According to the U. S. Census Bureau, the leading cause of infant mortality in 1998 was congenital abnormality, causing the death of 6,212 children.  In actuality, using Census Bureau statistics, the leading cause of infant mortality killed twenty times as many (1,328,000) American children in 1997: abortion.

(Source: S. K. Henshaw and J. Van Vort, Abortion Services in the United States, 1991 and 1992; Family Perspectives, 26:100, 1994, and unpublished data; and U. S. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, annual; National Vital Statistics Reports (NVSR); and unpublished data; in U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2001 [121st edition], Washington, DC, 2001, p. 71 and 77.)

"To be sure, experimentation upon human beings is not the same wrong as killing them, but it is as gravely wrong as, for example, enslaving them: In both cases they are being treated as objects."

(Source: Kenneth D. Whitehead, "Sliding Toward Slavery," Touchstone, vol. 15, no. 2 [March 2002], p. 35.)

Down (also Down's) syndrome is a genetic condition which affects 1 in 197 pregnancies at age 35-that is, children whose mothers are thirty-five years of age or older have about a 0.5 percent chance of having Down syndrome.  A research paper published in the British Medical Journal examines the effectiveness of screening procedures for identifying Down babies.

There are a number of methods for testing for Down syndrome, from alpha-fetoprotein serum tests, to amniocentesis and chorionic villi sampling, among others.  The authors of the current research set up their goals: "The main considerations for providers of screening for Down's syndrome should be minimizing the risk of babies with Down's syndrome being missed by the test, reducing miscarriage due to amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling, and costs."

These seem like worthy goals, until one realizes that the risk for spontaneous termination of pregnancy as a result of amniocentesis is nearly as high (about 1 in 200) as the average risk for Down syndrome-at one in 197 births.  Indeed, the risk for miscarriage as a result of chorionic villi sampling is much higher, hovering between 0.3 and 4.5 percent, depending upon whose statistics are used.  How far is one willing to go for test results?  One must question the wisdom of putting a child at risk for death in order to determine if that child has a defect with which he can live.

A further, and more vicious purpose is illustrated by the authors' own words in evaluating the efficacy of the screening procedure: "The integrated test is the most effective and safest strategy.  All other strategies result in more liveborn babies with Down's syndrome and more miscarriages of unaffected pregnancies due to amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling.  Compared with no screening, the integrated test results in 0.14 miscarriages due to chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis per birth of a Down's syndrome baby prevented" (emphasis added).  Note what the criterion for evaluation is: not the diagnosis of children with Down syndrome, but the prevention of these children's birth.

Members of the medical profession have long argued that prenatal screening for genetic disorders (including Down syndrome), even though not treatable, is useful for preparing parents for what is to come.  These authors' own words belie the reality of purpose, and the "treatment" of choice: "The choice between the four options depends on how much service providers are willing to pay to prevent one affected liveborn baby...." Read: Abortion (emphasis added).

As Wallace and Mulvey note in the Commentary on this paper, "Prenatal screening for Down's syndrome has become an established part of antenatal care in many centres, resulting in a reduction in the number of babies born with Down's syndrome in the populations screened." This screening and subsequent "abortion assumption" is so prevalent that those who refuse to undergo screening, or the preferred "therapy" are often viewed as irresponsible.

 After age 35, women are at an increased risk of conceiving a child with Down syndrome.  As Wallace and Mulvey observe, "The average age at which women in Western countries choose to have children continues to increase."  Thus, if current trends continue, as mothers' ages increase, apparently, so will abortion.

(Source: R. E. Gilbert, C. Augood, R. Gupta, A. E. Ades, S. Logan, M. Schulpher, J. H. P. van der Meulen, "Screening for Down's Syndrome: effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of first and second trimester strategies;" and Euan M. Wallace and Sheila Mulvey, "Commentary: Results may not be widely applicable," BMJ 2001; 323:1-6 [25 August 2001]; www.bmj.com.)