An anti-abortion group called Live Action released a “sting” video Tuesday of a woman asking for a sex-selective abortion at a Planned Parenthood and being assisted by a staff member.

The sting, according to the group, shows that Planned Parenthood is helping women have abortions based on the gender of their fetus. But Planned Parenthood has already condemned the staff member’s behavior, saying, “Within three days of this patient interaction, the staff member’s employment was ended and all staff members at this affiliate were immediately scheduled for retraining in managing unusual patient encounters.”

Planned Parenthood also clarified that they strongly oppose sex-selective abortions and “racism and sexism in all forms.”

Lila Rose, the head of Live Action, claimed sex-selective abortion is a growing problem in the United States and that the video proves it. But the facts don’t agree with Rose, according to Jezebel:

Statistics do not indicate that the US has a problem with sex-selective abortions, nor do they indicate an increasing gender discrepancy in the American birth rate. In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control, the sex ratio — the number of baby boys born per 1,000 baby girls — has actually been decreasing slightly but steadily over the last 30 years. In 1983, 1,052 boys were born for every 1,000 girls born in the US; in 2009, 1,048 boys were born for every 1,000 girls. This is only indicative of a “growing problem” if by “growing problem,” Rose means “growing anti-abortion rights talking point.”

Here’s the “sting”:

The release of the video conspicuously came one day before House members vote on a Republican-backed bill to ban physicians from performing abortions based on the fetus’ sex. Rather than addressing inequality, PRENDA would exacerbate sex and race discrimination by targeting women of color from communities associated with sex selection whom doctors might suspect of wanting to have a prohibited abortion.

House Republicans will force a vote tomorrow on a controversial abortion ban that would prevent sex-selective abortions. The bill seeks to somehow protect the “civil rights” of fetuses by banning physicians from performing abortions based on the fetus’ sex. While the woman would be exempt from prosecution, physicians who perform the procedure can be sued for damages.

Before GOP leaders bring up the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) under a suspension of House rules, which will require two-thirds majority for passage, anti-choice organizations have been lobbying for it. In a clumsy attempt to subvert the War on Women meme, the National Right to Life Committee warned members of Congress against supporting a “war on baby girls“:

Of course, pro-life Members will support this legislation. But it is to be hoped that even many Members who deem themselves “pro-choice” will recoil at the notion that” freedom of choice” must include even the choice to abort a little unborn girl, merely because she is a girl. Members who recently have embraced contrived political rhetoric asserting they are resisting a “war on women” must reflect on whether they wish to be recorded as being defenders of the escalating war on baby girls.

Rather than addressing inequality, PRENDA would exacerbate sex and race discrimination by targeting women of color from communities associated with sex selection whom doctors might suspect of wanting to have a prohibited abortion. In February, the bill passed the House Judiciary committee with only Republican support. After the committee vote, House Judiciary Committee ranking member John Conyers Jr. (D-MI) said it “would require doctors to police their patients, undermining patient-doctor privilege” and violating a woman’s right to privacy guaranteed by Roe v. Wade.

When he introduced the bill, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) said he supported stopping sex-selective abortions because “U.S. Census data shows that certain populations have ‘son-biased’ ratios” and the abortion rate is five times higher for minorities. But Franks’ bill does nothing to address the actual issues behind the high unintended pregnancy rate in minority communities, like substandard health care and poor sex education, that lead to the higher abortion rate among women of color.

PRENDA would do nothing to eliminate sex discrimination in the U.S., and will only add additional, unnecessary barriers to abortion care. If House Republicans really wanted to promote equal rights for women, they would support bills like the Paycheck Fairness Act and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

A New Orleans women’s health organization was destroyed last week by an unknown arsonist, becoming the latest target of attacks on women’s health clinics in the south.

The organization, Women With A Vision, was likely singled out because it offers AIDS prevention help, HIV testing, and substance abuse assistance to sex workers, transgender women, poor women, and women of color. The clinic also does community outreach and education on those issues. Like two incidents in Georgia last week, no one was injured in the fire, but the clinic lost a good share of its resources.

The fire burned female and male condoms, HIV education posters, and suits donated for women to wear to job interviews. In a letter on their website, the group discusses the losses, and calls for donations from anyone who can help:

Thanks to the fast response of all of our supporters across the country, many of you have already heard that our office was broken into last night and set on fire. The worst damage was concentrated in our community organizing and outreach office where we store all of the resources we use to educate our community. We lost everything. We do not have an office to operate out of right now. Most of our office equipment and all of our educational resources were destroyed. Because of the targeted nature, we can only assume that this was intentional.

We are shaken to be sure, and deeply worried about how we will provide for our members while we are rebuilding. But the work will continue. This cannot and will not stop us from speaking out for people who do not have a voice.

Watch the director’s reaction to the fire:

Women’s health clinics in Georgia have been on heightened alert since the attacks there, and the FBI is investigating those fires. The New Orleans fire department is still looking into the fires at Women With A Vision, but witnesses reported seeing a man run from the building where the fire was set.

About 45 percent of the 1.6 million veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are seeking compensation for service-related injuries — more than double the 21 percent of veterans who filed such claims after the first Gulf War, according to an AP investigation. And new veterans are claiming an average of eight or nine ailments, and in the last year, the average has jumped from 11 to 14. By comparison, Vietnam veterans are receiving compensation for fewer than four injuries on average.

Officials tell the AP that the number of disability claims is increasing because of better treatment for battlefield wounds and more outreach from the Department of Veterans Affairs. And doctors are seeing different types of ailments, including traumatic brain injuries and PTSD:

More of the new veterans are women, accounting for 12 percent of those who have sought care through the VA. Women also served in greater numbers in these wars than in the past. Some female veterans are claiming PTSD due to military sexual trauma — a new challenge from a disability rating standpoint, Hickey said.

The new veterans have different types of injuries than previous veterans did. That’s partly because improvised bombs have been the main weapon and because body armor and improved battlefield care allowed many of them to survive wounds that in past wars proved fatal.

“They’re being kept alive at unprecedented rates,” said Dr. David Cifu, the VA’s medical rehabilitation chief. More than 95 percent of troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan have survived.

But the VA’s outmoded system can’t keep up with the backlog of claims. More than 560,000 veterans currently have delayed disability claims that are more than 125 days old. And as the volume continues to grow and cost of health care for veterans increases, Harvard economist Linda Bilmes estimates that the health care and disability costs of the recent wars will cost the nation $600 billion to $900 billion. Despite the mounting claims, the VA is streamlining its process to more effectively take care of veterans because its mission “is to take care of whatever the population is,” Allison Hickey, the VA’s undersecretary for benefits, told the AP. “We want them to have what their entitlement is.”