| Opinion/The Review

Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

ACA & Down syndrome

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or

Daily Photo Galleries

Letter to the Editor
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?

Kurt Kondrich

Upper St. Clair

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.



Show commenting policy

Most-Read Letters

  1. Pipelines to the future
  2. Home, sweet home?
  3. March of the lemmings
  4. Another fee billed to drivers
  5. End climate change
  6. A fresh face needed
  7. A WQED loss
  8. End ‘lookism’
  9. Historical precedents
  10. Remove antibiotics from food