U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

99–772 PDF 2016

GENDERCIDE: CHINA’S MISSING GIRLS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE 

COMMISSION ON CHINA 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 3, 2016 

Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.cecc.gov 

CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS 

House Senate 

CHRIS SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

TIM WALZ, Minnesota 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

TED LIEU, California 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Cochairman 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS 

CHRISTOPHER P. LU, Department of Labor 

SARAH SEWALL, Department of State 

STEFAN M. SELIG, Department of Commerce 

DANIEL R. RUSSEL, Department of State 

TOM MALINOWSKI, Department of State 

PAUL B. PROTIC, Staff Director 

ELYSE B. ANDERSON, Deputy Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

CO N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS

Page 

Opening Statement of Hon. Christopher Smith, a U.S. Representative from 

New Jersey; Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China ....... 1 

Walz, Hon. Timothy, a U.S. Representative from Minnesota .............................. 3 

Franks, Hon. Trent, a U.S. Representative from Arizona .................................... 5 

Pittenger, Hon. Robert, a U.S. Representative from North Carolina .................. 6 

Chai Ling, Founder, All-Girls Allowed—In Jesus’ Name Simply Love Her ....... 8 

Hvistendahl, Mara, Contributing Correspondent for Science Magazine and 

Author of ‘‘And the City Swallowed Them’’ and ‘‘Unnatural Selection: 

Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men’’ ... 14 

Brenning, Julie Ford, Director of Research and China Outreach, Give Her 

Life ........................................................................................................................ 18

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Chai Ling .................................................................................................................. 32 

Hvistendahl, Mara ................................................................................................... 35 

Brenning, Julie Ford ............................................................................................... 40 

Smith, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Representative from New Jersey; Chairman, 

Congressional-Executive Commission on China ................................................ 57 

Rubio, Hon. Marco, a U.S. Senator from Florida; Cochairman, CongressionalExecutive Commission on China ........................................................................ 58 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Article from Foreign Policy titled, ‘‘Where Have All the Girls Gone? ’’ by 

Mara Hvistendahl, dated June 27, 2011 ............................................................ 60 

Witness Biographies ................................................................................................ 67 

(1) 

GENDERCIDE: CHINA’S MISSING GIRLS 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2016 

CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE

COMMISSION ON CHINA, Washington, DC. 

The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in 

Room 2255, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher 

Smith, Chairman, presiding. 

Also Present: Representatives Pittenger, Franks, and Walz. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER SMITH, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY; CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA 

Chairman SMITH. The Commission will come to order. Good 

afternoon to everybody. Thanks for being here. 

There are tens of millions of missing girls in China today. It is 

a predictable consequence of Beijing’s cruel and barbaric child limitation policies and cultural preference for boys. 

In her book, ‘‘Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, 

and the Consequences of a World Full of Men,’’ Mara Hvistendahl, 

one of our witnesses today, writes that ‘‘there are over 160 million 

females ‘missing’ from Asia’s population. That is more than the entire female population of the United States. And gender imbalance—which is mainly the result of sex selective abortion—is no 

longer strictly an Asian problem.’’ 

In Azerbaijan and Armenia, in Eastern Europe, and even among 

some groups in the United States, couples are making sure that at 

least one of their children is a son. So many parents now select for 

boys—so many do so—that they have skewed the sex ratio at birth 

[SRB] of the entire world. 

The global crisis of missing girls constitutes a gross human 

rights abuse—which is aptly described as gendercide—the extermination of the girl child in society simply because she happens to be 

a girl. 

For most of us, the statement ‘‘it’s a girl’’ is cause for enormous 

joy, happiness, and celebration. But in many countries, and even 

in some parts of the United States—it can be a death sentence. In 

China and India alone, an estimated three girls are aborted every 

minute simply because she is a girl. 

Gendercide is not only a predictable tragedy of lost potential, but 

also a demographic timebomb, particularly in China, with social, 

political, and potentially even security implications. 

China faces some of the world’s most sever gender imbalances— 

according to official estimates, there are currently 34 million more 

2 

males than females in China. Demographic experts, such as Valerie 

Hudson and Nicholas Eberstadt, who have testified before this 

Commission previously, have warned that China’s large number of 

‘‘surplus males’’ could lead to societal instability, higher crime rates 

and sexual violence, and has already increased trafficking of 

women and girls. 

Trafficking, in particular, is a predictable consequence. As the 

author of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000—America’s 

landmark law to combat sex and labor trafficking—I am deeply 

concerned that China has become the human sex trafficking magnet of the world. 

We have seen a marked increase of women trafficked from neighboring Southeast Asian countries such as Vietnam, Myanmar, and 

Cambodia being trafficked into China as brides and for sexual exploitation. North Korean women who escape into China also remain at risk for human trafficking for forced marriages and forced 

labor. And of course, inside of China there is great deal of trafficking going on in the country from one province to the next. 

China’s gender imbalances are significantly exacerbated by government policy—particularly its draconian population control policies. Chinese law currently bans the use of ultrasound scanning 

technologies to determine the gender of unborn babies, but because 

couples are limited to one or two children, millions have easily circumvented the law to abort female unborn babies to ensure that 

their ‘‘government-approved child’’ will be a son. 

China’s recently announced ‘‘Two-Child Policy’’ will not address 

China’s demographic imbalances. Data has shown that sex ratios 

are often more skewed after the birth of a first child. In many 

parts of China, the largest sex-ratio imbalances are found in townships or villages where many residents were already allowed to 

have a second child. 

We are holding this hearing today not only to better understand 

the magnitude of the problem, but to find better ways to help rescue the next generation of potentially missing girls from violence 

and death. 

We are asking: Are there models from other places with past or 

present gender imbalances—such as South Korea and India—that 

might be used in China and elsewhere? As Valerie Hudson has testified before this Commission previously, South Korea addressed 

skewed sex ratios in part by elevating the status and value of 

women and daughters, specifically in terms of encouraging female 

access to education, as well as equal inheritance, marriage, and 

property rights. 

Given that the Obama administration, the United Nations, and 

especially the UN Population Fund [UNFPA] have failed to adequately address the scandal of gendercide, what needs to be done 

to end these massive crimes against women? 

I would note parenthetically that my first amendment in my second term—controversial at the time, but it wasn’t so much as time 

went on—was on the forced abortion issue in China to deny any 

funds to any organization that supports or co-manages a coercive 

population control program. And UNFPA was found to be one of 

those that did so. 

3 

Then, what can Congress do to help U.S.-based companies, such 

as General Electric, to prevent ultrasound equipment which should 

be used to promote wellness of unborn children from being employed as a gender crime search and destroy mission? 

As we know, at 5 months—usually—gestation, that is when the 

sex of the baby can be determined and that is when, unfortunately, 

many of these little girl children are killed. 

What role can the President, including the State Department, 

and Congress play to encourage durable reforms of Chinese policies? Are we raising it? I have asked repeatedly in Chinese human 

rights dialogues, how robustly do we raise it? Or is it just one of 

the talking points that quickly is glided over to get to the next 

issue. And then, by the time it is over, nothing except what was 

in that room goes on to become policy. 

What U.S. laws need to be reformed or enforced? I would note 

that in 2000, I authored a visa ban law—wrote that law—for those 

complicit in coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. Not 

only has the Administration failed to enforce the ban, but has not 

responded to our December 9 letter asking why. That is not the 

first letter that I and others have sent asking for an explanation. 

Just enforce the law. Make those who are treating women in 

such a horrific manner ineligible to come to the United States. It 

is not rocket science. We have done it with the Magnitsky law, visa ́-vis Russia. We have done it with the Belarus Democracy Act 

which I wrote in 2004—for the Lukashenko regime, a terrible dictatorship in Belarus—and you hold individuals responsible and, 

again, deny them a visa. 

Congress passed and the President signed into law the Girls 

Count Act this past year—championed by our Cochair, Senator 

Rubio, and Congressman Steve Chabot. This law makes protecting 

children, especially the girl child, a priority for U.S. foreign policy. 

How should this law be implemented and directed? 

I believe—and I do believe I share the views of my colleagues— 

that by shining a light on what is happening in China with its 

missing daughters, we hope to move toward a world where every 

woman is valued and deeply respected because of her intrinsic dignity, and where every child is welcomed regardless of his or her 

gender. 

I would like to now yield to my good friend and colleague, Ranking Member Tim Walz. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY WALZ, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM MINNESOTA 

Representative WALZ. Well, thank you, Mr. Smith and thank you 

to our witnesses for being here helping to share some of your 

knowledge on this issue. 

I also thank the Chairman and I think it is important to—as this 

Commission, maybe one of the last bastions in the Congress of trying to stand on human rights as a whole and talk about the importance of our policies. As I think many of us know, this Commission 

came out of the decision to decouple the idea of human rights with 

economic trade. I think this issue goes across the board of how the 

United States approaches our relationships, approaches our responVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:52 Jun 29, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\99772.TXT DEIDRE
4 

sibilities and approaches those both unilateral and multilateral relationships. 

In November, I had the opportunity to travel and be in Hong 

Kong, and Beijing, and Tibet and had dinner with the Ambassador 

of China at his residence. I can assure you, Mr. Smith, we are raising this, we are talking about these issues. 

I cannot tell you that I feel like it is necessarily any better on 

the rule of law on human rights, stretching from religious freedoms 

to reproductive freedoms to many of the other issues that we have 

discussed in here. I can tell you that it feels to me like there is a 

candor that has not been there before and I think it is instrumental and maybe can be attributed to the work that you have 

done and this Commission has done by continuing to put this 

issues in the forefront, to refuse to allow them to not be brought 

up, to not be discussed. 

I think in it lies an opportunity to strengthen a relationship that 

is going to be critically important while this issue extends beyond 

the People’s Republic of China to India and others as we have 

talked about, this is an area that we are going to have to come to 

some agreements with. We are going to have to see some movements and I think in this Congress—once again, we have had this 

conversation at the Foreign Affairs Committee where you and I testified—how far the American people are willing to go to ensure that 

these values and these basic human rights are adhered to as we 

deal with trade deals. 

So I would love to hear your data, your perceptions on this. And 

rest assured that this is the Commission that is keeping that on 

the forefront and the Chairman has—as he stated—for many years 

continued to do that. 

I think, as I said, while I would not tell you—and I know you 

are experts in this field, the people in this room, I would not tell 

you the human rights situation is better in China, but I can tell 

you that it is being brought up, it is being discussed and there is 

a candor and a willingness to talk. I never thought I would sit in 

the Forbidden City with the Premier of China and hear him mention the Dalai Lama and clearly try to articulate—that is something new. And again, I think it is because folks come here. 

I asked this question when I was in Tibet. I have heard the 

Chairman ask it. We have asked all of you and activists, and whoever. I always say, ‘‘Does it help that this Commission continues 

to ask these questions or does it put you in danger? ’’ And they 

said, ‘‘Continue to ask, continue to bring it up, continue to explore, 

continue to try to find solutions, because if you do not, no one else 

is going to.’’ 

So I appreciate you all being here and look forward to your testimony. Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ranking Member Walz. I would 

like to now ask Trent Franks—Trent is not only the Chairman of 

the Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee, but also Chair of the Religious Freedom Caucus that works very hard on religious freedom 

issues around the world, including and especially China. 

Mr. Franks? 

5 

STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT FRANKS, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARIZONA 

Representative FRANKS. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

all of you for being here. I, quite honestly, do not have a prepared 

statement. I came from another gathering, but if I could start by 

saying that I am in violent agreement with everything that Chairman Smith said. I do not know how I could possibly construct a 

more compelling commentary. 

He is not only a friend, but this man is a friend to humanity. He 

is committed to try to see every last one of God’s children made 

whole on the miracle of life and grow up in freedom and pursue 

their dreams. It is not a new idea, but he articulates and pursues 

it in such a wonderful way. 

I continue to be extremely grateful to this man. He has been a 

hero to me forever. I will stop there. 

I wanted just to—from my own perspective—say that some of us 

have worked on this gendercide issue within our own country. Even 

in America now, sex selection abortion has begun to grow and 

Mara is here today, some of the work that she has done has been 

the basis of work that we have tried to pursue to protect children 

in this country. 

There is sort of a dialogue going on in the country about ‘‘what 

war on women? ’’ I don’t know of anything that is a more overt war 

on women than killing them simply because they are female, because they are a little tiny woman. 

I do not know how it gets more dramatic than that. When there 

is no other purpose but to say, ‘‘No, this is a woman or this is a 

little girl, and that is not what we wanted.’’ 

It is especially difficult for me because I have a little girl. I am 

reminded when she was three-years-old, we used to watch videos 

together and we clicked on one that was sort of an accident and 

it was a little boy playing a piano with his feet because he had no 

arms. It was extremely moving. 

I thought, well, this is a teaching moment. And I said, ‘‘Look at 

that baby. He is playing without any arms. Is that not amazing? ’’ 

She said, ‘‘But Daddy, he does not have any arms.’’ And she was 

wet-eyed and broken. She saw something much more real than I 

did. 

I saw a little fellow that had overcome the odds, and that was 

a victory all by itself. She saw another little human being that did 

not have any arms. And she said, ‘‘Daddy, we have just got to help 

him. We have got to get some arms and give them to him.’’ 

I said, ‘‘Well baby, there is not any extras that will fit on him.’’ 

And she said ‘‘Would one of mine fit on him.’’ And I said ‘‘You want 

to give him one of yours? ’’ And she said, ‘‘Yes, Daddy, because he 

does not have any arms.’’ In other words, each one of us would 

have one. 

So the teaching moment was for me because my little girl saw 

another little human being that did not have any arms and she 

was willing to give him one of hers. When we have that kind of 

moral impulse in our souls and hearts, that is when we will finally 

achieve what this miracle of human life and living on this Earth 

is all about. 

6 

I know that that is the goal—at least moving toward that goal 

with this hearing today—and of the many people that have gathered here today. I am—for whatever reason that is a strange thing 

to say—but I am so proud of all of you; you know, that you would 

have the courage to come here and take the time out to speak on 

something of this magnitude, where we are killing little girls by 

the millions simply because they are little girls. 

If that is not wrong, nothing on Earth is wrong. God help us to 

hold to that reality. I would only say to you in closing, I think some 

day—as has been said in different ways before—there will come a 

time when our children will ask us, ‘‘Well, where were you? Where 

were you when they were killing little girls just because they were 

little girls? ’’ My little girl may be asking me that someday, Chris, 

Mr. Chairman, and if she does, thank God because of the work that 

is being done here today, I will have an answer. 

So thank all of you very, very much. Let us not quit until we 

win. It is not over until we win. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Commissioner Franks, thank you very much 

for that very eloquent statement and for all of your work on human 

rights, especially trying to rescue the girl child. 

I would like to now yield to Commissioner Pittenger who has also 

a lifetime of commitment to defending religious freedom and promoting the Gospel, having worked with Bill Bright for so many 

years—a man that I greatly respected and do as well as for Bob 

Pittenger. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT PITTENGER, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Representative PITTENGER. Mr. Chairman, I would carry your 

briefcase anywhere you want to go. You are my hero. 

Last week Charlotte hosted the Ambassador from China to celebrate Chinese New Year. The Governor was there, the Mayor was 

there, I was there, we spoke. 

My comments at that meeting which was basically a trade meeting between the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and our efforts to 

introduce greater trade with China, related to the imperfections of 

our country and an honest dialogue with China. I spoke freely 

about the concerns that I had with human rights, religious liberties, freedoms of conscience that are pervasive throughout China. 

As I spoke in honesty about our own country—and as you look 

at our TV and you see the violence, and the drugs, and the racial 

issues, and on and on—we are not a perfect country. That does not 

keep us from having an honest dialogue with something that is 

very critical. To that end, I would like to offer these formal remarks. 

The Chinese Government has shown a blatant disregard for the 

basic human rights of women. This egregious attitude has magnified the underlying preferences of the traditional patriarchal Chinese society through birth control policies and propaganda resulting in a society set against women and responsible for the systemic 

killings of millions of baby girls annually through abortion and infanticide. 

7 

China’s two-child policy does little more than their previous onechild policy in combating this detrimental mass prejudice against 

daughters. 

Previously, under the one-child policy a family having a daughter 

as their first and only child may have felt strong pressure to take 

immediate drastic measures to avoid having or keeping the baby 

girl. Under today’s policy, a family may have two children, but societal pressure to have all or at least one son is no less great. 

While a family may feel less pressure to kill or abandon their 

first born daughter they would have under the one-child policy, 

many families under the new policy may still resort to infanticidal 

practices in an effort to have sons, particularly when a family has 

already had one daughter. 

China has officially banned the sharing of a baby’s sex to expectant parents by doctors and caregivers. However, there is a vibrant 

underground market of illicit clinics which readily provide this information to those worried that they may be carrying an unborn 

little baby girl. 

The long-term demographic, humanitarian, and economic consequences on China’s population control policies are complex and 

they are widespread. Today, men outnumber women by nearly 34 

million in China. Evidence from China’s neighbors, Vietnam and 

Korea, clearly show that the long-term effects of population control 

policies are far-reaching and costly to the state. 

This imbalance is already fueling human trafficking in Southeast 

Asia as women and young girls from Cambodia, Myanmar, Vietnam, and other countries are increasingly trafficked into China for 

forced marriage and commercial sexual exploitation. 

With a rapidly aging population, shrinking workforce, and a 

large cohort of young men who will be unable to establish families, 

China’s continued adherence to its population control policy not 

only violates international human rights standards, but goes 

against China’s own interest. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today to hear their 

own stories and what actions they are taking to bring to an end 

this horrific atrocity, to what we can do as a Congress and a nation 

to address it. Thank you and God bless you for your work. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Pittenger, for your 

excellent remarks. 

Let me now go to our distinguished witnesses, beginning first 

with Chai Ling who is founder of All Girls Allowed, a nonprofit organization which seeks to expose the injustices of China’s one-child 

policy with a particular emphasis on gendercide and to rescue girls 

and mothers from that terrible, terrible crime against women. 

A leader in the 1989 Tiananmen Square student movement and 

two-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Chai Ling escaped from 

China and received her MPA from Princeton and MBA from Harvard. 

I would say I remember when she first came to Capitol Hill and 

received a hero’s welcome. She was one of the most wanted student 

activist in all of China. The government, the police wanted her in 

one place and that was in jail. Thank God she was able to escape 

and tell the story. 

8 

I remember in this building across the way in 2172—the Foreign 

Affairs Committee downstairs—you could have heard a pin drop 

when she spoke about what the students were trying to achieve 

and also simultaneously the brutality that she and fellow students 

suffered as a result of that dictatorship’s horrible, horrible misdeeds those days and into the following weeks. 

She is the founder of Jenzabar, a company that provides higher 

education software management solutions, and a cofounder of the 

Jenzabar Foundation which supports the humanitarian efforts of 

student leaders. Chai Ling is also the author of ‘‘A Heart for Freedom,’’ a memoir detailing her journey from a fishing village in 

rural China to Tiananmen Square and then, thankfully, here to 

America. She has never ceased in telling the story and her organization, as we will hear, has literally rescued the girl child from 

what would have been death because she was a girl. 

We will then hear from Mara Hvistendahl, a journalist and author of ‘‘And the City Swallowed Them’’ and ‘‘Unnatural Selection: 

Choosing Boys Over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full 

of Men,’’ a book that I have read. I thank her for that. It was very 

heavily documented and provided extraordinary insights. 

She is a contributing correspondent at Science and a founding 

member of the writers’ cooperative Deca. She also writes for the 

New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic, Popular 

Science, and other publications. 

Her 2011 book, ‘‘Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls,’’ 

on prenatal sex selection and the gender imbalance it has produced 

in Asia was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize and the Los Angeles 

Times Book Prize. For eight years, she covered science, politics, 

and other issues in China. She now lives in Minneapolis. 

We will then hear from Julie Ford Brenning who is the Director 

of Research for Give Her Life, a nonprofit organization seeking to 

end gendercide via social enterprise in Asia. 

At Give Her Life, she has created the largest database in the 

world solely devoted to the sex ratio at birth in Asia. Julie graduated from Brigham Young University with a degree in political 

science and received her Master’s Degree in Asian studies from the 

University of Utah where she studied the sex ratio at birth in 

China. 

She has lived in Beijing as well as Taipei and resides with her 

husband and son in Logan, Utah. 

So Ling, if you could begin. 

STATEMENT OF CHAI LING, FOUNDER, ALL GIRLS ALLOWED— 

IN JESUS’ NAME SIMPLY LOVE HER 

Ms. CHAI. Yes. Chairman Smith, thank you again for hosting numerous hearings like this to shine light on the most important 

human rights issue on Earth today. Thank you, Congressman 

Pittenger, and Congressman Walz, and Congressman Franks. Your 

unity and presence gives hope and encourages continuing to carry 

out the work the Lord has set forth for us. 

I want to share with you how your important voice has made a 

difference through a few testimonies and that we have experienced 

during your hearings alone. Then I would move on to talk about 

what needs to happen next. 

9 

As many of you may remember, on April 30, 2015, all of you here 

at Congress—Chairman Smith’s hearing on China’s one-child policy—during that hearing, I testified that ending the one-child policy is not up to the Chinese Government, but up to God. We all 

ended that hearing with a prayer. 

Five months later, on October 29, 2015, China indeed declared 

the ending of the most brutal one-child policy. It is something that 

has been ongoing for 35 years and killed over 400 million babies. 

Nobody even thought it was possible that it could come to an end, 

but God brought it to an end. I believe today God will do something 

even more greater, that is ending gendercide. 

You may also remember in May 2012, when Mr. Chen 

Guangcheng was pushed out of the American Embassy in Beijing. 

His life was in grave danger. Chairman Smith, you hosted the second urgent hearing—we prayed and declared his freedom. Four 

days later he was released from China and landed in the United 

States in New York City. I will show the pictures of him. 

You may also remember in December 2011, when a woman was 

put into China’s ‘‘black jail’’ with her nursing child and her 70- 

year-old mother. We prayed for her safety and freedom. We learned 

later on—12 hours later—she was released from prison on a dark 

night and was dumped into a crossroad somewhere 2 hours away 

from Beijing. 

Little did we know, she was still determined to petition for justice. She went right back to Tiananmen Square to petition again 

in the morning and she was thrown into prison again. However, 

the prayers and fasting were continuing in the United States until 

she was released again. 

So what I want to say here is, before I came to know the invisible 

God, each hearing was a drag and was a struggle for me. We would 

be reporting these awful human rights violations—each time triggering our own memories and PTSDs [post-traumatic stress disorders]—and walking away seeing very little got done. 

However, when I came to know God through Jesus Christ after 

your November 2009 hearing, each hearing has become a new and 

different experience. My eyes were opened and I now experience 

this is not just another hearing about facts, about hopes, and about 

asks. It is also a place of congregating with saints both here and 

also the many that are watching right now through the webcasting, 

at our church—our elders prayed this morning. 

It is a place to make a declaration. It is a place to make a prayer. 

It is a place to make a transaction with God. When we pray together and agree in unity and we believe, we will see powerful 

transformations. 

That is why I believe God and the holy angels and hosts are listening intensely and watching along with all of the staff and even 

the Chinese Government’s staff. I believe He will honor us as we 

testify according to His will and we will be given what we are asking for. When we seek, we will find. When we knock, the door will 

be opened. These are the Scriptures He has promised in so many 

areas in the Holy Bible. 

Today I am asking boldly in faith for the leaders in America, the 

leaders in China, and the Almighty God to bring a swift end to 

gendercide, to save every little precious girl, simply because they 

10 

are girls. And to make China have an all-children-allowed policy, 

and an all-girls-allowed policy right away. 

These statistics on gendercide in China show the picture—referring to slide 9—five baby girls born for every six baby boys born. 

As many of you have mentioned, China indeed has a massive 

gendercide going on, coincided with the brutal enforcement of the 

one-child policy. The most obvious thing is for every sixth girl that 

was supposed to be born, number six would be killed. The number 

six boys were growing up without wives to marry. 

So China today has, reportedly, 37 million men that will not 

have wives to marry. There are massive consequences for these 

kinds of gendercide issues. There are links to increased sex trafficking, rape, prostitution, and overall crimes. China alone conducts 

60 percent of the worldwide sex trafficking. 

Historically, a surplus of young men has led to unrest and potentially global wars. There is data stating World War II era Japan 

and modern day Afghanistan and Pakistan also experienced a 

bachelor boom and unrest. 

So this is not just the war against young baby girls. It is a war 

against humanity. It is a war against world peace. So it is that important. That is why we are here and asking for change and asking 

for an end to these brutal crimes. 

In China, gendercide has two causes. The government’s population control policy and the people’s bias and actions both contribute to conducting gendercide. So, therefore, gendercide needs to 

be taken down on both fronts. A new way of life and gender equality harmony needs to be planted and built up in every level of society at the same time. 

As the Scripture guides us today, ‘‘See, today I appoint you over 

nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and to 

overthrow, to build and to plant.’’ Jeremiah 1:10 

So the taking down and the building up needs to take place at 

the same time. These two cannot be separated. So because of that, 

our recommendation for the policy would be the two-child policy 

needs to be replaced by the all-children-allowed policy immediately. 

That will end the killing of the deemed illegal children. But an allgirls-allowed policy and culture then needs to be put in place and 

promoted nationwide as soon as possible. This will help build up 

a culture that welcomes girls and cherishes women. 

I want to say that the data has shown there is a steady rise of 

the gender imbalance along with China’s implementation of the 

one-child policy. So in 1979, right at the beginning of the one-child 

policy, the ratio between boys and girls is 106 to 100. By 1988, it 

rose to 111 boys born to every 100 girls. By 2001, it reached up to 

117 boys versus 100 girls. By 2010—I think 2012, it reached up to 

119 to 100. 

So there is direct correlation between the continued growing gender imbalance gap, versus enforcement of the population control. 

That means even though we are celebrating the amazing, awesome 

victory God has done through ending the one-child policy, the twochildren policy will be just a continued perpetuation of—will continue to enlarge these kinds of gender gaps and will be continuing 

to hurt the girls and the mothers. 

11 

Other data also showed that along China’s maps, in the area 

that the one-child policy has been most strictly enforced, the ratio 

between boys and girls is rising to be 130 boys born for every 100 

girls born. The other more lighter blue area where there is less 

strictly enforced—again the gender balance, a much more normal, 

close to normal ratio. So there is another confirmation that the 

population control policy is a direct cause for China’s gendercide 

and therefore, needs to be abolished altogether. 

Most recently we celebrated another great victory from God who 

blessed China to allow the hukou residence status reform. This 

would allow 13 million ‘‘extra’’ children who did not have resident 

status, did not have hukou, who could not go to school, who could 

not have ID, who could not travel, the privilege to have passports 

now will be legal. So this impacts 90 million to 100-plus million 

family members. This is another great, wonderful thing that God 

has done, and we just hope—my hope and prayer for this one is 

it will not become a corrupted and punitive process toward families 

who are in the process of getting hukou. And will not make them 

so unaffordable to pay and to get their ‘‘extra’’ children legal. 

So I have one more argument against the two-children policy. 

That is this policy achieved very little for China’s population control objectives. As we see from other neighboring countries through 

the World Factbook that the replacement rate around South Korea 

is 1.25, in Japan it is 1.4, in Singapore it is at .01, and Taiwan is 

1.12. That means for the family who is married in China that even 

the two-child policy is equivalent to the all-children-allowed policy 

already because they—without much encouragement—they most 

likely will not exceed that cap. 

However, for those women and young teenage girls who today— 

every year over 4 million of them have to go through abortions because they do not have a legal birth permit. They can only obtain 

it through a marriage status or certificate. The two-child-policy still 

remains to be a death sentence against their unborn children. It is 

still an order of gendercide against their bodies. That is every year, 

4 million young teenage girls and mothers that need to be rescued 

and helped. Therefore, the two-child policy has to be abolished altogether, immediately, and replaced with the all-children-allowed policy. 

As of China now—not too many babies are being born, but too 

few babies are being born, especially too few baby girls are being 

born. A recent Wall Street Journal, in December 2012, had done a 

very good analysis and said, ‘‘The previous generation fears a population explosion, but for today’s global economy, the problem is just 

the opposite. Falling fertility rates and aging workforces will 

plague the developing world. The race is on for innovative solutions 

on the world factory floor. China will soon confront a serious labor 

shortage, forcing scores of western branches to remake their operations.’’ 

So China will see—reap its own consequences of the policy if they 

do not do something quickly and immediately. So all of this data 

points to the all-children-allowed policy needing to be started right 

away. But even when they start that, this alone will not end 

gendercide. 

12 

By ending gendercide, the all-girls-allowed policy needs to be put 

into place and be implemented right away. So we recommend to 

implement that in four areas. 

One is to end gendercide during a baby girl’s birth. Another one 

is ending gendercide during a girl’s childhood. A third one is ending 

gendercide in marriages. The forth one is ending gendercide in sex 

education and purity before marriage teaching. Again, we believe 

with God all things are possible. 

I am going to move on to talk about some of the experiences our 

workers in China—we have piloted this baby-shower program. We 

have found amazing, remarkable results that can indeed end 

gendercide. 

The baby-shower program was modeled after the American tradition to basically show fellowship and gifting and welcome to expecting mothers. In this situation our church—believers went around 

to the rural areas to find mothers who were expecting baby girls 

and under oppression from their family and environment to welcome them. 

This picture—they took when she was pregnant with her girls. 

There was an accident after—even though she already had a forced 

sterilization operation, her whole family was upset, her husband 

wanted her to abort, but when we shared God’s word with her, she 

decided to keep the baby girl. Later on the baby girl did indeed 

come to life and the whole family rejoiced and came to faith. 

So in the past two years we were finally able to get some decent 

data. So each year over thousands of—almost 4 to 5 thousand 

times all of these families are being visited by our local workers. 

We have 870 families being reached. So in 2014, more than 200 

families and babies are being served, and 37 baby girls are being 

rescued from forced and coerced abortions. In 2015, similar results 

have been shown. In this situation, 50 babies were rescued. 

What we found is among all of the babies rescued from forced 

and coerced abortions, there is an alarming ratio of 2 to 1. That 

means for every two baby girls we rescued, there was only one 

baby boy rescued. So basically, people are aborting their baby girls 

at twice the rate of aborting their baby boys. 

This is a very random sample of the families we visited. There 

is not a whole agenda thing—only pick girls or only pick boys, and 

they end up helping both boys and girls. We realized when we offer 

this baby-shower program to meet the expectant mother when they 

are pregnant and at high risk of aborting the babies, we can help 

reduce the gender ratio. In 2014, for every 100 baby girls being 

born, the boy’s ratio becomes 109. So that is below the 119 boys 

to 100 girls’ ratio. If we do not rescue those 37 babies, the ratio 

would jump to 124:100. That is 2014 data. 

In 2015, the ratio becomes 118:100. But if we had not rescued 

those baby girls and baby boys, the ratio would jump back to 

126:100. That means for every 126 baby boys born, only 100 baby 

girls will be born, 26 baby girls would have been aborted. 

So this gendercide practice is very pervasive in China. This program to really intercept the families when they are about to make 

those critical decisions can, indeed, help to save lives and end 

gendercide. 

13 

The second area of gendercide took place during China’s massive 

industrialization. Over 270 million workers are moving off of the 

farm and going to various cities. By doing so, they left their wives 

and their children behind. Today China has 61 million ‘‘left-behind’’ 

children. These kids tend to suffer very low self-esteem and many 

girls suffer physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, potentially. 

As we are speaking right now, China is getting ready for its Chinese New Year and China is having the largest migration on 

Earth. This is a good time to really talk about the family, what 

family should be, for the government to make policies to encourage 

the farmers to bring their families to cities. So the reason hukou 

reform is a very good one—we encourage them to continue to create 

educational opportunities for these children to be brought back, 

brought over together with the family—when they move, they move 

together as a family and the husband will take their wives with 

them. 

Our work, again, is to try to combat this massive problem out 

there and we see when we visit these ‘‘left-behind’’ children to show 

them God’s love and words and give them fellowships, we see great 

transformation. So, again, this program is to offer family visits, 

offer summer jobs, offer gathering field trips. That, again, can 

make a difference in lives and souls saved and their dignity being 

restored. 

And the third gendercide takes place in marriages. This is another example of—a lot of times these marriage issues are intensified when a birth issue, especially a baby girl birth is coming on 

the horizon. This Mrs. Gui Xiu is an example. She was expecting 

her fourth child. It came out to be a girl. 

The husband was so mad he not only forced her to try to abort, 

but didn’t succeed. Then when the baby was born, for four or five 

days he would not even look at the baby. He was forcing the mother to give away the baby. The mother was crying. The whole family 

was in distress. 

Again, our worker took a whole day bus ride to come and visit 

this family, share the word of the Lord and the husband just listened. Finally, he broke down. He said, ‘‘Do you know I had a boy 

and he died when he was 12. The whole family took on such debt. 

That is why we try to have more children so I can hope to have 

another boy to replace my lost son. That is why I thought I could 

not afford to have the fourth girl.’’ 

When he realized God made girls and boys in his image and they 

all are equally important and valued, he burst into smile and said, 

‘‘What would you name my daughter? ’’ The worker just said ‘‘Rebecca.’’ That was the name in the Bible of Isaac’s wife. 

So this family, again, was reunited in the Lord. He came to the 

Lord. Now they are living happily. I want to say happily ever after, 

but they are trying to go for another pregnancy, go for another boy. 

So their work is not quite ended, it continues. [Laughter.] 

A fourth area of gendercide is really endangering youth. China 

tends to have a really conservative sexual view toward sex and purity. With the reform and the openness, the Western culture came 

in. Now this whole generation is very confused and there is very 

little protection and education. 

14 

We are going to try to pilot the program in 2016 and we will report back. But that is contributing to the 4 million abortions every 

year, and so many broken hearts and broken souls, and broken 

lives. 

So I want to conclude my presentation here on this thing and invite you to pray with me that God will end—will hear our prayers 

and call the Chinese Government to end the two-child policy with 

the all-children-allowed policy immediately, to install an all-girlsallowed policy immediately, and to stop oppressing the churches in 

China because we need the church workers like our workers. We 

had a team of 35 of them may be able to visit and save thousands, 

or a couple thousand families, children and families through God, 

but we need 35 million people to help us end gendercide through 

the Lord. 

Currently China’s government has regulations that will not allow 

NGOs [non-governmental organizations] to register with religious 

affiliation. We want that regulation to be changed. It is not the 

law. It is just a regulation. So we can work and serve legally. Some 

of our workers were so harassed by the police that they quit. So 

our 2015 work suffered greatly. 

Again, I would like to ask the U.S. leaders to help us to voice 

and to talk so we can work and serve with dignity and with peace. 

Again, the last word to leaders of China and also America—as wise 

King Solomon said, ‘‘By justice a king gives a country stability . . .’’ 

I know there is no greater thing China wanted, to have stability. 

Now we are showing them, by ancient wisdom, how they can get 

it by administering justice. 

So having said that, in Jesus’ name I pray and declare and trust 

His will to be done. Amen. 

Chairman SMITH. Chai Ling, thank you very much for that very 

comprehensive and moving testimony. Like you, I would not be 

here doing what I do if I did not believe in the power of prayer, 

God’s mercy and His abiding love. I do think prayer and works, ultimately, are the only two elements that are necessary to bring horrific crimes to an end. So I join you in that prayer to end this terrible—— 

Ms. CHAI. Thank you. I also want to acknowledge my husband 

who has been an amazing support for my ministry, for my work, 

and has been my inspiration here also. He is sitting here, so I 

would acknowledge him. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Ms. CHAI. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. I would like to now recognize Mara 

Hvistendahl. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chai appears in the appendix.] 

STATEMENT OF MARA HVISTENDAHL, CONTRIBUTING CORRESPONDENT FOR SCIENCE MAGAZINE AND AUTHOR OF 

‘‘AND THE CITY SWALLOWED THEM’’ AND ‘‘UNNATURAL SELECTION: CHOOSING BOYS OVER GIRLS, AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF A WORLD FULL OF MEN’’ 

Ms. HVISTENDAHL. Thank you, Chairman Smith, for providing 

me with the opportunity to share my thoughts on China’s imbalVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:52 Jun 29, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\99772.TXT DEIDRE
15 

anced population and on the horrible effects of sex selection over 

the past 35 years. 

We are all here because we care about the world’s women. I appear before you as well as a journalist who spent nearly a decade 

in China reporting on various issues. I spent three years of that 

time investigating the disappearance of nearly 100 million women 

from the global population. 

As I detailed in my book, ‘‘Unnatural Selection,’’ sex-selective 

abortion and other forms of sex selection have spread beyond China 

and India and into countries as varied as Albania, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam, as well as to 

some groups in the United States and Canada. China is the world 

leader when it comes to sex selection, but it has some factors in 

common with these other countries, and I will explain what those 

are. 

Sex-ratio distortion is now a massive international issue, on the 

scale of the HIV epidemic in terms of the number of lives it has 

affected. Yet despite the scope of this problem, there has been very 

little international response. I appreciate the work that Congress 

is doing, but globally, the response has been disappointing. That is 

in part because it is assumed that China and India alone bear responsibility for what is happening. That is not true. 

Currently, there are 118 boys born for every 100 girls in China. 

That sex ratio at birth becomes painfully apparent in visiting elementary schools in many parts of China. Go to a classroom in 

many second- and third-tier cities, and you will see that there are 

many more boys than girls. 

While China’s population policies have definitely contributed to 

that gap, even as population targets have been relaxed and grown 

a little more lenient, the sex ratio at birth has continued to rise. 

Sex selection is not likely to go away under the current two-child 

policy. In fact, if you look back at the past few decades, the sex 

ratio at birth has steadily increased. 

When I began researching my book, I traveled to a county called 

Suining in northern Jiangsu province, an area that was once agricultural and is now rapidly industrializing. At the time I visited, 

Suining had a sex ratio at birth of 153 boys per 100 girls—an enormous gap that was readily apparent everywhere I went. Everybody 

talked about what was going on; they could see the sex-ratio imbalance taking shape on the streets and in their neighborhoods. 

Yet Suining wasn’t the county in China with the worst sex ratio 

at birth at the time. I simply chose it because I was working with 

a photographer named Ariana Lindquist, who knew people there. 

Ariana and I spent a lot of time with the woman whom I call 

Liao Li in my book. She was a strong and independent woman. She 

managed the finances in her family and in many ways called the 

shots. She kept the family cell phone when her husband was away 

on construction jobs. 

Liao Li and her husband sometimes struggled to make ends 

meet, but they were not the poorest family in their neighborhood. 

In some ways they were relatively typical of the stage of urbanization that China is in right now. All of those factors made me think 

that Liao Li would be a good guide to understanding the sex-selective abortions that were going on around her. 

16 

Now over the several days that I spent with her, Liao Li was 

quite critical about the epidemic that had hit Suining. She said 

things like, ‘‘It is stupid to abort a girl when you are yourself, after 

all, a woman.’’ 

And yet, shortly before we returned to Shanghai, she had Ariana 

and me over for dinner, and we drank some warm beer, and partway through the dinner Liao Li stood up and said, ‘‘I aborted two 

girls.’’ That threw me for a loop, but as my reporting took me to 

other parts of China and to places like Albania and India and Vietnam, I realized that her situation was not, in fact, all that atypical. 

Around the world, it is not the poorest people in villages who are 

perpetrating these horrible crimes against women. It is the relatively well-off or somewhat educated people who are moving to cities. Sex selection starts in wealthy or middle-class areas and then 

trickles down from there. After several decades of rampant sex selection, China is at a relatively late stage of this process, which is 

why sex-selective abortions are now occurring in second- and thirdtier cities. In India, sex selection started among the elite in Delhi. 

I will talk a bit about how exactly it began there. 

Unfortunately in 2016, sexism is far from dead. A preference for 

boys still exists in many parts of the world. Combine that with economic development, which means that just as people are moving to 

cities, new technologies like ultrasound emerge to give them access 

to sex determination. Ultrasound is what is used most commonly 

now, but it is not the future of sex selection, as I will explain. 

The third factor is that many of the countries where sex selection 

is common have a history of coercive population policies and of 

abortion being used by women—in some cases forcibly—as birth 

control. This is the case in China with the one-child policy, most 

obviously, but also in Vietnam, with its two-child policy, and in several other countries. India, in particular, had a very horrible dark 

period of population control. 

When all of these factors are combined—access to new technologies, pressure on birth rates, and coercive population policies— 

people end up taking measures to ensure that they have a son by 

whatever means possible. 

So sex selection is therefore a modern problem, but it is also a 

problem for which Western nations, including the United States, 

bear responsibility. 

If you were in Washington debating policy 40 years ago, there is 

a good chance that you would have been asked to consider the 

issue of population growth, which was front and center at the time. 

Books like ‘‘The Population Bomb,’’ which warned of an eminent 

population explosion, were very popular. Western intellectuals were 

obsessed with solving the population problem by focusing on the 

developing world, where birthrates were highest. 

That is where we went wrong. To some extent population growth 

was a legitimate concern, but this kind of single-handed and imperialistic focus on the developing world was a supreme error. 

Scholars were enlisted in the quest to lower the birthrates. It 

soon became clear that women in many parts of the world continued to have children until they had a son. So the idea emerged to 

guarantee them a son on the first try and avoid all of those extra 

births. Never mind that the extra births were girls. 

17 

As a science journalist, I am embarrassed to note that many of 

the world’s top science magazines featured gushing articles on possible sex selection methods at the time. 

Now, what is particularly shocking is that America’s advocates of 

sex selection actually considered the horrible effects of a world 

where men seriously outnumbered women. They knew that women’s rights would suffer, that women would be coveted as wives and 

mothers and traded as chattel, and yet they continued to promote 

sex selection as a population control method. 

In the mid-1960s, Sheldon Segal, the medical director of the Population Counsel, helped train doctors in Delhi at the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences in an early sex determination method. 

A few years later, the institute became a site of shocking medical 

experiments in which doctors brought in poor pregnant women and 

offered them the opportunity to determine sex—which in 1975 was 

revolutionary—and then tracked whether or not they aborted based 

on sex. The doctors wrote up the results in a medical journal. 

The same year, the Chinese Medical Journal—which is one of 

China’s top journals—published a paper by a group of doctors in 

Liaoning province describing a very similar experiment. 

Not long after that, sex selection took off in both countries. And, 

of course, the one-child policy was introduced in China in 1980, 

which didn’t help. I believe that sex-selective abortion’s usefulness 

as a population control method is one reason why the Chinese Government has had little incentive to eradicate it. 

Today China is seeing a sharp rise in bride-buying and trafficking of women, both for marriage and for sex. So-called ‘‘marriage agencies’’ have cropped up across China to help men buy 

wives. Women are typically trafficked from poor western provinces 

to eastern China. I met several women in reporting my book who 

were brought from rural Yunnan province to Jiangsu province to 

marry men who spoke a different dialect and belonged to a different culture. The men might just as well have been foreign, so 

different are these two areas. 

Increasingly, women are also trafficked internationally from 

countries like Vietnam and North Korea to provide Chinese men 

with wives. The U.S. State Department now lists China’s sex-ratio 

imbalance as a major cause of trafficking in the region. 

Meanwhile, as technology moves forward, we are entering a new 

era of sex selection. Although abortion and ultrasound still account 

for the majority of missing girls, this is about to change. 

So-called fetal DNA tests, or blood tests a woman can take as 

early as seven weeks of pregnancy to determine the sex of the 

fetus, recently came on the market. That is really a game-changer. 

In the United States these are now widely available, and when I 

had my first child in Shanghai in 2013 they were becoming available there as well. I assume that the Chinese Government will not 

allow these tests to be used for sex determination, which is technically illegal in China, but much like ultrasound, I assume that 

they will be used for that purpose. 

Sex selection is also practiced during in-vitro fertilization [IVF] 

using a technique called preimplantation genetic diagnosis. That is 

something that the United States excels in. Assisted reproductive 

technology is heavily regulated in Western Europe and in AusVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:52 Jun 29, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\99772.TXT DEIDRE
18 

tralia, but America is really the Wild West. Couples from China 

and India now travel to California just to choose the sex of their 

baby using IVF. We need to ensure that these technologies are 

properly used. 

Sex selection is a major international issue, and it demands an 

international response. As a nation concerned with humanitarian 

causes and as the birthplace of the technologies that are now so 

brutally affecting populations in Asia, the United States should 

play a leading role in combating sex selection. 

Congress should urge the United Nations to devote more attention to publicizing the impact of sex selection worldwide and to 

pursuing meaningful action to prevent it. Legislators should outlaw 

the use of IVF for social sex selection, or sex selection not connected to sex-linked diseases. This is a regulation that is already 

on the books in much of the Western world. 

Congress should further regulate the use of fetal DNA tests and 

limit their use to genetic disease or sex-linked disease, while also 

ensuring that they are administered in clinics with oversight from 

a genetic counselor. Last time I checked, you could order a kit that 

supposedly tests for fetal sex online. 

I want to add that the solution to sex-ratio imbalance is not to 

further infringe on the rights of women by limiting access to fair 

family planning—and I mean family planning not in the way the 

Chinese Government uses the term, but services that women actually seek out themselves. If we were to ban abortion outright, 

women would suffer, and sex selection would not stop. That also 

does nothing to prevent couples from turning to IVF to get a son. 

I believe the solution is to eradicate the population control policies, including China’s current two-child policy, that encourage people to abort girls; to introduce incentive schemes tailored to the 

urban residents who actually practice sex selection; and to better 

regulate new reproductive technologies, both in the United States 

and abroad. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you so very much for your testimony, 

your insights, and recommendations. It gives us a lot to follow up 

on, so I do thank you again and I do have some questions when 

we get to the Q and A part. 

Ms. HVISTENDAHL. Sure. 

Chairman SMITH. Now, Ms. Brenning, please proceed. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hvistendahl appears in the appendix.] 

STATEMENT OF JULIE FORD BRENNING, DIRECTOR OF 

RESEARCH AND CHINA OUTREACH, GIVE HER LIFE 

Ms. BRENNING. Thank you. I am grateful for the opportunity to 

present today to the China Commission. I just want to dedicate 

this speech to my daughter, my 10-month-old daughter. I hope that 

she can grow up in a world without gendercide. 

The Chinese ‘‘Book of Songs’’ states, ‘‘When a son is born, let him 

sleep on the bed, Clothe him with fine clothes . . . When a daughter is born, Let her sleep on the ground, Wrap her in common 

wrappings and give broken tiles to play . . .’’ 

19 

We know that gendercide is bigger than just the two-child policy. 

The root cause of the sex-ratio imbalance in China is the patriarchal kinship system. 

Now let us talk about this. The branches of this root include 

patrilocality or virilocal marriage. For those who do not know what 

that is, that is when a women marries and moves in with her new 

husband’s family—the roots also include continuation of patrilineal 

lines, ancestry worship, Confucianism’s devaluation of girls, expectation of sons to provide for the elderly, discrimination in society 

against women and girls, particularly in land rights, and a low fertility rate—as we have discussed—caused by the two-child policy. 

Now the Care for Girls Campaign is the policy in China to curb 

the sex ratio at birth, but does not fully address these root causes 

whatsoever. The sex ratio at birth in 2000, when the policy began, 

was 119 to 100 and has since digressed to 121 to 100 in 2010. A 

decade of this policy in China has done little to stop the practice 

of selective abortion. 

Now, according to my research, I want to share some best strategies that governments can take. We all know that the consequences 

of the skewed sex ratio are well-documented. It is now vital to address the policy implications and how to implement successful government initiatives that will get to the roots of the sex-ratio imbalance. 

So from my research, particularly in India, I want to present four 

basic strategies or best practices that governments ought to undertake to balance the sex ratio. 

Number one is strict enforcement. So part of the problem with 

these policies is not even that there is a law or the wording of the 

law, but rather its lack of implementation altogether. One legislator in India asserted that the poor sex ratio, ‘‘. . . is all God’s desire. There is nothing we can do about it.’’ 

Unfortunately, I would estimate that most government officials 

do not act upon the laws to lower the SRB because they do not believe in the laws, or they simply do not believe in the value of 

women. I suggest that higher-up government officials hold local officials accountable for not implementing these laws. These officials 

also ought to be required to attend intensive training about the 

consequences of high sex ratio and be educated on the value and 

empowerment of women. 

Now I want to share an example. In Punjab, India, an intensive 

naming, blaming, and shaming campaign occurred in 2005. It was 

headed up by one local official. Because of his commitments to the 

campaigns, the sex ratio was improved to above 900 girls to 1,000 

boys in 77 villages. Strict enforcement is essential. 

Number two, multi-pronged approach. There are campaigns 

going on all throughout Asia—both government and nonprofit—to 

combat this problem. But they are sporadic. They are non-uniform 

and they are happening in isolation from one another. 

So I suggest the ‘‘three U’s’’ of a multi-pronged approach. It is 

really essential. The first one is unity. Areas with a unified effort 

that include NGOs, government funding and force, and community 

involvement show the greatest potential for lowering the SRB— 

which is the sex ratio at birth. 

20 

Number two is an umbrella of methods. As these three entities 

work together, they ought to include an umbrella of different methods, such as shaming and rewarding economic themes, encouraging 

better marriage practices, et cetera. 

Number three is uniform. So once these entities begin working 

together, they need to share their best practices and come together 

in a uniformed policy that actually works. 

Now I will share an example. In 2013, in Jaipur, India, government officials actually teamed up with civil society groups to take 

action. The campaign involved pregnant women volunteers and a 

police station dedicated solely to reporting violations of the law. 

The head of the state intervention unit team—referring to the 

pregnant women and these NGOs—said, ‘‘. . . it is their courage 

that helped our team apprehend medical practitioners. They play 

a pivotal role in our strength.’’ These entities must work together 

for things to start happening. 

So the third best practice is effective assessment. In most of the 

government campaigns there is no assessment occurring whatsoever. They may keep track of the number of arrests of doctors or 

maybe the number of sonography ultrasound machines that are actually sealed within a certain amount of time, but there is actually 

no records keeping track of the sex ratio at birth and these intensive campaign areas. 

Now, the Girls Count Act—which you have talked about—is an 

essential part of making sure that every baby girl is registered in 

the China hukou registration system which we have talked about, 

and that Chai Ling talked about. This will provide necessary data 

for effective assessment of the sex ratio at birth in these campaign 

areas. 

Now the fourth practice I want to talk about which I think is 

probably the most important is women involvement and empowerment. According to my research—which I have done extensively of 

the China census data at the country level—a high sex ratio at 

birth is strongly correlated in counties where women lag behind 

men in social status, particularly in education, meaning—do not 

get me wrong here—low education for women is not necessarily the 

factor related to the sex ratio at birth as many truly believe. It is 

not. It is actually the gap between men and women. 

So I propose that the areas where there is this gap in socioeconomic status, there needs to be the target geographic areas for 

policy intervention, not just where women have low education. It 

is how they are treated, vis-a ́-vis men, that makes all of the difference for sex-selective abortion. I also know from research that 

women must be involved in the decisionmaking bodies and in the 

progress of the policy itself, and the implementation in order for 

peace to occur. 

So the ideal threshold—according to research—is at least 33 percent of women involvement. I find little evidence in China that suggests women even come close to the 33-percent threshold of the creation and implementation of policies to end gendercide. This is a 

major problem. 

In China, there are many mothers protesting the hukou registration system—as Chai Ling brought up—demanding for more reform 

than even what has occurred. Now, when implementing the Girls 

21 

Count Act, I suggest including native women in the policy formation and implementation of the Girls Count Act. 

I would like to share an example of why this is so important. In 

Haryana, an all-women panchayat—or a village-level administration group—banned sex-selective abortions, making sure that anyone who participated in illegal practices of gendercide are socially 

boycotted by the entire community. They used government monies 

for intensive campaigns which included education for women and 

banning extravagant marriages to minimize dowry expenses. 

These women—all in power—had remarkable success. The sex 

ratio improved from a dismal 569 per 1000 in 2012 to 890 in 2014. 

It is only by recognizing the importance of the empowerment of 

women as an end in itself and as a key to improving the quality 

of life for everyone, both men and women, that China will achieve 

a more lasting and effective means of achieving this balanced sex 

ratio. 

I propose that these four best practices be taken into consideration: strict enforcement, multi-pronged approach, effective assessment, and women-involvement and empowerment. These strategies 

are key to creating and implementing policy that will end 

gendercide. 

I call upon all governments to take action, not just the United 

States, as Mara stated. It is now time for governments across 

China to take part in lifting that little baby girl spoken of in the 

‘‘Book of Songs’’ playing on the ground with broken tiles from off 

of the dirty floor. Clothe her in empowerment and give her her 

rightful place in Chinese society. 

Thank you. [Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brenning appears in the appendix.] 

Chairman SMITH. That was excellent and again, very specific recommendations which helps our Commission and I believe by extension helps the Congress. 

Let me throw out a few opening questions and whoever would 

like to answer, maybe all of you, all of them, whatever. 

On the issue of empowerment—if I could start off with that 

one—and I couldn’t agree more. I have been traveling to China— 

I have been in Congress 36 years, and I have been there many 

times on human rights trips. I often meet with women in very, very 

high positions. Often they travel here. 

Downstairs in the Foreign Affairs Committee room, we had a bilateral meeting with members of the People’s Congress and Madam 

Fu, who heads up the foreign affairs effort for that chamber—it 

was a very friendly conversation at first. Then I raised the issue 

with her that according to the CDC—and this is the Beijing Chinese Centers for Disease Control—about—I did not say that right 

away, but I said there is an estimation of upward of 600 women 

per day who commit suicide in China every single day. 

It is absolutely the reverse of suicides of male/female like nowhere else in the world. I do believe some of it, maybe much of it, 

maybe an overwhelming number of it is attributable to these coercive policies. I asked her what her view was on that, how does she 

explain that? Not only did she say I wasn’t telling the truth, she 

demanded documentation which my staff ran upstairs and got the 

22 

State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. I 

flipped to the page and I said, ‘‘It is right out of your own CDC. 

As a woman and as a leader, where is the empathy for those 

women who are broken? ’’ 

On another trip I traveled and met with Peng Peiyun, the 

woman who ran the family planning program for years—the coercive one—who was celebrated at the Cairo Population Conference 

as a great leader, even though the oppression that she has unleashed upon women is without precedent—I believe—anywhere in 

the world. I asked her about the women who are dying, the clinical 

depression. 

On another trip I met a woman in the state family planning 

counsel about the New York Times story that detailed a woman 

who was clinically depressed and she said, ‘‘Oh, it’s just lies put out 

by the New York Times.’’ 

Peng Peiyun said that the UNFPA is here, and they find no coercion. They give us a clean bill of health. By the way, who are you 

to even raise this issue in Beijing? It is a matter of sovereignty, 

which is what all dictatorships do when you raise human rights 

questions, going back to the Soviet Union and every other one I 

have ever visited. 

So I agree with you that women need to be empowered. But how 

in a Chinese dictatorship—the likes of which we have now—when 

women and even more men are a part of the repressive apparatus 

do you break through that? Even when I went with the head of the 

Three Self Church in China, who happened to be a woman at the 

time—I asked her about this and I was quoting Scripture which is 

full—Old and New Testament—with the concern for the 

disenfranchised. She almost just like, with talking points, went 

through why the one-child-per-couple policy was so important and 

disagreed that there was any disproportionality of males and females. This was about 20 years ago on that one—that there is no 

gender imbalance. 

Let me also ask, if I could, Mara, your book—who reads it? I 

have read it. Many people who care about Chinese human rights 

have read it. 

But we have large numbers of universities that have Confucius 

Institutes here. It seems that they are very selective of human 

rights books, magazines, articles and the like. They will never read 

this hearing in a Confucius Institute setting. 

In China many of those foreign campuses, including NYU—I 

mean, is your book even allowed to be read, discussed by students 

and is it banned in Beijing? Then, again, there are so many Chinese students here that if they were to read your book, read Chai 

Ling’s book, which I have been amazed how many people that I 

visit with that are students, especially those who come from China 

on delegations that the State Department puts together, have no 

idea what Tiananmen Square was. 

Of course, Google enabled that big time. I have the Global Online 

Freedom Act which I have been unable to get passed into law, but 

when I did the first hearing on that in 2006, we had Google, Microsoft, Cisco, and Yahoo all testifying. I pulled up Google, the Chinese version. You put in Tiananmen Square. There was not one hit 

of what happened with the tanks, with tank man and all that. It 

23 

was all about happy faces, taking photographs, and just being tourists. 

So they are fed a whole big lie. Does your book get read by the 

students who are here visiting? Do local colleges say, here—here is 

something in universities? Does NYU have copies of your books on 

hand? And then also the empowerment issue—— 

Ms. HVISTENDAHL. It is certainly assigned in the United States. 

I have not heard of it being assigned in China. It has been translated into Japanese and Korean, so there was interest in other 

countries in the region. 

I do not know. If you want to go out and promote my book, I will 

not stop you. I can tell you that. [Laughter.] 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. 

Ms. BRENNING. To get to the empowerment of women issue. That 

is a tricky one. I would say my answer would be they need to start 

with dismantling the patriarchal kinship system. It is not even in 

their priorities at all. I will give very explicit suggestions—how 

they need to begin doing that. 

Then, second, I think that there needs to be government training 

of these officials, intensive government training. 

Then also, as far as empowerment, the Care for Girls Campaign 

is currently sporadically giving money to girls for education kind 

of randomly. They need to give it—resources and money based on 

their social status, vis-a ́-vis men, and not just sporadically giving 

out money. They need to do it in a way that is research based, and 

they are not right now. 

I have several suggestions for dismantling the kinship system. 

You know, as far as the Care for Girls Campaign needs some reformation. Right now they have a lot of slogans posted all over. 

‘‘Girls are awesome.’’ They need to get rid of those, really, and get 

serious about this problem and as I said, do intensive training of 

government officials starting with the very top. 

I believe that they—government officials—need to be the example. I would estimate that some of them have participated in sexselective abortion themselves. 

Also, I think that they need to give tax breaks or rewards to couples and families not living in patrilocality and virilocal marriage. 

That is not happening right now. 

They need to give equal portions of land to women and inheritance rights to women. That is essential. You know this is not going 

to happen overnight, but they need to be serious about dismantling 

it. And obviously, they need to get rid of the two-child policy altogether. 

So those are a few of my suggestions as far as where to begin. 

They need to really be serious about the kinship system, which 

they are not. 

Chairman SMITH. I was in Baku twice in the last three years, 

Mara, and I mentioned your book to Aliyev who was the president, 

because Azerbaijan has a very serious sex selection disparity because of sex-selective abortion. He listened, has done nothing. But 

I want you to know, I do not know if he ever heard anybody talk 

about it—I didn’t have a copy to give him, but I certainly mentioned it to him and quoted from it. 

24 

I quoted from your book on the Floor a few times. I think it is 

worth repeating, and this would be the context of the question— 

I have found—and you know it better than me, all three of you— 

China is so hypersensitive about outside influence, U.S. especially; 

U.K., European in general; Japanese, of course. Yet, as a matter 

of fact, if you look at their draft law on overseas NGO management, they are throwing the book at NGOs’ capability to do anything, especially if there is a link with an overseas organization. 

They do it with faith, the severance of anything dealing with the 

Vatican and other outside Christian organizations, which they see 

as ‘‘invaders.’’ This hypersensitivity does not seem to carry over 

into the whole population control mantra which they swallowed 

like the Kool-aid—we all remember that terrible scene when all 

those young people died. They swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. 

You made an excellent point in your book when you said, ‘‘By August of 1969’’—this is your book, Mara—‘‘. . . when the National 

Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Population Counsel convened another workshop on population control, 

sex selection had become a pet scheme. Sex selection, moreover, 

had the added advantage of reducing the number of potential 

mothers for reliable sex determination technology could be made 

available to a mass market. There was a rough consensus that sexselection abortion would be an effective, uncontroversial, and ethical way of reducing global population.’’ 

Now, that came from this city, from Washington, DC, the U.S. 

Government. As you know, the Indian Government picked up on it, 

big time, as did the Chinese Government, even though they have 

not even a speed bump law to stop sex selection—ultrasounds from 

determining the child’s gender. 

Why is it that they do not see this as having come from America, 

since they again are hypersensitive about that? Yet, they have embraced it to the absolute detriment of the girl child, women, the 

family, and even their society now because the trend line is awful 

economically and in every other way for China. 

Ms. HVISTENDAHL. The issue of how this notion became ethical 

in the first place—well, part of it was because so many atrocious 

methods were being tried at the time. There were 6 million forced 

vasectomies in India. So in comparison, the attitude of many population control proponents toward voluntary sex-selective abortion 

was, ‘‘Well, at least we do not have to force it on people.’’ 

But I believe that one of the reasons that idea was even acceptable at the time gets back to that notion of empowerment. Not that 

many women were involved in those discussions, and certainly not 

any women from the countries that were actually affected by what 

happened. 

There are women in many positions of power in China, but they 

are not the ones that are really calling the shots. So if you look at 

the Central Committee of the CCP, for example: China rates abysmally for national leadership in terms of the number of women 

there. Taiwan, of course, just elected its first female president. 

That is a great thing. That can help make a difference. 

Julie’s suggestion that pressure be put on local leaders is a good 

one, but that order has to really come from the top. China has 

what is called the yipiao foujue system of accountability on certain 

25 

key issues, which essentially means for local officials that it’s one 

strike and you are out. That was one of the reasons that the onechild policy became such a priority. Local leaders were evaluated 

based on whether or not they performed on birth targets. 

If having a balanced sex ratio could become one of those targets 

as well, that would maybe help. One of the reasons there has been 

some progress on environmental issues is that it was recently made 

a top governmental priority. So that is a good suggestion. 

Ms. CHAI. I am in awe and also honored to testify along with 

these wonderful—Mara and Julie, thank you. Your presence makes 

us feel that we are not alone, we are together, and thank you for 

your support. 

As I am listening to what it takes to really cause the leadership 

in China to change, the mindset to empower women and give 

women authority, to really care for the balance of gender ratio, I 

can’t help but think this is ultimately a spiritual issue. The reason—how we can be so blinded to the point that we are deliberately 

and systematically not only killing a baby girl, we are killing a 

mother, we are killing a wife, we are killing a family and generation after generation—at the end of the day—the root of humanity. 

Yet, we do not think twice about it. We think this is normal. This 

is something we should do. This is something we ought to do. So 

many people are so blindsided. They are gung-ho to move forward 

to execute that. That caused me to think of what it really takes to 

change. It led me to the Bible in Chapter 3 in Genesis when humanity fell, when we betrayed God, and there were three curses 

put on humanity. 

The first one is the battle between the serpent and the woman— 

the enmity between the evil serpent and woman. The second curse 

was the curse on woman—she will suffer during childbirth. A lot 

of people thought there was just normal childbirth, but I think it 

is much more related to all reproductive love, romance, relationship 

sufferings. The third one is the relationship battle between man 

and woman. She will desire him. He will rule over her. 

That is—unfortunately, the world was set in motion into the fallen world, so gendercide becomes one of the manifestations of those 

curses. But we also know the good news is Jesus had come 2,000 

years ago, and He went on the cross for us, redeemed us, and broke 

that curse. He, Himself—became a curse, therefore, we can have 

equality for women; for men and women. That is our hope, that 

gendercide can and should and will come to an end. 

When the Chinese people are starting their minds to be renewed 

by the truth in God and how He views man and woman—He created each life fearfully, wonderfully in His image and He made 

them equal. He made man and woman’s ultimate purpose to find 

each other to become one, to—full glory of God and how in His definition woman is not some subordinate girl that needs to be put on 

the floor, play with tiles. Rather woman is the ultimate helper of 

the man, the future husband. 

He—God—said, commanded, whoever loves his wife, loves himself. What that means to say for those men who killed the baby 

girls, the future wives and mothers, they are saying when they are 

killing her, do they really love themselves? Who are they really 

killing? They are killing themselves. 

26 

So these are the truths that need to be shared. I do agree all of 

those budgets—as Julie said—going into the care for girls should 

really be promoting the biblical view and truth about the equality 

and harmony of man and woman. When that happens, I do believe 

that will be an ultimately profound change, and that change is 

happening as our workers are seeing on the ground as we continue 

to pray. God also said, when he opens our eyes, what is with us 

is much more than what is with the other side. So it is only onethird of the angels fallen. So there are two-thirds still with us. So 

we are in the majority. [Laughter.] 

Do not give up hope. 

Chairman SMITH. Never. Let me just ask if I could, then I will 

yield to Mr. Pittenger. I mentioned earlier that I am the author of 

the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. I have worked on that issue 

for over 20 years, worked on Chinese human rights issues since I 

got elected. 

I mention that because I have been raising with the TIP Office— 

the Trafficking in Persons Office, about 55-person large—for years 

they need to look at sex-selection abortion as a driver for sex trafficking. When Mark Lagon was the Ambassador at Large, he did 

a thorough look at that, along with his staff and came down with 

very strong language in the TIP report. Ultimately, China was classified as a Tier-3 country, an egregious violator. 

It was an automatic downgrade because they had been on the 

watch list for four years, but they should have been downgraded. 

They got waivers from the Obama Administration, which they 

should not have gotten, and then as soon as the year was over, 

they were upgraded. 

Now Reuters did a—they should get the Pulitzer for it or any 

great prize for investigative journalism that is out there—did a series of investigations about the TIP office making recommendations 

for grades. Remember, if you get a Tier-3 in trafficking—there are 

four grades, three plus watch list—you can be sanctioned, and the 

sanctions are significant. 

Well, they looked at what the TIP experts were recommending 

at State, versus what the bureaucrats, the assistant secretaries, 

right up to the Secretary of State, himself, did in terms of those 

designations. They found 14 instances—there were 17 disputes—14 

instances where the experts on trafficking said, this is a Tier-3 

country. Oman, India, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Cuba all should have 

been—and others—Tier-3 countries, and China, but were artificially upgraded—and Cuba—because of some other issue. 

As the author of the bill that created all of this, I held hearings 

on it and tried to hold the Administration to account. I am going 

to do three more before their next report comes out. We are planning it right now, including one specifically on China. But Reuters 

got people to talk anonymously within the TIP Office to say, this 

is not what it should be. 

Your thoughts on this horrible, wrongful classification of China, 

not as a Tier-3 country—I believe and would really appreciate your 

views on this—that the trafficking will only get worse. The bride 

sellers, the pimps bringing women in from adjacent countries, but 

even further beyond that, and of course women inside the country 

itself who they will sell as commodities is only getting worse. And 

27 

it is not even part of the dialogue except as an ancillary issue because they are not a Tier-3 country. 

Now the TIP personnel, wonderful foreign service officers, people 

who really pour themselves into this work, their recommendations 

were rejected for some political chicanery on the part of the higherups. It cannot happen again this year. 

This new book, the TIP report will come out sometime in June. 

They were late last year. It came out in July, late July. Hopefully, 

they do not repeat this. Reuters nailed it. 

So your thoughts on that because it can—when you side with the 

government so you will have a little more trade, a little more nice 

cooperation on this, that, or the other thing, you sell out the victims. Now who? I am talking about the Administration. I found 

that appalling. That is the consequence. It is a predictable consequence. Your thoughts? 

Ms. BRENNING. Yes, I have done lots of research. Actually, there 

is a connection between sex-selective abortion and sex trafficking. 

It is a significant linkage. 

In particular, I think something that you might want to focus on 

is the borders. So Vietnam, in particular, and all of those other 

countries, there is significant bride trafficking occurring at the borders of Southeast Asian countries and China. 

Maybe instead of focusing specifically on domestic trafficking, 

you can look at the borders as there is so much evidence of overthe-border sex trafficking and bride trafficking that is occurring, as 

well as obviously domestic trafficking. But, yes. 

You said there is a Tier-4. I am wondering if China should be 

in that Tier. 

Chairman SMITH. A Tier-3—— 

Ms. BRENNING. Absolutely be in Tier-3 according to my research. 

I have done extensive research on this connection. There is a connection between the demand for women and the lack of women in 

China. There is a lot happening. 

There was a recent case where China actually did catch a few 

traffickers and they were executed, but I am glad they got two of 

them. There are many more. 

I think looking at the borders could be one policy angle that 

could maybe put a little more pressure on those countries, showing 

the evidence that it is occurring. 

Chairman SMITH. I would just add to your answer, Thailand remained on Tier-3—which is where it belongs—and they had 135 

convictions. China, at one point, 2 billion people, whatever the 

number is, had 35 convictions. Talk about a lack of prosecutorial 

discretion that goes after these people. It doesn’t exist. 

Ms. HVISTENDAHL. Yes, the International Labor Organization in 

Hanoi is doing work on trafficking out of Vietnam. It could have 

changed in the past few years, but when I went there they were 

looking at China as a destination country. China is the main driver 

for trafficking from countries around the region. 

There is trafficking of women into other countries with skewed 

sex ratios as well. And in countries like Taiwan and South Korea, 

which now have generations in which men seriously outnumber 

woman, there is a massive trade in men going to Vietnam to buy 

brides. The women are often sold by their parents. The women 

28 

might say that they go willingly, but they are under significant 

pressure to go. 

When I looked into this, there was one woman in the Taiwanese 

Embassy in Ho Chi Minh City who had made stopping this trade 

her passion. Aside from her and a Catholic ministry in Taiwan that 

was doing very good work on this issue, though, there was very little political will toward addressing the problem. 

Then with China, the other issue to consider is the trafficking of 

children under the one-child policy. That is a major problem. 

Ms. CHAI. Yes, I agree with Mara and Julie that in the early part 

of 2010 to 2011 we did a lot of work on ending sex trafficking, reuniting trafficked children with their families. We helped reunite 

children as young as two-and-a-half years old to older child brides, 

now 30, to be able to reunite with her family. 

In one city alone, in Putian in Fujian province, they have a population of 3 million people. Six hundred thousand people are as a result of child bride trafficking. It is a city where they tend to abort 

baby girls, but for some reason then they use some money to buy 

other peoples’ baby girls and make them to be child brides, make 

sure their sons who have grown up have wives to marry. 

So yes, and the 60 percent worldwide trafficking is a result of 

China’s gender imbalance. That is a UN statistic. So I am shocked 

that China is not—I do not know whether Tier-1 sex trafficking 

state—— 

Chairman SMITH. Three is the worst. 

Ms. CHAI. Yes. I am shocked China is not listed on that. If a 

country that alone contributes 60 percent worldwide sex trafficking 

is not on that list, then what does it say about the rest of the list 

and the legitimacy of that list. Therefore, that really remains to be 

known, then be adjusted, and a certain action needs to be taken. 

I do agree, continue to talk and advocate—for every trade talk, 

make sure to talk about the sex trafficking issue, about gendercide 

issues, and they will listen. I believe they will listen. 

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Pittenger? 

Representative PITTENGER. I will be very quick. Considering the 

relaxation of the one-child policy, have you seen a drop or increase 

in terms of the number of women seeking to abort females? 

Ms. CHAI. We have not seen that yet. Again, this change ending 

the one-child policy is such a new concept. I think people are still 

trying to figure it out right now. 

Representative PITTENGER. How often did you try to assist 

women who were not married in their own challenges that they 

face if they are pregnant? 

Ms. CHAI. The statistics show 30 to 50 percent of abortions taking place in China are for teenage girls and women who are under 

25 who are not married. So that is a serious issue. Currently, we 

are helping several women who are pregnant but unmarried. 

One is a result of rape. So our workers are working with her, 

supporting her to go through to keep the girl. 

Another one is a girl—again, she was unmarried. She was 

ashamed to even tell her mother and her congregation. So our 

worker came along to help her. 

So we do believe the baby-shower program—when the church, 

when a believer truly acts where God wants us to act, he can save 

29 

lives and help them. That is something we would like to see the 

Chinese Government give us permission, the believer workers to go 

into abortion clinics. For every single abortion clinic, we would like 

to have our workers visit those women and to show them the truth 

and to also help them along the way if they choose to keep that 

baby girl. 

It is not a journey one person can take alone, but with the community, we can help. 

Representative PITTENGER. Billy Graham has nothing on you. 

You give a great presentation. I think I—— 

Ms. CHAI. Well, thank you. 

Representative PITTENGER. I wish I could stay longer. I would 

say that South Korea has adopted a series of policies—women’s 

rights. If that was adopted in China, would that have an impact? 

Would you recommend something similar to that? 

Ms. BRENNING. Some of the elements, I would. As I said, one of 

their biggest policies was dismantling this kinship system, this patriarchal kinship system of patrilineal lineage. China is the same 

in giving elderly support, but there are some issues with China 

with that. It is challenging providing that amount of money to that 

many elderly would, I think, would be impossible. 

That is why I think there needs to be a cultural-social change occurring, not just money handouts, but giving land rights to women. 

I do think some of it can cross over to China, but as I said, the 

scope is quite different. China is much bigger, many more people. 

I could keep going, if—— 

Representative PITTENGER. They have called votes, so I—Thank 

you very much. I really appreciate your commitment and your leadership. We listened and everything we can do, we will support you 

and support this great need. 

Thank you. God bless you. 

Ms. CHAI. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Pittenger. We do have to run 

for votes. They shut it down right at zero. So no more grace period 

any more. 

I thank you so much. You really have given the Commission a 

tremendous amount of input, guidance, and inspiration. I thank 

you so much for it. 

Ms. BRENNING. Thank you so much. 

Ms. HVISTENDAHL. Thank you. 

Ms. CHAI. With your permission, could I just end it with a quick 

prayer? 

Chairman SMITH. Sure. 

Ms. CHAI. Okay. Dear Heavenly Father, Lord Jesus,—whoever 

believes and want to join, you are welcome to do that. 

Dear Father, Lord Jesus, Holy Spirit, we thank you for this wonderful opportunity, and thank you for the unity of a heart and passion. I give you thanks for Mara, for Julie, for Congressman Christopher Smith, with other Ranking Congressmen who are here, and 

for many people who are listening for the staff, for President 

Obama’s Administration, also for the leaders in China, Oh, Lord. 

We just pray you open their hearts and minds. I pray for unity. 

We pray for swift action to end this massive evil, gendercide in 

China and around the world. 

30 

In Jesus’ name we pray and believe and trust. Amen. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. Hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon the hearing was concluded at 4:15 p.m.] 

(31) 

A P P E N D I X 

32 


99772.001
33 


99772.002
34 


99772.003
35 


99772.004
36 


99772.005
37 


99772.006
38 


99772.007
39 


99772.008
40 


99772.009
41 


99772.010
42 


99772.011
43 


99772.012
44 


99772.013
45 


99772.014
46 


99772.015
47 


99772.016
48 


99772.017
49 


99772.018
50 


99772.019
51 


99772.020
52 


99772.021
53 


99772.022
54 


99772.023
55 


99772.024
56 


99772.025
57 


99772.026
58 


99772.027
59 


99772.028
60 


99772.029
61 


99772.030
62 


99772.031
63 


99772.032
64 


99772.033
65 


99772.034
66 


99772.035
67 


99772.036
68 


99772.037
69 


99772.038
70 


99772.039
71 


99772.040
72 


99772.041
73 


99772.042
74 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARA HVISTENDAHL

FEBRUARY 3, 2016

Thank you, Chairmen Rubio and Smith, for providing me with the opportunity to 

share my thoughts on China’s imbalanced population. 

We are all here because we care about the world’s women. I appear before you 

as a journalist who lived in China for nearly a decade and spent three years investigating sex selection and its effects. As I detailed in my book Unnatural Selection, 

sex selection— mainly through ultrasound examinations followed by abortion—has 

led to the disappearance of over 100 million females from the global population. This 

problem has spread beyond China and India, to countries as varied as Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and even to some 

groups in the United States and Canada. 

After continuing unabated for over three decades, sex-ratio distortion is now a 

massive international issue. In terms of lives affected, it surpasses the HIV epidemic. And yet, despite the scope of this problem, there has been little international 

response. That is in part because responsibility is often assumed to lie solely with 

countries like China and India. As I will explain, that assumption is wrong. 

The 2010 census, the last year it was taken, found a sex ratio at birth of 118 boys 

per 100 girls in China. The skewed sex ratio is painfully obvious if you visit an elementary school in a second- or third-tier city in China. Look at any classroom and 

you will see many more boys than girls. 

China’s population control policies have undoubtedly contributed to this gap. But 

even as the government’s population targets have become more lenient and less relevant, sex selection has increased. China’s sex ratio at birth, in fact, has steadily 

risen since 1990. It will no doubt persist under a two-child policy. 

When I began researching this issue in 2008, I traveled to a county called Suining 

in northern Jiangsu province, once an agricultural area that is now industrializing. 

At the time I visited, Suining’s sex ratio at birth was estimated at 153 boys per 100 

girls. And yet, that hardly made it the county in China with the most extreme sex 

ratio. Photographer Ariana Lindquist and I simply went there because she knew 

people from the area, and we figured that those contacts would help us delve deeper 

into the issue. 

We spent a lot of time with a woman whom I call Liao Li. She was a strong, independent woman—a mother of two girls and one boy who in many ways called the 

shots in her family. She managed the finances, made a lot of the major decisions, 

and kept the family cell phone when her husband was off working construction jobs. 

While she and her husband sometimes struggled to make ends meet, they weren’t 

the poorest family in their town. For all of these reasons, she struck me as a great 

guide to the area. 

Over the several days I spent with Liao Li, she was quite critical about the epidemic of sex selection that had hit Suining. A few times she said things like, ‘‘Girls 

are very good. They take care of you when you’re older.’’ Sex selection, she told me, 

is ‘‘stupid thinking, when you are, after all, yourself a woman.’’ But then shortly 

before we returned to Shanghai, she invited Ariana and me over for dinner. We 

drank some warm beer, and I talked a little about my research. As the dinner progressed, Liao Li stood up and said, ‘‘I aborted two girls.’’ 

That threw me for a loop. As my reporting took me to countries as varied as 

India, Albania, South Korea, and Vietnam, however, I learned that Liao Li’s situation is in fact fairly typical. The perpetrators of sex selection are not, as is commonly portrayed, primarily poor people in villages. Throughout South and East 

Asia, the Caucasus region, and the Balkans, sex selection starts in urban areas, 

among wealthy or middle-class and well-educated couples, and trickles down from 

there. 

Unfortunately, in 2016 sexism is far from dead, and a preference for boys still persists in most parts of the world. Second, economic development means that just as 

people move to cities and start having fewer children, a new technology— 

ultrasound—becomes available. The third factor is that many of the countries where 

sex selection is practiced have a history of coercive population policies and of abortion being forced on women as birth control. When all of these factors—son preference, access to new technology, and pressure on birth rates—are combined, people 

take measures to ensure that they have a son. 

Sex selection is therefore a very modern problem. But it’s also a problem for which 

Western nations, including the United States, bear responsibility. 

If you were shaping policy in Washington, D.C. forty years ago, there is a good 

chance that you would have been asked to consider the issue of population growth, 

which was front and center at the time. Best-selling books like the Population Bomb 

75 

warned of a population explosion. Population growth was a problem at the time, for 

a number of reasons. But Western intellectuals became obsessed with solving the 

problem by intervening in the developing world, where birth rates were highest. 

And that is where we went wrong. 

Sociologists, anthropologists, and biologists were enlisted in the quest to lower 

birth rates. The legendary Margaret Mead reportedly contributed her expertise, and 

studies were done exploring why families were so large. It soon became clear that 

women in many parts of the world continued having children until they had a son. 

The idea emerged to guarantee them a son on the first try and avoid all those extra 

births—never mind that the extra births were girls. 

The notion of sex selection had been around since the time of Aristotle. But by 

the 1960s, with recent breakthroughs in genetics and in our understanding of reproduction, it was finally becoming a reality. As a science journalist, I am embarrassed 

to note that the world’s top science magazines featured gushing articles on possible 

sex selection methods. Everyone took for granted that these new methods would be 

used to select for boys. 

What’s particularly shocking today is that America’s advocates of sex selection actually considered the horrid effects of a world with many more men than women. 

They knew that women’s rights would suffer, that women would be coveted as wives 

and mothers and traded as chattel. In 1973, British microbiologist John Postgate 

wrote a cover story for the New Scientist on the prospect of widespread sex selection 

in which he wrote, ‘‘It is probable that a form of purdah would become necessary. 

Women’s right to work, even to travel freely, would probably be forgotten transiently.’’ And yet, Postgate and others continued to promote sex selection as a population control method. 

Another vocal proponent of sex selection at the time was the medical director of 

the Population Council, Sheldon Segal. In the mid-1960s, Segal was posted to Delhi, 

where he started the department of reproductive medicine at the All India Institute 

of Medical Sciences. While there, he trained doctors to perform an early method of 

sex determination. A few years later, in 1975, AIIMS became the site of shocking 

medical experiments. Doctors offered poor pregnant women in Delhi sex determination and then tracked whether they aborted—and wrote up the results in a medical 

journal. Of course women tended to abort if they were carrying girls. That was how 

sex selection was introduced to India. 

That same year, the Chinese Medical Journal—now one of China’s top journals— 

published a paper by a group of doctors in Liaoning province on a very similar experiment at Tietung Hospital Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Sex selection’s usefulness as a population control method is one reason why the Chinese government now has little incentive to eradicate it. 

Today, many of John Postgate’s predictions have come true. China has seen a pernicious rise in bride-buying and trafficking of women, both for marriage and for sex. 

So-called ‘‘marriage agencies’’ have cropped up across China to help men buy wives. 

Women are typically trafficked from poorer western provinces to eastern China; 

while reporting my book I met several women who had been brought to Jiangsu 

province from rural Yunnan. Increasingly women are also brought in from neighboring countries like Vietnam and North Korea. The U.S. State Department rightly 

lists China’s gender imbalance as a major cause of trafficking in the region. 

What’s more, we have historical amnesia. Western institutions played a critical 

role in bring sex selection to Asia. And yet, I can’t tell you how many reports I’ve 

read that blame sex selection squarely on traditional values. 

Meanwhile, the nature of sex selection is changing as technology marches forward. Already it is no longer just about abortion and ultrasound. Instead it involves 

so-called fetal DNA tests, or blood tests a woman can take as early as seven weeks 

of pregnancy to determine fetal sex. In the United States these are already widely 

available, and when I had my first child in China in 2013, they were becoming 

available in Shanghai as well. Sex selection is also practiced during in-vitro fertilization, using a technique called preimplantation genetic diagnosis. We need to 

ensure that such technologies are properly used. America is the Wild West for assisted reproductive technology, which is heavily regulated in Western Europe and 

Australia. Because of a lack of regulatory oversight here, couples from China and 

India now fly to California to choose the sex of their babies using IVF. 

As a major international issue, affecting South Asia and Eastern Europe as well 

as China, sex selection demands an international response. Moreover, as the entity 

responsible for the population control policies that contribute to the preponderance 

of boys being born, the Chinese government cannot be expected to solve its sex-ratio 

problem without international pressure. As a nation concerned with humanitarian 

causes, and as the birthplace of the technologies that are now so brutally affecting 

76 

populations in Asia, the United States should play a leading role in combating sex 

selection. 

Congress should urge the United Nations to devote more attention to publicizing 

the pernicious after-effects of sex selection worldwide, and to pursuing meaningful 

action to prevent it. Legislators should outlaw the use of IVF for social sex selection, 

or sex selection not connected to sex-linked diseases. Congress should further regulate the use of fetal DNA tests and limit their use to genetic disease, while also ensuring that they are administered in clinics with oversight from a genetic counselor. 

I want to add that the solution to sex-ratio imbalance is not to further infringe 

on the rights of women by limiting access to family planning. If we were to ban 

abortion outright, women would suffer, and sex selection would not stop. (China and 

India already outlaw sex-selective abortions, to little effect.) Limiting access to abortion also does nothing to prevent couples from turning to IVF to get a son. The solution is instead to eradicate the population control policies—including China’s current two-child policy—that encourage people to abort girls; to introduce incentive 

schemes tailored to the urban residents who actually practice sex selection; and to 

better regulate new reproductive technologies, both in the United States and beyond. 

77 


99772.043
78 


99772.044
79 


99772.045
80 


99772.046
81 


99772.047
82 


99772.048
83 


99772.049
84 


99772.050
85 


99772.051
86 


99772.052
87 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM NEW JERSEY; CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA

FEBRUARY 3, 2016

There are tens of millions of missing girls in China today—a predictable consequence of Beijing’s cruel and barbaric child limitation policies and a cultural preference for boys. 

In her book, Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences 

of a World Full of Men, Mara Hvistendahl, one of our witnesses today, writes that 

‘‘there are over 160 million females ‘missing’ from Asia’s population. That is more 

than the entire female population of the United States. And gender imbalance— 

which is mainly the result of sex selective abortion—is no longer strictly an Asian 

problem.’’ 

In Azerbaijan and Armenia, in Eastern Europe, and even among some groups in 

the United States, couples are making sure at least one of their children is a son. 

So many parents now select for boys that they have skewed the sex ratio at birth 

of the entire world. 

The global crisis of missing girls constitutes a gross human rights abuse—which 

is aptly described as gendercide—the extermination of the girl child in society simply because she happens to be a girl. 

For most of us, the statement ‘‘it’s a girl’’ is cause for enormous joy, happiness 

and celebration. But in many countries, and even in some parts of the U.S.—it can 

be a death sentence. In China and India alone, an estimated three girls are aborted 

every minute because she is a girl. 

Gendercide is not only a predictable tragedy of lost potential, but also a demographic time bomb, particularly in China, with social, political, and potentially even 

security implications. 

China faces some of the world’s most severe gender imbalances—according to official estimates, there are currently 34 million more males than females in China. 

Demographic experts, such as Valerie Hudson and Nicholas Eberstadt, who have 

testified before this commission previously, have warned that China’s large number 

of ‘‘surplus males’’ could lead to societal instability, higher crime rates and sexual 

violence, and has already increased trafficking of women and girls. 

Trafficking, in particular, is a predictable consequence. As the author of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000—America’s landmark law to combat sex and 

labor trafficking—I am deeply concerned that China has become the human sex 

trafficking magnet of the world. 

We have seen a marked increase of women trafficked from neighboring Southeast 

Asian countries such as Vietnam, Myanmar, and Cambodia being trafficked into 

China as brides and for sexual exploitation. North Korean women who escape into 

China also remain at risk for human trafficking for forced marriages and forced 

labor. 

China’s gender imbalances are significantly exacerbated by government policy— 

particularly its draconian population control policies. Chinese law bans the use of 

ultrasound scanning technologies to determine the gender of unborn babies, but because couples are limited to one or two children, millions have circumvented the law 

to abort female unborn babies to ensure their ‘‘government approved child’’ will be 

a son. 

China’s recently announced ‘‘Two-Child Policy’’ will not address China’s demographic imbalances. Data has shown that sex ratios are often more skewed after the 

birth of the first child. In many parts of China, the largest sex ratio imbalances are 

found in townships or villages, where many residents were already allowed to have 

a second child. 

We are holding this hearing today not only to better understand the magnitude 

of the problem, but to find better ways to help rescue the next generation of potentially missing girls from violence and death. 

(1) Are there models from other places with past or present gender imbalances— 

such as South Korea and India—that can be used in China and elsewhere? As Valerie Hudson has testified before this commission previously, South Korea addressed 

skewed sex ratios in part by elevating the status and value of women and daughters, specifically in terms of encouraging female access to education, as well as equal 

inheritance, marriage, and property rights. 

(2) Given that the Obama Administration, the UN, and especially the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) have failed to adequately address the scandal of gendercide, 

what needs to be done to end these massive crimes against women? 

(3) What can the Congress do to help U.S.-based companies, such as General Electric, prevent ultrasound equipment which should be used to promote the wellness 

88 

of unborn children from being employed on a gender crime search and destroy mission. 

(4) What role can the President, including the State Department and Congress 

play to encourage durable reforms of Chinese policies? 

(5) What U.S. laws need to be reformed or enforced? In 2000, I authored a visa 

ban law for those complicit in coercive abortion. Not only has the Administration 

failed to enforce the ban, but has not responded to our December 9th letter asking 

why. 

(6) Congress passed and the President signed into law the Girls Count Act this 

past year—championed by Senator Rubio and Congressman Steve Chabot. This law 

makes protecting children, especially the girl child, a priority of U.S. foreign policy. 

How should this law be implemented and directed? 

By shining a light on what is happening in China with its missing girls, we hope 

to move toward a world where every woman is valued and deeply respected because 

of her intrinsic dignity, and where every child is welcomed regardless of his or her 

sex. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA; 

COCHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA

FEBRUARY 3, 2016

For over three decades, China’s barbaric One-Child Policy has condemned millions 

of unwanted or ‘‘surplus’’ Chinese girls to abortion, infanticide, abandonment and 

human trafficking. This shameful policy, coupled with the cultural preference for 

boys and access to cheap ultrasound technology, has resulted in what some demographers and human rights advocates have rightly termed gendercide—the wholesale 

extermination of millions of unborn baby girls. 

China is now faced with one of the world’s most severe gender imbalances with 

roughly 34 million more males than females. Estimates suggest that there will be 

a surplus of 40–50 million bachelors in China through the mid-to late 21st century. 

The implications of this imbalance are not fully known or understood, but they are 

without question significant and troubling. 

Some analysts have argued that China’s skewed gender ratio, in addition to representing a grievous human rights abuse, poses a serious security risk as well. Between 2030 and 2045 at least 20 percent of men in China will likely be unable to 

marry. These ‘‘bare branches’’ as they are known will almost certainly impact China’s stability and development. There is already statistical evidence indicating that 

the areas of China with the highest sex ration imbalance also have higher 

incidences of crime to include human trafficking. 

In fact, according to reports from regional governments and civil society organizations, trafficking from Southeast Asia into China for forced marriage already appears to be increasing. Additionally, already vulnerable North Korean refugees who 

escape into China are at grave risk for human trafficking for forced marriages. 

It is worth noting that serious questions persist about the extent to which the recently announced Two-Child Policy will address this crisis, even in the long term, 

as data has shown that sex ratios are in fact more skewed after the birth of the 

first child. 

Nearly two months ago I joined with CECC Chairman, Representative Chris 

Smith in urging Secretary of State John Kerry to provide an update on the administration’s implementation of the ‘‘Girls Count Act,’’ which was signed into law on 

June 12, 2015. As this law’s chief sponsor in the Senate, I was motivated by the 

fact that every year approximately 51 million children under the age of five are not 

registered at birth, most of whom are girls, leaving them susceptible to 

marginalization and exploitation. 

This law directs current U.S. foreign assistance programming to support the 

rights of women and girls in developing countries by working to establish birth registries in their countries. The legislation also prioritizes a variety of rule of law programs intended to raise the legal and financial status of girls in order to help address the cultural and financial rationale for sex-selective abortions. Both components have particular relevance to China. 

To date, the Administration has failed to respond to our letter. Given the enormity of this problem and the bipartisan nature of the solution proposed, the seeming 

lack of priority nearly eight months after the president signed the legislation into 

law is troubling. 

It is worth noting that South Korea, which in the 1990s had a sex ratio almost 

as skewed as China’s, has effectively normalized the ratio in recent years primarily 

89 

through elevating the status and value of women and daughters—precisely the aim 

of the Girls Count legislation. 

As a father of four, to include two daughters, I believe it is vital that the U.S. 

continues advocating for the complete elimination of government-forced population 

planning as well as the fundamental rights of all Chinese citizens to live up to their 

God-given potential. 

90 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

[Reprinted from Foreign Policy, June 27, 2011] 

WHERE HAVE ALL THE GIRLS GONE? 

It’s true: Western money and advice really did help fuel the explosion of sex selection in Asia. 

(By Mara Hvistendahl) 

How did more than 160 million women go missing from Asia? The simple answer 

is sex selection—typically, an ultrasound scan followed by an abortion if the fetus 

turns out to be female—but beyond that, the reasons for a gap half the size of the 

U.S. population are not widely understood. And when I started researching a book 

on the topic, I didn’t understand them myself. 

I thought I would focus on how gender discrimination has persisted as countries 

develop. The reasons couples gave for wanting boys varies: Sons stayed in the family 

and took care of their parents in old age, or they performed ancestor and funeral 

rites important in some cultures. Or it was that daughters were a burden, made 

expensive by skyrocketing dowries. 

But that didn’t account for why sex selection was spreading across cultural and 

religious lines. Once found only in East and South Asia, imbalanced sex ratios at 

birth have recently reached countries as varied as Vietnam, Albania, and Azerbaijan. The problem has fanned out across these countries, moreover, at a time 

when women are driving many developing economies. In India, where women have 

achieved political firsts still not reached in the United States, sex selection has become so intense that by 2020 an estimated 15 to 20 percent of men in northwest 

India will lack female counterparts. I could only explain that epidemic as the cruel 

sum of technological advances and lingering sexism. I did not think the story of sex 

selection’s spread would lead, in part, to the United States. 

Then I looked into it, and discovered that what I thought were right-wing conspiracy theories about the nexus of Western feminism and population control actually had some, if very distant and entirely historical, basis in truth. As it turns out, 

Western advisors and researchers, and Western money, were among the forces that 

contributed to a serious reduction in the number of women and girls in the developing world. And today feminist and reproductive-rights groups are still reeling 

from that legacy. 

The story begins in the mid-20th century, when several factors converged to make 

Western demographers worried about global population growth. Thanks to advances 

in public health, people were living longer than ever before. Projections released by 

the U.N. Population Division in 1951 suggested what the sum of all those extra 

years of life could be: Rapid population growth was on the horizon, particularly in 

the developing world. As pundits forecast a global ‘‘population explosion,’’ anxiety 

mounted in policy circles, and the population control movement that coalesced 

brought together everyone from environmentalists to McCarthyites. viewed through 

a 1960s Beltway lens, mounting numbers of people meant higher rates of poverty, 

which in turn made countries more vulnerable to communism. 

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the World Bank, and 

the Rockefeller Foundation were among the organizations that poured money into 

stanching the birth rate abroad, while the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and the Population Council helped coordinate efforts on the ground. 

As these organizations backed research into barriers to couples accepting contraception, one of the obstacles quickly identified was that in most parts of the world, but 

particularly in fast-growing Asia, people continued to have children until they got 

a boy. As demographer S.N. Agarwala explained in a paper on India he presented 

at a 1963 IPPF conference in Singapore: ‘‘[S]ome religious rites, especially those connected with the death of the parents, can be performed only by the male child. . . . 

[T]hose who have only daughters try their best to have at least one male child.’’ 

Even in the United States, surveys suggested a preference for sons. 

That raised the question: What if couples could be guaranteed a son from the 

start? Elsewhere, scientists were working to perfect fetal sex determination tests for 

women carrying sex-linked disorders like hemophilia, which only manifests itself in 

males. (The first sex-selective abortions, performed in 1955 by Danish doctors in Copenhagen, were actually done on women carrying male fetuses.) But the technology 

was still incipient and required a late-term abortion. Proponents of population control began talking about nudging sex selection along. In 1967, for example, when 

91 

Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Alan Guttmacher received a 

proposal from an Indian scientist interested in finding a way to ‘‘control SEX in 

human reproduction,’’ he scrawled a note across the top in hasty red pencil, asking 

the organization’s medical director to consider whether the research was in fact 

‘‘worth encouraging.’’ 

Planned Parenthood didn’t fund the research in the end, but on the technicality 

that the U.S. government had recently cut funding for fellowships to foreigners. Six 

months later Steven Polgar, the organization’s head of research, went public with 

the notion that sex selection was an effective population control method. Taking the 

podium before an audience of scholars and policymakers at a conference sponsored 

by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), 

Polgar ‘‘urged,’’ according to the meeting’s minutes, ‘‘that sociologists stimulate biologists to find a method of sex determination, since some parents have additional 

children in order to get one of specified sex.’’ 

At first the language was gender-neutral. But before long the descriptions grew 

more blunt, and some proponents talked frankly about selecting for sons. In the 

years that followed, Population Council President Bernard Berelson endorsed sex selection in the pages of Science, while Paul Ehrlich advocated giving couples the sons 

they desired in his blockbuster The Population Bomb. ‘‘[I]f a simple method could 

be found to guarantee that first-born children were males,’’ he wrote, ‘‘then population control problems in many areas would be somewhat eased.’’ In many countries, he wrote, ‘‘couples with only female children ‘keep trying’ in hope of a son.’’ 

A wide range of population control strategies were on the table at the time, but by 

the end of the decade, when the NICHD held another workshop on reducing birth 

rates, sex selection had emerged as an approach that participants deemed ‘‘particularly desirable.’’ 

Other spokesmen—for they were mostly men—included Arno G. Motulsky, a geneticist at the University of Washington-Seattle, William D. McElroy, then head of 

the biology department at Johns Hopkins University, and British microbiologist 

John Postgate. Postgate was particularly resolute. He extolled sex selection in an 

article for the New Scientist, explaining that population growth was so great a 

threat that the drawbacks of a skewed sex ratio would have to be tolerated, grim 

as they were. ‘‘A form of purdah’’ might be necessary, he predicted, while ‘‘Women’s 

right to work, even to travel alone freely, would probably be forgotten transiently.’’ 

A handful of women got on board as well. In 1978, former ambassador and former 

U.S. Congresswoman Clare Boothe Luce wrote an article for the Washington Star 

in which she clamored for the development of a ‘‘manchild pill’’—a drug a woman 

could take before sex to ensure any children that resulted would be male. 

Before long, sex selection emerged as a favored solution. In the context of ’60s and 

’70s population politics, it had the appeal of being a voluntary strategy that played 

to individual behavior. In his paper for Science, Berelson ranked sex selection’s ethical value as ‘‘high.’’ Postgate pointed out, ‘‘Countless millions of people would leap 

at the opportunity to breed male.’’ And other strategies being tried in Asia at the 

time entailed coercion, not choice. 

In South Korea, Western money enabled the creation of a fleet of mobile clinics— 

reconditioned U.S. Army ambulances donated by USAID and staffed by poorly 

trained workers and volunteers. Fieldworkers employed by the health ministry’s Bureau of Public Health were paid based on how many people they brought in for 

sterilizations and intrauterine device insertions, and some allege Korea’s mobile 

clinics later became the site of abortions as well. By the 1970s, recalls gynecologist 

Cho Young-youl, who was a medical student at the time, ‘‘there were agents going 

around the countryside to small towns and bringing women into the [mobile] clinics. 

That counted toward their pay. They brought the women regardless of whether they 

were pregnant.’’ Non-pregnant women were sterilized. A pregnant woman met a 

worse fate, Cho says: ‘‘The agent would have her abort and then undergo tubal ligation.’’ As Korea’s abortion rate skyrocketed, Sung-bong Hong and Christopher Tietze 

detailed its rise in the Population Council journal Studies in Family Planning. By 

1977, they determined, doctors in Seoul were performing 2.75 abortions for every 

birth—the highest documented abortion rate in human history. Were it not for this 

history, Korean sociologist Heeran Chun recently told me, ‘‘I don’t think sex-selective abortion would have become so popular.’’ 

In India, meanwhile, advisors from the World Bank and other organizations pressured the government into adopting a paradigm, as public-health activist Sabu 

George put it to me, ‘‘where the entire problem was population.’’ The Rockefeller 

Foundation granted $1.5 million to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences 

(AIIMS), the country’s top medical school, and the Ford Foundation chipped in 

$63,563 for ‘‘research into reproductive biology.’’ And sometime in the mid-1960s, 

Population Council medical director Sheldon Segal showed the institute’s doctors 

92 

how to test human cells for the sex chromatins that indicated a person was female— 

a method that was the precursor to fetal sex determination. 

Soon after, the technology matured, and second-trimester fetal sex determination 

became possible using amniocentesis. In 1975, AIIMS doctors inaugurated sex-selective abortion trials at a government hospital, offering amniocentesis to poor women 

free of charge and then helping them, should they so choose, to abort on the basis 

of sex. An estimated 1,000 women carrying female fetuses underwent abortions. The 

doctors touted the study as a population control experiment, and sex-selective abortion spread throughout India. In his autobiography, Segal professed to being 

shocked to learn that doctors at AIIMS were using a variation on his instructions 

to perform sex-selective abortions. But he neglected to mention that shortly after his 

stay in India he stood before an audience at the National Institute of Child Health 

and Human Development and described sex selection as a method of population control. (The minutes from the meeting describe ‘‘sex determination at conception’’— 

now finally available today through advances in assisted reproductive technology— 

but in-utero sex determination was the form of sex selection furthest along at that 

point.) 

Sex selection hit China the same year the AIIMS experiments began. The country 

accepted Western aid belatedly, in 1979. But after years of being kept out of the 

Middle Kingdom, the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) and IPPF jumped at the opportunity to play a role in the world’s most populous country, with UNFPA chipping 

in $50 million for computers, training, and publicity on the eve of the one-child policy’s unveiling. Publicly, officers at both UNFPA and IPPF claimed China’s new policy relied on the Chinese people’s exceptional knack for communalism. But, according to Columbia University historian Matthew Connelly’s account of the population 

control movement, Fatal Misconception, in January 1980 IPPF information officer 

Penny Kane privately fretted about local officials’ evident interest in meeting the 

new birth quotas through forced abortions. Accounts of those eventually leaked out, 

as did reports of sex-selective abortions. In 1982, Associated Press correspondent 

Victoria Graham warned that those augured a spreading trend. ‘‘These are not isolated cases,’’ she wrote, adding: ‘‘Demographers are warning that if the balance between the sexes is altered by abortion and infanticide, it could have dire consequences.’’ 

Today, some of those dire consequences have become alarmingly apparent. Part 

of that is the extent to which organizations like UNFPA have found themselves unable to perform legitimate services in the developing world because of their historic 

connection to population control. For it was news of sex-selective and forced abortions that helped fuel a budding anti-abortion movement in the United States. Protesters showed up at the 1984 World Population Conference in Mexico City, wielding 

evidence of abuses in China. The next year, President Ronald Reagan unveiled what 

would become known as the ‘‘global gag rule,’’ cutting off $46 million in funds to 

UNFPA—money that might have gone toward maternal and child health as well as 

population control. The struggle to fund reproductive health continued over the next 

two decades, with subsequent U.S. presidents withdrawing or reinstating the gag 

rule along partisan lines. 

Nowadays, of course, UNFPA and Planned Parenthood are led by a new wave of 

feminist bureaucrats who are keen on ensuring reproductive rights, and they no 

longer finance global population control. Thanks to a thriving anti-abortion movement, Planned Parenthood can barely make contraceptives and safe abortion available to the American women who actually want them. But contentious American 

politics has these and other groups on the left stuck in what Joseph Chamie, former 

head of the U.N. Population Division, calls ‘‘the abortion bind.’’ The United Nations 

issued an interagency statement condemning sex selection and outlining recommendations for action last week, and UNFPA was among the agencies that 

helped draft it. The organization has also funded research on sex selection and sex 

ratio imbalance at the local level. But its legacy in the developing world continues 

to haunt its leaders, to the detriment of women worldwide. Lingering anxiety over 

taking on issues involving abortion, activists and demographers have told me, now 

has UNFPA reluctant to address sex selection head-on at the international level— 

a reluctance that has left the organization’s enemies to twist the issue to fit their 

own agenda. (Anti-abortion groups and pundits have proven all too eager to take 

on the issue, though they seem far more interested in driving home restrictions on 

abortion than they do in increasing the number of women in the world and protecting the rights of women at risk.) 

Meanwhile, as American politicians argue over whether to cut Planned Parenthood’s U.S. funding and the Christian right drives through bans on sex-selective 

abortion at the state level, the effects of three decades of sex selection elsewhere 

in the world are becoming alarmingly apparent. In China, India, Korea, and TaiVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:52 Jun 29, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 U:\DOCS\99772.TXT DEIDRE
93 

wan, the first generation shaped by sex selection has grown up, and men are scrambling to find women, yielding the ugly sideblows of increased sex trafficking and 

bride buying. In a Chinese boomtown, I watched soap operas with a slight, defeated 

woman from the poor mountains of the west who had been brought east by a trafficker and sold into marriage. (Her favorite show: Women Don’t Cry.) In the Mekong 

Delta, I visited an island commune where local women are hawked by their parents 

for a few thousand dollars to ‘‘surplus’’ Taiwanese men. While the purdah forecasted 

by John Postgate has not yet come to pass, feminists in Asia worry that as women 

become scarce, they will be pressured into taking on domestic roles and becoming 

housewives and mothers rather than scientists and entrepreneurs. 

But what happens to women is only part of the story. Demographically speaking, 

women matter less and less. By 2013, an estimated one in 10 men in China will 

lack a female counterpart. By the late 2020s, that figure could jump to one in five. 

There are many possible scenarios for how these men will cope without women— 

and not all, of course, want women—but several of them involve rising rates of unrest. Already Columbia University economist Lena Edlund and colleagues at Chinese University of Hong Kong have found a link between a large share of males in 

the young adult population and an increase in crime in China. Doomsday analysts 

need look no further than America’s history: Murder rates soared in the male-dominated Wild West. 

Four decades ago, Western advocacy of sex selection yielded tragic results. But if 

we continue to ignore that legacy and remain paralyzed by heated U.S. abortion politics, we’re compounding that mistake. Indian public health activist George, indeed, 

says waiting to act is no longer an option: If the world does ‘‘not see ten years ahead 

to where we’re headed, we’re lost.’’ 

Update: Since this article was posted, UNFPA has added a prominent page on 

sex selection to its website. 

‘‘GENDERCIDE: CHINA’S MISSING GIRLS’’ 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2016

Witnesses 

Chai Ling, Founder of All Girls Allowed 

Chai Ling is Founder of All Girls Allowed (‘‘In Jesus’ Name, Simply Love Her’’), 

a nonprofit organization which seeks to expose the injustices of China’s one-child 

policy and rescue girls and mothers from gendercide. A leader in the 1989 

Tiananmen Square student movement and two-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Ms. 

Chai escaped from China and received her MPA from Princeton and MBA from Harvard. She is the founder of Jenzabar, a company that provides higher education software management solutions, and co-founder of the Jenzabar Foundation, which supports the humanitarian efforts of student leaders. Ms. Chai is also author of A 

Heart for Freedom, a memoir detailing her journey from a fishing village in rural 

China to Tiananmen Square and then America. 

Mara Hvistendahl, Journalist and Author of ‘‘And the City Swallowed 

Them’’ and ‘‘Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys over Girls’’ 

Mara Hvistendahl is a contributing correspondent at Science and a founding 

member of the writers’ cooperative Deca. She also writes for The New York Times, 

The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, Popular Science, and other publications. Her 

2011 book Unnatural Selection, on prenatal sex selection and the whopping gender 

imbalance it has produced in Asia, was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize and the Los 

Angeles Times Book Prize. For eight years, she covered science, politics, and other 

issues from China. She now lives in Minneapolis. 

94 

Julie Ford Brenning, Director of Research & China Outreach, Give Her 

Life 

Julie Ford Brenning is the Director of Research for Give Her Life, a non-profit 

organization seeking to end gendercide via social enterprise in Asia. At Give Her 

Life, she has created the largest database in the world solely devoted to the sex 

ratio at birth in Asia. Julie graduated from Brigham Young University with a degree in Political Science and received her Master’s degree in Asian Studies from the 

University of Utah where she studied the sex ratio at birth in China. She has lived 

in Beijing, China and Taipei, Taiwan. She resides with her husband, son and daughter in Logan, Utah. 

Æ