Allan Giberti
On Wednesday, June 19th the RI Senate voted passage on the Reproductive Privacy Act, previously called the Reproductive Healthcare Act.
No matter what you call it, it’s just a dressed-up name for legalizing late term abortion. It was then transmitted to the RI House, where it passed and was immediately signed by Governor Gina Raimondo.
On Wednesday, June 19th the RI Senate voted passage on the Reproductive Privacy Act, previously called the Reproductive Healthcare Act.
No matter what you call it, it’s just a dressed-up name for legalizing late term abortion. It was then transmitted to the RI House, where it passed and was immediately signed by Governor Gina Raimondo.
Back in March, when this bill was still in the House, Representative Brian Newberry (R) introduced an amendment that would protect against third trimester abortions because of the mental anguish caused to the mother because the baby is of the wrong sex, race, has Down Syndrome, or is not straight.
That’s my issue.
The gay gene.
When, and if, science is able to determine sexual orientation by DNA, this amendment would protect those babies.
I’m sure you’ve all heard of it. The gay gene or genic markers that identify homosexuality? Now, that’s going to be a problem. What could happen if a child’s orientation could be determined before birth? If a mother did not want a gay child, could she abort the baby? Without the protections of Rep. Newberry’s amendment, she most certainly could abort that baby. You would think such an amendment would be embraced by all but you would be wrong.
Representative Carol Hagan McEntee (D) was “shocked” about the gay thing and made light of it even getting a few laughs from her colleagues.
Representative Anastasia Williams (D) was so outraged by this and she told us the LGBT community is equally outraged. Somehow, I missed the memo where she would be speaking for me, but she went on how she had never heard of a test to tell if a baby was gay, and was horrified to think that anyone would do this to a gay baby. Apparently, her’s and her colleague’s knowledge of gay history is limited, because the amendment failed. A familiar pattern in the Rhode Island General Assembly.
In the 90’s as genetic research advanced, a concern grew in the gay community when a correlation was made between certain genetic markers and gay men . What happens if they can tell if a baby is gay before birth? Would this lead to the aborting of gay or lesbian babies? This was a mere 20ish years ago.
In 1995, Dr. James Watson, the Nobel prize-winning scientist who discovered DNA, threatened to sue a newspaper over a report that claimed he was advocating for the termination of babies with a “gay gene”. The headline of the article read: “Abort babies with gay genes, says Nobel winner."
Dr. Watson said "During an interview, I was asked about homosexuality and I related a story about a woman who felt her life had been ruined because her son was a homosexual and she would never have grandchildren. I simply said that women in that situation should have a choice over whether or not to abort. I didn't say that fetuses found to have a gay gene should be aborted."
Somehow, that does not comfort me in the least.
Studies comparing the sexual orientation of identical twins and fraternal twins found proved that genetics contribute to sexual orientation. They still have yet to identify the specific genes.
In the 2005 journal Evolution, American evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma wrote: “There is only a short distance between understanding the genetic or environmental origins of sexual variation and the possibility of intervention—in medical terms, ‘cure.’
U.K. Biobank and 23andMe conducted the largest genetic study of sexual orientation and last year, at the 48th Behavior Genetics Annual Meeting, they reported that they have identified approximately 40 genes at which different variants are associated with orientation.
It is only a matter of time before they find it. It’s not a question of if, but when. So where do we go from here? Will the Democrats amend the law to protect unborn gay children? That would restrict a woman’s right to choose, but it could also mean the death of countless innocent children who’s only “defect” is who they love.
That’s my issue.
The gay gene.
When, and if, science is able to determine sexual orientation by DNA, this amendment would protect those babies.
I’m sure you’ve all heard of it. The gay gene or genic markers that identify homosexuality? Now, that’s going to be a problem. What could happen if a child’s orientation could be determined before birth? If a mother did not want a gay child, could she abort the baby? Without the protections of Rep. Newberry’s amendment, she most certainly could abort that baby. You would think such an amendment would be embraced by all but you would be wrong.
Representative Carol Hagan McEntee (D) was “shocked” about the gay thing and made light of it even getting a few laughs from her colleagues.
Representative Anastasia Williams (D) was so outraged by this and she told us the LGBT community is equally outraged. Somehow, I missed the memo where she would be speaking for me, but she went on how she had never heard of a test to tell if a baby was gay, and was horrified to think that anyone would do this to a gay baby. Apparently, her’s and her colleague’s knowledge of gay history is limited, because the amendment failed. A familiar pattern in the Rhode Island General Assembly.
In the 90’s as genetic research advanced, a concern grew in the gay community when a correlation was made between certain genetic markers and gay men . What happens if they can tell if a baby is gay before birth? Would this lead to the aborting of gay or lesbian babies? This was a mere 20ish years ago.
In 1995, Dr. James Watson, the Nobel prize-winning scientist who discovered DNA, threatened to sue a newspaper over a report that claimed he was advocating for the termination of babies with a “gay gene”. The headline of the article read: “Abort babies with gay genes, says Nobel winner."
Dr. Watson said "During an interview, I was asked about homosexuality and I related a story about a woman who felt her life had been ruined because her son was a homosexual and she would never have grandchildren. I simply said that women in that situation should have a choice over whether or not to abort. I didn't say that fetuses found to have a gay gene should be aborted."
Somehow, that does not comfort me in the least.
Studies comparing the sexual orientation of identical twins and fraternal twins found proved that genetics contribute to sexual orientation. They still have yet to identify the specific genes.
In the 2005 journal Evolution, American evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma wrote: “There is only a short distance between understanding the genetic or environmental origins of sexual variation and the possibility of intervention—in medical terms, ‘cure.’
U.K. Biobank and 23andMe conducted the largest genetic study of sexual orientation and last year, at the 48th Behavior Genetics Annual Meeting, they reported that they have identified approximately 40 genes at which different variants are associated with orientation.
It is only a matter of time before they find it. It’s not a question of if, but when. So where do we go from here? Will the Democrats amend the law to protect unborn gay children? That would restrict a woman’s right to choose, but it could also mean the death of countless innocent children who’s only “defect” is who they love.
