Re: [AI] The dilemma when a pregnant woman seeks to abort a foetus with a detected disability

[shraddha edke]

Indeed a very nice share...

However, my eyes also caught the attention on the following statement:

"Rather, we must celebrate diversity and learn to celebrate the birth
of every child, with or without disability.”

I'm sure it must really be a moment of celebration for parents when
they see their baby born?
But, I'm not sure for how many would it really be? especially for the
one whose lad is born with down syndrom!

Regards,
Shraddha.








On 3/14/17, Shireen Irani  wrote:
> by Amba Salelkar
>
>
> On February 28, 2017, a division bench of the Supreme Court denied a
> woman permission to terminate a 26-week pregnancy after medical tests
> revealed that
> the foetus would be born with Down syndrome. This decision comes as
> one of several reported recently where late-term abortions have sought
> the nod of the
> judiciary.
>
> The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act is often said to be one of
> the more progressive statutes relating to women’s reproductive rights,
> globally. While
> the law allows medical terminations of any pregnancy up to 12 weeks,
> beyond this and up to 20 weeks, terminations are allowed for two
> reasons: a risk to
> the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury physical or mental
> health, or there being a substantial risk that if the child were born,
> it would suffer
> from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
>
> The Act does not allow for a registered medical practitioner to
> terminate a pregnancy beyond 20 weeks gestational age unless there is
> a risk to the life
> of the mother, and so the courts are approached for permission for
> such procedures to take place. The Supreme Court, in this case,
> appears to have relied
> on the fact that delivering a child with Down syndrome does not pose
> any more risk to the mother than delivering a child without Down
> syndrome. What seems
> to have attracted attention was that while delivering the judgement,
> Justice SA Bobde
> reportedly
>  observed that “everybody knows that children with Down Syndrome are
> undoubtedly less intelligent, but they are fine people… we don’t think
> we are going
> to allow the termination of pregnancy. We have a life in our hands.”
>
> Justice Bobde, perhaps unwittingly, echoed the viewpoints of
> disability rights organisations around the world, particularly those
> representing persons
> with Down syndrome and conditions like spina bifida, which are now
> detectable well within the “safe” period for termination of
> pregnancies. They have voiced
> concerns that the vast improvements in imaging and testing are leading
> to their elimination from the diversity of humankind.
>
> Screening out the disabled
>
> In the United Kingdom, current imaging has resulted in a 90%
> termination rate of foetuses testing positive for Down syndrome.
> Efforts to step up such testing
> recently brought persons with Down Syndrome and their families onto
> the streets to protest against the government “
> screening them out
> ”. Autistic persons have spoken out against global NGOs like Autism
> Speaks for raising for funding
> research
>  focused on identifying genetic markers for autism, presumably so that
> autism can be prevented by way of prenatal testing as well.
>
> Disability rights activists are clear that measures that prevent
> impairments, for example, promotion of folic acid supplements to
> expectant persons, vaccines,
> nutritional supplementation etc. are not problematic. However,
> elimination of persons who have these impairments most certainly falls
> foul of the human
> rights entitled to persons with disabilities.
>
> The Committee on the Rights of the Child, in 1997, while discussing
> the rights of children with disabilities
> stated:
>
> block quote
> “It was of course vitally important to work towards the creation of a
> safer world for children in which the risks of impairment and harm
> were minimised,
> but the solution was not through the denial of life itself as a
> preventive strategy. Rather, we must celebrate diversity and learn to
> celebrate the birth
> of every child, with or without disability.”
> block quote end
>
> Disability rights activists, particularly in the United States, are
> mindful of the potential their cause has to curbing women’s
> reproductive rights, particularly
> in the present political scenario. This discomfort is reflected in the
> Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities itself.
> Pages/ConventionRightsPersonsWithDisabilities
>  The discussions behind drafting of
> Article 10
>  on the Right to Life reveal that though many interest
> groups
>  and states advocated for the specific bar on terminations of
> pregnancies on the grounds of disability, the text that received
> consensus was silent on
> the same. As seen from the concluding observations of the convention’s
> committee relating to the implementation of the Convention in Spain,
> termination
> of pregnancies on the grounds of 

Re: [AI] The dilemma when a pregnant woman seeks to abort a foetus with a detected disability

[khalil gmail]

Thanks for sharing such important Article. Keep it up.

--
From: "Shireen Irani" 
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 8:04 PM
To: "disability-studies-india" ; 
"accessindia" 
Subject: [AI] The dilemma when a pregnant woman seeks to abort a foetus with 
a detected disability



by Amba Salelkar


On February 28, 2017, a division bench of the Supreme Court denied a
woman permission to terminate a 26-week pregnancy after medical tests
revealed that
the foetus would be born with Down syndrome. This decision comes as
one of several reported recently where late-term abortions have sought
the nod of the
judiciary.

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act is often said to be one of
the more progressive statutes relating to women’s reproductive rights,
globally. While
the law allows medical terminations of any pregnancy up to 12 weeks,
beyond this and up to 20 weeks, terminations are allowed for two
reasons: a risk to
the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury physical or mental
health, or there being a substantial risk that if the child were born,
it would suffer
from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

The Act does not allow for a registered medical practitioner to
terminate a pregnancy beyond 20 weeks gestational age unless there is
a risk to the life
of the mother, and so the courts are approached for permission for
such procedures to take place. The Supreme Court, in this case,
appears to have relied
on the fact that delivering a child with Down syndrome does not pose
any more risk to the mother than delivering a child without Down
syndrome. What seems
to have attracted attention was that while delivering the judgement,
Justice SA Bobde
reportedly
observed that “everybody knows that children with Down Syndrome are
undoubtedly less intelligent, but they are fine people… we don’t think
we are going
to allow the termination of pregnancy. We have a life in our hands.”

Justice Bobde, perhaps unwittingly, echoed the viewpoints of
disability rights organisations around the world, particularly those
representing persons
with Down syndrome and conditions like spina bifida, which are now
detectable well within the “safe” period for termination of
pregnancies. They have voiced
concerns that the vast improvements in imaging and testing are leading
to their elimination from the diversity of humankind.

Screening out the disabled

In the United Kingdom, current imaging has resulted in a 90%
termination rate of foetuses testing positive for Down syndrome.
Efforts to step up such testing
recently brought persons with Down Syndrome and their families onto
the streets to protest against the government “
screening them out
”. Autistic persons have spoken out against global NGOs like Autism
Speaks for raising for funding
research
focused on identifying genetic markers for autism, presumably so that
autism can be prevented by way of prenatal testing as well.

Disability rights activists are clear that measures that prevent
impairments, for example, promotion of folic acid supplements to
expectant persons, vaccines,
nutritional supplementation etc. are not problematic. However,
elimination of persons who have these impairments most certainly falls
foul of the human
rights entitled to persons with disabilities.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child, in 1997, while discussing
the rights of children with disabilities
stated:

block quote
“It was of course vitally important to work towards the creation of a
safer world for children in which the risks of impairment and harm
were minimised,
but the solution was not through the denial of life itself as a
preventive strategy. Rather, we must celebrate diversity and learn to
celebrate the birth
of every child, with or without disability.”
block quote end

Disability rights activists, particularly in the United States, are
mindful of the potential their cause has to curbing women’s
reproductive rights, particularly
in the present political scenario. This discomfort is reflected in the
Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities itself.
Pages/ConventionRightsPersonsWithDisabilities
 The discussions behind drafting of
Article 10
on the Right to Life reveal that though many interest
groups
and states advocated for the specific bar on terminations of
pregnancies on the grounds of disability, the text that received
consensus was silent on
the same. As seen from the concluding observations of the convention’s
committee relating to the implementation of the Convention in Spain,
termination
of pregnancies on the grounds of disability when there was a general
right to terminate a pregnancy was not per se violative of the
Convention, but States
that allowed for terminations only on the grounds of disability were
violating the convention as the protection offered to the foetus was
then not “on
an equal 

Re: [AI] The dilemma when a pregnant woman seeks to abort a foetus with a detected disability

[khalil gmail]

Thanks for sharing such important Article. Keep it up.

--
From: "Shireen Irani" 
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 8:04 PM
To: "disability-studies-india" ; 
"accessindia" 
Subject: [AI] The dilemma when a pregnant woman seeks to abort a foetus with 
a detected disability



by Amba Salelkar


On February 28, 2017, a division bench of the Supreme Court denied a
woman permission to terminate a 26-week pregnancy after medical tests
revealed that
the foetus would be born with Down syndrome. This decision comes as
one of several reported recently where late-term abortions have sought
the nod of the
judiciary.

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act is often said to be one of
the more progressive statutes relating to women’s reproductive rights,
globally. While
the law allows medical terminations of any pregnancy up to 12 weeks,
beyond this and up to 20 weeks, terminations are allowed for two
reasons: a risk to
the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury physical or mental
health, or there being a substantial risk that if the child were born,
it would suffer
from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

The Act does not allow for a registered medical practitioner to
terminate a pregnancy beyond 20 weeks gestational age unless there is
a risk to the life
of the mother, and so the courts are approached for permission for
such procedures to take place. The Supreme Court, in this case,
appears to have relied
on the fact that delivering a child with Down syndrome does not pose
any more risk to the mother than delivering a child without Down
syndrome. What seems
to have attracted attention was that while delivering the judgement,
Justice SA Bobde
reportedly
observed that “everybody knows that children with Down Syndrome are
undoubtedly less intelligent, but they are fine people… we don’t think
we are going
to allow the termination of pregnancy. We have a life in our hands.”

Justice Bobde, perhaps unwittingly, echoed the viewpoints of
disability rights organisations around the world, particularly those
representing persons
with Down syndrome and conditions like spina bifida, which are now
detectable well within the “safe” period for termination of
pregnancies. They have voiced
concerns that the vast improvements in imaging and testing are leading
to their elimination from the diversity of humankind.

Screening out the disabled

In the United Kingdom, current imaging has resulted in a 90%
termination rate of foetuses testing positive for Down syndrome.
Efforts to step up such testing
recently brought persons with Down Syndrome and their families onto
the streets to protest against the government “
screening them out
”. Autistic persons have spoken out against global NGOs like Autism
Speaks for raising for funding
research
focused on identifying genetic markers for autism, presumably so that
autism can be prevented by way of prenatal testing as well.

Disability rights activists are clear that measures that prevent
impairments, for example, promotion of folic acid supplements to
expectant persons, vaccines,
nutritional supplementation etc. are not problematic. However,
elimination of persons who have these impairments most certainly falls
foul of the human
rights entitled to persons with disabilities.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child, in 1997, while discussing
the rights of children with disabilities
stated:

block quote
“It was of course vitally important to work towards the creation of a
safer world for children in which the risks of impairment and harm
were minimised,
but the solution was not through the denial of life itself as a
preventive strategy. Rather, we must celebrate diversity and learn to
celebrate the birth
of every child, with or without disability.”
block quote end

Disability rights activists, particularly in the United States, are
mindful of the potential their cause has to curbing women’s
reproductive rights, particularly
in the present political scenario. This discomfort is reflected in the
Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities itself.
Pages/ConventionRightsPersonsWithDisabilities
 The discussions behind drafting of
Article 10
on the Right to Life reveal that though many interest
groups
and states advocated for the specific bar on terminations of
pregnancies on the grounds of disability, the text that received
consensus was silent on
the same. As seen from the concluding observations of the convention’s
committee relating to the implementation of the Convention in Spain,
termination
of pregnancies on the grounds of disability when there was a general
right to terminate a pregnancy was not per se violative of the
Convention, but States
that allowed for terminations only on the grounds of disability were
violating the convention as the protection offered to the foetus was
then not “on
an equal 

Re: [AI] The dilemma when a pregnant woman seeks to abort a foetus with a detected disability

[Vamshi. G]

I feel the parents should have the right to termination at any stage
of pregnancy.  The only exception is when the mother carries a risk in
the process.


"Rather, we must celebrate diversity and learn to celebrate the birth
of every child, with or without disability.”

I don't understand what exactly does the above statement try to
explain.   Does celebrating diversity mean getting more disabled into
the world?  And does the word "we" in the context of celebrating
diversity include the child also?  Or only the activists of
disability?  I always feel we should not presume that the child would
join us in celebrating disability as a form of diversity.  Of course,
the effort of society should be to ensure that disabled also celebrate
life just as non-disabled do.  But even the most ideal of the
scynarios congenial to disabled should not warrant  birth of  more
disabled.

On 3/14/17, Shireen Irani  wrote:
> by Amba Salelkar
>
>
> On February 28, 2017, a division bench of the Supreme Court denied a
> woman permission to terminate a 26-week pregnancy after medical tests
> revealed that
> the foetus would be born with Down syndrome. This decision comes as
> one of several reported recently where late-term abortions have sought
> the nod of the
> judiciary.
>
> The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act is often said to be one of
> the more progressive statutes relating to women’s reproductive rights,
> globally. While
> the law allows medical terminations of any pregnancy up to 12 weeks,
> beyond this and up to 20 weeks, terminations are allowed for two
> reasons: a risk to
> the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury physical or mental
> health, or there being a substantial risk that if the child were born,
> it would suffer
> from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
>
> The Act does not allow for a registered medical practitioner to
> terminate a pregnancy beyond 20 weeks gestational age unless there is
> a risk to the life
> of the mother, and so the courts are approached for permission for
> such procedures to take place. The Supreme Court, in this case,
> appears to have relied
> on the fact that delivering a child with Down syndrome does not pose
> any more risk to the mother than delivering a child without Down
> syndrome. What seems
> to have attracted attention was that while delivering the judgement,
> Justice SA Bobde
> reportedly
>  observed that “everybody knows that children with Down Syndrome are
> undoubtedly less intelligent, but they are fine people… we don’t think
> we are going
> to allow the termination of pregnancy. We have a life in our hands.”
>
> Justice Bobde, perhaps unwittingly, echoed the viewpoints of
> disability rights organisations around the world, particularly those
> representing persons
> with Down syndrome and conditions like spina bifida, which are now
> detectable well within the “safe” period for termination of
> pregnancies. They have voiced
> concerns that the vast improvements in imaging and testing are leading
> to their elimination from the diversity of humankind.
>
> Screening out the disabled
>
> In the United Kingdom, current imaging has resulted in a 90%
> termination rate of foetuses testing positive for Down syndrome.
> Efforts to step up such testing
> recently brought persons with Down Syndrome and their families onto
> the streets to protest against the government “
> screening them out
> ”. Autistic persons have spoken out against global NGOs like Autism
> Speaks for raising for funding
> research
>  focused on identifying genetic markers for autism, presumably so that
> autism can be prevented by way of prenatal testing as well.
>
> Disability rights activists are clear that measures that prevent
> impairments, for example, promotion of folic acid supplements to
> expectant persons, vaccines,
> nutritional supplementation etc. are not problematic. However,
> elimination of persons who have these impairments most certainly falls
> foul of the human
> rights entitled to persons with disabilities.
>
> The Committee on the Rights of the Child, in 1997, while discussing
> the rights of children with disabilities
> stated:
>
> block quote
> “It was of course vitally important to work towards the creation of a
> safer world for children in which the risks of impairment and harm
> were minimised,
> but the solution was not through the denial of life itself as a
> preventive strategy. Rather, we must celebrate diversity and learn to
> celebrate the birth
> of every child, with or without disability.”
> block quote end
>
> Disability rights activists, particularly in the United States, are
> mindful of the potential their cause has to curbing women’s
> reproductive rights, particularly
> in the present political scenario. This discomfort is reflected in the
> Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities itself.
> Pages/ConventionRightsPersonsWithDisabilities
>  The discussions behind drafting of
> 

[AI] The dilemma when a pregnant woman seeks to abort a foetus with a detected disability

[Shireen Irani]

by Amba Salelkar


On February 28, 2017, a division bench of the Supreme Court denied a
woman permission to terminate a 26-week pregnancy after medical tests
revealed that
the foetus would be born with Down syndrome. This decision comes as
one of several reported recently where late-term abortions have sought
the nod of the
judiciary.

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act is often said to be one of
the more progressive statutes relating to women’s reproductive rights,
globally. While
the law allows medical terminations of any pregnancy up to 12 weeks,
beyond this and up to 20 weeks, terminations are allowed for two
reasons: a risk to
the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury physical or mental
health, or there being a substantial risk that if the child were born,
it would suffer
from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

The Act does not allow for a registered medical practitioner to
terminate a pregnancy beyond 20 weeks gestational age unless there is
a risk to the life
of the mother, and so the courts are approached for permission for
such procedures to take place. The Supreme Court, in this case,
appears to have relied
on the fact that delivering a child with Down syndrome does not pose
any more risk to the mother than delivering a child without Down
syndrome. What seems
to have attracted attention was that while delivering the judgement,
Justice SA Bobde
reportedly
 observed that “everybody knows that children with Down Syndrome are
undoubtedly less intelligent, but they are fine people… we don’t think
we are going
to allow the termination of pregnancy. We have a life in our hands.”

Justice Bobde, perhaps unwittingly, echoed the viewpoints of
disability rights organisations around the world, particularly those
representing persons
with Down syndrome and conditions like spina bifida, which are now
detectable well within the “safe” period for termination of
pregnancies. They have voiced
concerns that the vast improvements in imaging and testing are leading
to their elimination from the diversity of humankind.

Screening out the disabled

In the United Kingdom, current imaging has resulted in a 90%
termination rate of foetuses testing positive for Down syndrome.
Efforts to step up such testing
recently brought persons with Down Syndrome and their families onto
the streets to protest against the government “
screening them out
”. Autistic persons have spoken out against global NGOs like Autism
Speaks for raising for funding
research
 focused on identifying genetic markers for autism, presumably so that
autism can be prevented by way of prenatal testing as well.

Disability rights activists are clear that measures that prevent
impairments, for example, promotion of folic acid supplements to
expectant persons, vaccines,
nutritional supplementation etc. are not problematic. However,
elimination of persons who have these impairments most certainly falls
foul of the human
rights entitled to persons with disabilities.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child, in 1997, while discussing
the rights of children with disabilities
stated:

block quote
“It was of course vitally important to work towards the creation of a
safer world for children in which the risks of impairment and harm
were minimised,
but the solution was not through the denial of life itself as a
preventive strategy. Rather, we must celebrate diversity and learn to
celebrate the birth
of every child, with or without disability.”
block quote end

Disability rights activists, particularly in the United States, are
mindful of the potential their cause has to curbing women’s
reproductive rights, particularly
in the present political scenario. This discomfort is reflected in the
Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities itself.
Pages/ConventionRightsPersonsWithDisabilities
 The discussions behind drafting of
Article 10
 on the Right to Life reveal that though many interest
groups
 and states advocated for the specific bar on terminations of
pregnancies on the grounds of disability, the text that received
consensus was silent on
the same. As seen from the concluding observations of the convention’s
committee relating to the implementation of the Convention in Spain,
termination
of pregnancies on the grounds of disability when there was a general
right to terminate a pregnancy was not per se violative of the
Convention, but States
that allowed for terminations only on the grounds of disability were
violating the convention as the protection offered to the foetus was
then not “on
an equal basis with others”.

Informed choices about abortion

In India, where prenatal determination of sex and consequent
termination of a pregnancy based on sex is prohibited, the door seems
already ajar to argue
that pregnant people have the right to terminate any pregnancy, but
not a particular pregnancy on the grounds of the sex of the foetus.
Interestingly,
the National Commission for Women in India has
opined
 that