MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620608524

Testimony in Support of Indiana Senate Bill 334, A Bill to Prohibit Prenatal Discrimination by Prohibiting Abortion Based on Sex Selection or Genetic Abnormality.

2017· article· en· W2620608524 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Prentice

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSex selectionAbortionLawPolitical sciencePsychologyMedical educationMedicineBiologyGeneticsPregnancyObstetrics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Distinguished Chair and Honored Members of the Committee.Thank you for the opportunity to testify IN SUPPORT of SB 334, the bill to prohibit prenatal discrimination, by prohibiting abortion based on sex selection or genetic abnormalityI am a cell biologist, currently working for the Charlotte Lozier Institute in Washington, D.C. as Vice President and Research Director; I also serve as an adjunct professor at a Washington, D.C. university, and as an Advisory Board Member for the Midwest Stem Cell Therapy Center, a unique comprehensive stem cell center in Kansas. Previously I spent 10 years as Senior Fellow for Life Sciences at another policy think tank in Washington, D.C., and prior to that was almost 20 years a Professor of Life Sciences at Indiana State University, and Adjunct Professor of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine. Before that I was a faculty member in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Texas Medical School at Houston. I have done federally-funded laboratory research, lectured, and advised on these subjects extensively in the U.S. and internationally. I've taught embryology, developmental biolog)?, molecular biology and biochemistry for over 30 years to medical and nursing students, as well as undergraduate and graduate students. I am testifying in my capacity as a scientist and on behalf of the Charlotte Lozier Institute.This bill deals with preventing discrimination based on gender, or based on genetic differences, in pre-born human beings. While it might seem to some people that this is a straightforward and logical protection that is unnecessary, there is ample evidence for the need of such protection.Gender in humans is determined by the sex chromosomes, X and Y, within an individual's cells. If you have two X chromosomes (XX) you are female, if XY you are male. This genetic composition is determined at the moment of conception. Likewise many genetic abnormalities, such as Down syndrome in which an individual has an additional chromosome 21, Edwards syndrome which is trisomy 18, Patau syndrome which is trisomy 13, and numerous other single-gene and multi-gene problems, are determined at conception when the sperm and egg fuse to form the zygote, the single-celled human organism.Eugenics is the term given to attempts to control human heredity. In the past, such attempts have included efforts at selective breeding of high-quality individuals, selective sterilization of others to prevent offspring, and even infanticide. Today we see eugenic attempts at what some have termed gendercide, usually selecting for boys and against girls, in the womb or as embryos in the laboratory.There is ample evidence to show that gender selection abortion occurs in countries such as China and India.1 One group even claims that the three deadliest words in the world are It's a girl.2 Globally it is estimated that there are between 160 million and 200 million missing girls, due to sex-selection abortion.3But this problem also occurs in the United States, Canada, and other Western nations. The lack of proper records or mandated reports makes it more difficult to accumulate data on prenatal gender discrimination in North America, but there are now a number of studies that document similar sex-selection abortions taking place in the U.S. and in Canada,4 and evidence as well for the U.K.5 As in other countries, the targets are primarily girls, selected against for birth. Some opponents of prohibitions against sex-selection abortions state that such abortions are rare, but that is a tacit admission that some sex-selection abortions occur. Even one gender discrimination abortion is too many.Chapman and Benn note that the availability of a non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) that analyzes DNA fragments in the mother's blood plasma may lead to greater sex selection in developed countries.6 Some centers now even advertise the ability to determine fetal gender as early as 10 weeks post-fertilization,7 and published papers are pushing this determination even earlier, to 7 weeks8 or even 6 weeks9 after conception. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0070.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0710.024

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207