Supreme Court Unexpectedly Upheld Regulatory Elimination of Down Syndrome

I meant to post this earlier, but so much has been going on!  But I wanted to tell you about this, which made me so mad!  Mark Leach, a Kentucky lawyer whose daughter has Down syndrome, recently wrote a must-read article on Thin Places.  It’s about how the Supreme Court’s recent ruling regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would impact the lives of people:

A common reaction to the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was that it was “unexpected.” The Chief Justice reportedly sided with the dissenters to overturn the entire law, only to then switch and author the majority opinion. But buried within the PPACA regulations is something that for many also should be unexpected. If it’s not addressed, it does not matter what else PPACA does for individuals with Down syndrome and their families.

Pursuant to PPACA’s provision for no-cost preventive care services for women, insurance policies will be required to provide no-cost prenatal genetic testing starting August 1, 2012. A preventive treatment exists in response to many non-genetic prenatal tests. For instance, when my wife was expecting our daughter, she was prenatally tested for gestational diabetes and was able to monitor her condition so that it did not negatively impact the pregnancy. This is not the case, however, for prenatal testing for Down syndrome, the condition our daughter has had since at or near her conception.

There is no treatment pre- or post-natally for the extra 21st-chromosomal material that causes Down syndrome. Currently, an estimated 400,000 Americans have Down syndrome. Characterizing prenatal testing for Down syndrome as “preventive care” expresses a policy that fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome should be prevented from being born. Indeed, a member of the Court’s majority, Justice Ginsberg, previously stated in an interview that one purpose of abortion is to reduce “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Population reduction is exactly what happens where there is a public policy for prenatal genetic testing…

To say that a genetic condition should be prevented, with the only means of that prevention being abortion, is morally objectionable.

Remember when my mom warned about “Death Panels?”  Well, here we are.

When I think about people aborting their babies just because they might be like my brother, it makes me so angry and sad at once.  Please read Mark Leach’s article and pray that the PPACA regulation’s requirement for no-cost prenatal genetic testing for conditions that cannot be treated be rescinded.

P.S. This was my 100th post!!!  Who’s read all of them?

You might also enjoy these articles on the Faith and Family Channel:

Connect with me further by:

  • Piscean Gal

    Good afternoon, Jellybean!

  • Piscean Gal

    Hi MiddleRoader, yes, her mother did have the test done, as she wrote about it in her book. I quoted pieces from it twice today. One time it showed up and was removed and the second time it didn’t show at all. I’m thinking the “powers that be” didn’t like my opinion, based on what her mother wrote. ;-)

  • David Dempsey

    The woman should have the right to make the decision — no one else should be allowed to make the decision for her — especially the Federal Government.

    • MiddleRoader

      Agreed. And no one is making the decision for the woman.

  • MiddleRoader

    Sorry for the length of this post, but I wanted to put in the entire quote, so people don’t say it’s out of context. This is from the Mayo Clinic website (date of info April 2011):

    “Screening for Down syndrome is offered as a routine part of prenatal care. A mother’s age has traditionally been a factor in the decision to screen for Down syndrome. But now, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends offering various screening tests for Down syndrome to all pregnant women, regardless of age. Although screening tests aren’t perfect, they can help you make decisions about more-invasive diagnostic tests and the course of the pregnancy. If your baby is diagnosed before birth with Down syndrome, you’ll also have more time to prepare for caring for a child with special needs. Your health care provider can help you weigh the pros and cons of these tests.”

    OB/GYN is NOT my area of expertise, so I could be missing something, but looks to me like the outrage to provision in the ACA is a tempest in a teapot. I welcome any opposing views and/or clarifications.

  • Misty

    Bristol, to lift your spirits a little, here is a story about a Downs baby landing a fashion campaign deal! Your brother Trig is cute enough to be in one himself!:)

  • Jake

    Although Bristol…I do want to encourage everyone to spay and neuter their liberals, gotta control the population! Just kidding liberals. It’s just a joke! Learn to laugh a little. We laugh at your comments on Bristol’s blog every time one of you comes here to rant and rave because once again Bristol has confused you with common sense and logic!

  • Pingback: Friday Cookout Edition | Palin4America()

  • Robin

    Thanks for posting this Bristol. And congrats on the Dancing thing. I was praying we’d get to see you dance again. Kick butt girl.

  • chris

    So, I am not sure where the talk of “death panels” was in that article. I will read it again to make sure I did not miss anything. What I read was that women who are pregnant will be given the opportunity to check the health of their babies in a more comprehensive manner at no cost. Now, given that Republicans feel health care should only be given to those who can afford it, I can see why you would be against this provision. However, in regards to this provision creating “death panels” I would say your tactics on the matter are a bit misleading, perhaps sensationalist.

    Curious though, if the prenatal tests could indicate the likelihood of homosexuality, how would you feel about women aborting their potentially gay children?

    • Agkcrbs

      As you well know, the author is opposed to infanticide. It’s a transparent manoeuvre on your part to assault her character with a reckless inference that she may suddenly be in favour of it. But if leftists are o.k. with straw men and wrongful associations, then I’ll admit my own lingering curiosity, hoping you’ll recognise your own stupidity in it: how would a child molester like yourself feel about fewer potentially pliant victims being born in consequence of such tests?

  • wendy

    This post full of alarm about prenatal tests illustrates the power of paranoid thinking. There are in fact many advantages to early knowledge that a baby will have Down Syndrome, one being that there are sometimes prenatal treatments that can improve health and wellness. There is nothing in this policy that would make a reasonable person have concerns about “regulatory elimination”–