Women's Human Rights and Migration. Sital Kalantry
other films with such generous funding, the film credits did not list any funding sources. I thought I was at a dead end when I made it to the final page of the Google search results and uncovered nothing.
As a last resort I traced the ownership of the domain name of the website for the movie. By doing this, I found that the director of the film worked for an organization that makes gruesome anti-abortion videos. On the website that promotes the film, he is described only as a filmmaker who makes movies on human rights issues—there is no mention of any of his prior works. The director later admitted to me in an interview that some of his funding came from people whom he had met through that anti-abortion organization.2 Had the director’s background and funding sources not been so cleverly hidden, then perhaps the American feminist community would have been more skeptical of the story he was telling about India and China.
In May 2013, I published an article in Slate about my discovery.3 Shivana Jorawar, Reproductive Justice Director at the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF) at the time, read my article and told me that the promoters of It’s a Girl asked her organization to co-sponser a screening of the film on Capitol Hill for congressional representatives in Washington, D.C. This was all happening at the same time that a bill was pending in the U.S. House of Representatives to ban sex-selective abortion in the United States.4 The bill’s preamble states that its purpose is to stop the widespread practice of abortions of female fetuses by Indian and Chinese people living in the United States. Bills like this were also sweeping across state legislatures. By 2016, half of all state legislatures in the United States had voted on bans on sex-selective abortions, purportedly to address the behavior of Asian Americans. Seven states enacted the bans during this wave of legislative activity. Two states had adopted them decades ago.
Americans went to India and China, made a film depicting the “culture” of “son preference” and violence against women, and brought it back to the United States to support claims that Asian Americans sex-select and to lobby for laws that burden the reproductive rights of all American women. The rub of it is that they are convincing pro-choice feminists that the ban promotes women’s equality.
Moreover, anti-abortion legislators and movement actors deceptively used advocates concerned about women’s equality in other countries to further restrictions on reproductive rights. For example, Sabu George, a well-known activist against sex selection in India, was invited to testify and did testify at a hearing organized by Representative Chris Smith, a staunch opponent of legal abortion rights, for the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee. The purpose of the hearing was to push the U.S. government to stop funding family planning services in India because of sex selection.5
The legislative discussions about sex-selective abortion uniformly contend that the bans address a widespread practice among Asian Americans.6 As someone whose scholarship and clinical work involve India and who has a personal connection to both the United States and India, I was skeptical of both the film and the empirical claims made by the proponents of the sex-selective abortion bills. Many of the factors that motivated my aunt who lives in India to abort a female fetus after she had already given birth to two girls did not exist for my other aunt who lived in the United States. As someone who was raised by Indian immigrants in the United States, I was aware that the “culture” of immigrant communities evolves from the “culture” in the places from which they migrated.
I teamed up with movement leaders to study the issue further. An important voice for Asian American and Pacific Islander women, the National Asian Pacific Women’s Forum (NAPAWF), under Miriam Yeung’s direction was working to defeat the bans. I also worked with Sujatha Jesudason who is an expert in the field. Under the auspices of the International Human Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School, which I directed at the time, we investigated the issue from empirical, comparative, legal, and medical perspectives. As part of our team were economists Arindam Nandi and Alexander Persaud; law students Kelsey Stricker and Jeff Gilson; and Brian Citro, a fellow in the clinic; as well as health experts at ANSIRH (Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health), a reproductive health organization based at the University of California–San Francisco. Economists on our team analyzed U.S. demographic data from 2008 to 2012 from the American Community Survey and found that in some cases, Asian Americans had a girl preference. When some Asian Americans had two prior boys, they were more likely to have girls than were Caucasian Americans. These findings, together with the contextualized and comparative perspective presented in this book, suggest that a few Asian Americans may use some method of sex selection (not necessarily abortion) to obtain a family with gender balance. That is a family that has at least one boy and at least one girl.
We released a report in June 2014 documenting the empirical findings and disproving other misrepresentations made by supporters of sex-selective abortion bans in the United States.7 Since the report was released, no bill banning sex-selective abortion has been adopted by any state except Indiana. However, a federal judge in Indiana has blocked the enforcement of the Indiana law.8 This book builds on my collaborative as well as my own individual work on sex selection.9
Introduction
Some of the most hotly debated issues about women’s human rights today relate to practices undertaken by immigrants in their country of destination. When someone migrates to another country, she may replicate some of the cultural traditions and customs prevalent in the country of her origin. If she decides to settle permanently in the country of her destination, her children also may decide to continue those traditions. These customs can include celebrating certain holidays, eating distinctive food, and speaking a language other than the one spoken in the mainstream society. While most of these practices are unobjectionable, some practices of immigrants seem to be contrary to women’s equality and rights. In some cases, feminists, human rights advocates, and other stakeholders push for legal prohibitions on this behavior with the goal of advancing women’s rights. But these legal prohibitions themselves raise human rights concerns.
This book uses sex-selective abortion laws in the United States as a site to develop a transnational feminist approach to sort through questions about women’s human rights. Laws prohibiting sex-selective abortion, which are spreading like wildfire in the United States, are an example of laws designed to prevent a practice that is (erroneously) thought to be prevalent among people of Asian descent living in the United States. Since 2009, nearly half of the state legislative bodies in fifty states have considered laws to stop women from terminating their pregnancies if they are doing so because of the sex of the fetus. Nine states have passed sex-selective abortion bans. In May 2016, Vice President Mike Pence signed the most recent sex-selective abortion ban while he was governor of Indiana.
In regulating practices of immigrants, advocates, legislators, and even some pro-choice feminists (erroneously) draw conclusions about the scope, motives, and impact of a practice based on their (mis)understanding of how the practice is undertaken in the country of origin of certain immigrants. In some cases, if a practice is thought to be discriminatory against women and girls in the country of origin of the migrant, it is assumed that the practice will have the same impact on women in migrant-receiving countries. Policymakers, feminists, and other stakeholders often draw conclusions about the magnitude of the practice based on their understanding of its scope in the country of origin of the immigrant. Additionally, some people in the migrant-receiving countries assume that immigrants who undertake the practice do so for the same reasons as people in the country of origin of the migrant.
This phenomenon, which I refer to as decontextualization, can be observed in the discourse around bans on sex-selective abortion in the United States. The dominant narrative used to justify these laws is that: (1) people in Asia prefer sons and that is why they abort female fetuses, (2) Asians have emigrated to the United States and many of them obtain sex-selective abortions, (3) Asian Americans obtain these abortions because (like Asians) they have a sexist preference for sons and an aversion to daughters, and (4) sex selection in both the United States and Asia is discriminatory and harms women.
In the increasingly global world of communication, news and knowledge travel quickly and at a massive scale across borders. Sometimes the knowledge about people in the migrant-receiving country may itself be