21 id at 90 22 id 23 id at 7778 24 id at 8687 25 id

21. Id . at 90.
22. Id .
23. Id . at 77–78.
24. Id . at 86–87.
25. Id. at 87.
26. Id . at 87 (footnotes omitted).

1324 71 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 1317 (2014)
one of the birth defects that she had, only about 3 percent
make it to term, so we felt pretty lucky from that respect.
27
In telling her story, Dr. Anderson emphasized that “people can be
pro-choice and still choose other options, as she did,”
28
but it is
only a choice if patients have the information to make that
decision. As stated in Canterbury v. Spence ,
29
a landmark case on
the law of informed consent, “the patient’s right of self-
decision . . . can be effectively exercised only if the patient
possesses enough information to enable an intelligent choice.”
30
Without information, women and their families who would choose
to keep the pregnancy as Dr. Anderson did will not have the
opportunity to prepare emotionally for an infant’s serious illness
or death and thus, as in her case, appreciate the time they might
have; or to arrange appropriate care such as perinatal hospice; or
to take financial steps to provide for a disabled child.
31
Furthermore, certain fetal conditions require special care in
utero. Early knowledge, decision-making, and intervention “[are]
key to a positive outcome.”
32
In addition, in some cases testing
can reveal information about fetal characteristics that could
threaten the mother’s health.
33
Once again, this assertedly
antiabortion law affects far more than simply abortion decisions.
27 . Id .
28. Id . at 88 (internal quotation marks omitted).
29. 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
30. Id. at 786.
31. See Jaime Staples King, Not This Child: Constitutional Questions in
Regulating Noninvasive Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis and Selective Abortion , 60
UCLA L. R
EV
. 2, 65 (2012)
[Early prenatal screening information] could help inform prospective
parents’ decisionmaking regarding how best to care for their children
both while they are in the womb and after they are born. . . .
[A]dvanced knowledge regarding a child’s medical or behavioral
conditions can enable a parent to prepare for a child’s medical,
nutritional, educational, and social needs as early as possible.
See also Sujatha Jesudason & Julia Epstein, Editorial, The Paradox of
Disability in Abortion Debates: Bringing the Pro-Choice and Disability Rights
Communities Together , 84 C
ONTRACEPTION
541, 541–43 (2011) (arguing for a
reproductive justice approach to protecting disability rights and reproductive
rights, which includes access to information).
32. King, supra note 31, at 65.
33. See Jaime S. King, And Genetic Testing for All . . . The Coming
Revolution in Non-Evasive Prenatal Genetic Testing , 42 R
UTGERS
L.J. 599, 605–

THE CONSEQUENCES OF ABORTION 1325
Furthermore, liability preclusion laws that provide an
incentive for physicians to withhold material information and
deviate from standards of care do little to address substantive
concerns about disability discrimination. Laws like Oklahoma’s
obfuscate more substantive conversation about the need for
government resources to support families with disabled children
so that real choices can be made.