ACA & Down syndrome
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Friday, Nov. 15, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
One of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act championed by the disability community is coverage for pre-existing conditions. This is a positive mandate, and many advocates have fought to ensure individuals with disabilities are fully included in our society.
I am the father of an amazing daughter, Chloe, who has Down syndrome, and I advocate for inclusion and acceptance.
After Chloe's birth, I became aware of the 90-percent-plus abortion rate for children diagnosed prenatally with Down syndrome. The ACA provides funding for abortion.
The reality is that less than 10 percent of children who survive from a prenatal to a postnatal pre-existing Down syndrome condition can access health-care coverage. Why should the disability community be excited about coverage funding the instrument used to terminate 90 percent of individuals diagnosed with a prenatal pre-existing condition?
Rapid advances in genetic testing will lead to more prenatal pre-existing conditions being diagnosed. Will our “inclusive, tolerant” culture allow these individuals to be targeted and eliminated by health-care coverage that supposedly was crafted to protect them?
Upper St. Clair
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Putin’s actions I
- Shredded Wheat & ‘Low T’
- Drought answer?
- Sovereignty trampled
- Apollo-Ridge excellence
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Orwellian redefinitions
- Keep Laurel Point
- Funding priorities questioned
- Prison plan & the public’s say
- Ukraine & history