Targeting Down Syndrome Children for Abortion

by Deborah Sturm, RN

I had mixed feelings when I read a New York Times article in March that seemed to give a positive face to the disabled by focusing on adults with Down syndrome who have achieved and maintained independence.[1] Knowing that this particular newspaper had been no friend of the pro-life movement, I wondered what the Old Gray Lady would be willing to report about Down syndrome babies being selectively targeted for abortion. Little did I know that this article came on the heels of the National Down syndrome Society’s published response to the recent recommendations of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) that all pregnant women be screened for Down syndrome.[2]

The Problem of Dependency

A New York Times article in January reported on the ACOG’s recommendations, quoting obstetrician Dr. James Goldberg, who said, “losing a normal pregnancy secondary to the procedure [amniocentesis] is not as problematic as the birth of a Down syndrome child”[3] No doubt his comment and the ACOG’s stance is horribly offensive to the Down syndrome community, their families, and many others. As Charles and Donna James write, “Down syndrome people . . . have an utter abhorrence of the destruction of their community.”[4] What is particularly “problematic,” as Dr. Goldberg put it, about Down syndrome, or other disabilities for that matter?

It is no coincidence that The New York Times specifically focused on the issue of independence when covering the issue of Down syndrome. Unfortunately, our society is growing increasingly intolerant of individuals perceived to be “burdensome,” who have the potential to require more physical assistance—and oftentimes more health care resources—than others. These persons include the disabled, the debilitated—such as those who are comatose or deemed to be “vegetative”—and the elderly, particularly those who have Alzheimer’s disease or other types of dementia.

The targeting of the preborn for genetic defects such as Down syndrome is merely symptomatic of our next step as a society toward a culture of death. We are moving dangerously closer to the utopian “transhumanist” ideology that desires perfect human beings who are free of genetic defects and impervious to disease.[5] Aware of developed countries’ technological advances in genetic engineering, as well as their obsessive search for perfect children, Pope Benedict XVI recently condemned modernity’s eugenic quest for “designer babies,” which includes the screening of the preborn for defects.[6]

A “Fashionable” Trend

A recent visit to a gynecologist’s office gave a glimpse of how and why the selective targeting of disabled preborn babies for abortion could be so widespread. Information regarding genetic testing and multiple-marker screening of the preborn—such as that provided by Magee-Women’s Hospital’s department of genetics—has apparently been widely disseminated. This brochure specifically mentions Down syndrome as a birth defect commonly screened. As Susan W. Enouen points out, “Most health care providers tend to assume that if a woman consents to prenatal screening or diagnosis, she is willing to discuss abortion as an option.”[7] And apparently, aborting preborn persons who have been diagnosed with Down syndrome has become quite fashionable. Recent United States surveys indicate that when it is diagnosed prenatally, 84–91 percent of these preborn persons are killed by abortion.[8]

Further complicating the issue, some of the tests that are employed to screen mothers for Down syndrome babies yield false-positive results. For example, the Triple Screen test, commonly used to screen for Down syndrome during the fifteenth to twentieth week of pregnancy, has a 6.5 percent initial positive rate. This means that 6.5 percent of tests will yield a false positive result indicating Down syndrome. Given the overall statistical chance of carrying a Down syndrome child, only one-tenth of one percent, the Triple Screen test will yield a very high percentage of false positive results. This means many uninformed pregnant women will choose to abort a perfectly normal baby.[9]

Widespread Prejudice

The prejudice against Down syndrome persons is nothing new and extends to human life beyond the womb. Nancy Valko, who has been a registered nurse since the 1960s, admits that in 1973 she thought the pro-life movement was absurd in predicting that the legalization of abortion would lead to an increasing acceptance of euthanasia and infanticide. She describes having a “wake-up call” in 1982 when the parents of Baby Doe in Bloomington, Indiana, were engaged in a legal battle to let their newborn child with Down syndrome die rather than choose a routine surgery to fix his esophagus. She says that newspaper editorials and letters to the editor were generally supportive of the parents’ “right” to choose or not choose treatment for Baby Doe. After nearly a week, the baby died after being denied food and fluids while his case was being appealed. It was at that point, Valko says, that she “understood what the pro-lifers meant in 1973.”[10]

Ironically, shortly after the death of Baby Doe, Valko gave birth to her own Down syndrome child, Karen, who had a heart defect. Valko and her husband advocated for Karen to receive the best medical care possible. But they encountered resistance and bias in the medical community. One cardiologist offered to support Valko and her husband if they just let Karen die, and a surgeon was overheard questioning the wisdom of providing treatment to “mongoloids.” A pediatrician whom Valko trusted even made Karen a “do not resuscitate” without her mother’s consent because he believed Valko “was too emotionally involved with that retarded baby.” Later, when Karen was apparently dying of pneumonia, a young resident physician wanted to pull her tubes to hasten her death. Misguided individuals who attended Karen’s funeral attempted to console the Valko family by saying, “At least it wasn’t one of your normal children.”[11]

The Danger of Neutrality

In the past 25 years many advances have been made in the assistance and treatment of children with disabilities, especially those with Down syndrome. Their life expectancy has more than doubled, rising from 25 to 56.[12] Yet the ACOG’s insistence that women be screened for Down syndrome suggests that they cannot relinquish their bias or their support of the barbaric practice of selective abortion.

What does a woman face, Enouen asks, when she finds out her preborn child has Down syndrome? Many doctors may believe it is advantageous for the woman to have an abortion as soon as possible to avoid the medical risk to the mother if she has a late-term abortion.[13] No doubt doctors are also afraid they might face litigation one day from a mother who has a child with a severe birth defect. They may have the same prejudices as the physicians mentioned above whom Valko had the misfortune of encountering. Furthermore, many women choose abortion because of their perception that a disabled child will be “burdensome.” A Harvard study, Enouen points out, indicates that women “felt that their doctors did not explain Down syndrome adequately and in a balanced fashion.”[14]

All of this is compounded by the fact that some of the largest Down syndrome-related organizations have “abdicated any responsibility for reducing abortions of babies with birth defects.”[15] The March of Dimes and the National Down Syndrome Congress, for example, have adopted a “neutral” stance on abortion, “ostensibly because they don’t want to judge or to tell anyone what to do.”[16]

“Neutrality,” however, can have devastating consequences. The Oregon Medical Association’s failure to oppose physician-assisted suicide—they initially took a “neutral” stance—helped to usher in the legalization of physician-assisted suicide in that state over a decade ago. “Neutrality,” then, does not lead to neutral public policies.

Furthermore, even despite its proclaimed “neutral” stance, it is clear through the reports of the March of Dimes that abortion is still a strategic part of their plan to reduce the number of birth defects. For this reason, Enouen says that pro-lifers should not lend their financial support to this organization and should continue to boycott it.[17]

The National Down Syndrome Society’s resolution in response to the ACOG’s recent recommendation that all pregnant women be offered screening for Down syndrome includes two call-to-action points:

Challenging and strongly encouraging healthcare professionals and organizations like ACOG to partner with NDSS and other Down syndrome organizations to ensure the wide-spread proliferation of balanced, accurate and up-to-date information to expectant parents; and urging health care professionals, policymakers, and the Down syndrome community to work together to ensure that expectant parents are not unduly influenced to undergo prenatal testing or to terminate a pregnancy after receiving a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome.[18]

Love Worth Fighting For

Thousands of babies could be saved if the aforementioned disability support groups would boldly oppose aborting preborn persons with Down syndrome and other disabilities instead of painstakingly hiding behind a truly non-existent “neutrality.” Physicians, especially obstetricians, should be on the front line of the culture war providing accurate written information about Down syndrome. Hospitals and health care personnel should help families network with local Down syndrome support organizations that are invested in giving a positive face to Down syndrome. Pro-lifers should support pro-life alternatives to the March of Dimes, such as The Michael Fund (www.michaelfund.org), whose mission includes stemming and reversing “the growing tide of eugenic abortion of affected preborn children and the euthanasia murder of handicapped children and adults in the United States and abroad.” Women should be afforded the opportunity to meet with parents of Down syndrome children.

Families like Charles and Donna James attest to how the presence of their Down syndrome child, Christian, has transformed their family in a very powerful and positive way. They say Christian created in his siblings “a kind of love rarely seen in children—a mature self-sacrificing love.” They focus not on his independence, or lack thereof, but instead celebrate his inherent dignity and worth. Christian makes their family more “Christian” than they could have ever possibly imagined as they experience “an indescribable love for him, and especially from him.”[19]

Deborah Sturm is a registered nurse and a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville. She currently serves as the vice president of the Beaver County Chapter of the Pennsylvanians for Human Life and as the secretary of the National Association of Pro-Life Nurses. She is a member of St. Peter Catholic Church in Steubenville, Ohio.

[1] Michael Winerip, “They’ll Do It Themselves, Thanks,” New York Times, March 11, 2007, available from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/11RCover.html?page
wanted=print.
[2] Roni Rabin, “Screen All Pregnancies for Down Syndrome, Doctors Say,” New York Times, January 9, 2007, available from
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/09/health/09preg.html?ei=5088&en=4c6ae0e
2d0261bff&ex=1325998800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print.
[3] Nancy Guilfoy Valko, “The War Against Children with Disabilities,” Voices Online Edition, vol. 22, no. 1, Eastertide 2007, available from http://www.wf-f.org/07-1-Valko.html.
[4] Charles and Donna James, “Why Do We Murder Down Syndrome Babies? American Genocide,” New Oxford Review, February 2007, available from http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0207-james. (Article purchase required.)
[5] Stephen Cave and Friederike von Tiesenhausen Cave, “The Most Dangerous Idea on Earth?” Financial Times, May 28, 2005, available from
http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?queryText=“The+Most+Dangerous+Idea+on+Earth%
3F”+&y=8&aje=true&x=10&id=050528001142&ct=0&nclick_check=1.
[6] Reuters, “Pope Speaks Out Against ‘Designer Babies,’” The New Zealand Herald, February 25, 2007, available from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10425684.
[7] Susan W. Enouen, “Down Syndrome and Abortion,” Life Issues Connector, January 2007, p. 4.
[8] Ibid., p. 4.
[9] James, “Why Do We Murder Down Syndrome Babies? American Genocide.”
[10] Valko, “The War Against Children with Disabilities.”
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Enouen, “Down Syndrome and Abortion,” p. 4.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Susan W. Enouen, “March of Dimes Update,” Life Issues Connector, July 2006, p. 4.
[18] National Down Syndrome Society, “National Down Syndrome Society Responds to American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ New Recommendations for Prenatal Testing,” available from
http://www.ndss.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2004&Itemid=233.
[19] James, “Why Do We Murder Down Syndrome Babies? American Genocide.”

Back to Web Exclusives