abortion.
So, why the radio silence from the pro choice and women’s rights groups on China’s policy of forced abortions?
Today’s story speaks for itself:
“A Muslim Uighur woman who is more than six months’ pregnant remained under watch in a hospital in China’s far northwest Friday awaiting a forced abortion by authorities who don’t want her to have a third child. . . China maintains a one-child-per-family rule on majority Han Chinese, with more flexible rules for ethnic minorities, to contain its massive population of 1.3 billion citizens. . . Those who violate the rule must pay large fines, although reports of zealous officials ordering forced abortions in rural and semi-rural areas are fairly common.”
“The case of Arzigul Tursun is raising attention because she is 26 weeks’ pregnant and supporters say an abortion could threaten her health. Her husband, who goes by the single name Nurmemet, said officials in their village near Yining learned of the pregnancy and warned the couple their house and property would be seized if Arzigul did not undergo an abortion. . . . U.S. Rep. Christopher Smith, a New Jersey Republican, wrote China’s ambassador to Washington, Zhou Wenzhong, on Thursday to demand that “the nightmare of a forced abortion” not be carried out.”
When an American locality so much as discusses parental notification for minors, the action is met with storms of protest from pro choice groups. Where are they on this issue, in which all women in the largest country on earth are systematically deprived of their bodily autonomy? This is an issue pro choice members of Congress and the public should be raising.
CROSS POSTED AT FAR RIGHT DEMOCRAT http://farrightdemocrat.blogspot.com/and anywhere else they’ll let me