Okay, this bugs me a lot for some reason

From the NYT article about McCain's choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate:

She is known to religious conservatives for choosing not to have an abortion after learning that she was carrying a child with Down syndrome. “It is almost impossible to exaggerate how important that is to the conservative faith community,” said Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition. She gave birth to her son, Trig, in April.

Now, I realize that Palin is, in fact, anti-choice, so that's not my beef here (I mean, I don't agree, but her opinion, whatever). What disgusts me is that the way this is phrased seems to imply somehow that choosing not to abort a fetus with Down syndrome is a remarkable and unusual sacrifice that only someone against abortion rights would choose. Which also seems to imply that pro-choice women, upon finding out that they were carrying a child with Down syndrome, would LEAP to abort. That pro-choice people would all consider it appropriate to abort a fetus with Down syndrome. That Palin is somehow bucking some kind of pressure from abortion-rights supporters to DO AWAY WITH ALL EVEN-SLIGHTLY-DEFECTIVE BABIES!!!!

Horseshit.

As a supporter of choice, I would defend someone's right to abort a fetus with Down syndrome, in the same way that I would defend someone's right to abort a fetus under any circumstances. That's what the law says, folks. You don't get to say, this reason for abortion is valid, and this one isn't.

But at the same time, I don't know anyone who says, Oh, abortion, yay, now I can get rid of that icky Down syndrome baby I don't want to have because it's not ABSOLUTELY PERFECT!!!*

First, that's incredibly insulting to individuals with Down syndrome and the families who love and cherish them. Choosing to keep a Down's baby? OMG the horror!!! As I understand it (which is not especially well, so feel free to correct me, but this is my understanding), people with Down syndrome can have an incredible range of abilities and impairments. So learning that she was going to have a baby with Down syndrome certainly does not mean Palin found out that she was going to be caring for an unresponsive vegetable for the rest of her son's life. I'm sure that any Down syndrome child presents problems that parents of a non-Down's child don't face. But does that mean a Down syndrome child is automatically a greater burden than a non-Down's child? Is caring for a child with Down's somehow qualitatively worse than, say, caring for a child who develops a drug addiction? who breaks his back in a skiing accident and ends up a paraplegic? who turns out, god forbid, to be a sociopathic killer? (I know that sounds awful, but sadly, someone has to give birth to sociopathic killers.) I find insulting the article's assumption that Down syndrome automatically renders a child such a burden as to justify considering abortion, and that Palin's choice not to do so is a noble sacrifice.

Finally, the idea that pro-choicers are leaping to abort Down syndrom children is a red herring. Does anyone have actual statistics to show that there are significant percentages of women who find out they're carrying a Down's baby who abort that child? What I think this article does is conflate aborting a Down syndrome fetus with aborting a fetus with such severe birth defects that it will not survive outside the womb, or, the more difficult situation, aborting a fetus with such severe birth defects that the child will require constant medical care and will never have what we generally recognize as a decent quality of life. I've read a couple of bloggers whose experiences fall into this category, and I can't imagine being in their position. To praise Palin's choice not to abort a fetus with Down syndrome seems to gloss right over the truly serious questions that severe fetal birth defects raise, and the real reason why abortion should remain legal and accessible - not so women can abort a baby that isn't "perfect," but so women have available to them the widest possible range of solutions to the problems that might arise in their pregnancies. To me, the value of keeping those solutions available is far greater than the danger of "selfish" abortions, because I believe that women take pretty damn seriously what's going on in their own bodies and their own lives, and are in the best position to determine what should happen to/in those bodies. (And if a woman does abort because a Down's child isn't "perfect" or "pretty enough" for her? Do you really think that woman should be parenting in the first place?)

I know abortion is a hot-button issue (duh! cliche!), and I don't mean this post as a statement on abortion in the abstract (though I realize that my opinion is pretty clear!). All I'm saying is that the perspective displayed in the quote above seems pretty insulting regardless of how you feel about abortion.**

(Rereading this rant, I should probably make clear that the Times is just reporting religious conservatives' take on Palin's decision, and I should be mad at them, not the paper. Okay. I'm mad at them. Read "article" above as "the article's representation of what religious conservatives think" - that's too long to write every time, anyway.)

*Before anyone can write in with an example: yes, there well may be individual people out there who have said this. But it's not a plank in the support-for-abortion-rights platform. More likely, women who have aborted fetuses they know to have Down syndrome have made hard decisions about what kind of parenting they, personally, are equipped to do both materially and psychologically. A woman who aborts a fetus with Down's because she doesn't have the material resources to give that child what it needs is making a very different decision from a woman who aborts a fetus with Down's because it's not the kind of baby she wants (though I should add that these are moral decisions, not legal ones; legally, both women are in the right, as long as the pregnancy hasn't progressed past a certain point). Assuming that the former is the same as the latter is an insult to women's ability to judge their own circumstances. Besides, there are plenty of people who say, Oh, children, yay, now I can have a child as the perfect accessory for my perfect life!, but you don't see people arguing that because some people have children for crappy reasons, therefore NO ONE SHOULD EVER have children.

**I may perhaps be crankier than usual about this because of being subjected to anti-abortion protesters plastering the bridges over the highway I take to school with posters with graphic photos of the results of late-term abortions. Dude. Totally uncool. And not because I should be confronted with the logical result of my beliefs; I'm cool with my beliefs. Graphic photos are just manipulative and used purely for shock value. I'm cool with appendectomies, too, but I don't want to see pictures of them over the road I have to travel for work.

Comments

[jliedl]

I noticed that she researched about the issues and exercised a choice to carry on with the pregnancy: a choice which her political stance would deny to others. Typical.

When I was pregnant with youngest, we did an amnio to screen for abnormalities (the risk factors came back relatively low) but we ended up with a special needs child in any case. When do I get my anti-abortion halo to wear with my "Pro-Choice Mom" t-shirt?

I think that Michael Berubé's written most eloquently about disability studies and parenting of special needs children. Given his own parenting experience with one son with Down's syndrome, I would hold him up as an excellent spokesperson for the issue!

[Anastasia]

I'm pro-life but I think you're dead on here.

If she'd chosen to carry a child to term when it was certain giving birth would take her own life, I might be impressed. That would be a sacrifice. Of course, then she'd be dead.

also, can I just take a minute and call for a moratorium on the graphic photos? Yeck. Like I said, I'm pro-life but the graphic images and the explaining the mechanics of human development to women who are considering abortion and the standing outside of clinics yelling at people? Just...no. Really.

[maude lebowski]

i have to say that i agree with you 100%. about everything, across the board (not to sound like a sycophant), but yeah, like the vast amount of women who have abortions do so because their babies aren't perfect or they can't be bothered. geez louise! i just have one word for those of mccain's and pallin's ilk--cukoo!!

[Another Damned Medievalist]

This is a fantastic post -- it really hits the important points and makes them clear.

[luckybuzz]

Totally agree with you on all this.

And FWIW (not much), we had tests (though not an amnio) to check for DS and other things before Waylon was born. I am adamantly pro-choice, but we wouldn't have terminated even if those had come up positive. Just throwing that out there.

[JessSpiz]

I am strongly pro-life and the mother of a daughter with Down syndrome. I think you bring up some good points. I read an article which called Palin's decision to "keep" the baby after an in-utero diagnosis of Down syndrome "heroic" . Those were the writer's words, not Governor Palin's. I don't think she would define that as an heroic act-just a human act. By the way, most studies say that at least 90% of women who receive a Down syndrome diagnosis in-utero do choose to abort. I would have to assume that the majority of those women are pro-choice because it would go against all reason for a pro-lifer to abort. By the very fact that they choose to abort, they are defined as pro-choice, no? This is not to say that all pro-choice women would "leap" to abort. I am friends with many pro-choice women who either decided to continue with their pregnancy after a DS diagnosis or who only found out after the birth. I am also friends with many pro-life women who have children with DS-the majority of whom refused all prenatal testing and a few who did receive an in-utero diagnosis. And since most people do not step forward to tell me if they aborted a child with DS, I have truly no idea how many would be pro-life or pro-choice.

[k8]

In lighter news, The Wall Street Journal already has an article about her fitness and diet routines:
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122002155637283431.html?mod=yhoofront]

Don't recall seeing any of these for JB.

[k8]

Sorry the link didn't come through. The title of the article is "Gov. Sarah Palin: Midnight runs and caribou dinners" and it is written by Jen Murphy.

[af]

I agree with your points, and I also found myself wondering: how did it happen that this decision got into the media? Did she share the results of her prenatal test with the media, and if so, why?

I also wonder who's going to be caring for this baby while she travels the country during the campaign, and the world as vice-president. Of course I myself have no problems with the dad being the primary caregiver (if that's even the plan) but I wonder how that would go over among the evangelical voters she is supposed to be bringing in.

[enegim]

Thank you; this is excellent, and will help me make the points clearer to people I talk with.

Note to JessSpiz: you say, "By the way, most studies say that at least 90% of women who receive a Down syndrome diagnosis in-utero do choose to abort. I would have to assume that the majority of those women are pro-choice because it would go against all reason for a pro-lifer to abort. By the very fact that they choose to abort, they are defined as pro-choice, no?" That makes sense, yes. Unfortunately, there's a substantial amount of literature (anecdotal and research both) indicating that many women who call themselves pro-life will find a justification for needing an abortion for themselves, while continuing to maintain that it should be illegal on principle. (I'm sorry, I don't have the references handy, but googling should turn it up, or maybe one of the other readers here will know.)

[Maria]

I didn't abort TWO fetuses!! Where's my prize??

[shirnkykitten]

Not about abortion - but about Palin... they just announced on the news that she "makes cookies for the press corps" and she went from "beauty queen to mom of five."

I don't even know what to say about this - choosing her was to appeal to Hillary supporters, but she could be no more the antithesis of Hillary if she tried.

I have to say, I am already sick of some bloggers putting down women who are democrats and who find the choice of Palin to be appealing. They go so far as to call them stupid and put down women who want a woman in office so badly that they would vote for McCain. I don't get why that isn't understandable on an at least emotional level.

I think the truth about her will spread - and people will be turned off by her politics in time. People will get ill at how very conservative she is, and how she embodies the republicans' image of a perfect woman (they just said on the news, "She hunts ... she kills her own food." whatta woman!!!).

[JessSpiz]

To AF:

Thanks for the info on pro-life women who justify the abortion. I am sure they do exist. I will look for the research as this is a very interesting topic to me. There has to be a statistic out there about the percentage of people who choose abortion that are pro-choice vs. pro-life.

By the way I am pro-life but I would NEVER judge a woman who has made that decision. My cousin aborted her baby because he was found to have thalasmia (a blood disorder). My heart broke for her and her son and every time I see her I feel badly. What makes me the saddest is that she doubted her ability to parent a special needs child because so many people (sisters, doctors) told her how hard it would be. I just wish women would have more faith in themselves especialyy when facing an unknown situation.

[Notorious Ph.D.]

You know, I read this and it bugged me, too, for the same reason. I couldn't articulate it as well as you did here, though.

[Professor Zero]

There were good reasons to want access to safe, legal abortion long before it was possible to diagnose things like Down's syndrome in utero.

Here in rural Louisiana, well to do pro-lifers just go to Houston when they want abortions. This enables them to continue their important work.

[Professor Zero]

There were good reasons to want access to safe, legal abortion long before it was possible to diagnose things like Down's syndrome in utero.

Here in rural Louisiana, well to do pro-lifers just go to Houston when they want abortions. This enables them to continue their important work.

[Professor Zero]

There were good reasons to want access to safe, legal abortion long before it was possible to diagnose things like Down's syndrome in utero.

Here in rural Louisiana, well to do pro-lifers just go to Houston when they want abortions. This enables them to continue their important work.

[Rudbeckia Hirta]

Sorry, latching on to the numbers here...

JessSpiz wrote, "most studies say that at least 90% of women who receive a Down syndrome diagnosis in-utero do choose to abort. I would have to assume that the majority of those women are pro-choice because it would go against all reason for a pro-lifer to abort."

There are only two conclusions that one can draw from those statements:

Option 1: This means that roughly 90% of women are pro-choice and the pro-life viewpoint is out of touch with the vast majority of women.

OR:

Option 2: Pro-choice women are FAR, FAR, FAR more likely than pro-life women to conceive a fetus with Down's Syndrome.

If one takes away JessSpiz's assumption that most of these women are pro-choice, we also have:

Option 3: Pro-life women get abortions, too.

[Amy]

Word.

[Chaser]

I thought the same thing when I read this: I wonder how this child feels being discussed in this manner? And I also wonder: were we capable of screening for gay, would she be even more heroic for going ahead? I don't get it.

[Amy]

Oh, I just LOVE statistics! So, I'm trying to find this magical 90% number published somewhere other than a pro-life website. And I do hit upon it in a legitimate source, referring to a study that appears to be British, from the early 90s, that says 91% of the women in the study who had undergone amniocentesis to confirm a diagnosis of Down's Syndrome at roughly 17 weeks had chosen to abort the fetus.

But when we throw around that 90%... it leaves out all the women who had a diagnosis from other means and kept the fetus, had the maybe/maybe not diagnosis from less trustworthy tests and decided not to have further testing... and those, like I did with #3, who simply said, "Why bother? I'd keep him regardless" (though I am staunchly pro-choice). So, while she might stand out in the category of "I know for sure and I'm still keeping him", she hardly stands out among all the parents who said "I'll take my chances."

[Law Ingenue]

Thank you for stating exactly what I was feeling! It's one of the reasons I enjoy reading your posts is that you have an ability to put into words those feelings that many of us have.

[ad]

I totally agree with you, NK. I left a comment about this over at The Paper Chase, too. I can imagine that pro-life women would never have an abortion under any circumstances, but I would also imagine that plenty of pro-choice women continue pregnancies when they know the baby has Down Syndrome. I am irritated that that the press are using Palin's actions as proof of her commitment to the cause.

[Rhonda]

Thank you for this.

I'm more than a little bitter about the hypocrisy of painting Palin's choice as the mark of someone extraordinary and simultaneously trying to force any other (perhaps perfectly ordinary) woman to do it, too.

You know my history, and I happen to think that the choice I made was the best thing I as a mother could do for my daughter. But I would never, never try to make that decision for any other woman.

[Rachel Whitmire]

I just wanted to comment in response to your question about the statistics of how many mothers abort children with down syndrome. The percentage is around 80%. Eighty percent of women who find out they are carrying a child with Down syndrome will choose an abortion. So, while I don't think it is fair to say that only pro-life women would choose to raise a child with down syndrome, I do think that Paulin should be commended for giving her baby life and for valuing him for the person he is, even though he doesn't fit into the "perfect" mold that many people expect. That type of love definitely crosses party lines and I hope that we'll see more of it. People with specail needs bring so much to the world and can end up really blessing their families. I hate that so many people are missing out on that.

~Rachel, mom to 2 special needs kids and adopting one more

[HeroicLife]

Whereas previously, a Down’s child could be born without the prior knowledge of the mother, going forward, a parent with a Down’s child will likely (at least in the developed world) have made a conscious choice to have that child. As prenatal testing for trisomy 21 becomes ubiquitous, Down’s children (and eventually those with other genetic disorders) will increasingly become symbols of faith – a freak show meant to communicate the “family values” of their parents. The children will become public sacrifices made by their parents for their faith. They will be a symbol of religious reverence in the same way as the scarred backs of Catholics who flagellate themselves, or Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire, or Sunni Muslims who mutilate their girl’s genitals or Shiites who bloody their children’s heads with swords.

Genuine moral virtues – such as integrity, honesty, and productivity are not useful as evidence of religious virtue. To the extent that their practical benefit is visible to everyone, they do not represent the special domain of religion. To demonstrate religious virtue, it is necessary to sacrifice authentic moral values in favor of “religious” values. The particular object of the sacrifice is not important – there is nothing particularly “biblical” about being prolife (the Christian bible just as easily supports the opposite position.) If Christian fundamentalists decided that cutting of one’s hand sufficed as proof of moral virtue, they would be wrong to do so, but not much more so than the numerous other ways that people find to be self-destructive.

What is really vicious about fundamentalists in America is that the prey on the most vulnerable –poor pregnant young girls and women, those dying from painful terminal illnesses, the loved ones of brain-dead patients, — and children afflicted with terrible genetic illnesses. One can at least grasp the moral indifference with which a fundamentalist can force a single young mother to abandon her goals and dreams and condemn her and her child to poverty. But what can we say about a parent that chooses a life of suffering upon their child? If we are morally outraged by child rapists, how should we judge a parent who chooses a lifetime of suffering on their own child?

[New Kid on the Hallway]

Thanks for the comments, everyone!

Yes, I completely agree with the hypocrisy of making a choice but not being willing to allow others to make it.

JessSpiz, I do agree that Palin herself doesn't seem to have made a big deal out of her decision - that others have made hay out of it instead, which I think is unpleasant.

Maria - lol! Yes, everyone who didn't abort deserves some kind of prize, since the default is clearly that women are running around aborting left and right!!

Professor Zero - yes, there are MANY reasons to want safe, legal, access to abortion. The birth defects issue is just one among many.

Amy - thanks for tracking down that statistic! I hadn't heard it before, but now it seems repeated everywhere, and I completely agree with your caveats about it (as well as Rudbeckia's statistical analysis!).

Rachel - I do agree that she should be commended for raising and valuing a special needs child; I think that's great. I think it's a shame that such a decision gets used for political fodder. Sigh.

HeroicLife - I have to say that I disagree with parts of your analysis. I don't believe that only people of faith will choose to raise Down syndrome children, and that therefore those children will be symbols of religious faith; I think there are many people who would consider it morally right to raise such a child, regardless of their denomination. Moreover, your comment suggests it's morally wrong to have children with Down syndrome, as it's imposing some kind of "suffering" on those children. I completely reject that - I don't think someone with Down syndrome necessarily suffers more than anyone else (in some extreme cases, perhaps, but not as a general proposition). I could see perhaps arguing that raising a child with Down's creates additional suffering for a parent (not sure that's the case, but I could see the argument). But in what way are Down syndrome children suffering, in the collective? My experience has been that people with Down syndrome are fully capable of happiness and joy - in fact, may suffer less than many. Someone doesn't have to have an IQ as high as mine to suffer less than I do.

[Jessica]

Professor Zero:

I think you are misinterpreting the statistics. How does "90% of women choose to abort after a Down syndrome diagnosis" translate to your "Option 1: This means that roughly 90% of women are pro-choice and the pro-life viewpoint is out of touch with the vast majority of women." The pool of women who receive a Down syndrome diagnosis is very small compared to ALL WOMEN in the U.S so I am not sure how you arrived at the conclusion 90% of women are pro-choice? Your Option 2 obviously goes against all data pertaining to DS but I think you know that. As for Option 3, I am sure pro-life women do have abortions-just can't find statistics on that.

And to Chaser:
If you google "Down syndrome abortion" you will find the "magic" 90% number from many legitimate sources. I just found it on cnn, ny times, and washington post but it won't let me post the links here.

[m]

I think that the question "What does it mean to be pro choice?" gets some nice treatment here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/22/9334/83825

[New Kid on the Hallway]

Jessica - the point about the 90% of women aborting after getting a Down syndrome diagnosis is that, presumably, Down syndrome occurs randomly throughout the population, and isn't clustered in groups of people according to their opinions about abortion. Unless 90% of the general population is pro-choice - in which case, yes, anti-choice people are a very small minority - then a lot of people who choose to abort after a Down syndrome diagnosis would otherwise identify as anti-abortion. Or, there's some reason why more women who are pro-choice are going to receive diagnoses of Down syndrome - which doesn't make any sense. So if a "pro-life" woman has an abortion, how the hell does she get to call herself "pro-life"? If *she* chooses to have an abortion in such a situation, why shouldn't everyone have that option? I don't think you can count as "pro-life" once you've had an abortion, without a lot of hypocrisy. (Excepting perhaps people who have an abortion and then change their mind. Which I highly doubt makes the 90% number work.) (This was actually Rudbeckia Hirta's comment.)

As for the statistic - the NYT, cnn, etc., may be repeating it, but where did they find it in the first place? They're not conducting those studies themselves. Just because a newspaper reports a statistic, doesn't mean that the study it's quoting is any good. (And this was amy's point, not Chaser's.)

[urbanartiste]

First of all, I am pro-choice.

Someone wrote that 90% of women given a down syndrome diagnosis abort. I recently read a much higher number closer to 98%.

The media is making this issue a pro-life vs. pro-choice debate rather than discussing the detailed issues. I went through a very stressful prenatal testing process where my bloodwork came up with 2 signs of genetic disorders. I do not have a family history and was not a high risk candidate. I refused the amnio because the percentage of harm from amnio was higher than my child having down syndrome. I was lucky and my child was born healthy.

In my experience and in light of Palin here are the missing issues from this debate:

1. Medical testing needs to be improved. The bloodwork has a high rate of error - 40 or 60%. It pushes many women to risk their pregnancy and do amnio.

2. Amnio is not perfect because it does not give the level of down syndrome in the results. It is a yes or no result with no detail. Women are having children at older ages so this issue is not going away any time soon.

3. The pressure to have amnio and abort before 22 weeks is a major pressure for both pregnant women and the medical community. Medical professionals need to protect themselves from lawsuits and the law is not on the side of supporting late term abortion. I am even surpised there are any OBs left.

4. Community support (educational and health services) vs. individual responsibility. I find it discouraging to read that Palin voted against special needs education funding in her state.

5. Adoption is highly unlikely in these circumstances. I would like to hear someone who has experience in this area discuss this topic.

[urbanartiste]

I also wanted to add, that the other big issue here is birth control. Palin is pro-life and Catholic. I think there is a lack of responsibility on her part if she does not practice birth control and has already had a child with down-syndrome, if she does not plan on having any more children.

[urbanartiste]

The pro-life movement has always been against abortion for the standard reasons, unwanted pregnancy, life of the mother, rape and incest. But they are using Palin to further expand their beliefs that there are no medical exceptions. How this affects the medical community will be interesting.

[Amy]

Urbanartiste,

Two things. Can you cite the source that provided you with the 98%? I'm not being belligerent here, but just trying to get to the bottom of this. Among all of my mommy friends, including pro-choice ones, I can't think of a single one who ever entertained an abortion while doing the routine testing... and trust me, we did a lot of talking about all that testing. So, the 98% seems shockingly high. Secondly, in my three pregnancies, I never had a doctor pressure me to have any of those tests. They were offered, discussed, but never pushed. I was pregnant with my third post 35 years of age, and the OB still didn't push an amnio. So I disagree that the testing and abortion is a "major pressure".

[urbanartiste]

I have to find the medical journal for the statistic; will get back to you on that.

I was really pressured to get all my testing done so they could abort before the 22 weeks. It was one of the most stressful experiences of my life. I can understand that doctors want to do amnio, even if the patient does not want to abort, so the parents can prepare to care for a child with special needs. I was filled with worry during the rest of my pregnancy and up until a year after my child was born. In retrospect I really resented being forced to sit and talk with a twenty-something right out of college genetic counseler, who had never been pregnant. I do live in a fairly liberal state where even if Roe were overturned they would still keep it legal. I am pro-choice, but it was terrible to be made to feel like I was crazy to even consider having a special needs child.

[David Perry]

I was just randomly reading in my list of blogs and noticed this post. My son has Down Syndrome and I've been trying to write the right 600 words on this very issue for 2 weeks now. I'm close, maybe.

[New Kid on the Hallway]

David, I thought of you when I was writing this. I hope this doesn't sound presumptuous, but it's never struck me for a moment that you find your son anything other than a joy.