Down syndrome a modern-day death sentence

Claire will never read these words. But at least she is alive and brings joy to her many friends and family members. You see, Claire is a survivor. She survived one of the most ruthlessly effective extermination programs in modern times.

Claire has Down syndrome.

Most of her Down syndrome brothers and sisters never got to be born. In the United States, more than 90 percent of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. (In some other countries this number reaches 95 percent.) But apparently this isn't enough for those who would eradicate these defective persons. The problem is that the current methods for diagnosing the Down defect are ultrasound, biochemical exams or amniocentesis. But amniocentesis is expensive, invasive and potentially harmful to mothers and ultrasound may not be accurate.

Not to worry, Lenetix, a diagnostic technology company, has developed a new maternal blood test for the detection of Down syndrome and other chromosomal abnormalities. With no irony, Lenetix CEO Leonard H. Kellner tells us "we take deep pride in the technology we have developed because it has the potential to impact the lives of millions of women and their unborn children." Lenetix medical director, Steve Brown, M.D., tells us that "pregnant women and their physicians are clamoring for an improved, noninvasive prenatal test because they fear the risks of amniocentesis."

Sounds wonderful, like describing a new life-saving wonder drug or technology. But the sad, stark fact, well-known to anyone in this field, is that virtually every diagnosis of Down syndrome lends to the abortion of that unborn child. This is eugenics with a vengeance.

While the folks at Lenetix may simply be doing their best to advance science, other voices are more sinister when it comes to aborting children with Down syndrome.

"Like many," notes Libertarian commentator Nicholas Provenzo, "I am troubled by the implications of . . . Sarah Palin's decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin's decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome." This is necessary, Provenzo informs us, "because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive."

Dr. Rahul K. Parikh, writing in Salon.com, takes a slightly more compassionate approach. While "greatly" admiring Palin's decision to "knowingly" give birth to a child with Down syndrome, it is critical that her decision not be imposed on other women. Parikh comes down hard on "rabid anti-choice activists who have called [aborting Down syndrome children] eugenics via medicine." Yet it is hard to see how this isn't "eugenics via medicine."