By Dave Andrusko
Ruth Graham has probed two abortion-related topics much more even-handedly that we would ever expect from the redundantly pro-abortion Slate on-line magazine. Earlier today we posted an analysis of her take on APR (Abortion Pill Reversal) which on the whole is very informative (my headline was “Study of Abortion Pill Reversal successes put pro-abortionists on the defensive”).
And here’s the long headline/subhead about her piece on Down syndrome and abortion–“Choosing Life With Down Syndrome: After prenatal testing shows a fetus is at risk, families are faced with a profound decision. The national abortion debate is making it even harder on them.”
Graham does an excellent job laying out the pressures unfairly placed on women, to have a prenatal diagnosis testing for Down syndrome and other chromosomal anomalies in the first place, and then to abort if the results show the baby is likely to be born with Down syndrome.
Her first example and her last both are the stories of women who did not abort. Graham makes it clear that both couples thought about “alternatives”—abortion. But by leading and ending with life-affirming choices, she is telling us that there are women who either intuitively and/or after reflection choose not to take their baby’s life.
The “hook” in the story, obviously, is how this is playing out legislatively and what that debate tells us. I was intrigued by this statement from Graham:
It feels inevitable that Down syndrome would have become a flashpoint in the national abortion debate. And, given the recent inroads made by anti-abortion activists, most of the legal battles are taking place at the state level.
But why does it “feel inevitable”? My reasons are not hers, but consider…
We are a culture that is completely schizophrenic about children (and adults) with Down syndrome. We have commercials and ceremonies and awards and “feel good” stories all touting that they are just like us…only different in a way that ought not to make the rest of us unwelcoming.
And while the United States is not Europe, the estimate is, Graham writes, that “the number of Down syndrome births in the U.S. would be about one-third times higher today if it weren’t for prenatal testing.”
And that maybe why there will be appreciably more laws introduced in the United States: the ghastly lesson from abroad. Graham writes
In many parts of Europe, including the United Kingdom, the termination rate after a prenatal Down syndrome diagnosis is now more than 90 percent. In Iceland, where testing is widespread, “we have basically eradicated, almost, Down syndrome from our society,” one geneticist told CBS last year. In Denmark, where all pregnant women have been offered screening scans since 2004, the disorder is heading for “extinction.”
Someday that 10 minute CBS News special will receive the credit it is due for awakening us to the prospect of annihilating an entire community. There are overtones of what happened in World War II that are impossible to miss.
Graham makes clear without clobbering the reader over the head what a night and day difference it makes when the hospital (or the ultrasound technician, or whomever) is affirming and helpful, making the parents aware that they are not alone and that there are resources out there to help deal with the challenges of parenting a child with a disability. All the difference in the world.
And then there is the ending. I’ve asked a couple of people how they read the final paragraph. Here it is. (The background is how many parents feel harassed when they do not abort.)
Yami Johnson, a Brooklyn mother grappling with a prenatal diagnosis last year, said one doctor sat down with her and her husband and asked them how many children they already had. “Is this the legacy you want to leave them?” Johnson recalled the doctor asking. “You’re not going to live forever.” (She gave birth to her son, Noah, in January.)
My opinion is admittedly optimistic. It could mean either or both of two things. First, that the doctor was asking if the inheritance they want to leave their other children was the death of their sibling.
Second, the doctor was also reminding them it’s what we do with our time on this earth that matters—and that a cataclysm decision like abortion was not what we would want to be remembered for.
A friend interpreted this to mean the doctor was saying flat out that if they didn’t abort, the other children would be left to care for their brother/sister. Talk about tilting the conversation and pushing the parents in one direction.
But they chose life anyway! Bravo.