I’ve seen many polls that conclude that America is a “pro-life” nation. And that the number of self-identified pro-lifers is growing. I’ve even felt myself growing hopeful about the immediate future because of those poll numbers.
But after reading a story today I’m not sure I believe it.
UPI reports:
The number of babies with Down syndrome carried to term in the United States has declined to single digit percentages, officials say.
Approximately 92 percent of American women with prenatal diagnoses of Down syndrome babies chose abortion, Children’s Hospital Boston pediatric geneticist Dr. Brian Skotko said.
Skotko is concerned whether myths or facts drive the decisions, ABC News reports. “I am concerned about mothers making that informed decision. Are they making it on facts and up-to-date information? Research suggests not, and that mothers get inaccurate, incomplete and sometimes offensive information,” Skotko said.
Firstly, 92% is a heartbreaking number. Staggering.
Now, you can’t argue reasonably that mothers with babies diagnosed in-utero with Down Syndrome is a completely random sample because mothers of Down Syndrome children tend to be over 30 and usually closer to 40 or older. But even allowing that it’s just a slice of the population, it’s still awful. In fact, awful doesn’t begin to describe it.
But there’s no reason to think that younger mothers would do better in that younger women tend to get more abortions than older women. So how do we reconcile polling which indicates that 50% of the country self identifies as pro-life while only 8% of babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome are allowed to be born?
Now, you could have a number of people who know that aborting their child is wrong but the threat of a Down child is too much to bear and they have an abortion even though they know it’s wrong and still believe it should be illegal. But that’s almost worse than just thinking abortion is a morally neutral act. No matter what, it’s certainly not indicative of a pro-life nation.
I think sometimes when it comes to abortion I become very focused on changing the laws. But I think we have a lot of hearts to change in this country or changing the laws won’t really matter all that much.
November 3, 2009 at 8:11 pm
My mom was 38 and diabetic when she became pregnant with me in 1979. Nurses and even some of the doctors suggested she abort me just on the possibility that I might have Down's Syndrome. And this was at a Catholic hospital! Thankfully, that was never an option for my parents (though she did get talked into getting her tubes tied as a "precaution.")
November 3, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Since at least one physician reads here… I hope that he/she will correct me if I'm wrong… But I seem to recall from the brochure we received explaining prenatal screening that there is a high risk of false positives with amnio testing.
November 3, 2009 at 9:04 pm
I'm no doctor, but from this UK site.
The screening itself has between .5 and 1% chance of causing a miscarriage.
In those who are advised to have a screening done, those with a risk of more than one in 50 have a 48% detection rate and a 2.7% false positive.
Those with a risk of over one in 250 have a 58% detection rate, and a 5.2% false positive.
Those with a risk of over one in 250 have a 65% detection rate and 7.6 false positive.
The text below the chart on my linked page confuses the issue quite a bit, though– it seems to be saying a false positive is a test that didn't need to be done, rather than an inaccurate result.
An older but possibly better source here cites a 5 to 8% false positive, with a 35-40% false negative.
November 3, 2009 at 10:41 pm
I have 6 children. 5 from age 37 on (!). I always declined prenatal testing except for a level 2 (3?) ultrasound. As part of the ultrasound, the dr would look for soft markers for downs. If we had had any soft markers for downs syndrome, I would have pursued further testing so that, if needed, we & the medical team could be ready for any challenges.
I never worried about "problems" with my babies, but plenty of people around me did. I was often asked if I was concerned about . . . ahem . . . "health problems" – code for downs.
November 3, 2009 at 10:48 pm
I would not dissuade people from getting the tests. They were important as part of preparing for my son's birth and anticipating and putting together a team to address his health needs.
I didn't get amnio with the first 8. It was only when the ultrasound showed a defect in the heart and the soft marker of a thickened nucleal fold on his neck that I agreed to further testing.
Knowledge could prepare one for how to cope with low tone, what to expect with respect to mile markers, higher probability of respiratory infection (lungs not strong enough to cough it all out), but what the books and DVD's and even a Masters in Special Education could not do, is prepare me for the great joy he brings with every smile, with every discovery, with every day.
November 3, 2009 at 11:20 pm
This is indeed tragic… I had the privilege in working and living as a full-time assistant in a group home where many people had Down's. They were absolutely delightful, and they became part of my family. I was 21 – 22 at the time, and met my husband while I was living there. (The place is called L'Arche Harbor House in Jacksonville, FL) These delightful people came to our wedding, and you haven't partied until you invite a group of smiling people with Down's onto the dance floor: A memory that will stay with me forever… And so I am passionate about the value and life people with Down's bring to our society. My life would have been missing something major if not for these people during a particularly crucial time in my spiritual walk when I had recently converted. Their simplicity helped me to heal from past experiences and to turn to God. (This story is slowly unfolding on my site LifeVictorious.com)
My second point is that many times Down's and other disabilities are misdiagnosed. I know of countless stories to this effect. How tragic that many abortions are inflicted on many healthy babies because of the fear of the parents and pressures of the medical system. It is tragic that abortions happen to anyone… but I thought I would mention this factor as well…
Thought and prayers with CMR as you continue sharing the truth…
~shalimamma
November 4, 2009 at 6:35 am
As a mom of a ds child this is heart breaking, but I should point out that most of the 8% born are to moms under 30 as they usually waive testing that would have otherwise picked it up. I was 21 when I had my ds daughter and she is a joy. What a sad world we live in 🙁
November 4, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Janelle, as another mom of a child with Down syndrome, I agree, this IS heartbreaking, in fact it's the reason I became a blogger, to alert toe world to this tragedy. Thank you Matthew for this important post. Archbishop Chaput addressed this issue on his First Things blog.
But to me the saddest point is that, despite Dr Skotko's excellent research there is a paper just released by leading Ds 'advocacy' orgnizations NDSS, NDSC, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists, and Genetic Counseling orgs DENYING this very statistic.
http://www.nsgc.org/client_files/Consensus_Conversation_Statement.pdf
That is why my friend Eileen and I began KIDS Keep Infants with Down Syndrome to raise awareness of this tragedy.Last year we joined the March for Life and met with pro-life Congressmen to garner their support.
Join us on Facebook or on our blog, and tell the world that our children are gifts from God.
November 4, 2009 at 6:48 pm
I was told the chance of miscarriage from the amnio was 1 in 1600.
November 4, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Huh, I see my link didn't work, for some reason….
Down syndrome can be diagnosed early in pregnancy (at about 15 to 16 weeks) by amniocentesis. This involves a very fine needle being passed into the womb, under guidance by ultrasound, and sampling of the (amniotic) fluid around the baby. It is done under local anaesthetic, and most women don't find it too uncomfortable. There is a risk, however, of about 1 in 100 to 200 of a spontaneous miscarriage after the procedure.
November 6, 2009 at 12:16 am
I was 36 when I became pregnant with my daughter. I too refused the amnio because 1. I wouldn't have an abortion no matter the results were and 2. the risk for a miscarriage was unacceptable.
February 9, 2010 at 5:23 am
Just wanted to clear a couple of things up.
It can be confusing, but the false positive rate that you were wondering about would be for screening tests (things like a blood test and/or ultrasound where they measure the nuchal translucency – the thickness of fluid at the back of a baby's neck). This would be about 5-8%, meaning that 5-8% of women who take the screening test will "screen positive" for Down syndrome but their babies will not have Down syndrome. "Screen positive" is very different from "testing positive". Screening means you have a higher chance, for example 1 in 20 chance of having a baby with Down Syndrome, but this also would mean you would have a 19 in 20 chance the baby does not have Down syndrome.
As for amniocentesis, this test gives definitive Yes or No answers, does the baby have Down syndrome. A needle takes a sample of the fluid surrounding the baby, which contains cells that have come off the baby. This does not hurt the baby. Those cells are examined under a microscope and a scientist looks and the chromosomes and checks if there is an extra copy of chromosome #21. If there is, then the baby has Down syndrome. This test wouldn't give a false positive.
February 9, 2010 at 5:27 am
Also the risk for miscarriage with amniocentesis ranges between 1/300-1/900 depending on how experienced of a center is performing the procedure.
Usually anesthetic is not used. The procedure may cause some cramping.
Some couples find knowing definitively allows them to prepare and in case of a heart problem specialized medical care can be ready at the birth of the baby, if it were necessary.
February 9, 2010 at 5:33 am
Anon, could you please offer a source for your information?
There's just too many folks who will say black is white to *mess* with folks, so it's really most effective to offer a third party uninvolved site…..
March 13, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Here are some sources, from Toronto's Mt. Sinai Hospital.
Information about amniocentesis (although here they quote a risk of about 1/200 (0.5%) for miscarriage, literature suggests this risk is lower)
http://www.mountsinai.on.ca/care/pdmg/tests/amnio
Information about screening (different from prenatal testing):
http://www.mountsinai.on.ca/care/pdmg/tests/fts
Information about chromosomes:
http://www.mountsinai.on.ca/care/pdmg/genetics/chromosomes
March 13, 2010 at 11:43 pm
The only information you've offered agrees with what I offered before– 1 in 100-200.
Miscarriage
The natural rate of miscarriage after 16 weeks is approximately 3 per cent. The additional risk due to amniocentesis is about 0.5 per cent (1/200), making the total risk about 3.5 per cent.
Do you have any citations for the literature that suggests the risk is lower?