Monday, August 24, 2015

Trisomy 21 and abortion

Opening a new front in the abortion wars, abortion opponents are pushing Ohio to make it illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion if a woman is terminating her pregnancy to avoid having a baby with Down syndrome.

The legislature is expected to approve the measure this fall because lawmakers endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee, which supports the bill, make up more than two-thirds of both houses.
Gov. John R. Kasich, a Republican who is running for president, opposes abortion but has not yet taken a position on this bill. Since his election in 2010, he has signed a variety of abortion restrictions, including a law requiring women to have an ultrasound and be offered a chance to see an image of the fetus before undergoing the procedure.
Mike Gonidakis, the president of Ohio Right to Life, said his group had made the bill here a legislative priority because Down syndrome is so recognizable, so easily diagnosed in pregnancy — and so likely to lead to abortion.
“We all want to be born perfect, but none of us are, and everyone has a right to live, perfect or not,” he said. “You go to any supermarket or mall and see these families who just happen to have a child with Down syndrome, and they will tell you how fortunate they are to have those children. Pretty soon, we’re going to find the gene for autism. Are we going to abort for that, too?”...
Between 60 and 90 percent of fetal Down syndrome diagnoses lead to abortion, according to an academic article reviewing research studies from 1995 to 2011 on the percentage of women who choose to terminate their pregnancies....
In 2013, North Dakota made it illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion because of fetal genetic anomalies, including Down syndrome. Indiana, Missouri and South Dakota considered similar laws this year. Seven states — Arizona, Kansas, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and South Dakota — have laws banning abortions if the reason is gender selection. In 2012, the United States House of Representatives rejected such a measure...
If abortion on demand is legal,” said Dr. Marjorie Greenfield, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, “and you can have an abortion just because you want to, what does it mean to say you can’t abort for Down syndrome? It seems bizarre.”
Indeed, there is currently no requirement for a woman to disclose her motivation for terminating a pregnancy.
Courtesy of:
See:  Tell me why 5/27/15

1 comment:

  1. Natoli JL, Ackerman DL, McDermott S, Edwards JG. Prenatal diagnosis of Down
    syndrome: a systematic review of termination rates (1995-2011). Prenat Diagn.
    2012 Feb;32(2):142-53.

    The objective of this study was to review the published literature on pregnancy termination following a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome in the United States.
    A systematic search of US English-language articles (1995-2011) was conducted to identify primary research studies that reported data for pregnancies with definitive prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome with subsequent pregnancy termination. Studies that provided indirect estimates of pregnancy termination, such as mathematical models, were excluded. The weighted mean termination rate was calculated across studies.
    Twenty-four studies were accepted. The weighted mean termination rate was 67% (range: 61%-93%) among seven population-based studies, 85% (range: 60%-90%) among nine hospital-based studies, and 50% (range: 0%-100%) among eight anomaly-based studies. Evidence suggests that termination rates have decreased in recent years. Termination rates also varied with maternal age, gestational age, and maternal race/ethnicity.
    This systematic review presents the largest synthesis of United States data on termination rates following a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. Evidence suggests that termination rates are lower than noted in a previous review that was based on less contemporary studies and had an international focus. Heterogeneity across studies suggests that a summary termination rate may not be applicable to the entire US population.