¶ … CVS available? Passing judgment on the reasons that women choose to have CVS is unwise under all circumstances. According to the belief systems of some individuals, all abortion is morally wrong and the use of CVS merely encourages sex-selective abortion or aborting fetuses because the resulting child is more likely to have genetic diseases associated with one gender (such as hemophilia in males). But once the principle is established that women have a right to choose to have an abortion, it is not the medical profession's right to decide what is a 'good' reason or a 'bad' reason to have an abortion, so long as the center is in compliance with the law regarding fetal viability.

The same is true regarding the availability of CVS, given that the center's view of abortion rights seems to be clearly...

The center presumably does not take a position on whether abortion is morally right or wrong overall. The genetic counselors at the center can make themselves available to discuss the situation with Lisa B. And her husband to explore why the family is so determined to 'balance' itself out with a child of the opposite gender, but they should not willfully prohibit sex selection by denying the procedure.
Ethically, it seems curious that 'balancing out' a family would be considered 'better' than sex selection for a first child, as occasionally happens in China and India amongst the upper classes, due to the social prestige attached to male children in those cultures. It is argued that decisions to 'balance' out the genders in a family is unlikely to lead to widespread gender discrepancies, as can occur when births are limited and sex-selective abortion is permitted, as in the case in China's 'One Child' policy (580). But even were…