Category: Abortion and the Disabled

Author Ann Saltenberger describes an experience she had while pregnant. She became sick and spent some time in the hospital, where doctors ran a battery of tests including x-rays. She was pregnant at the time, and a doctor told her she should abort her baby. The doctor told her the following when he was driving her home:

“An hour later the green, sundrenched farmlands of South Jersey were slipping past the car windows. I settled back into the plush seat and relaxed. But Dr. L was tense and I soon found out why. “I know you’re the wrong person to say this too,” he began (I had already begun to garner a considerable reputation for my research into the effects of artificial pregnancy termination), “but you really should have an abortion.”

His words had continued, unheard. I tuned in as he was saying something about my probably having a viral affection, and German Measles is a viral infection, “and we all know what German measles does.”

“Yes, but it only does it to 25% of preborns. You’re not going to tell me that part, are you?” I thought, but I said nothing.

He droned on. The x-rays. X-rays do horrible things: twist developing bodies, destroy forming minds. No doubt about it, he was sure this baby would be retarded or deformed. Not worth worrying over. Not worth saving. Rx: abort it and forget it.”

Her baby was born perfectly healthy:

“Now, eight years later, it’s spring again. The sun is shining and the breezes are warm. And Jimmy is seven and healthy and strong, full of fun and questions and tricks. Appearance: beautiful; neurological evaluation: normal; intelligence: superior.”

Ann Saltenberger Every Woman Has a Right to Know the Dangers of Legal Abortion (Glassboro, New Jersey: Air – Plus Enterprises, 1983) 14, 17

Share on Facebook

Author Hans S Reinders:

“Once the assumption of individual responsibility for the reproduction of “bad genes” is firmly in place, people will be wary of sharing the costs of healthcare services for people with special needs whose existence they believe to be caused by “irresponsible reproductive behavior.”

Hans S Reinders The Future of the Disabled in a Liberal Society: An Ethical Analysis (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000) 85 – 86, 90

Share on Facebook

Nancy Press and CH Browner examined a California screening program where babies were tested for genetic defects as part of prenatal care:

“So strong was the presumption in these studies that testing was both good and unproblematic that all issues of informed consent – including whether informed consent was even necessary – were left to the discretion of the investigators at each research site.”

Nancy Press and CH Browner “Why Women Say Yes to Prenatal Diagnosis” Social Science and Medicine 45 (7), 1997, 981

Melinda Tankard Reist commented:

“The studies revealed how the issues of eugenics, disability and abortion were obscured in this “routinization”. This in turn help achieve a high level of test acceptance. There was a “purposeful ignoring” of the connection between prenatal testing and abortion. Nurses rarely mentioned abortion when discussing screening with a couple and the official state booklet on AFP given to all eligible women didn’t even mentioned the word.”

Melinda Tankard Reist Defiant Birth: Women Who Resist Medical Eugenics (North Melbourne, Australia: Spinifex, 2006) 10

Share on Facebook

Melinda Tankard Reist wrote a book where she shared the stories of women whose babies were diagnosed with health problems. All of the women had their children. Reist says:

“Diversity is upheld as a value, yet great efforts are made to ensure that certain mothers don’t have children, and that certain children are never to be allowed to contribute to this diversity. In this sense, at least, humanity is becoming increasingly homogeneous. Babies born outside a standard view of what is normative are viewed as muddying the gene pool and costing the “normal” citizens of society too much money.”

Melinda Tankard Reist Defiant Birth: Women Who Resist Medical Eugenics (North Melbourne, Australia: Spinifex, 2006) 5

Share on Facebook

Louise Drinkwater’s daughter Molly has Down syndrome.  Her mother describes why she is grateful she chose life for Molly despite her having Down:

She’s an incredibly happy little girl. She lights up our lives… I’ve been a person who thought academic achievement was really important, and it’s been a beautiful learning experience to realize that value is about the soul of the person. Molly has really helped me to sit back and enjoy the moment rather than racing to get ahead.

J Robotham and D Smith “Love Me or Let Me Go” Sydney Morning Herald, August 31, 2004

Share on Facebook

“If you prevent the birth of a child with Down’s syndrome you are probably saving the community a million dollars or more in the life of the child.”

Australia geneticist, Prof. Grant Sutherland.  He was past president of The Human Genetics Society of Australia.

“New Down’s Syndrome Test” The Adelaide Advertiser August 6, 1992

There is no test that reveals the presence of Down before conception, so “preventing the birth” means abortion.

Share on Facebook

Often, women who reject the pressure to abort their disabled children after an amniocentesis shows problems with the baby are not accepted or understood by others in society.

A woman named Sarah D who had two disabled children was berated by a “shocked” and “open mouthed” bystander who said:

“Not one… Not one but two. Don’t you know that kind of thing is preventable now?”

Sam Tormey “Making Perfect Babies” Griffith Review, Winter 2004

Share on Facebook

Commenting on testimony about the way parents of disabled preborn babies:

On Monday 11 February we heard evidence at the inquiry from disability rights activists, parents of children born with disabilities and support groups for affected families.

There were several strong themes that emerged.

First, there seemed to be very little support or information available for families who wanted to keep their babies, as opposed to having them aborted.

Second, there was a strong presumption from doctors that parents with disabled children would choose to have them aborted.

Third, there was a huge amount of subtle or direct pressure placed on parents who decided not to abort. They were repeatedly asked to reconsider their decisions and treated like pariahs – in short they were discriminated against.

“Parliamentary Inquiry into Abortion on the Grounds of Disability’ (more background here)

Dr Peter Saunders  “Women who keep their disabled babies face coercion, discrimination and disdain” CMF Blogs (Christian Medical Fellowship) February 19, 2013

 

Share on Facebook