Yesterday afternoon's web edition of The Washington Post's story
Down Syndrome Now Detectable In 1st Trimester: Earlier Diagnosis Allows More Time for Decisions noted that "word of the study triggered criticism from opponents of abortion, however, as well as from those who object to its use to prevent the birth of children with Down syndrome."
But, as is often typical in stories like this, the only folks quoted were right-to-lifers. No disability spokespeople were quoted. It would be easy to get the impression that disability groups worried about the ability to abort Down Syndrome fetuses were simply right-to-lifers themselves.
Every major disability rights group I know of comes down on the decidedly pro-choice side of the spectrum. They do oppose abortion for disability, however. They oppose it the same way feminists oppose abortion of female fetuses specifically because of gender.
Remember the uproar not too long ago when William Bennett told us that
"you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down"? Pro-choice folks were all over that one, and for the right reason. "Selective" abortion for race or gender is wrong. Every progressive I know believes that
But what about when it comes to disability?
The Toronto Globe and Mail, in reporting the story, quoted Michael Shaw, chairman of the Canadian Down Syndrome Society, who
said the group does not oppose prenatal screening but is concerned about how results will be explained to would-be mothers and what they will do with the information.
"Let's be honest: The only advantage of first-trimester screening is so parents can abort, and about 80 per cent do if they learn they are going to have a child with Down syndrome," he said.
Mr. Shaw said the society's position is that "women have the right to choose but we want them to make an informed choice." He said most Canadians -- including many physicians who will be giving the results of tests -- have an unduly pessimistic view of Down syndrome, and fail to recognize that the vast majority of children born with the condition live full and fulfilling lives.
A very good piece on ABC News' Good Morning America does get into the issue, interviewing mothers who felt they'd been given less than accurate information about what to expect about a child with Down Syndrome:
Beth Allard:
"They called me at work to tell me, and then said, 'You have two weeks to decide if you're going to keep this child. Either way, it's an awful thing,'" Allard said.
Allard said she was told her child wouldn't be able to read, write or live any sort of productive life. Outside of that, her doctor gave her no further information or resources, she says.
"They were very negative throughout the whole thing," she said. "I cried every day. I was so scared."
National disability rights groups, which do not appear to have been quoted in any stories I've found yet, take a position that should be familiar to pro-choice activists: While supporting a mother's right to choose, they strongly question the message they say is sent to people like Allard -- that a child with Down Syndrome has no meaningful life, and that life with a Down Syndrome child is awful.
To those who think I'm off-base with this, I recommend Michael Berube.