Kasich signs Down syndrome abortion bill

[alp227]

Source: Columbus Dispatch

Gov. John Kasich signed his 20th anti-abortion initiative into law on Friday, this one banning abortions on fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome.

Kasich’s office made the announcement without comment.

Ohio Right to Life’s top legislative priority this year, House Bill 214 prohibits doctors or others from performing an abortion if the woman is seeking to terminate her pregnancy because her fetus has tested positive for Down syndrome.

“Now that the Down Syndrome Non-Discrimination Act is law, unborn babies prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome are given a shot at life” said Michael Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life. “Ohio is and will continue to be a state that sees the lives of people with Down syndrome as lives worth living, thanks to this legislation.”

Read more: http://www.dispatch.com/news/20171222/kasich-signs-down-syndrome-abortion-bill

---

This guy was a "RINO" or "moderate Republican"? Give me a break.

BTW, if you're running into a paywall, try this link.

[madaboutharry]

1. This is unconstitutional.

It will be overturned.

[roamer65]

3. Yup.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. My first reaction too. Pandering to CONservatives to pass & sign laws KNOWN to be unconstitutional.

A waste of taxpayer dollars and the various courts' time.

Lawyer Full Employment Act.

[Marthe48]

40. Convicts in jail also waste the courts' time

guess the only difference is what side of the bars they're on.

I won't ever forget that Kasich and Portman and every other Ohio repug are 100% against the majority of the people they supposedly represent.

[mr_liberal]

14. For now. It won't be if Trump gets one more nomination. nm

[OliverQ]

16. It will? Gorsuch will totally uphold it.

[madaboutharry]

17. Gorsuch replaced Scalia.

If this gets as far as the SC, Kennedy won't.

[treestar]

22. It is.

The choice is the woman's, no matter what the cause.

[OregonBlue]

2. I hope someone comes up with an at home test for DS that any woman can by and test

herself. Only she knows if she is capable of raising a DS child.

[Irish_Dem]

26. Yes, some families do not have the funds or ability to care for a special needs child.

And it is a lifetime commitment to provide care.
And when the parents are gone, it will fall to the siblings to take
of their brother or sister.

[OregonBlue]

38. I know. I have a DS niece. My sister is now 72 and has been a single mother most of her life. She is

very worried about her daughter's future since all of her siblings are also in their late 60's and 70's and no one else in the family is really in a position to take on the caregiver roll. Luckily, my niece's father left a fair amount of money to provide for paid care but that is not the same and someone has to oversee that. It can be a nightmare. It is a very big job.

[Irish_Dem]

39. Yes even if there are funds, someone has to be trusted to oversee

the management of the money and make sure it is spent appropriately.
It is a big responsibility.

[Shrike47]

4. Somehow I dont see them funding services for the eventual childs special needs.

[alp227]

13. I mean, this is the president they back...

[Alice11111]

35. God, wake me up from this nightmare. He can't possibly

be elected.

[meadowlark5]

5. But once that Down syndrome baby is born....

That child will be a special needs child possibly requiring additional medical care, once in school, additional services to learn, and then when an adult, in need of affordable housing or require services from county regional centers to learn to live independently.

Are the republicans going to have funding for this? Do they think about that or care? NO. They only care while that baby is in the womb. Once it's out, it's on its own and so is the family.

[MarcA]

10. +1,000 n/t

[blueinredohio]

18. I was going to say the same thing. Well said.

[lostnfound]

20. Support obligations can even continue past 18..

Republicans want to gut Medicaid. Bills still have to get paid.

http://www.t-mlaw.com/article/elderly-couple-may-be-on-the-hook-for-adult-sons-medical-bills-some-virginia-thoughts/

[meadowlark5]

27. I guess the republicans philosophy is

Don't get pregnant if you can't afford any child. If you can't afford a preterm baby that might require NICU time, don't get pregnant. If you can't afford (risk) having a Down's baby, don't get pregnant. But we won't make birth control affordable or readily available to you even if you are prudent enough to know you can't afford a baby much less one that could require specialized care once born.

The conundrum created by their stupid fucking ideology is mind-boggling.

[lordsummerisle]

6. Are there lawsuits in the works? n/t

[dhol82]

7. And this was a moderate republican.

[MissKat]

9. Who will help these children once they're born?

I worked with a number of Down Syndrome adults.
These were high-functioning folks and were able to do quite a bit.

Here's the but-- they each had a number of physical issues that conflicted with keeping a full-time position. One fellow had heart defects and needed both medication and surgeries. Another had a weak immune system that often meant hospitalization. Still another needed medication that tended to increase weight and he found it difficult to stay on his feet as required by the job.

I give any family willing to care for this special need person a great deal of credit, and I hope that they have a great deal of money and really good insurance.

Why do republicans want to be inside a woman's uterus? Why do they think that a woman doesn't have the skills necessary to decide what she is able to handle?

[Skittles]

12. you know it, MissKat

repukes are pro-birth but not pro-life

[Mr.Bill]

11. Unenforcible.

No woman has to give a reason for having an abortion. Laws like this just pander to the wingnut religious base.

[LisaL]

24. Doctors who abort fetuses with Down Syndrome could be facing charges.

So if a woman carrying Down syndrome fetus has an abortion, will they charge the doctors, regardless?

[Mr.Bill]

37. Will they/can they force evry doctor

performing an abortion to do a test for Down's Syndrome?

[RandomAccess]

15. From way back in 1971-3

As the Supreme Court was weighing Roe v Wade to now, whenever the subject comes up with enough anti-woman vigor (like this), I feel absolute rage and wish with all my might that women who were forced to have children they did not want could take those children as soon as possible after birth and deposit them on the doorsteps of the legislators who made the laws that caused it.

Of course, women wouldn't do that for the most part and there are laws as well. But it seems to me that THAT would be justice: YOU want this fetus to come into the world as a fully formed human being? Great. Here you go, YOU get to bear the costs, all of them.

Something else that always infuriates me about the right, esp. men, is that they don't want to understand that this isn't just about 9 months -- although that's quite enough of a "thing" given the toll on one's body and the increasing maternal mortality in the US. And it's not just about 18 years, either. It's about an entire lifetime of responsibility. You are NEVER not that child's mother, and most of the time the many, many commitments and even sacrifices a mother must make go on well beyond 18 years -- all the way to her death.

Once a woman becomes a mother, often (not always) those anti-mothering considerations dwindle and evaporate. But not always and ANYONE who knows they don't want to be a parent -- or not a parent right now -- should NEVER be forced into it. Hell, they shouldn't even be badgered about it.

[CousinIT]

19. Sexual and Reproductive Enslavement of Women Was Not Covered Under the 13th Amendment

https://www.thenation.com/article/reproductive-rights-and-long-hand-slave-breeding/

[GrapesOfWrath]

28. Fascinating article

Thanks for the link

[jmowreader]

21. I assume this won't be allowed

It's a quiet night in the Gonidakis home. There's a fire in the fireplace. The kids are popping corn. Mom is brewing up a big batch of cocoa, and Dad is choosing the family-friendly Christian-themed movie that'll serve as tonight's entertainment.

Suddenly there's a knock on the door. Dad opens it. A woman with a newborn infant is on the front porch.

"Are you Michael Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life?"

'Yes...may I help you?'

"This baby is Steven. He was diagnosed in the womb with Down syndrome. He has several birth defects, including a heart defect that'll kill him by the age of four. He's almost always in great pain. The shrieks at night are heart-rending."

'I'm sorry, but...'

"A year ago, if I would have gotten pregnant with this child I would have aborted the fetus. I feel it's cruel to bring a child who'll spend his entire life in agony into the world. But he's here, and it's going to cost about a million dollars to keep him alive for the short time he's got left."

'Miss...'

"Mrs. Mrs Cyndi Smith."

'Mrs. Smith, I'm sorry to hear about his troubles. But isn't it great that now we have the Down Syndrome Non-Discrimination Act, he gets a chance to enjoy life. I think that's very important.'

"I'm glad to hear you say that, Mr. Gonidakis..."

Mrs. Smith sets the baby's basket on the floor in front of him...

"because he's yours. Good luck."

Mrs. Smith turns and disappears into the night.

[dembotoz]

23. Now that won't be a Christmas movie we will see

[jmowreader]

25. But its a scenario that needs to happen

These fetuses aren’t being aborted out of selfishness. They’re being aborted because, if carried to term, a Down child requires care and expenditures a lot of parents just cannot do.

Also, these kids are very hard to place with adoptive families. If they’re born, the birth parents get to raise them. And everything I read on finances indicates special needs children cost at least quadruple what regular needs children do. Add in that the Republican POSes we have in the White House and the Ohio Statehouse would kill financial aid programs for special needs families just because they can... I guess we’re all supposed to rely on e-begging sites like GoFundMe.

[dembotoz]

31. I know some families of special needs kids

The cost both emotional and financial is staggering...
And the divorce rate is yikes

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. The bill singles out Down syndrome. What about other congenital conditions,

like trisomy 13, spina bifida, anencephaly, and many others? Why aren't those "protected"? And since it's legal to have an abortion if the fetus is normal, why would it be illegal if it has Down syndrome? And if a prenatal test shows the fetus has some condition other than Down syndrome that would cause as much suffering, hardship and expense as Down syndrome, an abortion is legal, but not if it's Down?

This won't survive a court challenge, not even with Gorsuch on the court, because there's no rational basis for it; it irrationally differentiates among things that are effectively the same.

[jmowreader]

32. Two other issues

What happens to a doctor who aborts a Down case without knowing it is? Are abortion providers supposed to perform amniocentesis on all women seeking the procedure, and what is to prevent a doctor from “accidentally” triggering a miscarriage -a known side effect of amnio- while collecting the sample?

Also, what will prevent a woman of means from buying a plane ticket to Boston or San Francisco after hearing the Down diagnosis? As with all these laws, they are meant to make sex something only for the rich to have.

[CrispyQ]

30. Abortion activists need add this argument to their arsenal.

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1031&context=facultyworkingpapers

2010
Forced Labor, Revisited: The Thirteenth
Amendment and Abortion

Andrew Koppelman

Northwestern University School of Law, [e-mail]

snip...

The Thirteenth Amendment reads as follows:

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.

My claim is that the amendment is violated by laws that prohibit abortion. When
women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to "involuntary
servitude" in violation of the amendment. Abortion prohibitions violate the
Amendment's guarantee of personal liberty, because forced pregnancy and childbirth, by
compelling the woman to serve the fetus, creates "that control by which the personal
service of one man [sic] is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit which is the
essence of involuntary servitude."6
Such laws violate the amendment's guarantee of
equality, because forcing women to be mothers makes them into a servant caste, a group
which, by virtue of a status of birth, is held subject to a special duty to serve others and
not themselves.
This argument makes available two responses to the standard defense of such
prohibitions, the claim that the fetus is a person. The first is that even if this is so, its
right to the continued aid of the woman does not follow. As Judith Jarvis Thomson
observes, "having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the
use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person's body -- even if one needs
it for life itself."7

Giving fetuses a legal right to the continued use of their mothers'
bodies would be precisely what the Thirteenth Amendment forbids. The second response
is that since abortion prohibitions infringe on the fundamental right to be free of
involuntary servitude, the burden is on the state to show that the violation of this right is
justified. Since the thesis that the fetus is, or should at least be considered, a person
seems impossible to prove (or to refute), this is a burden that the state cannot carry. If we
are not certain that the fetus is a person, then the mere possibility that it might be is not
enough to justify violating women's Thirteenth Amendment rights by forcing them to be
mothers.

[Vinca]

33. And at the same time he signed a bill guaranteeing financial assistance with said child.

Right???

[DeminPennswoods]

34. On that point, I am

waiting for the first set of parents to go to court and make one of these "pro life" politicians the financial guardian for their handicapped child. The first garnishment of a check for child support would change a few smiles to frowns.

[Purrfessor]

36. The names of people who support forcing women to carry pregnancies to term...

should be placed in a lottery. Names are then drawn and those selected are forced by the state to adopt children who have been placed for adoption. See how quickly many of them would change their minds then.

[TexasBushwhacker]

41. Why single out Down Syndrome?

There are many genetic and physical defects that can affect a fetus and parents may choose to terminate the pregnancy. What makes Down Syndrome so special? Not to mention, under this law, a woman could choose to abort if the fetus DOESN'T have DS, but not if it does. It just makes no sense.