Activists In Ohio Push To Ban Abortions For Down Syndrome

Latest from the pro-life crackpots.

huffingtonpost.com/entry/ohio-abortion-restrictions_55da3aa6e4b08cd3359c680a?kvcommref=mostpopular

Anti-Abortion Activists In Ohio Push To Ban Abortions For Down Syndrome
The ban would be difficult to enforce and likely violates Roe v. Wade, say its critics.

Marina Fang
Associate Politics Editor, The Huffington Post
•
Posted: 08/23/2015 06:12 PM EDT

Anti-abortion activists in Ohio want to bar women from getting abortions solely because they do not wish to have a baby with Down syndrome, rallying around a bill endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee.

The Ohio House and Senate will likely pass the bill sometime this fall, according to the New York Times, because most of the state’s legislators oppose abortion and have been endorsed by the committee. However, Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) has not yet taken a position on the bill, so it is unclear if he will authorize it, though he has signed many other abortion restrictionsinto law.

Because women can undergo prenatal testing to see if their baby will be afflicted with certain diseases and disorders, between 50 and 85 percent of women who discover that their baby might have Down syndrome have chosen an abortion, according to a review of studies conducted between 1995 and 2011. But that number has declined over the years when compared to earlier studies conducted in the 1990s, the review notes.

Critics of the bill say that the ban would be difficult to enforce and likely violates the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling, which delineates that women can choose to get an abortion at any point until the fetus is viable. It also affects the definition of the right to choose an abortion as a private matter between the patient and her doctor.

"These legislative proposals interfere with the doctor-patient relationship and exploit complicated issues that can arise during pregnancy in the worst way," Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, told the Cincinnati Enquirer. "Medical decisions should not be made in the Statehouse, they should be made in doctors' offices based on sound medical science."

Meanwhile, supporters claim that the bill is not about abortion but rather discrimination against babies with Down syndrome.

“Choosing to end a person’s life simply because of this diagnosis is discrimination, period,” state Rep. Sarah LaTourette (R), one of the bill’s sponsors, said in May. “I believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is wrong. But regardless of if you agree with me or not, I hope that you can see that this isn’t an issue about abortion — it’s an issue of discrimination. Discriminating against a person, not allowing them their God-given right to life, simply because they might have Down syndrome.”

The only other state with such a ban is North Dakota, which passed a law in 2013 that goes even further than Ohio’s proposed bill, banning all abortions for any “genetic abnormalities.”

MORE: Abortion, Ohio Abortion Restrictions, Abortion Restrictions, National Right To Life Committee, John Kasich

I don't see this article in any of the major news sources, just huff post and other click generators.

Funny, I was view the article URL no problem..

Huffington Post. I'm looking for a major news source to confirm this, not a click bait site.

Bait or not my opinion on abortion stays the same. It should be up to the parents/mother as applicable.

Originally posted by riv6672
Bait or not my opinion on abortion stays the same. It should be up to the parents/mother as applicable.

Ah, but then it can't be both though. Either it's solely up to the mother or the father has a say.

Still, it'd be impossible to prove someone is getting an abortion strictly because the kid will have down syndrome so this is silly. Plus what about the mental health of the woman? This is going to be a child that requires care for his/her entire life.

I meant in cases where the father isnt in the pucture, like death, incest and rape etc. Just trying to be specific in stating my opinion.

I see, so you feel if the father is in the picture he should have a say in if a woman gets an abortion? I've always wondered what happens if a guy who is judged to be fit for raising a child with a good job desperately doesn't want his girlfriend to get an abortion and has offered to fully take care of it. Can she still get rid of it?

Originally posted by Surtur
I see, so you feel if the father is in the picture he should have a say in if a woman gets an abortion? I've always wondered what happens if a guy who is judged to be fit for raising a child with a good job desperately doesn't want his girlfriend to get an abortion and has offered to fully take care of it. Can she still get rid of it?

Yes

Originally posted by Surtur
I see, so you feel if the father is in the picture he should have a say in if a woman gets an abortion? I've always wondered what happens if a guy who is judged to be fit for raising a child with a good job desperately doesn't want his girlfriend to get an abortion and has offered to fully take care of it. Can she still get rid of it?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's not just about raising the child, you're forgetting the nine months the baby has to gestate in the mother's womb.

I get it, just goes to show why men should be able to opt out of these things as well.

I think the idea of opting out (sort of like giving the child up for a "one-sided" adoption) could work, of course society would have to pick up the slack, so the mother and child would get your and my tax money instead of the father's money.

Taking it a bit further though, how would you feel about a guy who just has unprotected sex with all sorts of women, maybe fathers 10, 15 children, and then opts out of responsibility for all of them?

prison time

Originally posted by psmith81992
prison time

The question pertains to Surtur's idea that it should be legal to opt out of financial responsibilities for a child.

Originally posted by Bardock42 Taking it a bit further though, how would you feel about a guy who just has unprotected sex with all sorts of women, maybe fathers 10, 15 children, and then opts out of responsibility for all of them?

Well, I would feel he should have the right to "opt out" so to speak, if he does before the kid is born at least. Since these women chose to have unprotected sex with a dude who already had a bunch of kids. But if he has kids with all sorts of women that is just a clusterf*ck.

In situations like that I think everyone needs some kind of therapy.

Originally posted by Surtur
I see, so you feel if the father is in the picture he should have a say in if a woman gets an abortion? I've always wondered what happens if a guy who is judged to be fit for raising a child with a good job desperately doesn't want his girlfriend to get an abortion and has offered to fully take care of it. Can she still get rid of it?