Daughter with Down syndrome is not disposable

My apologies to George Hill [the executive director of the Family Planning Association of Maine] (BDN, Nov. 1-2) for arguing a point he is so certain of, but I couldn’t disagree more with his commentary. Besides the fact that I find it amusing that a man is the one speaking for women’s rights, I have to disagree with some very important issues he brought up.

In 1998, I was pregnant with my third child, an unexpected addition to our family. Times were, to say the least, very stressful. Despite not planning anymore children, we forged ahead with plans to welcome this new little one to our family, and after a time were able to get excited and look forward to her birth with great joy.

Midway through the pregnancy a phone call would change all that. What was to be a welcome change of plans was now a major life-altering event. Our unborn child had a very high likelihood of being born with Down syndrome, an additional 21st chromosome that we were told would bring with it mental retardation, physical challenges and a lifetime of care.

We were counseled to get an amniocentesis, to have the tests done that would tell us with more accuracy what we were dealing with. We knew in our hearts we could never terminate the pregnancy, we had already felt this baby moving, gentle kicks that seemed a not-so-subtle reminder that there was indeed a very much alive little person in there.

We were told we were being silly, told “these fetuses” have anomalies so severe that killing them was the only kind thing to do.

We underwent a level two ultrasound, in search of more proof that she was defective in some way that meant she wasn’t entitled to life. The “soft markers” they searched for turned up only shortened femurs, something we smilingly attributed to her Acadian heritage.

We researched, learned what we could. We discovered that more than 90 percent of kids with Down syndrome prenatally diagnosed were aborted. What disturbed us most was that the majority of those abortions happened in the third trimester. The methods used were barbaric.

In June 1998 our beautiful baby girl was born. We named her Ciarra Nichole, and we loved every inch of her beautiful face, even the features that told us clearly that the tests were right, she did indeed have Down syndrome. While we grieved the loss of the baby we had expected, we were instantly smitten with the one we had. She was a fighter.

Despite what most of the professionals had said, she was born relatively healthy. Soon, she was walking and talking, laughing and loving everything about her life, and teaching us lessons about “perfection” we had never thought we needed to learn. She was like the glue that pulled our family together, her big brother and sister doted on her. She brought smiles to so many faces we began to call her our goodwill ambassador.

Society as a whole seems to think abortion is only happening in the early stages; I didn’t know how common third-trimester abortion was until Ciarra came into my life. In some ways, I wish I had never found out. The “procedures” Hill mentions as a woman’s rights are violent, vicious procedures that literally tear children apart. The D&E [dilation and evacuation] procedure he is so willingly defending is the most vicious of the bunch. Sadly, it is not the procedure recently targeted by the U.S. Senate. That procedure, the so-called partial birth abortion, is almost as horrific. I suspect the very specific bodily landmarks noted in the PBA ban will protect Hill’s group in the event they choose to continue doing D&Es.

These abortions are not being done primarily “for the health of the mother” or even for “post-viability abortions in which the infant will not be able to survive outside the womb.” They are being done for eugenics purposes, to prevent the birth of handicapped children. Children with Down syndrome certainly aren’t dying in droves or unable to survive outside the womb. Their mothers’ health is not the issue, their vanity is.

If anyone wishes to delve deeper into these issues, read for yourselves the language in Stenberg vs. Carhart: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-830.ZO.html. Hill and his associates may not want that language to make it into the public arena, though. They would prefer the euphemisms of “terminate” and “defective” rather than the very graphic discussion. Anyone who can read through that entire case and come out the other end pro choice is a harder person than I can reach. Anyone who reads it and comes to the conclusion that this needs to stop now needs to keep saying it loudly until someone hears.

My daughter is not disposable. Her peers, whether they have spina bifida, hydrocephalus or any of the other serious but survivable birth defects, are not disposable. Specifically for kids with Down syndrome, there are waiting lists years long for prospective adoptive parents. We needn’t kill them just because we aren’t up to the task of parenting them. These are our children, and we protect those among us who are less able to protect themselves. Don’t we?

Michelle Harmon is a resident of Orrington.