This is on point. Why don't we focus our resources on improving accessibility, living wages, and quality of life for existing people with disabilities, before we force a woman not ready to bring a baby that will require more care than she can provide? I don't see Kasich fighting hard for that.
23
All laws limiting abortion have one common goal: to punish women for having, and especially enjoying, sex.
33
Fetuses can kill their mothers and destroy entire families. Pregnancy left me in a wheelchair. I miraculously recovered due to a risky surgery. If I have to go through another third trimester of pregnancy I will become disabled again and likely spend the rest of my life in a wheelchair. (No it's not the birth, it's the third-trimester hormones that relax pelvic ligaments and can cause joints to become loose and thus damaged.) And if I become disabled, who will raise and feed and pay for my other, living, born, children? They entirely depend on me since my ex abandoned me while I was in a wheelchair, and is, incidentally, now suffering a disability of his own. This is real life. Disability sucks. Politicians making snap decisions in hallways somewhere have the potential to completely destroy my family. And before you say I had a bizarrely rare condition - I know two women in my neighborhood with the same problem. Another friend of mine has a one in four chance of dying from heart failure were she ever to become pregnant again. She has another child too who depends on her. Sometimes the fetus has to be aborted... or else they destroy their entire family.
54
I wonder what families that participate in the Special Olympics thinks of this bill.
2
When did having anxiety and OCD become a disability? I have the former and depression, but neither one is a disability.
9
Just another example of religious hypocrites, making every effort to create or bend any law to protect the unborn. Once they’re born the caring ceases, whether it’s by reducing Medicaid, killing the ACA, or reducing public education funding.
For proof, look at Texas, where the state is under court order to fix special education due to an intentional government led effort to “minimize” the number of children designated as needing help so the state could save money.
27
In Denmark, 98 percent of pregnancies with a Down syndrome diagnosis are terminated. It is nearly 100% in Iceland.
In France, it's 77 percent, and in the United States it's 67 percent.
15
Women should be able to abort fetuses without disclosing what their reason for doing so is. That is no one's business but theirs.
47
Anyone who thinks John Kasich is a better alternative to Trump is nuts.
14
Would we support abortions of the opioid addicted before birth--which we realistically know is a problem for babies born of such mothers?
Aren't many or most of them adopted? Aren't they even harder to raise?
1
What happens when the embryo or fetus has trisomy 21, but also has some other abnormality that will make life impossible once born? What if the woman with a downs fetus develops pre-eclampsia?
What I am curious about, just as a side issue, is how do the anti-choice Christians define what is a person? Is an anencephalic fetus a person? Is it the genes that make the fetus a person? If so, where do you draw the line? It only takes a few well placed mutations to turn a potential person into something completely unviable. Does the fetus have to be potentially viable to be a person? Does a fetus have property rights? If an evil rich couple kidnap you and implant an embryo into your uterus, do you have any rights at all? Is a uterus just a public commons?
How can something be a person if it does not think, can't feel, or even experience anything - if it does not even have a central nervous system?
If somebody were to surgically remove Donald's brain, and then keep his body alive on life support, is that still Donald? Does that Donald still have rights? Would it make a difference if the removed brain was kept viable somewhere, and could be reimplanted, or if it was fed to a pack of toy poodles, and gone forever?
Anyone want to guess when abortion is first mentioned in the Christian canon? When did this first become a religious issue in any religion?
24
Fortunately for John Kasich, he doesn't have to worry about being pregnant.
23
What struck me most, was how the author's pregnancy was marred by fear mongering doctors, and her labour insulted by hospital rules that couldn't conceive of a parent who used a wheelchair.
Tests can be wrong (as the author's example of her daughter's supposed lung condition shows).
But the real issue here is -- lawmakers landing on a slim pretext of disability rights to prevent women from making a choice that should be theirs alone, with the guidance of their own conscience and understanding of their life circumstances.
17
What disturbs me most about this is that women are treated like chattel to preserve the political interests of men. Giving lip service to disability rights only makes it more insulting. The over-moralization of the fetus with no respect to the already living is an atrocity, and it is dividing us more than ever and destroying the social fabric and social code that we as humans much look after each other as best we can. Thank yo for exposing such hypocrisy!
22
I am certain that Kasich realizes this might mean he cannot become a presidential candidate.
Republicans fought his expansion of Medicare in Ohio.
He is for certain taking a stand about how Down's syndrome children now are more accepted and more adoptable.
3
I was shocked by the CBS report a few months ago that in Iceland, nearly 100% of the women who test positive for Down syndrome have an abortion.
By comparison, in the U.S., about 67% of women have an abortion if their unborn child tests positive for Down syndrome.
When you think of the Special Olympics, aren't the Down syndrome participants a big part of what you think of?
Is it actually time to rethink whether more of these children should be born and adopted if parents cannot face this?
By the way, Kasich expanded Medicare in his state.
3
The irony is that Ohio and all of its pro-life legislators have turned a blind eye to the elimination of Down Syndrome children through IVF. Couples undergoing IVF must agree to the destruction of genetically defective embryos--including those with Down Syndrome. Given that more than 400,000 embryos a year are destroyed nationally, it is shocking that legislators refuse to even address IVF. The only conclusion one can draw is that they know too many rich, white couples undergoing IVF to even consider limiting their choices. After all, it's their friends and family who are undergoing IVF, not poor teenage girls.
20
Excellent article. As pro-choice that I am, I could understand the philosophy and passion of pro-lifers if it weren't for the complete hypocrisy that this writer articulates so well: "Pro-life" actually stops right at birth - there is no interest in actually improving quality of life for living disabled people or creating better support systems and resources for the families that care for them. These pro-life Republicans have no interest in investing in programs or even embracing disability awareness. I'd love to see what Kasich and the cronies behind this bill have done personally for disabled children or mothers with limited resources. I see no actual pro-life values at all.
19
The whole point in early genetic testing is to provide women and their families with information to make the best choice for them. Not every family is equipped to handle the difficult and expensive child rearing of a child with severe medical and cognitive disabilities. Goodness knows the Republicans have tried, at every turn, to make it even more difficult by chipping away at Medicaid and other safety nets. So the republicans ought not to have any say over a woman's decision on what to do with her body.
25
John Kasich likes to present himself as a reasonable conservative as compared to the crazy we have now. I don’t see a difference and I will never vote for Kasich to a national office.
November cannot arrive quickly enough
18
only by a miracle will the next supreme court justice not be a pre picked anti abortionist, in which case the laws of each state will govern. Returning us to the rich will have access and the poor may or may not. The cascade of consequences is terrible.
8
Iceland is a country that aborts 100 percent of babies with Down syndrome. Do we want to become like Iceland and abort every single baby who has this disability? Down syndrome children are not a curse and you cannot just discard them because they are not "perfect." Many lead productive lives and even attend college and marry.
I have a friend who has a Down syndrome brother and he has been a joy to the family. He lives an independent life in a group home and is very content. Each weekend one of the siblings has him to their home and they are not treated any differently than the others. He is so much fun and they love him immensely. They have never once considered him a burden and would never have even thought of aborting him. It would have been a tremendous loss in their lives. I must add he is a high functioning and happy adult. This is typical of many Down syndrome folks.
These children can do more then we realize and they have self worth. They have value and meaning and abortion is inhumane. We all have defects and disabilities in one way or another. Abortion would be a terrible thing to do to these human beings.
I hope we never become like Iceland and devalue these wonderful people. We are better then this.
1
"...the state of Ohio plans to coerce parents into unsupported roles as caregivers..."
What the state of Ohio is doing is preventing parents from killing the babies they already made on their own. That doesn't make it right, and you don't need to play linguistic hide-and-seek to make your point. More people will take you seriously if you stop being such a spin doctor.
1
I am a retired occupational therapist with many years of experiences with individuals with Down syndrome. In addition, my youngest sister was born with Down syndrome. I applaud this legislation that offers protection to this most vulnerable group targeted and discriminated against because of a disability.
2
This essay is so poorly written that I could not understand what the author’s point was. So I’ll try to boil it down to two propositions which seem to me self-evident. First, knowingly creating a disabled child is cruel, thoughtless and a dereliction of parental duty. Second, a disabled person who is already born deserves all possible support and help, including medical care that can cure or mitigate their disability. The Ohio bill contradicts both these propositions.
16
It is a cliché by now to point out that Republicans are supportive of embryos and fetuses but not children once they are born.
The Ohio legislation is against a woman's right to determine for herself when and whether she chooses to have a baby, it is not about the rights of as yet unborn fetuses.
22
" A womb of ones' Own ". Mind your own damn business. Period.
45
As someone with a mental illness and a chronic illness, sometimes assumptions are made about me that I don't welcome. At times, others have attempted to make me feel less human than they are. I would be lying if I said this didn't hurt, but I am as sure of my own humanity as I am of anyone else's.
I find the decision made in Ohio a rather strange one. I don't like the idea of abortion at all, but I don't believe I have the right to tell another woman what to do. As far as Downs Syndrome goes, I have quite a bit of experience serving these people and know that each one is unique insofar as medical problems and personality. I have met individuals who have severe developmental disabilities and physical impairments, and those who are intelligent enough to finish high school and have minimal impairments. Most are somewhere in between.
I have observed a fundamental hypocrisy in the Republican world view. They are staunchly pro-life until after the child is born. If someone is going to defend life, defend the right to healthcare, education, addiction services, wealth equality, the rights of the disabled, the elderly, women, and all ethnic groups.
63
Passing this bill allows them to say they support the disabled without having to do anything to actually make a life for the disabled - no medicaid fixes, no ADA, no IDEA, etc.
59
After the severely disabled child is brought into the world, the parents become round the clock caregivers doing things that used to not ever be done at home. The GOP is systematically trying to end abortion because they value life but are cutting services to children who need resources.
Most children with Down's syndrome are not those who graduate from high school with their class, but those who grow to adulthood wearing diapers and are totally dependent on their parents. Parents who have grown Down's children look like they are the grandparents because of the stress that Down's has taken on them. What happens to poorer people who don't have the resources to care for their children and can't live on just one family income? The legislators' families can afford to travel out of state for the abortions denied to poorer Ohio women.
I have a solution for Ohio. Make the legislators and the governor personally responsible for any Down's baby the parents had wanted to abort but couldn't. No, they cannot put them in an institution. They have to take them home and make them part of their family. That of course will never happen. Anti-abortion people are interested only in fetuses but have no interest in the welfare of babies and children.
89
Most "grow to adulthood wearing diapers and are totally dependent on their parents." Not true. 17% need diapers.
Dependent on parents? Some, but most are not. Also, the vast majority of Downs people's parents I know (literally hundreds) look great for their age.
Social assistance for disabled people won't happen until we understand they are not burdens, and that won't happen until we get honest facts and rhetoric.
Making governments "personally responsible" for disabled people isn't a solution and speaking in this manner (that caring for disability is punitive) obscures the issue this article brings up: that we need to provide care for disabled people rather than either side using them as political pawns.
4
You are uneducated about the reality of having a child with DS. I agree resource limitations are a problem. I DISAGREE that DS or the children with DS is the problem. The problem is the system. Much like any other parents trying to help their children, the problem is not the child, it is the difficulty in obtaining the resources to help their child become the best human being they can. So next time you try to talk about what it's like for parents of kids with Down syndrome, try asking not telling. I do not think that banning abortion of babies with DS is going to solve it, it is educating ignoramuses like yourself who believe that disability (even "severe" disability, which is NOT the same as DS) is inherently bad, which is the author's exact point.
5
Let this be a warning to all as Gov Kasich tries to promote himself as a "moderate" Republican on the national scene. He wants the State to intervene in one of the most wrenching personal decisions that anyone can make. He is as authoritarian as they come.
65
When I last saw statistics on this, I think 94% of couples who were informed that their fetus suffered from Down syndrome choose to terminate the pregnancy. This latest Republican anti abortion ploy apparently goes against most peoples' personal decision making, though we know many supporting this are incapable of empathizing with another person's plight. We can be fairly certain from the statistics that if it were one of the backers of this ban facing the situation, they would rationalize a personal exception.
95
According to the National Down Syndrome Society, your figures are way off.
About 29% of Down syndrome fetuses are aborted nowadays in USA.
According to that society:
"The incidence of births of children with Down syndrome increases with the age of the mother. But due to higher fertility rates in younger women, 80% of children with Down syndrome are born to women under 35 years of age.
"People with Down syndrome have an increased risk for certain medical conditions such as congenital heart defects, respiratory and hearing problems, Alzheimer’s disease, childhood leukemia and thyroid conditions. Many of these conditions are now treatable, so most people with Down syndrome lead healthy lives."
2
Perhaps we can begin this discussion when the government gets off its high horse and provides free accessible birth control, affordable quality health care (instead of doing its best to dismantle what little we have); when it advocates for equal pay for single mothers and advocates for paid time off for new parents.
42
And affordable accessible child care.
9
This conversation should not be about the value of a Downs baby or any baby because that's not the real issue. Whether a fetus is "killed" or aborted is a religious distinction and should also not be a factor in the discussion.
There are a couple of real issues, and the first is that all-important and necessary wall between church and state. This means that your religious beliefs about abortion are yours, and you are entitled to them. But you are not entitled to enforce those beliefs on anyone else.
The second issue is whether the state has a right to tell women what they can or cannot do with their bodies. I believe the Supreme Court at one time considered this a privacy issue, and indeed it is. Women, and not men in government, should have the power to make their own decisions about their own bodies. A fetus is not some separate entity, but a part of and depend upon a woman's body unless and until it is born. All these Republicans who complain about government intrusion in their lives seem very willing to have government intrude upon women's lives. Back off, guys!
141
Yes, it is down to constitutional rights. I was struck in Trump's speech last night when he touted that we will bring back religious freedom to Americans. I am unaware that we lost religious freedom. By comparison there are actually people in other countries who don't have religious freedom. One of those is China. I heard last weekend a report of 2 Buddhist nuns being tortured in prison for speaking publicly about the Dalai Lama. That is an example of not having religious freedom. This rhetoric from Trump is designed to fire up the base by conflating the idea that because others make decisions which are against ones religious beliefs it it diminishes religious rights. The separation of church and state & the constitution are at risk & must be protected by those who understand and appreciate the importance of freedom and tolerance to our unique society.
13
The fetus can not defend itself that's why law should protect the fetus from abortion. If the mother doesn't want to raise the baby after birth, the baby shall be raised and cared by others still under protection of law. On the contrary, assisted breathing periods shall be minimized for letting people die naturally.
6
"If the mother doesn't want to raise the baby after birth, the baby shall be raised and cared by others still under protection of law."
Nice in theory but does not work in the real world. Babies with disabilities of any type are the most difficult to place with adoptive parents. What usually happens is that they remain in state institutions at a cost to taxpayers in that state. The combination of this law with the reduction of social services in Ohio will not end well for either the state or the child.
37
It is interesting that under our laws, if you are the parent of a living child who is terminally ill and can only be saved by a blood transfusion from you alone, you cannot be forced or required by law to give so much as one drop of blood; your bodily integrity is absolute.
It is only pregnant women who some people want to require to be exceptions to this rule and to be forced to carry, bear, and raise a child.
22
Women’s bodies are not incubators. Hasn’t everyone learned this by now? The fetus is owned by the woman whose body it resides in and she may do as she pleases with it.
19
Not every family is equipped to handle a child who is born with disabilities. Not every child born with down syndrome fits the sweet image we have of them thanks to TV. Some children who have down syndrome can be quite violent and will require lifetime institutionalized care. Adoption is an option but placing a child who is born with disabilities isn't as easy as placing a non disabled child.
The decision to have an abortion is deeply personal and frankly it's no one else's business but the person who is choosing to have the abortion. As long as abortion remains legal the government doesn't get to decide under what circumstances a woman will be allowed to have one. This law is a slippery slope backwards to a time when only the wealthy had easy access to abortions while the lower classes had little say over their bodies.
114
Nothing makes the gross hypocrisy of the anti-abortion crowd clearer than their decades long record of voting for politicians who promise to and do reduce services and spending on living, breathing human beings who are poor or disabled. A close runner up would be the war mongering and death penalty stances of those politicians.
Just ask their latest messiah Donald Trump. He'll tell you.
60
So what else is new?
2
As usual, Republicans value an unborn fetus much more than a living person who might be poor, unemployed or need health insurance for medical problems. True in Ohio and true on a national basis.
I presume they are trying to pander to the evangelicals or Catholics who focus only on abortions. The truth being, that the Republicans don't give a damn about any life unless it is a rich one. They just want to please their donors and get reelected.
Greedy hypocrites lacking in any moral or ethical values - but don't they pretend really well?
85
Try raising a seriously disabled child and then tell people about the "joy"of it.
Everyone should be able to choose without blame or judgment.
196
Many people actually do find it to be a joy. However, both I and the article agree that it shouldn't be a matter of blame.
1
The "forced birth" proponents ignore the vanishing social safety nets, the difficulties faced by parents and child, the abuse or antipathy received by an unwanted child, the cycle of poverty found in families where additional children place a heavy strain on the lives of already existing family members, and, yes, as recited in this essay, the hypocritical disdain heaped upon requests for reasonable accommodation of a disabled person.
Please, do not pretend these factors do not exist. Choose otherwise in your life should you wish to do so, but do not ignore the serious reasons that abortions are obtained -- as they have been over the recorded history of our species.
100
How about "mothers choice" and leave it at that. She shouldnt have to give a reason. Her body, her choice.
78
Three cheers for arguing for support for those with disabilities. However, science and global communications are making it increasingly hard to ignore questions many extreme pro-choice advocates won't face (extreme pro-life advocates ignore other issues):
Is it OK to give blanket permission to kill some"thing" (they can't bring themselves to say someone) just because it has down syndrome (as in Iceland)? France even banned videos of happy citizens with disabilities as possibly upsetting to those wishing to abort fetuses with disabilities.
Is it OK to kill some"thing" just because "it" is female, as in much of Asia? Our so-called progressives even oppose restrictions on this disgusting anti-women practice, arguing that all "choices" must be protected. Research shows hundreds of thousands of fetuses around the world are being killed just for being female...how "pro women!"
Women must control their bodies, but society can decide to protect viable fetuses (as Rowe originally said.). All rights face restrictions, as does the right to abortion. And legality aside, refusal to face moral choices by screaming "pro choice" or "pro-life" isn't enough. We must show humanity before and after birth, respecting women, the disabled, and everyone. Tougher than slogans but a worthy goal. Killing because of disability or gender are wrong choices.
3
If I were a fetus with the down syndrome, I would not wish to be born. If in the future, I were to develop dementia, or become mentally disabled through an accident, I would wish to be euthanized. I rather be burned alive 10 times over than suffer such existence. Why would I subject a child of mine to a life I would not wish upon my self and find such disdain for? I find the decision of those that choose to have such a child immoral, although I support their right to make that choice. I believe my morality is superior to yours on this issue, obviously you would disagree,
Pleas note, I have disdain for such existence for myself, I do not have disdain for people with such disability. To them I offer kindness. I also offer them tax dollars, but not charity. I choose that because what they are owed is theirs is by right, and not something to be given as charity.
5
So a condescending nurse's refusal to provide a simple accommodation to your husband makes protections for the unborn disabled hypocritical? This is a variation on the tu quoque argument that failures to adequately support the disabled in society justifies exterminating them, or at least invalidates protecting them, in utero. This fallacious reasoning is bandied about more and more: if you don't adequately support living people, you have no standing to object to abortion. Abortion rights stand on the denial of personhood. Everything else is irrelevant. This is marketed as liberation. The reality is that the unborn are targeted, the disabled are targeted, the poor are targeted not because they aren't people, but because they are. 95% of abortions are for social reasons, i.e. the problems will start once the person is born. Exterminate them before they are people because they will be an insupportable burden once they become people.
It's also worth pointing out that most medical professionals are outrageously condescending to everyone, not just to you and your husband.
5
Oh please. Women matter. Our reproductive decisions are frankly none of the state's business. Or yours.
66
Medical professionals must, unfortunately, deal with reality. How much of a stretch is it to declare a fertilized egg, a "person". It isn't realism, it is religion that interferes with rationality. Or you could be like the Canadian Justice (disbarred)
who declared "just keep your knees together".
When a patient comes in and does not want to be pregnant, suddenly all the barriers are dropped. Just help please.
11
It really isn't a tu quoque argument as you seem to misread the thrust of the argument. The point isn't "if you don't adequately support living people, you have no standing to object to abortion." There is no argument made here regarding abortion rights. The clear point the writer makes is that bills protecting disabled fetuses don't achieve their goal. Protecting fetuses w/o protecting disabled people leads to more violence and later discrimination. PWD are much likelier than nondisabled people to be killed by cops or face police brutality; disabled women are 2x likelier to be raped than nondisabled women, and much likelier than nondisabled women to be killed or abused by their partners; disabled kids are 4x likelier to be murdered or abused by their parents than are nondisabled kids; PWD are still able to be paid less than minimum wage, and are the only minority group for which that's still legal; and the ADA is currently being dismantled. PWD also face homelessness, poverty, unemployment, physical attacks by strangers and abuse by medical providers and aides at much higher rates.
It wasn't one rude nurse for this couple. She says their room was inaccessible; that is not because of the action of one nurse. As a disabled person who became disabled in adulthood, I can confirm it is a systemic issue. I am treated much differently now, even though I am a lawyer and professor. Statistics show PWD are regularly dismissed from ERs and doctor visits w/o receiving adequate care
12
If we were discussing the abortion of 30 million fetuses because they were girls (as they do in one large country), you would have a great moment of moral clarity. Pro-choice activists would be in the streets to defy such an anti-woman policy. Switch the group from girls to disabled persons and there is less of a problem for middle class readers. Some lives are worth more than others.
6
I support the right of women to choose regardless; I don't have to like their decision.
53
If I had down syndrome I would not want my parents to have me, and I would not want my child to live with it either. For me, it is foremost a moral decision. Letting such a child be born I view as immoral. Obviously many would disagree, and I support their right to make a decision for their unborn children. Because, for many of us who would choose abortion, it is a reason of morality, any comparison to abortions due to gender is nonsensical.
My wife was over 40 years old when she gave birth to a perfect baby girl. Because of her age, we did all possible test and luckily all came back negative, but we were prepared to make that decision no one wants to make if the test results were different.
8
Aborting female embryos isn't anti-woman, because embryos aren't people, whereas women are.
10
Abortion bans, to government and conservatives, are all about burdening the lower classes.
If a wealthy Republican's daughter needs an abortion--no matter how "pro-life" they claim to be--they will find one and a quiet, unpublicized one it will be.
Out of state or out of the country, if necessary.
134
Your argument for killing the disabled is "the republicans hate poor people"? Really?
2
Or, a Congressman who votes in opposition to abortions while pressuring his mistress to have one!
31
Please present the evidence, other than fake statements, that Republicans love poor people.
6
I am not native to Ohio, nor the Midwest. I am a liberal.
For years in Ohio, we have known that Kasich believes that if the only reason for an abortion is that the baby will have Down's Syndrome, then he is against it.
In this day and age, how can any of us deny that such children most definitely are adoptable if birth mother wants to surrender the newborn?
People know these are extremely loving children, and many families have the physical, emotional and monetary means to embrace them in their households.
3
You are utterly mistaken.
Children with disabilities, with any health problems, are the last who find adoptive parents. Your assertion that things are otherwise “in this day and age” is just wishful thinking.
17
Am I missing something? This law makes no sense. A woman cannot abort a fetus deemed to have Down Syndrome, but she can abort one with any other potential disability or none? We must assume, then, that people with Down syndrome are more valuable than any other people. In fact, so valuable that the constitutional rights of its mother must be negated.
193
And thus with this logical, sensible observation, Governor John Kasich is correctly categorized as one more plain vanilla anti-choice grandstander, whose mission is simply to chip away at the rights of women to obtain a legal abortion, and to look for public accolades while he's doing it. Preventing a woman from aborting a fetus with Down Syndrome does not enhance the lives of existing people who have Down Syndrome, or proclaim their special value as human beings. It is simply one more twist on telling a woman who is not prepared to bring a life into this world that she has to do it anyway.
157