TV's Frink said:

I agree with none.

The bill was perceived by Democrats as political maneuver to coax liberal lawmakers into supporting the bill or face the prospect of an onslaught of campaign advertisements this fall highlighting a lawmaker's vote to support sex-selection abortions.

To an extent, sure. But why in the world would anyone support sex-selection abortions?

I've read a complaint that such abortions are (supposedly) rare and so not worth doing anything about. I've read a complaint that this will hurt Republicans with asians because it is supposedly more common among asians than other ethnicities. I've read complaints now insinuating this is about financial benefit for the bill's sponsor or just a political ploy. I'm surprised I haven't read the usual/pathetic 'but we have so many important things to be focused on!' argument. I've not found many criticisms based on the actual substance of the bill.

The notable exception is Obama who claims the bill would essentially force doctors to interrogate women about their motivation for seeking an abortion and that the government would be overstepping its bounds by imposing such a rule. My educated guess is that the bill does not impose such a requirement nor would a court construe it that way, but those who desire continued support of the pro-choice movement will read it into the bill as a palatable reason for opposing it.