Ohio judge blocks legislation preventing abortions in Down syndrome cases

Sep 2012
14,695
19,181
SoCal
Why just this disability?

Ohio judge blocks legislation preventing abortions in Down syndrome cases
An Ohio federal district court judge blocked legislation that would have banned abortion in cases where a fetus is diagnosed with Down syndrome.

Republican Gov. John Kasich signed the legislation into law in December of last year, and it was scheduled to go into effect March 23. The legislation is now blocked until a final ruling is made in the lawsuit.

In a court order granting a preliminary injunction Wednesday, Southern District of Ohio Judge Timothy Black said that federal abortion law is "crystal clear" that "a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability."
[...]
The law prohibits abortions after prenatal tests reveal Down syndrome in a fetus, or if there's "any other reason to believe" the fetus has the genetic condition.

A person performing an abortion in such a case could face a fourth-degree felony charge, and physicians could lose their licenses. The woman seeking the abortion would not be held accountable, according to the legislation.

The ACLU filed a complaint in mid-February calling the legislation unconstitutional.

"This law does absolutely nothing to support people with disabilities -- it's just another ploy to make it nearly impossible for Ohio women to get the care they need. We are committed to making sure this unconstitutional law is never enforced, and today's ruling brings us one step closer," Legal Director for the ACLU of Ohio Freda Levenson said in a statement.

...MORE...
 

Singularity

Moderator
Oct 2009
33,689
28,427
Kansas
It agrees with current law, but I absolutely oppose abortion decisionmaking based on prenatal disabilities.

It's selfish, it's short-sighted, and it's not necessary: If you insist on knowing if your child will be disabled or not, fucking adopt.

It's really not any different from screening out daughters via abortion for barbaric biases.
 
Jul 2013
58,352
64,468
Nashville, TN
It agrees with current law, but I absolutely oppose abortion decisionmaking based on prenatal disabilities.

It's selfish, it's short-sighted, and it's not necessary: If you insist on knowing if your child will be disabled or not, fucking adopt.

It's really not any different from screening out daughters via abortion for barbaric biases.
A woman has the right to choose, and that ends the discussion for me.
 

HCProf

Council Hall
Sep 2014
29,308
18,826
USA
It agrees with current law, but I absolutely oppose abortion decisionmaking based on prenatal disabilities.

It's selfish, it's short-sighted, and it's not necessary: If you insist on knowing if your child will be disabled or not, fucking adopt.

It's really not any different from screening out daughters via abortion for barbaric biases.
Not really. It is mostly due to economics of the parents or mother. Many women cannot afford to stay home and provide the care that Down's children need and there are different levels of Downs. Some function and some never progress from 3 years old. Add in the multiple surgeries and the expense can be enormous. It is really the same decision that most women seek abortion under normal circumstances because they are not emotionally or financially ready to raise a child, the same can apply here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people

Singularity

Moderator
Oct 2009
33,689
28,427
Kansas
Not really. It is mostly due to economics of the parents or mother. Many women cannot afford to stay home and provide the care that Down's children need and there are different levels of Downs. Some function and some never progress from 3 years old. Add in the multiple surgeries and the expense can be enormous. It is really the same decision that most women seek abortion under normal circumstances because they are not emotionally or financially ready to raise a child, the same can apply here.
I understand all that, but I can't agree with making any sort of decision of whether or not someone exists based on their disabilities.

It's not the state's role to restrict it, but I find it repugnant.
 
Sep 2016
21,897
16,505
My own world
It agrees with current law, but I absolutely oppose abortion decisionmaking based on prenatal disabilities.

It's selfish, it's short-sighted, and it's not necessary: If you insist on knowing if your child will be disabled or not, fucking adopt.

It's really not any different from screening out daughters via abortion for barbaric biases.
You may not like why a woman chooses to have an abortion but it’s her decision. The only restriction I would agree is warranted is based on gestation. I believe science can Replicate the woman’s role without her involvement to bring the fetus to the status it would have been at its term. Now I think that’s about 21 or 22 weeks.