Sarah Palin and Pre-Natal Testing
You can’t read a story about McCain’s running mate without reading about how Sarah Palin heroically chose to give birth to a baby with Down’s syndrome. Having a child with this condition apparently makes her some kind of hero, in the eyes of the radical right wingers that believe that the state owns your uterus. But the discomfort that I feel at the celebration of Sarah Palin’s pro-life “choices” is not the point of this post. I merely want to ask a simple question.
Why did she choose to have a test for Down’s syndrome in the first place?
When I was pregnant many years ago, I inquired about prenatal testing. I was told that I could have an amniocentesis to test for Downs’ syndrome among other things. At the time, I was told that I was at a very low risk of having anything wrong. The risk of miscarriage from the procedure was higher than the risk of having a child with a disability. Since an amniocentesis involves having a large needle shoved into your uterus, and since I hate needles, I chose not to have the procedure done. I am sure that medical science has progressed since that time 13 years ago. But I have to wonder why she would have chosen to have the procedure done in the first place. If she had no intention of ending the pregnancy, why have it done? I just don’t see the point. The only reason I can think of is that it helps the family prepare for the arrival of a child with a disability.
But my hatred of needles may be impeding my objectivity. Who knows.
