21 Id at 90 22 Id 23 Id at 7778 24 Id at 8687 25 Id at 87 26 Id at 87 footnotes

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

This preview shows page 7 - 10 out of 22 pages.

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).
Image of page 7
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–
Image of page 8
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.
Image of page 9
Image of page 10

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 22 pages?

  • Fall '13
  • KarrieHiggins
  • Roe v. Wade, Ectopic pregnancy, Lee L.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture