Ohio bill would ban abortion if Down Syndrome is reason

[Danmel]

Source: New York Times

By TAMAR LEWIN
AUGUST 22, 2015
CLEVELAND — 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.

Read more: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/us/ohio-bill-would-ban-abortion-if-down-syndrome-is-reason.html?referrer=

---

Will this intrusion into women's personal lives ever end? Will Ohio support these families they force to carry children with serious disabilities? Will they provide lifetime care for when their parents die? It will be interesting to see what Kasich does here.

[Botany]

1. Old white men and women sticking their noses into other peoples' business

I live in Ohio and know this type all too well ... home schooling, not only are they against
abortions but they are against brith controll too, climate change isn't real because of
some reason their pastor told them, and people are poor because they are lazy. "They"
are thick around where Kasich lives ..... Westerville, OH.

And watch when they feign indignation when asked about the republican's war on women.

[Shrike47]

2. It's disgusting, illogical and typical.

Is the state going to fully fund those children for life? Of course not.

[LisaL]

7. I believe these children get a disability from birth.

So the state will have to.

[Demeter]

16. From 18; for earlier ages, parents must meet income limits

No free lunch even for parents with 24 hour care needs....and at 18, $720/mo. isn't going to get a disabled person very far....and in a group home, they'll take it for the rent. So, disabled qualify for food stamps, too.

This is the stingiest, mingiest nation on earth.

[yeoman6987]

38. I doubt it. In South Korea they get no money or help for that matter

Africa either. China doubtful. Russia they throw them in the streets. I think we are above average at least.

[LisaL]

44. In Russia they throw them out on the street? Where did you get this idea?

Never mind it's completely false.
Russians could actually leave children with disability in orphanages (not on the street).

[Demeter]

45. Pretending to help, but not really? Isn't that cruelty, too?

And those other nations have no bans on abortion, and universal health care.

[mountain grammy]

3. The state needs to back off.

It's nobody's business but the pregnant woman and her doctor.

[CTyankee]

4. When I worked at a women's clinic during the times of Operation Rescue we had

demonstrators on the days abortions were performed and there was this young woman carrying a rather vicious anti-choice sign and I asked her "What kind of contraceptives do you use?" She gave me a cold look and said "That's personal!" And I asked why it was OK for her to question what the women coming into the clinic were just as "personal." So why wasn't OK for me to ask about HER personal life?

She had no answer for that.

[Hekate]

33. I've always wanted to ask anti-choice politicians how long they've been married & how many kids...

...they have. Follow up question: What kind of contraception you use and why don't you have a baby for every year?

I want the moment where they turn red with anger on video, the moment where they shout that it is none of my damned business.

Because it is not my business. Nor is it their business how women live their own lives.

[CTyankee]

35. You know, the way I feel now I'd do that if I were in a position to do so. But here in CT

we've got a nice lineup of Dems all throughout our state government. So...

[bluestateguy]

5. So the woman could just lie and give another reason

How will they know?

[leftieNanner]

13. The way you know you have a child with Downs Syndrome

is through amniocentesis (where they remove some of the amniotic fluid from the uterus with a very long needle). They do genetic testing on the fluid which contains the DNA from the fetus. Sometimes they guess that a fetus has this condition from the ratio of the head measurements in relation to the other parts of the body - limbs etc. taken during an ultrasound. This is not 100% accurate. A friend of mine was told she was having a child with Down Syndrome based on her ultrasound and her daughter was born completely normal. The point here is that the woman's medical records would indicate that she knew that her child would be born with this condition and even if she went to Planned Parenthood and didn't tell them about it, the State could and probably would follow up. NOT THEIR DAMNED BUSINESS!

[JLTaylor]

6. Oh Really

Well if you want to make this a law, and take away the choice, you should then be responsible for all the needs of the child, special housing needs, food needs, education needs etc.. Let the state and everyone living there foot the bill from the moment of diagnosis until the end of natural life.

[smirkymonkey]

12. Thank YOU!

They just don't get it, do they? Do they have any idea how much is costs to support a special needs child? Often those kids are dependent for life.

[eggplant]

8. Women don't need a reason.

That's the whole point of abortion being a right.

Anything else is just shaming.

[Auggie]

11. +1,000,000

[davidpdx]

42. +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

[blackspade]

9. Another disgusting intrusion by the morally bankrupt

[sinkingfeeling]

10. Then Ohio Right to Life needs to willingly pay for the medical and care of every

Down Syndrome child born in Ohio.

[jmowreader]

17. No, they don't

They need to willingly ADOPT those children, and pay for their care and upbringing totally out of pocket.

There is a totally repugnant billboard you'll see in the Midwest, or at least you could in 2009 - I have no doubt many are still up. It features three children, one of whom is quite visibly challenged. The caption: "Our brother is a blessing. He has Down's Syndrome." And it's got the name of one of the multitude of anti-humanity organizations that are trying to impose theocracy on this land as its sponsor.

Let me ask: How much of a "blessing" would those children be if the anti-abortion crowd could be forced to adopt them, and couldn't be allowed to give them up for re-adoption?

[Laser102]

31. You are so right!! Very heartbreaking.

Decisions to abort these children are generally based on income and other children's needs. I can't imagine the state preventing any mother from doing what is in the best interest of her family. Blows me away how involved politicians are with something so painful and personal.

[Hekate]

14. Once again: fetal worship, with no plans for prenatal or postnatal care, no plans for lifetime costs

No plans and certainly no money for anything to do with any baby once it pops out of the womb. No support for families.

Just punishment for women and their children.

But I'm sure the Right to Lifers will pray for them.

[Lunabell]

18. Yep

Not all downs people are healthy. They are at a much higher risk of heart disorders. Bowel disorders and the disability can run the gamut of abilities. Many are severely and profoundly disabled and need a life time of medical interventions. G-tube feedings, surgeries and are at a high risk for skin breakdown due to their immobility. It is a woman's choice whether she wants to risk this for her child.

[Hekate]

21. Fetus worshippers guilt-hook parents pretty badly. BUT...

But parents of a child who does not have an expectation of a normal independent adult life MUST plan for that child's future AFTER THE PARENTS BECOME DISABLED THEMSELVES OR DIE. This is a long heavy haul.

Someone has to be home to take care of that baby -- either the mother or an expensive caregiver. Where is the financial support for that lost income in a non-wealthy family? Then when the child is older, is there a school or daycare spot available for its needs? One would hope so, but where is the tax-base for that kind of support?

When the parents age out, then what?

It's easy to be sentimental and judgmental when the burden is not yours. For parents who get the news from prenatal testing and decide to go ahead, I say more power to them. In my mind, that's one of the meanings of "choice" -- you get to say yes, or no. But they better go into it with their eyes wide open, because it is a lifetime commitment with insufficient help from society.

[LisaL]

28. And never mind that disabled person might outlive the parents yet need care for the end of his/her

life. So, parents have to take into account that someone will have to take care of their adult child after they are gone. So this decision will affect tremendously not only the parents but potentially the siblings of the disabled child.
Yet somebody wants to take this decision away from the parents?

[davidpdx]

46. Very true

If a disabled child grows up the question becomes who takes care of them when they are an adult. I suppose some of it depends on how bad the disability is (could be mild up to severe). Still someone needs to watch over the person.

[Maeve]

15. "Why?" is none of the state's F***ing business!!!!

And that should be the response to any and all questions into a woman's decision.

You want to take her choice away, you get to raise the baby. And pay for the medical bills for her as she continues and recovers from the pregnancy. And a fee for womb rental. (Okay, that last was just heavier sarcasm.)

[Bozvotros]

19. Perhaps they should now install tracking chips in women carrying a Downs fetus.

So they could monitor them and be sure they all gave birth. Surely they don't want people of means to have options that the poor are denied.

[jwirr]

20. I am sure that people in the disability rights group are whole heartedly

in agreement with all of you.

Just for your information: One of the problems with abortions and downs is that there is no test that can tell us what the level of disability will be.

The most severe often die very soon after birth and IMO that would be a reason for an abortion if they can be distinguished from those less severe.

But others have much higher levels of functioning and live to middle age at least. They can live quite good lives.

What disability groups object to is that allowing abortion for this reason only is a bit like saying "let's get rid of all disabilities" through abortion no matter how severe. I believe this was the goal some years ago in another country.

[kimmylavin]

23. But we're not talking about people with disabilties.

We're talking about whether or not the government can stop a woman from having an abortion, if she decides to, for whatever reason.

I know several people who have children with Downs, and they run the gamut, as far as the level of disability.

Each of them knew beforehand.
And then they CHOSE to continue their pregnancies.

This bill would take away that choice, and that's the issue.

[Hekate]

34. We are talking about the legal right to have an abortion. The majority of aborted zygotes...

...are healthy, and the anti-choice zealots want to make sure they achieve full term pregnancy as well. The issue is not whether they are or are not healthy, but whether or not a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy.

Forbidding the abortion of an unhealthy zygote or fetus is simply an added burden on women already experiencing their legal rights being chipped away in every state in the nation. We are discussing the cruelty of that burden.

We do let ourselves get sidetracked by the opposition, as they are very clever with their wedge issues. Encouraging disability rights advocates to join the fray does nothing for either the disabled already in existence or the women who must make difficult choices about their own personal adult futures.

Existing disabled people are in no personal danger from potential parents who want to avoid adding to their number. Existing healthy children are in no danger from women who decide they cannot have a baby now and therefore will have an abortion.

Women who make this gamut of choices are not being heartless. Women are moral agents, and able to make such decisions themselves, despite the fetus-fetishists who want to go right back to 1950 and outlaw all abortions whatsoever.

[uppityperson]

54. We are not saying "let's get rid of all disabilities" but that a woman's right to chose should not

be limited in this way. They want to limit a woman's right to a legal abortion if the fetus is disabled, but not if it is not disabled. A woman should have the right to chose, between her and her doctor. Period.

[Chemisse]

58. But a woman doesn't have to give a reason for an abortion.

If she has a right to abort a healthy fetus, she surely has every right to say no to bearing a child that she knows will have disabilities. It's not just 18 years when you have a baby with Down Syndrome. It's your entire life, and then what happens to the child when you die?

Ironically, more women are opting to skip the amniocentesis, because they would NOT choose to abort. Again, they have the right to make this choice.

[valerief]

22. I'm sure included in that bill is a ban on refusing employment to a Down Syndrome adult or

firing a Down Syndrome adult. It's not like the GOP government will watch out for people with Down Syndrome, so they need to be able to support themselves as adults.

I'm sure these "compassionate conservatives" have included such a ban.

I'm sure Hell is freezing over, too.

[Kelvin Mace]

24. Can't wait to see Kasich's position

Does he cave to reality and immediately lose the primaries, or does he cave to the forced birthers and immediately lose any chanced in the general?

[dembotoz]

25. Best friend has adult special needs child.the money drain never ends

[humbled_opinion]

26. At what phase of development are they

diagnosing down syndrome?

[dhol82]

29. There is a blood test that can be used in the first trimester

There are two other tests that can be done in the second trimester that are more accurate - 99%.

Abortion can be done before 20 weeks.

[humbled_opinion]

39. Than why do they need a bill to ban

something that if determined a woman can choose for any number of reasons, a woman should never be made to justify her choice. Who said Judge not lest ye be judged, oh yeah the same one who they trumpet is against abortion..

[dhol82]

43. Because they are nuts?

[LisaL]

27. Seems to me it would violate supreme court's decision.

You can abort a healthy fetus for any reason, or disabled fetus, except if this fetus has a specific disability (Down syndrome?)
How does it make any sense?

[murielm99]

52. I think the is may also violate HIPPAA law.

How are they going to find out if the woman is carrying a fetus with Downs? They would have to look at their medical records, which is against the law.

[uppityperson]

55. I am glad someone else sees this oddity.

[NutmegYankee]

57. I'm sure quite a few of us do.

I predict this will be a more exciting reaction once it hits the courts than potassium metal and water. It's blatantly not Constitutional.

[SunSeeker]

30. No woman should be forced to give birth to a baby, any baby.

[jkbRN]

32. this is super inhumane

seriously. ugh.

[Democraticsince2000]

36. Aborting a child with a disability

I am usually very liberal on these issues but I am sorry if a parent finds there future child is handicapped in any way that should not be a reason to abort. if these are reasons to abort thank god they did not have them when my brother was born he was born deaf and with CP and if they had the option back then I would not have the brother that I love dearly. A brother who worked hard for the same company for 25 years. A brother who is generous to a T. And a brother who has not let his handicap stop him from enjoying life. This is one time I agree with Republicans (as a cold chill runs down my spine). And for all those who will say that raising a handicapped child is tough yes it is. I saw my parent struggled but it was well worth the struggle. And remember in germany they got rid of the handicapped because they were not perfect little aryans. we can't go down that road.

[waddirum]

37. Someone else's reason for choosing to have an abortion are none of your business

Everyone woman has a 100% right to choose what to do with her body. That includes choosing to terminate a pregnancy if prenatal testing indicates a potential medical issue.

[TexasBushwhacker]

41. It is about CHOICE

Your parents may have chosen to continue the pregnancy knowing about your brother's disability. I'm glad your brother has some quality of life and of course you love him.

I have a cousin whose son is quadriplegic because of CP and while he is often happy, I've also heard him say he wished he could kill himself. If they had known before he was born that he would be disabled, would they have terminated the pregnancy? I don't know. I don't know if they know. But I know its not my decision and it is certainly not the governments.

[Hekate]

47. Read my post #34. The majority of pregnancy terminations are for healthy zygotes.

Either you are pro choice or you are not.

[tavernier]

50. I have to respectfully disagree

I am pro life. But I do not have the right to make a birth decision for another woman, so I would vote pro choice, not pro abortion.

[davidpdx]

48. Welcome to DU

Certainly your opinion is yours, but most of us believe in the unconditional right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy no matter what the reason is. Imagine a situation where a unmarried woman found out she was pregnant and the baby had some sort of major disability (Down's Syndrome, etc.) and the father was completely out of the picture. The woman has a job, but to take care of the child would be more than she could afford.

[uppityperson]

49. In your opinion, what is a valid reason to get an abortion?

You would deny a woman an abortion because the fetus is disabled, so are abortions where the fetus is not disabled ok?

[ericson00]

40. change the name from Down's Syndrome to Koch's Syndrome

that should also be in what Kasich signs. He knows he's in it so he's not left out at their next shindig.

PS I don't mean to be insensitive but I needed a witty way to point out who will ultimately be responsible for such an evil law.

[Marthe48]

51. LONG story I live in Ohio. I'm pro-choice

I have 2 nephews that are disabled, one because of birth injuries, one is autistic. The birth injured nephew was adopted by my brother and his wife, as a baby in 1989. My (ex)sister-in-law basically wanted to adopt a special needs baby so she could collect benefits because of the disabilities. After 3 years, our nephew ended up in full custody of his grandmother, and she took wonderful care of him. The grandmother talked about leaving her home to the state of Ohio, so they could create a group home where my nephew would always live. He is so profoundly disabled, he will never be able to care for himself. His adoptive mother was unfit, and I don't even want to think about that part of it. My brother died in 2002 as a result of injuries from a vehicle accident. My sister pushed for and got a workmen's comp claim on behalf of our nephew, because the vehicle my brother was driving belonged to his employer and was found to be unsafe and the cause of the accident. I send cards on holidays, but I haven't heard from the grandmother for several years. We live in different parts of the state, and we might as well be on the moon somewhere.

My other nephew is autistic. My husband's sister and her husband took care of him at home his entire childhood and into his early 20's. Our nephew always got a little disability check, and along with a single earner most of the time, the family got by. My sister-in-law got ovarian cancer, and died at age 52. Less than 2 years later, our brother-in-law was diagnosed with cancer in his penis, and he died at 54. Our nephew has a sister and she has gotten him into a group home. He works at a sheltered workshop, where he makes a pittance. But he works with the guys he lives with and he has adjusted to a life in a group home and sheltered workshop. Our brother-in-law has a large family who lives near our nephew and they see him often. We weren't close to the family, for reasons such as age difference and living in different states. But we helped when they moved back to Ohio and did everything that we could to ease those last, horrible awful years. I won't ever feel like we did enough for either nephew, but I don't imagine any of the relatives feel good about the situation. Maybe the idiots who came up with the law think that only rich, functional, healthy people have children with disabilities and some damned fairy comes to the family's rescue with money, continence and calmness. Put the people who created this idea on adult diaper duty. Have them guide a retarded adolescent through puberty. Or give the family money for respite care. Yes, I thought so.

I think it is the family's business what they want to do. My sister-in-law and her husband killed themselves providing for their children. They didn't know they had no future and so they didn't plan for their child's future. It was their choice to keep their child with them, instead of 'putting him away'. It was up to their grieving daughter to make sure her brother was going to be cared for. As an aside, she and her husband tried to have him stay with them, but it just didn't work.

My other nephew was not wanted by his birth parents, and was adopted by a really horrible woman. My brother was the boy's main caretaker when he was home, and his grandmother was his main caretaker when my brother was working (truck driver)

Whoever came up with the stupid idea of banning abortions because of a health defect in the fetus can go to hell. They don't have a clue about the vulnerability of the disabled child, up to and including sexual exploitation, the financial burden, the daily grind of feeding, cleaning, nurturing a child who will always be a child. I admire every parent who goes forward with a pregnancy no matter what. I meet a couple of boys with Downs when I run errands and they are high-functioning in their disability. I didn't realize that there are so many ailments they are prone to. But I wouldn't want it for myself.

After describing my family experience, I want to say that I talked to a teacher friend today. An elementary school in her district closed last year. Mainly because the idiots out there refused to vote for the levies to keep it open. The whole district is ready to go down the tubes. Anyway, she is a special ed teacher. She was used to having a handful of children to teach. This year, she has over 20 in her classroom and half of them have IEPs. There will be 2 other educators in her class, and they will all be co-teaching the children, but there is no plan. It sounds like it is going to be the good old one room school house, only a distressing failure. I bet the teachers in that school aren't going to spend much time in the lounge (that was a BIG F* U* to Ksuck). There are so many other things wrong, I can't imagine. But the idiots who came up with limiting abortions obviously have no interest in supporting born children with special needs. I am so sick of the wild-eyed zealots running over everyone in their insane desire to destroy our country.

[3catwoman3]

53. No big gubmint here.

No siree, sir. No big gubmint a'tall.

Good point above about HIPAA.

[pansypoo53219]

56. that is NOT HIS DECISION TO MAKE! not everybody can HANDLE or AFFORD A SECIAL NEEDS KID.

[Hekate]

63. Not everyone can afford or handle a kid (or another kid), period. Full stop. Shaming women ...

...is what this is about.

As you can see from this thread, it works, too. All of a sudden women are not just "murdering their unborn Gerber Babies" but "murdering future vulnerable Down's babies." Women are just fucking heartless that way, you know? Someone should be watching us all the time to make sure that when we get pregnant, we stay pregnant. Oh wait, they already are.

People who are anti-choice want women to explain themselves. They want to know every intimate detail of the sex act: who and when and how many sex partners. They want to shove an ultrasound wand up the offending part and shame women some more. They want to delay and deny. They want to shut down every clinic. They want to redefine what viability is. They want to add a personhood amendment to every state constitution.

On that last one: Remember when some pregnant woman was murdered and all of a sudden the rush was on to define her fetus as a separate person so the evildoer could be charged with two murders?

I watched the hysteria build and I knew exactly who was behind it: the Right to Life people. It is really the height of cynicism and chutzpah to take a heinous crime and use it for your own ends that way. And sure enough, now we've got "personhood" on ballots and in laws and all along it was about stopping women from using their legal right to a private and safe abortion.

[Vinca]

59. These people have got to mind their own business.

When it comes to Down Syndrome, there is "cute" Down Syndrome where the child has slight physical changes but can function fairly well and there is very severe Down Syndrome where the poor kid spends its short life in an institution and doesn't know what's going on around him. Politicians should not be making these decisions for families. And they don't even suggest how an average family can afford to take care of a terribly disabled child. Bottom line is that once the needy child is born the GOP considers it a "taker."

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

60. How dare you terminate a fetus

that will bring the entire family heartache, and possibly bankrupt or destroy the retirement of the parents, and someday after they die, leave the child to fend for themselves. Such compassionate conservatives!

[bucolic_frolic]

61. Will the State of Ohio Pick Up the Tab?

For the lifetime care of these afflicted children?

Seems to me they'd be every bit as liable for the economic consequences
as the owners of Ashley Madison are for privacy violations.

The state would be forcing women to carry to term.

State power is legal and strong when used, but it's coercive.

[Sunlei]

62. mothers have a blood test at 10 weeks, I think they can self take RU-486 at 10 weeks?

anyway that's over the counter in most countries.

[Hekate]

64. Under 7 weeks. By prescription. A pharmacist can refuse due to his "conscience".

http://earlyoptionpill.com/how-do-i-get-mifeprex/

[Puzzledtraveller]

65. There are "pro-life" liberals.

I being one. I do not ask anyone to share my belief or think that the government should force my belief on people either. I work closely with Down children as a volunteer and my son was diagnosed with 22Q deletion, another defect of chromosomes. However I do not think you could ever enforce a law based on what you think a persons motivation is.