(December 22, 2017 at 8:44 pm)c172 Wrote: https://apnews.com/6b1fed3f62f045a8a26a6..._medium=AP
Quote:COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio is prohibiting doctors from performing abortions based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome, joining other states with similarly strict legislation.
Republican Gov. John Kasich signed the legislation into law on Friday. Lawmakers had sent the bill to him earlier this month, in one of their last acts of the year.
The legislation, which cleared the GOP-led Legislature with some Republican opposition, makes it a crime for a doctor to terminate a pregnancy based on knowledge of Down syndrome, a genetic abnormality that causes developmental delays and medical conditions such as heart defects and respiratory and hearing problems.
As a disabled person (spina bifida), for the most part, at least on quality-of-life issues, I would not have ever wanted to be aborted. However, I accasionally do think of the enormous amount of money spent dealing with medical conditions. On the third hand, where exactly as a society do we draw the line? Plus, if we didn't spend so much money on defense, maybe we could assure a better quality of life for the disabled.
Anybody? I know this hits home on here.
Where to begin with this. There are so many issues to consider.
As the mom of a person with DS, I can honestly say that most of the time those "screenings" are performed, they have only have an accuracy of 60%. Further testing is required when a "positive" result occurs. Even when I was pregnant with my daughter, I had the test and the test was negative. Given the propensity for higher errors with the screening test, I personally think those in the medical community really need to explain the faulty nature of the screening and only perform it if there is an absolute need - such as if there is a high risk pregnancy. Even then, the test is still only 60% accurate, at best. (This was my case).
On a different note: Not everyone can handle raising a disabled child. While adoption is always an option, there's no guarantee that a couple wants to take on the arduous task of dealing with medical expenses or the enormous amount of time dedicated to potential hospitalizations or therapy sessions etc.
Another note to consider is a woman's right to have an abortion in the first place. I am pro-choice. If a woman wants to abort, whether or not the fetus has DS is irrelevant in some cases. In most cases, abortions are performed before 12 weeks, well before any triple screening tests for DS are given so the presence of DS isn't known. Even with the test, again, there's no guarantee that a diagnosis of DS is even accurate. So, again, relevance is nil here.
Still - with the multitude number of disabilities out there, why the lawmakers chose to single out DS and not include any other disability in with this abortion law, is rather absurd. Not every person with DS ends up with medical issues. I know of many in my circle of DS families I keep in contact with and a lot of them don't have any medical issues at all. Singling out DS on the basis that certain characteristics and behaviors "might" result, isn't a smart thing to do.
Personally I think this bill is a complete waste of time as it can and probably will be challenged in Federal court thanks to Roe v. Wade.
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
