"The second push, as Sarah reported on so thoroughly here, are "informed consent" laws like the one in South Dakota, which force women to hear ideologically-compromised statements on fetal pain, the sanctity of the mother-child bond, or adoption before allowing them to exercise their right to choose."

I don't see a problem with that if the women in question are between the ages of 18 and 21, right?

They're not really old enough to consent to such a momentous decision without the government acting as in loco parentis...

"...have asked the hospital to put them in touch with expectant parents"

Uh...as in release contact info for patients to outside groups? Name, phone number, address, week of pregnancy, etc.?

I can see just a few problems there, with regards to privacy.

Looks like folks aren't so "pro-life" after all. What a surprise.

"...expect the antis to boil this issue down into a talking point and portray pro-choicers as mad scientists trying to genetically manipulate the human race."

In pre-technological society, the huge majority of those disabled babies would have died anyway, though probably more slowly and painfully. The "genetic manipulation" is in keeping disabled kids alive* to pass on their genes and in using artificial means permit the almost-infertile to reproduce.

*And I'm not saying we shouldn't!

They're not really old enough to consent to such a momentous decision without the government acting as in loco parentis...

Yes, because signing a release to have naked pictures taken of you while you're drunk is exactly the same as a well-considered decision about one's health.

Good show! I look forward to an explanation of how babies are just like bald eagles, or something similarly half-witted.

"As anyone who's had their life enriched by a loved one with a disability can attest, these conversations are incredibly fraught."

Indeed.

I'd like to hear one of those life-enrichers speak out.
Have you told this loved one, "If I knew the baby would end up like you, I'd abort?"
If this sounds cold, it's because that's what it is. If this sounds getting personal, that's because that's what it is.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. While most of the public will be enthralled in the disability/disease/abortion debate no one will be paying attention to parents selecting certain "positive" genetic traits for their babies. Winger will be crying how morally indefensible these genetic tests which may lead to abortion are' while they are having Geniuses-R-Us manipulating embryos they will soon have implanted.

There are the wider ramificaitons for society to consider, namely the burden of supporting hopelessly disabled babies who may well grow to hopelessly disabled adulthood. Better to allow abortion and selective, carefully controlled euthanasia.

I'm disabled. I have cerebral palsy, spastic quadriplegia. I'm very high-functioning, hold down a job with no assistive devices required, walk, play sports, and do most of the things that temporarily-able-bodied folks do. I'm also not mentally affected.

It's hard out here for a gimp.

I fully support the right of prospective parents of disabled children to abort, if they don't want to go through the oftentimes painful, labour-intensive, and difficult (not to mention expensive) process of raising a disabled child. It's no picnic. By the time I was five, I'd had four surgeries, more medical appointments than I can count, about a million hours of physiotherapy...and aside from not needing any more surgery until I was an adult, nothing much has changed since then. Frankly, you have to be made of pretty stern stuff to deal with doctors on that kind of a regular basis, and not everyone is up to it.

I see this issue as being analogous to the huge public pressure for childless and childfree people to have children, actually. "Because I don't want to" should be a good enough reason not to continue a pregnancy, regardless of the putative health of the embryo in question.

Further, with all the discrimination, barriers, and general BS disabled people put up with as adults, if somehow magically no more people with congenital disabilities were ever born -- snap your fingers and poof! all gone -- I'd throw a freakin' party. Since that's not likely to happen, I'll continue advocating to make life better for those of us who are here, and never, ever pressure anyone else into creating more of us, unless they know what they're in for.

xnbh tbzehdw yzodvek phjws rzhakywfo vzlbnsqx tmewygfks

I have to agree with Interrobang here. I am mildy disabled-visually impaired enough that I cannot drive. So called "pro-lifers" piss me off to no end! They cry about the abortion being used to destroy the disabled, but what precisely are they doing to help those of us with a disability who are already heere? In most cases, NOTHING. In general, conservatives are the ones who whine loudest about requiring public accomodations for the disabled!

More to the point, with the discrimination that exists today, even a mild disability can be problem. We MUST work to make society more tolerant and willing to actually help the disabled. However, change is slow and in fact, I expect a backlash soon. As it is, disabled people are often stuck in jobs for which they are very overqualified.

I fully support the right of potential parents to abort for whatever reason they choose.

creeds instance fracturing playthings parasitic stretching abducts.

I was five, I'd had four surgeries, more medical appointments than I can count, about a million hours of physiotherapy and aside from not needing any more surgery until I was an adult, nothing much has changed since then.

It was a very nice idea! Just wanna say thank you for the information you have shared. Just continue writing this kind of post. I will be your loyal reader. Thanks again.