I think this is the article that is being quoted to my daughter:
Supreme Court Unexpectedly Upholds Regulatory Elimination of Down Syndrome
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.
Public policies for prenatal testing result in more pregnancies being diagnosed and aborted. Graphs accessible at the European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies database demonstrate this impact, with the rate of Down syndrome pregnancies increasing, but the number of live births decreasing in those countries with a public prenatal testing program. This impact is not solely a European experience.
California has had a state prenatal testing program since the 1980’s. Program researchers have stated that the program’s purpose was to reduce the number of babies born with Down syndrome. Though almost 1,400 births with Down syndrome would otherwise have been expected during the study’s time period, only just over 700 babies were actually born, resulting in an almost halving of the next generation of children with Down syndrome. For every baby born with Down syndrome, another was aborted. The goal of the program is being achieved: babies with Down syndrome are being prevented from being born through prenatal diagnosis and abortion.
Link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thinplaces/2012/07/supreme-court-unexpectedly-upholds-regulatory-elimination-of-down-syndrome/
In the comments is this, which I agree with:
1. The title of this article is sensationalist and ridiculous. The ACA says NOTHING about "eliminating Down syndrome." So to say that the Supreme Court therefore agreed with the notion is ridiculous. It caught my attention for the sole purpose of figuring out how the truth had been bent. For every one of me there will be one hundred others who see it shared on a Facebook newsfeed but don't bother to click it, or won't read down to the SIXTH paragraph where author finally shares that it is not prenatal testing but lack of appropriate information that is the real issue. SHAMEFUL.
2. The statement that the ACA doesn't require accurate information be given (and is therefore an "anti-Down syndrome" piece of legislation is also misleading. By the author's own research, there is already federal law (which the author linked to in the article) which stated that accurate information be given. If it is already the law, why does there need to be ANOTHER law to accomplish the same task. I do understand that the first law is not being followed, and I am disgusted by that fact. Adding another essentially unenforceable law to the books wouldn't make the situation any better.
3. I agree with the previous poster, that prenatal testing can do a world of good for families who will eventually receive a diagnosis of Down syndrome. As someone who didn't receive one, but has a child with DS now, I can tell you that the excruciating feeling of grief at a time in your life which should be the most joyous is something you never really get over. Likewise, having my child immediately taken from my womb and to the NICU for testing that could have been done while he was still in my womb had I known he needed it before he was born (to check for heart and intestinal defects). Had I opted for prenatal testing, the grief, and the diagnostic testing, could have been long past when my beautiful son finally entered the world.
4. The ACA does not FORCE anyone to have prenatal testing, or an abortion in the case of DS. The ACA OFFERS testing free of charge. So did my private insurance plan, and I did not have it done. If you get a positive diagnosis, the ACA does not FORCE nor ENCOURAGE nor PAY FOR an abortion if the mother chooses to have one. Nor does it have any jurisdiction to force a private insurer to provide funding for one.
5. I see tremendous irony in an article that basically calls out the medical community for giving false/biased information being based predominantly on false/biased information.
= new reply since forum marked as read
