Most of the attention on the Department of Health and Human Services recommendations for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has focused on the mandated insurance coverage of contraception. But the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine’s report on “Clinical Preventive Services for Women,” which was adopted in its entirety by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, contains another worrisome provision — that it fund prenatal testing — possibly leading to more abortions.
“Buried in the IOM report is the recommendation for no-cost, well-woman visits; these visits include prenatal care — and thus prenatal testing for ‘genetic or developmental conditions,’” according to attorney and bioethicist Mark Leach in Public Discourse. “This prompts the question: How does prenatal testing prevent Down syndrome?”
The report states: “Another type of well-woman, preventative-care visit is in the routine prenatal care for pregnant women. ... The recommended content of the visit includes specific tests and procedures (e.g., blood pressure, weight, urine test, uterine size and fetal heart-rate assessment, glucose-tolerance testing, and screening for specific sexually transmitted infections and genetic or developmental conditions).”
Since Down syndrome is present from conception and cannot be treated in utero, it would appear that the birth of babies with Down syndrome is prevented by making certain that all women receive prenatal screening, which in 90% of cases leads to abortion. Congress just passed legislation prohibiting the abortion of babies because of their race or sex with no provisions against abortions for genetic anomalies. Targeting a child for elimination based upon an irregular number of genes is not only legal in America — it may be paid for by our tax dollars.
Rick Santorum created a firestorm in February by saying that prenatal testing led to abortion in 90% of cases where the unborn child is diagnosed with Down syndrome. A heated discussion erupted in the media, with periodicals like the Tampa Bay Times running articles flatly denying the link between prenatal testing and abortion. International scientific literature, however, supports the Republican presidential candidate’s claim that prenatal screening leads to tragically high abortion rates.
Could it be the intent of the Obama administration to prevent children with Down syndrome from being born? If so, it would not be the first time a eugenic agenda has darkened American public policy. Tucker Carlson pointed out in a 1996 Weekly Standard article that Joycelyn Elders, in 1990, when she was Arkansas state health director, testified before Congress that “abortion has had an important, and positive, public-health effect,” in that it has reduced “the number of children afflicted with severe defects.”
“As evidence, the future (U.S.) surgeon general cited this statistic: ‘The number of Down syndrome infants in Washington state in 1976 was 64% lower than it would have been without legal abortion,’” Carlson wrote.
Bottom Line Benefits
Eugenic abortion has bottom-line benefits as well. According to the Life Issues Institute, “a $180-million study done in the United States, partially funded by the March of Dimes, concluded that such ‘services’ were ‘cost-effective’ when compared to the high cost of caring for ‘blighted’ children. A March of Dimes vice president concluded that ‘expanded genetic services could save the government billions of dollars in custodial care of genetically handicapped children.’”
Could coverage of prenatal testing be another cost-cutting measure in “Obamacare”? Secretary Sebelius cited cost-effectiveness as the reason for covering the cost of contraception.
“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” Sebelius testified before a House of Representatives committee on March 1.
Should our representatives in Congress permit a segment of our society to be targeted for elimination simply because they cost money? Who would agree, for example, that treating drug addicts or cancer patients is too costly so they must be eliminated?
This is not a uniquely American problem. Mike Sullivan, a New Zealand father of a daughter with Down syndrome, considers universal prenatal testing conducted by his country’s Ministry of Health a form of persecution outlawed by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and formed Savingdowns to pursue legal action jointly with New Zealand Right to Life.
“The basis of the complaint is that the program specifically targets and persecutes unborn children with Down syndrome and other rare genetic conditions through the prevention of their births,” Sullivan explained. “The persecution of an identifiable group of the civilian population, through the prevention of births, is impermissible under Articles 6 and 7 of the Rome Statute. New Zealand is party to the Rome Statute and is bound to comply with any ruling from the ICC.”
“The emphasis of the ICC complaint is on intent and consequences, with genetic screening and selective abortion being the means,” he continued. “The intent is to identify unborn children with Down syndrome, spina bifida and other conditions, so that births to the group can be prevented. The consequence of the screening program is that a substantial part of these groups is being systematically destroyed.”
Jerome Lejeune
Eugenic abortion is alive and well in many national health-care plans. It is contrary to our human dignity, according to French geneticist Dr. Jerome Lejeune, who discovered Trisomy 21, the cause of Down syndrome, in 1959. His discovery, when used with karotyping and amniocentesis, formed the basis of prenatal testing. Lejeune was greatly distressed that his discovery was used to perform eugenic abortions, and he spent the rest of his life seeking a cure for Down syndrome, believing that the only way to keep such children from disappearing was to cure them.
“People say, ‘The price of genetic diseases is high. If these individuals could be eliminated early on, the savings would be enormous.’” Lejeune said in 1992. “It cannot be denied that the price of these diseases is high — in suffering for the individual and in burdens for society. Not to mention what parents suffer! But we can assign a value to that price: It is precisely what society must pay to be fully human.”
Lejeune defended the rights of the unborn and the disabled around the world, aware that he was losing his chance for the Nobel Prize in science that his discovery of Trisomy 21 merited.
The Church, however, has noted his heroic virtue, and, on June 28, 2007, Lejeune’s cause for canonization was opened in Paris. On April 11, a Mass at the Cathedral of Notre Dame will celebrate the end of the diocesan phase of Lejeune’s cause, as it will then move to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Causes of Saints. With two approved miracles, people with Down syndrome may have their own patron saint.
Some say Lejeune is already interceding for those with Down syndrome, noting the recent advances in research, which have led to several clinical trials of new medications to help reverse the cognitive delays of Trisomy 21, and the increasingly high profile of individuals with Down syndrome in society.
The United Nations this year recognized World Down Syndrome Day for the first time on March 21. The date — 3/21 — represents the three copies of the 21st chromosome which cause the syndrome.
Parents and advocates for those with Down syndrome are thrilled about this recognition. “World Down Syndrome Day is needed now more than ever as advances in prenatal testing and government-funded screening programs are implemented,” Diane Grover, founder of International Down Syndrome Coalition for Life, told LifeSiteNews. “We want parents to be prepared when their physician offers a genetic screening. Too often, parents are given test results without any prior understanding of the tests they have been given, and they make decisions when they are most vulnerable.
“We want people to know the unlimited possibilities that can happen for individuals who have Down syndrome," Grover said. "Today, more than ever, people with Down syndrome are breaking barriers.”
Register correspondent Leticia Velasquez writes from Canterbury, Connecticut, and is the mother of a child with Down syndrome.
Edward Pentin: Images of Rome's 2013 March for Life
Comments
Post a Comment
This is so true that it is frightening. We watched an older episode of Nova that explored genetic solutions for various diseases. All went well till the end of the program. Then they showed companies exploring embryos for possible genetic effects, and ONLY implanting eggs that had no deformity. They mentioned that some of the couples carried genes that may mark the babies with diseases such as cystic fribrosis from genes that they carried. The whole attitude of these doctors assumed they were gods who could control everything.
It’s the beginning of “designer babies”. With the ultrasounds and things that they can’t fix in the womb, many couples will be convinced by these doctors that abortion would be the “right thing to do” and the quality of life for the baby, as well as the parents, would be impaired by a “defective baby”. I would hate to see how God punishes these so-called doctors and researchers, and the courage of these parents where babies are already in the womb to trust God’s providence. It might be true if the parents choose “life’ that they will get little or no assistance from the government in raising these children.
Beautifully done, Leticia. Individuals living with genetic disabilities are in challenging times. Let’s pray that Jerome Lejeune’s cause moves quickly. And also pray for the success of the Jerome Lejeune Foundation in both France and the U.S. The foundation’s role in funding research, and providing care and advocacy for individuals with Down syndrome and other genetic intellectual disabilities is unparalleled. We are truly in a race for a cure. As Jerome Lejeune used to say, “The only way to save them, is to cure them.” With new, non-invasive prenatal testing, the stakes in that race have intensified.
My son has Downs. He needed a heart operation to survive. Would that be tolerated under a new system that promotes/advocates early diagnosis for ease of termination? Would the world consider my son valuable enough to the state to preserve his life with what was a 45 day stay in the hospital and very expensive surgery? My suspicion is no. My gut says no. My son survived the rubricon of the womb, but would he survive absent that surgery? No. He’d have died at 3 months.
90% is insufficent to sate Moloch’s desire for slaughtered innocents. Especially if costs need to be contained.
I have a personal stake in this in that I am a woman with spina bifida myelomeningocele (severe form of SB), one of the birth defects targeted for detection, treatment (I hope), & possible prevention (by abortion) if the above is true (I am not doubting it). I see the benefit of detection in that prenatal surgery can lessen the future medical problems of a disabled person. But a planned annihilation of disabled fetuses is not smart in that only God knows how disabled/dependent a particular person will be when born with a disability. I worked full-time for nearly 16 years, was a taxpayer & consumer in my city, county, state, country. No one should lump all persons with the same diagnosis together; SB & Down’s have ranges where people can be high-functioning & very capable contributors to their society as well.
I, too, have a precious soon who has Down syndrome. We knew prenatally…I am a nicu nurse and I find that early diagnosis for many illnesses/defects/deformities can be very helpful. So many conditions can be helped with surgeries IN UTERO! Ds, however, can not be helped or cured prenatally, but his early diagnosis ensured that my son was extensively monitored during the pregnancy. He had a heart defect and had open heart surgery at 3.75 months old weighing just 9lbs. He SAILED THROUGH SURGERY and RECOVERY AND IS CURRENTLY SAILING THROUGH DEVELOPMENTAL HURDLES… There were several other babies undergoing the same surgery as my son/same hospital/same amazing surgeon… The others did NOT have Down syndrome….and they had various complications, several had been coded multiple times, some stayed for MONTHS in the cardiac ICU. My son did the best, recovery-wise, being discharged 5 days post-op… Guess that extra chromosome gave him a little extra fight, huh? My point is simple… there is no way of predicting EVERYTHING that can go awry in a person’s life… Who is going to say that my precious son is any less worth having on earth than a drug addict/cancer patient/alzheimers patient/ “normal” child with the same heart defect as my son plus huge complications or any other human who has a condition that is costly and seen as an inconvenience to others?!? Woe to our nation…. We are headed towards infanticide/euthanasia at warp speed. Designer babies? Juuuuust perfect
My wife & I learned firsthand last year just how prejudicial the medical establishment is against babies diagnosed with genetic abnormalities. We had declined amniocenteses on all of our other children, but based on a 20-week ultrasound, the doctor all but ordered my wife to immediately submit to one for this pregnancy. I was deployed with the Navy at the time, and unfortunately wasn’t able to be there to stand up to the doctor on that particular day. Our son was subsequently diagnosed with Trisomy 18, which the doctors and Genetic Counselor described to us as being “incompatible with life.” When my wife told them that she would carry the baby to term without hesitation, her decision was met with unanimous disbelief and called into question on nearly every subsequent prenatal appointment. I returned in time for our son Andre’s birth, who unfortunately passed away in the womb just one day prior to his due date.
While we are grateful for having been given the knowledge of our son’s condition, so that we could prepare ourselves & family for the potentialities of Andre’s life & death, there’s no question that with the mindset prevalent among the overwhelming majority of the medical establishment today, the future does not look good for these babies.
Prenatal testing is here to stay, and like any technology, can be used for good or ill. The only way we will prevail in this is by working towards building the Culture of Life that Blessed JPII spoke some much about.
As a final thought, the outpouring of grace that we experienced during our son’s short life here on earth was nothing short of amazing. We have absolutely no regrets for haveing chosen to carry him to term, and the experience greatly strengthened both our marriage and our faith. As with every human life, Andre was and is a blessing.
Dave B, thank you for sharing the beauty of your son Andre’s short life. No life is without purpose in God’s plan, and to prove that, I have edited a book of 34 stories like yours called “A Special Mother is Born”. Four of the contributors have children with Trisomy 18 and have shared similar blessings they received from the short or not so short lives of their beloved children.
Thank you Blessed John Paul II who entered his Father’s House seven years ago today, for reminding us of this.
Obamacare is already setting up regulations which will determine who gets expensive medical treatments, the “death squads” the administration tries to coverup. Obama when in the U.S.Senate voted for and co-authored a bill which would permit doctors to kill a baby which survived an abortion. As Obama tpold the president of Russia, “after the election I will have more flesibility.”
I read some of these articles and I am so sad. we have two sons with Down syndrome and they are such joys. Michael 20, is so loving and considerate and finds joy in everything. He is such an example to me. Our son Martin 12, comes up to me every day and tells me that I am the BEST mom in the whole world and gives me a big hug. They are so precious to us and actually I feel sorry for families that HAVEN’T been blest with a child with Down Syndrome!
This makes me so sick!
.
what we really need is a prenatal test to determine if someone is destined to be a politician without a heart!!!
Could there be anything more perverse than the attitude that those with disabilities are just defectives who must be killed? That is Nazi thinking, it’s just more hidden in abortion. The Nazis started with disabled children, you know!
Basically huge numbers of people have internalized Nazi thinking and practice, while continuing to consider themselves “good people.” To think of all this murder of innocent human beings is enough to make one sick and filled with despair.
Meanwhile, it is not the poor Down syndrome children of the world who are destroying society, but the so-called “fit” people who have no compassion!
One of my very good friends is a pro-life genetic counsellor who works tirelessly to ensure that babies with special needs receive adequate care when in the womb and out in the real world. Prenatal testing is a good thing. Will people abuse it? Of course! Is that tragic? Definitely. But people abuse wine, sex, and good jokes - it doesn’t mean those things should be outlawed.
I didn’t mean to imply that prenatal testing itself should be outlawed, but something is seriously wrong when 90% of women in the wealthiest nations see no hope for their unborn child with Down syndrome.
The medical profession is failing to be like your friend who gives women adequate information on the vast improvements in lifestyle, education, and longevity in the Down syndrome community.
Thankfully there are increased numbers of programs which do offer help, like Lettercase which produced the wonderful booklet, “Understanding a Down Syndrome Diagnosis” which has been sent to the nation’s Obstetricians and genetic Counselors. Order it at http://lettercase.org/
I know I will be seen as a monster, but raising children is hard and expensive. I could not, in good conscience, have a child I would not be around to take care of after I died 50 years after he was born. A ward of the state or worse.
I appreciate the humanity and downs children are often sweet people, but I couldn’t raise and abandon (at death) one if an option were available. It currently is, safe and legal.
I experienced first hand the genocidal effects of prenatal screening while pregnant with my now teenage son with DS in the UK-I first twigged to this effect when told by the doctor at my son’s first check up that there had been a 100% detection rate of DS babaies pre-natally in the District in the last year and of the 4 detected, only by son was born; the others were aborted. Then I witnessed other indicators of the effect such as there being a noticeable dearth of babies and toddlers with DS at the local support group etc etc. I was so disturbed by this obvious genocidal effect that I wrote to the then UK Minisiter of Health informing him that Hitler had won the war afterall…..This was my first letter of many sent to various politicians over the next 17 years but I am now starting to think that while this lobbying is vital; of equal improtance is the need to educate society as a whole. Humans are attracted to beauty, wealth, intelligence….and these days many have the belief that this life is it-this is their only shot at life, so it must be perfect. We need to advertise the fact that human beings who offer unconditional love and acceptance (i.e people with DS) are worth investing in just as much as those who are inttelligent/beautiful…people need to know that DS is not a disaster (quite the opposite) and that life is just as “perfect” with a child with DS; that way screening would no longer be requied and our beautiful children would be welcomed into the world.
I experienced first hand the genocidal effect of screening while pregnant with my now teenage son with DS in the UK-I first twigged to this effect when told by the doctor at my son’s first check up that there had been a 100% detection rate of DS babies pre-natally in the District in the last year and of the 4 detected, only my son was born; the others were aborted. Then I witnessed other indicators of the effect such as there being a noticeable dearth of babies and toddlers with DS at the local support group etc etc. I was so disturbed by this obvious genocidal effect that I wrote to the then UK Minister of Health informing him that Hitler had won the war afterall…..This was my first letter of many sent to various politicians over the next 17 years but I am now starting to think that while this lobbying is vital; of equal importance is the need to educate society as a whole. Humans are attracted to beauty, wealth, intelligence….and these days many have the belief that this life is it-this is their only shot at life, so it must be perfect. We need to advertise the fact that human beings who offer unconditional love and acceptance (i.e people with DS) are worth investing in just as much as those who are intelligent/beautiful…people need to know that DS is not a disaster (quite the opposite) and that life is just as “perfect” with a child with DS; that way screening would no longer be required and our beautiful children would be welcomed into the world.
Rover, Abortion (death) is not a safe option, never for the baby and rarely for the mother. We don’t get to play God. Period. There is such a thing as morality and it is not subjective. There are many stories of hope for people with DS and many groups and organizations that can help take care of them as they age. Just because someone’s quality of life might not fit society’s standards does not mean they do not deserve the chance to live it. One could easily say the same for the elderly, it is costly to care for them and their families do not always chose to do it and they often become wards of the state or worse. So do we just kill them? Sure would save the tax payers $$.
Rover, please think through what you wrote. You acknowledge the “humanity” of people with Down syndrome and that they are often sweet “people”. How can we decide which “sweet people” live, and which ones die because of our own fear of what MAY be 50 years on the future? Safe and legal, does not mean abortion is under any circumstances a moral choice. Individuals who are born with an extra 21st chromosome are just as much a part of “humanity” as you or I. We have a 10 year old son who has diabetes and Down syndrome. He is a beautiful child and the love of our lives. My wife was just expressing concern about his care after we die, but I just can’t see the concern. Medical research is advancing at such a tremendous rate that there will likely be treatments to improve the IQ of individuals living with Down syndrome within 10 years. Diabetes research is also progressing at an incredible pace. By the time we die I have no doubt our son will be in a much better situation than he is today. I suppose what I’m trying to say is that life is full of unknowns. To fear them is paralyzing. To embrace them is courage and faith supported by the virtue of hope.
Excellent point, Mark, I have been told by three Down syndrome researchers that we are on the verge of a breakthrough in terms of treatment for cognitive difficulties in Down syndrome, in the year 2000 this was thought to be impossible. You never know what promise the future holds, and even if it doesn’t its inhumane to kill people because they require more of us.
My 18 year old daughter Gabriela and her 14 year old sister Bella know they will be ‘in charge’ of my 10 year old Christina if she outlives my husband and I. They don’t feel burdened by this, they has always helped with Christina’s care and has had theor capacity to love expanded by this sisterly relationship. They are not unique. In The Journal of Medical Genetics, Dr Brian Skotko published a survey where 89% of siblings of children with Down syndrome said that having a sibling with Down syndrome made them a ‘better person’.
As Catholics we have to show the world that challenges like raising a child with special needs expand our hearts and help us overcome our selfishness. We need more people who help us grow and show us unconditional love, not fewer!
What is next in the Obama HHS plan? What is behind the curtain?
My daughters are reading the “Little House” books by Laura Ingalls Wilder.
Laura tells about how she used to “see out loud” for her sister Mary, who was blind, describing in vivid detail the passing scenery. I agree that helping those with special needs does help us overcome our selfishness. In Laura’s case, it also had the effect of making her a best-selling writer.
We diminish our own humanity when we refuse to cherish the lives of our weaker brothers and sisters.
This is what gets me about the whole Obamacare bill. What Obama and liberals care about is a supposed equality, an attempted “fairness”. There cannot be ANYTHING that is uncovered by the bill, because that would not be fair. There really can’t be multiple policies to “choose” from, because that implies that you are not getting what someone else is getting on another policy. It isn’t “fair” for you to save money over someone who needs a more expensive policy. It isn’t “fair” for one policy to cover something that another doesn’t. There cannot be any choice in coverage, and there cannot be anything left out - prenatal testing, contraceptives, anything one person gets, everyone has to get - because to leave out anything is “unfair”. And mean, and unfeeling. Now, of course, there is the problem of money. Even people who apparently believe in a magic money well in DC realize that at some point, the numbers no longer work (that is, the Chinese will no longer be willing to play the game and continue to lend money to a country that obviously cannot pay even the interest on its debt.) Therefore, there will be ONE policy to choose from, and it will not really cover very sick people. That will include Downs Syndrome children, who, if they survive the threat of abortion and make it to birth, will not be given the extra medical treatment that they require. Elderly people will be given a “pain pill” - the President has already said so! - rather than being given real treatment. The sicker a cancer patient is, the less will be covered for him or her. Not only that, it truly is a bill that needs to limit the number of patients, and Sebelius and Pelosi have already admitted that that is the real purpose of covering contraception. It saves money. Letting seniors and very sick people die also saves money. That is the way this thing will work. It has to work that way. There will be some exceptions: the groups that are given waivers from the bill (members of “the Party”, that is, groups sufficiently acceptable to the ruling class), not to mention Congress itself (the elites) since they exempted themselves from what they knew to be an inferior situation. It’s the way it is, and it’s the way it will be unless this bill is thrown out and real insurance reform can take place. The government is not competent to make medical decisions for us. It is not why the government exists. It cannot manage such an enormous, non-governmental portion of our economy. We can talk details if we want to, details like contraception and prenatal testing, but it doesn’t really matter. This bill is a disaster, and it has to go.
Rover, you said:
“I appreciate the humanity and downs children are often sweet people, but I couldn’t raise and abandon (at death) one if an option were available. It currently is, safe and legal.”
Interesting, you could only use the word “it”. What is “it” that you would do? And is “it” safe for your child? And if it were not legal, would you still do it, or are you one of the people who says, “It is legal. Therefore there is nothing wrong with it.” Which implies that if it is illegal, then it is also “wrong”. Are our rights really that arbitrary? Do we have a right to life, or don’t we? Do we have a right to kill an innocent person, or don’t we? Do we only have the right to life only if we are endowed by our government with that right? Are rights permanent, or are they changeable?
I hope you never kill a child of yours so that it avoids suffering. Have you ever looked into the methods of “it” that are used when the baby is at the age that DS is prenatally diagnosed? Can you say that that child is avoiding suffering, or do you see that it is being subjected to unthinkable suffering?
Rover-people with DS, in New Zealand at least, go flatting, run backpacker hostels,get jobs and have partners…...I know of a number of adults who are flatting. One young man has his parents at his flat for dinner on Sunday evenings and when the dinner’s over and the dishes are washed the parents are told politely to go home! This man loves his independence and has been easier to get off flatting then one of his siblings (who keeps going home to his parents!). I think you’ve been sucked into the myths that surround Down syndrome and have pre-conceived ideas/assumptions (and I don’t blame you-that is what society and the govt, who provide the screening programmes/abortion, tell you)but its just not true-our children are more than capable of having these supported independent lives without their parents….worrying about what will happen after you die is not a reason (excuse?) for aborting a baby with DS.
I adopted a child with a genetic disorder. I am absolutely appalled that this is happening in America. It makes me sick to know that some people feel that my son’s life is not worth the expense. This moral sickness is worse than any physical condition for the human race.
Rather than imposing (insurance paying for) prenatal detection of genetic abnormalities, why don’t we save healthcare $$ in other ways? Suggestions:
.
1. Create insurance plans that do not cover contraception, IVF and other ART treatments.
.
2. Insist that youth sports be curtailed after early sport-related treatments and surgeries for ACL tears, concussions, etc. Do not cover (pay for) subsequent injuries when profligate families insist that their darlings continue to play dangerous contact sports after serious and expensive treatments for such unnecessary and avoidable injuries.
.
“abortion has had an important, and positive, public-health effect,” in that it has reduced “the number of children afflicted with severe defects.”
Yeah, that sounds a lot less impressive when we remember that it has significantly reduced the overall number of children, period.
-
Rover: that could just as easily happen anyway! How would you know? A relative of my mom’s had to be cared for the rest of his life after an anesthetist’s mistake when he was a teenager. As for options, adoption is also legal, arguably safer for a woman, and definitely safer for the baby.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.