The Quest to Ban Selective Abortion

(Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
A new federal bill would prohibit abortions chosen because a fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome.

Two years ago, CBS News published a report praising Iceland for “eradicating Down syndrome births.” The article’s headline promised a to give readers a glimpse “inside the country where Down syndrome is disappearing.”

But, as it turned out, Icelandic doctors hadn’t been pioneering cures for the chromosomal disorder; they’d been overseeing a medical system in which nearly 100 percent of pregnant women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome choose abortion.

Here in the U.S., the percentage isn’t quite so high — but being better than Iceland isn’t saying much. A 2012 meta-review of 24 studies conducted between 1995 and 2011 found that somewhere between 61 percent and 93 percent of U.S. women choose abortion after a Down-syndrome diagnosis, a range the researchers narrowed to a “weighted mean” of 67 percent.

The obvious intention to eliminate unborn human beings diagnosed (and sometimes misdiagnosed) with Down syndrome has long been a cause of concern for the pro-life movement. In the U.S., it has spurred a number of efforts to protect those individuals legislatively, over and against claims that killing is the “compassionate” choice in such cases.

The latest attempt is a federal bill, the first of its kind, that would forbid abortion providers from performing abortions sought because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome. Republicans in both the House and the Senate have introduced the legislation under the title the “Down Syndrome Discrimination by Abortion Prohibition Act,” which imposes a fine and/or imprisonment of up to five years for violations. It also contains privacy protections for pregnant mothers, forbids coercion used against them, and bars them from prosecution. Though the legislation likely won’t pass anytime soon, public opinion suggests it’s not a hopeless effort.

According to a recent Gallup survey, only a plurality (49 percent) of Americans favors allowing first-trimester abortions when Down syndrome has been detected. More than two-thirds of Americans say this type of selective abortion should be illegal in the last trimester. Even more interesting, women tend to be more pro-life than men on this question: Only 44 percent of women support abortion in the first trimester after a Down-syndrome diagnosis, compared with 56 percent of men.

Within the last several years, five states have attempted to enact legislation similar to the federal bill. The legislation has taken effect in Kentucky, Louisiana, and North Dakota, but Ohio’s has been enjoined, pending a legal challenge from Planned Parenthood. This summer, the Supreme Court declined to reconsider an injunction against Indiana’s bill, which attempted to ban not only Down-syndrome abortion but also selective abortions based on the race or sex of the unborn child.

For supporters of abortion rights, these types of selective abortion present a thorny problem. Those who seek to protect abortion access tend to argue that the choice rests entirely with the pregnant woman, and thus that her reasoning can never be questioned. Advocacy groups that endorse this logic, such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL, would struggle to reject any justification for a given abortion, even if it involved something as heinous as aborting a female child because she isn’t male. In fact, these groups have sued to block bills that forbid sex-selective abortion.

Those who want abortion to be legal in every circumstance risk opening themselves up to charges of inconsistency if they concede that not every choice for abortion is equally laudable. If they admit that perhaps the state ought to police abortions chosen for misogynistic or racist reasons — if they concede that the state has any role at all in abortion regulation — they allow the mind to wander to the question: What makes it okay to choose abortion for another, perhaps more arbitrary reason?

Indeed, every abortion is selective. It selects for killing those unborn children who are considered to have drawn the short stick, for whatever reason. That’s why advocates of unlimited abortion inveigh against legislation that highlights the perversity of killing those deemed “unfit” or those lives deemed not worth living. Abortion is a determination that the powerful can exterminate the weak — for any reason at all.

Something to Consider

If you enjoyed this article, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS. Members get all of our content (including the magazine), no paywalls or content meters, an advertising-minimal experience, and unique access to our writers and editors (conference calls, social-media groups, etc.). And importantly, NRPLUS members help keep NR going. Consider it?

If you enjoyed this article, and were stimulated by its contents, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS.

LEARN MORE

Most Popular

Law & the Courts

The March for Life Is a March for Truth

Pro-lifers are marching today, as they do every year, to commemorate a great evil that was done in January 1973 and to express solidarity with its innocent victims. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade eliminated legal protections for unborn children in all 50 states, and did so without any ... Read More
Law & the Courts

The March for Life Is a March for Truth

Pro-lifers are marching today, as they do every year, to commemorate a great evil that was done in January 1973 and to express solidarity with its innocent victims. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade eliminated legal protections for unborn children in all 50 states, and did so without any ... Read More

A Nation of Barbers

It seems almost inevitable that long hair is unwelcome at Barbers Hill High School. There’s a touch of aptronymic poetry in Texas public-school dress-code disputes. When I was in school in the 1980s, at the height of the Satanism panic, the local school-district superintendent circulated a list of ... Read More

A Nation of Barbers

It seems almost inevitable that long hair is unwelcome at Barbers Hill High School. There’s a touch of aptronymic poetry in Texas public-school dress-code disputes. When I was in school in the 1980s, at the height of the Satanism panic, the local school-district superintendent circulated a list of ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Clarence Thomas Speaks

Those who know Justice Clarence Thomas say that any perception of him as dour or phlegmatic couldn't be more off-base. He's a charming, gracious, jovial man, full of bonhomie and easy with a laugh, or so I'm told by people who know him well. On summer breaks he likes to roam around the country in an RV and stay ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Clarence Thomas Speaks

Those who know Justice Clarence Thomas say that any perception of him as dour or phlegmatic couldn't be more off-base. He's a charming, gracious, jovial man, full of bonhomie and easy with a laugh, or so I'm told by people who know him well. On summer breaks he likes to roam around the country in an RV and stay ... Read More
U.S.

Nadler’s Folly

Jerry Nadler must have missed the day in law school where they teach you about persuasion. The House Democrat made a critical error early in the trial of President Trump. He didn’t just say that Republican senators, who voted to begin the proceedings without calling witnesses, were part of a cover-up. He said ... Read More
U.S.

Nadler’s Folly

Jerry Nadler must have missed the day in law school where they teach you about persuasion. The House Democrat made a critical error early in the trial of President Trump. He didn’t just say that Republican senators, who voted to begin the proceedings without calling witnesses, were part of a cover-up. He said ... Read More