I suspect, on the surface, Sarah Palin SEEMS to support disability rights because of her child.

She is staunchly pro-life which means any embryo, in any condition, in any form, must be brought fully to term. Actually, I don't think she really cares about disability rights because: 1) she has more than enough resources to raise a disabled child, 2) she, reportedly, even has an 'official' government babysitter/nanny. Conclusion: Her child will never want for anything, no matter how abled or disabled and no matter how busy or how much attention she is able to give it (especially given her propensity to charge taxpayers for all these services). Her loyalty is not to disabled people but pro-life issues.

From everything I've heard about her and if she is aligned with her party's platform, she most likely supports more of the same on health care issues: If you have the money, good for you. If not, out on the street...

Her record, according to data gathered by the New York Times, shows favoritism, corruption, abuse of power. The only "reformist" thing she did was take money from oil companies and distribute it to the people. If you ask me, she did this merely to buy the public's consent for more drilling & destruction. Am I being cynical?

I can't predict what will happen in the future, but I predict that Palin will cut health care and social programs further. She shows all the signs of being in line with Bush's policies on this. Her comments reflect someone who is a strong social and economic conservative, which at the end of the day means: you sink or swim on your own. In other words: Have that baby, and take care of it, and if you can't, it's your own fault and don't depend on others for help.

See this article for more on McCain's health care plan:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16herbert.html?ei=5070&emc=eta1

Except that it's McCain, NOT Palin, running for prez?

You may want to double check this, but I've heard from various sources that Palin actually cut funding in her state that would help people with disabilities.

It's one thing to vote for somebody b/c you think they would be a natural ally to your cause; it's another thing to vote for them based on their actual record on that cause.

McCain hadn't said anything about disability issues, and Obama didn't either. Now that Palin has mentioned that she will advocate for those with disability (even though there's no actual proof yet that she will since it hasn't been clearly stated how she will do this), it's quite possible that both sides have started to draft up ways that they will work towards this goal.

Also, you would have to ask yourself, is your support for this one cause being slightly better-represented by one person enough to outweigh all of the other political beliefs you have?? So is her mention of disability issues enough to outweigh all of the other issues: economy, education, war, social security, equal pay and other women's rights, repro rights, etc. These are the things you have to consider.

"A lot of attention has been paid to the decision of Sarah Palin to give birth to her son despite her knowledge that he would be born with Down syndrome."

"...lauding her as a disability rights hero for her decision to keep her son."

But she didn't make a decision to keep her son. She was always going to give birth to her child. She is anti-choice, and if she had it her way would take choice away from all American women.

As a supporter of the pro-choice agenda, I do not get to decide why women choose to carry a pregnancy to term or to terminate.

It's like freedom of speech: I may not agree with what a woman has to say, but I'll defend to my death her right to say it.

To answer your question, well, I don't if I can answer your question. I don't think having an abortion because the woman learns that the child will be born with a serious genetic disorder does promote ableism. You've cited many reasons women have abortions when they find out that their child will be born with a genetic disorder, which are many of the same reasons that women have abortions in general. I don't know how many women in such a situation have abortions because they have something against people with disabilities. But even if any woman does, it's still a private decision that doesn't have to be approved by anybody. You (and I) may disagree with that reasoning, but she has every right to make it. Nobody has to give their approval.

Ideally, I would like doctors to give women information about genetic disorders and other disabilities when they find out that their child will be born with such disorders. However, I fear that anti-choice doctors might stretch the truth about these disorders in order to convince women not to make an informed choice. There was a woman on Dr. Phil recently who was told by her doctor that her son would not be born with any genetic disorder, but he now has both Down Syndrome and Autism. Now, she didn't say that she was given this information by an anti-choice doctor, but the thought did cross my mind when I saw that episode. She lives a very hard life taking care of her son, and I think she did say that if she knew what she knows now, she would have had an abortion (and I don't blame her).

Now I have a question for you. What about in cases of rape or incest? Many people think psychological disorders, such as Antisocial Personality Disorder, are genetic, and that a baby born with "rapist genes" will grow up to become a rapist or other form of sexual predator. What if a woman has an abortion for that reason, even though Antisocial Personality Disorder is probably not genetic? Babies born through incest sometimes have genetic problems, but that's not always the case, and doctors can run tests to determine that. Would you respect a woman's decision to terminate that pregnancy, even if the baby probably won't have any serious genetic defects?

"...Palin's stances on issues of healthcare and social services are not fully in line with what disability advocates often push for..."

You can remove the words "fully" and "often" from that sentence if you want to be more on point.

She is anti-choice. If you are seeking an anti-choice candidate, and if she were the candidate, then she would be the one to vote for.
However, she is not running. McCain is.
He is not going to federally fund anything he isn't forced to outside of war.
Take a look at his record.
Do not for one minute think that your situation is like Palins, unless you also have a nanny & live on as many acres, etc.
She is not you.
She is not concerned with you as an individual who can benefit from social and govt. run services.
She wants to privatize, as does McCain, as did Bush.

Were things better for your family with Bush in office? Do you care that life got a lot harder for most Americans during his back to back terms? Do you feel parents who can afford private school should get tax incentives to continue doing so, thereby putting the final nail in the coffin of our public school education in this country?

Rather than succumbing to the hype, research McCain's and Palin's public records.

And to any of the contributors of Feministing who may be reading this, may I suggest that this post go on the homepage? I think everyone should read this post.

Yeah - this is a super complicated issue. I'm strongly pro-choice but still feel extremely uncomfortable with the idea of screening and aborting in cases of genetic disorders. It just seems to be inconsistent with the attitude of parenthood to me. I mean, once you have decided to proceed with the pregnancy, you've got to be prepared to love the child no matter what, right? You can't possibly predict all of the things that a child might do, or that might happen to a child that will render them less desirable (by society's standards) during their life time, right? I was really irritated that the doctors at my clinic (where I was only interested in seeing the midwife) pressured me so much to have all this screening done, with the implication that I'd abort if there was a problem. So I share your discomfort with this societal attitude that children with disabilities are disposable or something. However, as other commenters have noted, Palin is not a real disabilities advocate from a financial point of view. In her view it's best to force women to have the child regardless of its abilities, and then refuse to provide any support for her. And that attitude is highly unpalatable to me.

Some women opt to screen for genetic disorders to prepare to take care of a child with special needs. Sarah Palin screened for genetic disorders when she was pregnant with her newest child, but she would never choose to have an abortion in any circumstance.

Rachel, you are assuming that every child with a genetic disorder will definitely have a high quality of life and normal life expectancy. That's not always the case. If I learned that my child would only live for a few hours, maybe even a few years, after birth, I would probably have an abortion. I wouldn't want to go through 4 or 5 more months of pregnancy knowing that my kid is going to die before me, and then have to deal with my child dying. No parent ever fully recovers from the death of their child, and divorce is almost a certainty in married couples who experience the death of their child. Personally, I don't think the lifetime of psychological problems and stresses is worth trying to prove to the world that you are dedicated to conquering ableism by having a child with disabilities.

The way I see it, my goal in giving birth is to eventually end up with two healthy children. Because I do not consider a fetus to be an independent child, but rather a potential infant, I would abort if the fetus had any birth defects that would make its life more painful and difficult. I don't see how this is any different than making a choice about abortion in normal circumstances. During pregnancy, I plan to avoid caffeine and alcohol, take vitamins, exercise, and do all that I can to produce a healthy infant -- abortion in case something goes wrong with the fetus is just part of this plan to provide my children with the best start in life I can give them. If I did give birth to a child with a disability, of course I would care for him or her happily and lovingly. So I find it a little insulting to connect what more than 90% of women choose to do in the same situation with eugenics. Either abortion is always a woman's personal choice or it never is -- I don't think any middle ground can exist there. The reasons for the abortion are irrelevant to anyone but the woman herself.

Thanks everyone for your comments!

I am not writing a pro-Palin piece, and I am not getting mixed in "the hype" of her candidacy. I am trying to show a deep fissure in the disbaility movement and how Palin has sort of exposed this issue. There are many in the disability rights movement who deeply believe that disability should not be a grounds for an abortion, ever. The European Council for the Blind, one of the world's largest disability rights groups, calls for a ban on genetically based abortions. I remember the Terry Schiavo case, which, while not abortion-related per se, terrified many disabled people and made many of them more determined to assert their own rights, including the "right to life."

Obama's stance on social services is better than Palin's - no doubt. I will not argue that Palin is a better "pro-disability" candidate, not is McCain. However, Palin's popularity among the disabled and their families is growing, and there's a reason for that.

I am not sure, but I suspect it is because often, in the arena of disability rights (At least those I know) actions trump words. Obama can say all he wants that he supports the disabled and promise funds and all those issues. Palin has actually been placed in the situation and responded in a way that many families like. And I also keep in mind that many families with disability are not concerned about social services and funding, especially if they are in a comfortable economic situation. If they are not inclined to think about money troubles, they may turn to other disability issues, such as the rights of disabled children to be born.

UnfunnyFeminist, I agree to an extent. The issue of a terminal illness is slightly different, and, in my view, to be viewed more sympathetically. However, a good deal of genetically-based abortions taking place today are being done with non-terminal conditions. Down syndrome and spina bifida, while carrying health complications and issues all their own, are not terminal, and there is no reason why, with care, those with them cannot live into adulthood, with decent lives. Yet they are aborted in overwhelming numbers. And that is what concerns me. I am not Pro-McCain or Pro-Obama. Like the post states, I am undecided. The post was to use this statement as a jumping off point to try to consider the issue.

In China and India, many abortions are sex-selective. A woman finds out the new baby is going to be a girl, and it's off to the clinic. As a woman, I don't want women to be choosing to abort children solely because they are female, but this doesn't make me want to take away their right to choose. (Though, arguably, in China reproductive rights are more in line with forced abortion, whereas the pro-life movement would like to legislate forced gestation)

"I understand the issues surrounding disabled children - the cost of their treatments, cost of living, expenses, medical care, ect. - I'm there now. I believe in an expansion of health and social services to help the disabled live happier, healthier, easier lives. I believe in enforcing the ADA to give all people equal services and opportunities."

If you want these improvements in social services...don't vote for McCain. No matter how much lip service Palin pays about being for disability rights, she's not the one on top of the ticket. (And, if she holds in line with Republican policies, it wouldn't matter even if she was on top) McCain has consistently voted against additional funding for women and children's healthcare. McCain was one of the one's who voted against SCHIP (even though many other Republicans got on board with the Dems)

http://www.disabilitynation.net/blog/palin-center-controversy-disability-community

"I don't think I can count on my "friend" Sarah to protect my right to live in the community, since her friend, and "President for these troubled times" John McCain doesn't support the Community Choice Act. Nor are we going to have much juicy girl talk, since homegirl opposes contraception.

And mostly, I like it when my friends trust my judgment. But my friend Sarah doesn't trust me enough to know what to do with my body."

Sarah Palin is against reproductive rights IN GENERAL, not just genetic abortions. So is John McCain. As far as I can tell, Obama is the type of Dem who wants there to be reproductive choice, but isn't particularly comfortable with abortions and would rather introduce programs that reduce the need for abortions. (And don't we all want to save women the hassle/money/possible emotional stuff?) Would you like there to be legislation that prevents women from aborting children with genetic disabilities? Do you think that it is possible to make such legislation without completely taking away a woman's right to an abortion? If you agree with reproductive choice in general, but don't like people aborting children with disabilities, than keep up the good work of fighting for social services for people with disabilities. Don't vote for a candidate that will decrease funding to social services that help people with disabilities, and don't vote for a candidate that wants to remove all of women's reproductive choices.

Wow, that's an issue I never would have thought about if you hadn't brought it up drahill--and a good reminder that abortion will always be a murky and sensitive issue. I think a lot of Palin's appeal has to do with her fitting so well the feminine fantasy of a perfect life. Superficially, she pulled off that career/family balancing act that we were all taught to want and in doing so encourages you to keep pretending that you're pulling it off as well. She makes it look so easy that even the snag of a disabled child and a pregnant teen are just par for the course in the life of a SuperMOM. And look at how strongly she stands up for her beliefs when the democratic party seems scared to even mention theirs.

Her enthusiasm and conviction help you forget that she's not going to help you out in the least if you can't manage as perfectly as she does.

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with AnUnfunnyFeminist and acupofcoffee. I see your points, but I guess there are some distinctions that have to be made. In my case the doctors were worried about Downs, since I had just turned 35 (that random age at which the medical community dubs you high risk) when I got pregnant. I have a cousin with Downs, and his life is not miserable or substandard in any way. So if I had a child with Downs I guess I wouldn't view it as a tragedy. I agree that some conditions are painful and severely limiting to the point where it would be better to abort. But I still think we take it too far. It starts to seem like the child is valued for their physical attributes. I think this is what makes people vaguely uncomfortable with the idea of genetic engineering.
Also, I never denied that abortion is always a woman's choice. But I object to having screening with implied abortion if the fetus doesn't meet societal standards pushed on me. If it's my body and my child then it's my choice. And don't underestimate how hard they push it on you or how intimidated most women are by the patriarchal medical industry. I told the midwife I didn't want the tests, and she dropped the subject, but at my next visit two male doctors came into the examining room to "encourage" me to have the tests, acting as if I was ignorant and stubborn. Incidentally, they couldn't even tell me what the false-positive rate was for the test they were recommending (24%), and were surprised to learn that it was so high. So I think this is more complicated than it seems.

Rachel, I'm inclined to agree with you on all your points.

Cupofcoffee - I get what you are trying to say, but your language kind of illustrates my point:

"...if the fetus had any birth defects that would make its life painful and difficult." Well, let me sat this - what constitutes painful or difficult to you? Needing Braille to read or ASL to talk and communicate? A wheelchair? A long-term care or medical regiment? This is the exact language that those concerned with disability fight against. We are wary of blanket judgments that pronouce certain lives "too difficult to lead." When the pain would be intense or the difficultly would result in maybe a few years or less of life, or an extremely low-quality of life (though this can be disputed too), I sympathize with the few choices left in that case. However, my entire point was that genetic testings and abortions are now being offered as "solutions" to conditions that, by and large, can still be a part of happy, fulfilled lives.

"...in case something goes wrong." Now this, I take a bit of an exception to, I'm sorry. I just dislike the idea of referring to a disabled person or child as "gone wrong." This is why alot of disabled people and activists have adopted the term "differently-abled" over the old "disabled." I prefer to think that there is nothing "wrong" with them, because it only serves to turn them into Others who are outside the normal bounds of society. I like to think otherwise. I don't believe anything went "wrong" with my sisters. Now my Christianity colors my view, but I don't see a damn thing wrong with either of them. They function in a successful, happy manner. Just because it is not the way you do it doesn't mean anything has "gone wrong."

AnUnfunnyFeminist commented at September 16, 2008 11:34 AM: "Babies born through incest sometimes have genetic problems, but that's not always the case, and doctors can run tests to determine that. Would you respect a woman's decision to terminate that pregnancy, even if the baby probably won't have any serious genetic defects?"

Good question. Likewise, suppose a woman has a male double first cousin (see http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/th/read/NYBROOKLYN/2004-04/1082871216 ) and at least one of the 4 grandparents they have in common inherited deafness. Would you respect her decision to use contraceptives while having sex with that cousin, or her decision to not have sex with him, instead of getting pregnant with him in the first place? Sadly, some people out there wouldn't respect those choices (although they'd call her racist or uppity instead of ableist and they're more pro-cousin-marriage-traditions than anti-hearing).

drahill commented at September 16, 2008 6:21 PM: "I don't believe anything went 'wrong' with my sisters. Now my Christianity colors my view, but I don't see a damn thing wrong with either of them. They function in a successful, happy manner. Just because it is not the way you do it doesn't mean anything has 'gone wrong.'"

That's distinct from cases in which someone had an ability and someone else took it away, right? For example, if one of your sisters became differently abled because someone blinded her by stabbing her in the eyes at age 20, I bet she wouldn't say "nothing's gone wrong" and I hope you wouldn't let the stabber off the hook either.

Mina,

I respect the right of anyone to use contraception and to refuse sex with anyone at any time, especially if they believe that the resulting child will be disabled as a result. However, I also believe that the scenario you’re talking about would be highly unlikely (in which genetic concerns are an issue for the couple), since even today, few couples without previous high-risk factors (ethnicity, age, or relations) even have genetic testing done. Is it ableism to refrain from sex or try to prevent a potentially disabled child’s conception? Perhaps, though I think that there is a difference between wanting to prevent a disability and terminating a person with one already in (some form) of existence. In prevention, the result of conception is not a certain one, whereas the abortion is a definite act with a certain result. Contraception can in some way be viewed as a means of prevention, whereas abortion can be viewed as an outright rejection of something already present. (note: I am not saying abortion per se is wrong or a “rejection” in the negative sense). So I personally, yes, see a distinction, though I see how a minority would articulate the viewpoint that preventing a pregnancy because of disability concerns would be an ableist perspective.

On the second example, I don’t really see it, sorry. You’re diving into a different group dynamic – those who come into disability during life, rather than before. I think people who come into disability through their lifetimes do think of disability as something being wrong – because they have a default state they refer back to, namely, before the disability. They will always refer back to this, and they also have the added component of being to reference things they can no longer do – a blinded person will still recall color, a person who has become deaf will still recall music. Also, people such as these are not faced as much with the abortion issue, in my experience, because they were born able-bodied and therefore were not at risk. I focus on genetic disabilities because they (by and large, though not all) are present at birth or soon after, so life with the disability becomes the default perspective and reality.

I was referring to the previous poster’s comments that to give birth to a disabled child means something has “gone wrong” and by extension, the child is “flawed.” I took issue with the sense that these people are “wrong” because (as she seemed to imply) because they deviated from the standard that she expected (a normal child). I also dislike labeling those disabled from birth as “wrong” because it places the onus on them to adapt the best they can to the world at large, rather than society making reasonable accommodations for them.

And there is a HUGE difference that I have observed in how those disabled from birth and those who come into it are treated overall. Those who have come into it during life are treated with sympathy that they have lost their normal existence and are now subject to the “disabled lifestyle.” (an attitude I find patronizing) and those disabled from birth have sympathy, but for a different reason – because they have not gotten to enjoy the “normal” existence, when no real attention is paid to their lives at all.

Down Syndrome varies in its severity. Some people with Down Syndrome can live independently, and some need constant care for their entire lives. I worked with people with developmental disabilities, most of whom were born before the technology and the right to choose existed. They either lived at home or were confined to institutions. One of the guys had Down Syndrome and lived with his parents for most of his life. And I guess he wasn't socialized properly or something, so he's sexually assaulted at least 3 people (that I know of) and nearly assaulted me. I know that most people with Down Syndrome aren't like that, but it does show that people with developmental disabilities are at a higher risk for some serious mental issues (all of the guys I worked with were on antipsychotic, antidepressant, and antianxiety medications). How is anybody supposed to know if their kid with Down Syndrome is going to be more or less developmentally delayed? I wouldn't want to risk it. I wouldn't call it a fall-to-my-knees-screaming-"Oh-what-a-world" tragedy.

Rachel, when it comes to reproductive issues, doctors often do push certain views on women. I'm almost 24, unmarried, and with no children (and I never want children). There probably isn't a single doctor on my insurance plan who would tie my tubes if I asked them. They'd assume that I'd regret my decision the day Prince Charming rides on his white horse and asks for my dainty hand in marriage. I think your doctor is more leaning towards the patriarchal value of "women don't know what's best for them and we must protect them from regret by making decisions for them" than the "abort the freaks" one.

I have another question for anyone who wants to answer it. If you know that your child is going to be born with a genetic disorder and decide to give birth, do you think that your child will later resent you? Do you think they might wonder, "Gee, why would Mom allow me to live like this?" (assuming they are of the cognitive ability to have those thoughts). Part of me thinks that it would be somewhat selfish for me to bring a child into the world that'll have a crap life, and I don't see it as any different as having an abortion because you're too poor to raise a child and don't want to bring a child into poverty. I mean, you could be considered selfish for having the abortion, or you could be considered selfish for having the child. Does anyone have thoughts on this?

Really interesting post. I have a disability myself (not one you can detect in utero...yet), and the idea of aborting a fetus because it has a disability is a very scary one to me; it seems like a slippery slope to eugenics. But, I strongly believe in choice. Can you, or should you, tell people how to use that choice? I don't know. I do know that it's important, like you said, to educate people on the fact that disabled people can and do have worthwhile lives.

I also think that if people with disabilities had better services provided to them and their families, people might not be as freaked out about having disabled kids. Sure, it won't be easy, but it might not seem as impossible. Disabled kids become disabled adults, and there is usually very little help available to us, should we need it. Programs are woefully underfunded, and are getting cut more and more. Is Palin or McCain going to care about this? I know you're talking about folks with disabilities that maybe can't live independently. But those that can, like myself, often live in poverty. And that's something that McCain doesn't seem to care about, seeing as he appears to have no idea how the economy is doing...

If you are looking for symbolic support then vote for Palin (or McCain really).

But please please please research more on what they REALLY stand for. Here are some questions:

1- Is Sarah Palin giving anything more than her image to the disabled community? What are McCain's policies on these issues and how has he voted in the past?

2- Palin would never have an abortion anyway. So the reason she had the baby was not simply because she supports the disabled community, but rather because of her religious views on abortion. And supporting her own baby might not mean supporting the whole community, Just like she is a woman but she does not SUPPORT women. Just like she supports her own pregnant daughter but has cut funds to a teen pregnancy center.

3- Republican have recently been amazing at making themselves look like the OPPOSITE of what they stand for. In fact george bush seemed very sincerely PRO-ENVIRONMENT when he was campaigning in 2000. But now we know he doesn't give a crap about that stuff. and he is not trying to hide it any more.

you really have to dig deep, WAY deep. Because the media is going to be blurry, and the republicans do this on purpose.

Look at the history of the candidates and the party. Look at the kinds of issues they have championed in the past and if they are similar to your cause.

Weight everything in, including other issues that matter to you, like healthcare, economy, women's rights, and foreign policy (war/diplomacy). I really hope you choose Obama/Biden in the end.

oops, looks like this got held for having 3 URLs, I'll put spaces in one of them:

drahill commented at September 16, 2008 11:27 PM: "However, I also believe that the scenario you’re talking about would be highly unlikely (in which genetic concerns are an issue for the couple)"

It's not highly unlikely since some cultures do have a custom of marrying off close cousins to each other, some encourage arranging those marriages without forcing them, etc. For one example, see "The risks of cousin marriage" By Justin Rowlatt, BBC Newsnight, 16 November 2005, h t t p : / / news . bbc . c o . u k / 2 / hi / programmes / newsnight / 4442010 . s t m :

"...It is estimated that at least 55% of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins and the tradition is also common among some other South Asian communities and in some Middle Eastern countries...

"...British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses.

"Indeed, Birmingham Primary Care Trust estimates that one in ten of all children born to first cousins in the city either dies in infancy or goes on to develop serious disability as a result of a recessive genetic disorder..."

drahill commented at September 16, 2008 11:27 PM: "On the second example, I don’t really see it, sorry. You’re diving into a different group dynamic – those who come into disability during life, rather than before."

I was thinking of the "is deafness/blindness/whatever itself a problem or not?" idea.

drahill commented at September 16, 2008 11:27 PM: "I was referring to the previous poster’s comments that to give birth to a disabled child means something has 'gone wrong' and by extension, the child is 'flawed.'"

Either that or by extension, a problem has happened to the child instead of the child being a problem.

AnUnfunnyFeminist commented at September 17, 2008 12:36 AM: "One of the guys had Down Syndrome and lived with his parents for most of his life. And I guess he wasn't socialized properly or something, so he's sexually assaulted at least 3 people (that I know of) and nearly assaulted me."

Oh that is so not just a some-of-the-people-with-Down-Syndrome thing! Aren't a whole bunch of non-disabled people also socialized into thinking that it's OK for them to sexually assault certain other people and that they're privileged enough to get away with it?

For example, I wouldn't be surprised if this jerk's daring to attack people has more to do with his having male privilege (and for all I know he's got other ones like white privilege, middle-class privilege, etc.) than his lack of able-bodied privilege.

AnUnfunnyFeminist commented at September 17, 2008 12:36 AM: "I have another question for anyone who wants to answer it. If you know that your child is going to be born with a genetic disorder and decide to give birth, do you think that your child will later resent you? Do you think they might wonder, 'Gee, why would Mom allow me to live like this?' (assuming they are of the cognitive ability to have those thoughts)."

That reminds me of this:
aacheson commented on the MetaFilter post "Down Syndrome Testing" at 7:39 PM on September 15, http://www.metafilter.com/74919/Down-Syndrome-Testing#2259838 :

"So let me get this, parents of kids with downs syndrome want others to have to go through that just so their kids aren't alone with this? That is so fucking crazy and selfish and DUMB. I have Cystic Fibrosis and I am ALL FOR pre-birth screenings so fewer people have to live through this crap (families and the kids who have it.) That is so selfish of them-I am in awe. I mean, if you choose to have a kid with downs even though you could choose not to, that's your problem. But don't try to pressure others to do the same becuase you made a selfish decision.

"I just had my second baby on Friday and we had every screening for everything possible. I wouldn't have carried a baby to term with anything genetically wrong that can be figured out ahead of time. I think the more testing the better so people can choose."

Roja commented at September 17, 2008 5:28 AM: "In fact george bush seemed very sincerely PRO-ENVIRONMENT when he was campaigning in 2000. But now we know he doesn't give a crap about that stuff. and he is not trying to hide it any more."

Speaking of whom, here's another comment from that MetaFilter page:

mazola commented on the MetaFilter post "Down Syndrome Testing" at 1:24 PM on September 16: http://www.metafilter.com/74919/Down-Syndrome-Testing#2260984 : "The societal cost of raising and caring for an individual with Down syndrome is $762,748.

"By my estimation the societal cost of raising George W. Bush was about 3 Trillion dollars."

Incidentally, there was a little segment on Keith Olbermann's show last night about how Palin claims to work on behalf of disabled people, but in actuality she cut the funding for many of their programs, including the special Olympics. Apparently she cut their budget in half. Yikes!

Here's a blog post talking about what Sarah Palin has actually DONE for the disabled community: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=398A69F6ECB85135C2DFEB1DB477E386?diaryId=7043 She has signed legislation that increases funding for kids with special needs, but had NO involvement in its development (according to a Republican member of the state legislature) and has no record of advocating for disability rights. In addition, she actually CUT funding for the Special Olympics.

susanstohelit: I went to the web site that you referenced and came up with additional info...
ACTUAL SPECIAL NEEDS BUDGET - ALASKA
http://www.skerrlaw.com/news/SpecialSchoolsBudget.pdf
Summary- $600K increase 2008 over 2007 even though total number of Special Needs students decreased.

Palin on bipartison politics....
"There's a real question whether she's a Republican or a Democrat," said GOP state Rep. Mike Hawker.
Ms. Palin recently signed legislation that rewrote the state’s school financing formulas, in the process dramatically increasing the budget for school districts that serve children with extreme special needs. “She had no role whatsoever” in the development of the legislation, said its author, Representative Mike Hawker, a Republican. “Her role was signing. She recognized the importance of what we did and endorsed it.”
Key point: The legislature of any government writes the legislation. Executive (Governor) signs or vetoes the legislation.

Bottom line, she signed the bill to increase funding which she was in favor of. With veto power, if she was against such policy, she would have vetoed it.