Ohio Law against Aborting Down-Syndrome Babies Prevents Eugenic Practice

Earlier this week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in PreTerm-Cleveland v. McCloud upheld an Ohio law forbidding doctors from knowingly performing an abortion on an unborn child diagnosed with Down syndrome.

Because several of the concurrences referenced a 2019 concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas in Box v. Planned Parenthood — in which he illustrated the link between the logic of selective abortion and the history of eugenics — the Sixth Circuit decision has occasioned commentary from abortion proponents who argue that abortions chosen because of a Down-syndrome diagnosis are not eugenic in nature.

About the Author

Alexandra DeSanctis

Alexandra DeSanctis is a contributing writer at National Review.

Featured Tags

Earlier this week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in PreTerm-Cleveland v. McCloud upheld an Ohio law forbidding doctors from knowingly performing an abortion on an unborn child diagnosed with Down syndrome.

Because several of the concurrences referenced a 2019 concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas in Box v. Planned Parenthood — in which he illustrated the link between the logic of selective abortion and the history of eugenics — the Sixth Circuit decision has occasioned commentary from abortion proponents who argue that abortions chosen because of a Down-syndrome diagnosis are not eugenic in nature.