Kill babies for political gain?

I love it when liberal Democrat columnists give political advice to conservative Republicans – as if they want them to succeed.

Such advice usually indicates the conservative Republicans have found a winning issue – one that is not easily refutable.

You can read examples of such commentary every day in the Big Media. But I don't think I have ever seen one as illogical, transparent and, frankly, morally repugnant as Dana Milbank's Washington Post piece May 30.

"Republicans long ago lost African-American voters," wrote Milbank. "They are well on their way to losing Latinos. And if Trent Franks prevails, they may lose Asian-Americans, too."

You'll never guess why.

TRENDING: High-school track coach fired after going scorched earth on decision to force masks on teen athletes

It's because of a bill Rep. Franks of Arizona introduced called the Prenatal Non­discrimination Act that would forbid abortions based on sex selection – the baby-killing procedure used widely in places like China and India where boys are preferred over girls.

Even Milbank agrees banning such procedures would be approved by vast majorities of Americans. So why would it cause Republicans to lose the Asian vote?

"The problem with Franks' proposal is that it's not entirely clear there is a problem," writes Milbank. "Sex-selection abortion is a huge tragedy in parts of Asia, but to the extent it's happening in this country, it's mostly among Asian immigrants."

An amazing story that chronicles the rescuing of more than 36,000 baby girls from gendercide death -- order "The Pink Pagoda: One Man's Quest to End Gendercide in China"

This statement is stunning in several ways:

• It suggests laws should not be made based on popularity or even morality, but rather on political pragmatism in the interest of not alienating special-interest groups. Of course, that's the way politics works in the Democratic Party. But is there room for two political parties operating without any sense of moral absolutes and in the interest of avoiding what Milbank himself characterizes as "a huge tragedy in parts of Asia." Shouldn't avoiding huge tragedies be the proper motivation for legislation?
• The problem, Milbanks suggests, is limited to Asian immigrants, so it should be ignored – for political expediency by Republicans and because it's no big deal.
• It reveals total callousness toward the intrinsic value of Asian babies' lives.

Milbank's take on this is that it is merely a "paternalistic" attempt by Franks to protect minorities from themselves.

Actually, it's an effort to protect their unborn offspring from cultural attitudes that most Americans find repugnant.

As Franks pointed out in his introduction of the bill, "The practice of sex selection is demonstrably increasing here in the United States, especially but not exclusively in the Asian immigrant community." He cited a study finding male births "for Chinese, Asian Indians and Koreans clearly exceeded biological variation."

"Democrats found Franks' paternalism toward minority groups to be suspect. Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.), identifying herself as a member of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, said the bill would 'lead to further stigmatization of women, especially Asian Pacific American women.' Various Asian-American legal and women's groups opposed the bill."

It wouldn't lead to "stigmatization" of women. It would prevent baby girls from being killed. It would prevent women from being coerced into abortions by their "paternalistic" and immoral cultural biases.

The suggestion that there's something racist behind the desire to save the babies of minorities – be they black, Hispanic or Asian – is ludicrous. White racists should have every motivation to see fewer minority babies born, not more.

Yet, it all comes down to political expediency for Milbanks. You would think he's truly concerned that Republicans are hurting themselves with such legislation: "But in singling out minority groups to make his political points, Franks risks aggravating a long-term problem for the Republicans. According to primary exit polls, 90 percent of GOP voters this year have been white. It's difficult in 2012 to win with such a statistic; over the coming decades, as minorities become the majority, it would relegate the party to irrelevance."

I'm sure that's Milbank's No. 1 concern – that Republicans are going to be relegated to irrelevance. Aren't you?