Anti-choice Ohio lawmakers have introduced a bill that would ban abortion after a Down syndrome diagnosis, a proposal that Ohio Right to Life listed among its 2015 legislative priorities.
As a continuing issue, the quiet, day-to-day use of sterilization as a weapon to infringe upon reproductive rights—especially those of disabled people—rarely bubbles up into the public consciousness.
The right to have children and keep them is especially in danger for disabled people, who may be prevented from parenting at all or risk confiscation of their children by welfare authorities after birth.
Until reproductive rights and justice leaders make disability rights an integral issue for the movement, anti-choice advocates will continue to dictate—and skew—the conversation in order to restrict abortion.
In attempting to reverse troubling unemployment trends among persons with disabilities, disability rights advocacy groups are looking to the health-care sector as a solution.
Why is the right rejecting a treaty that has the potential to improve the lives of millions of people with disabilities around the world? Because of women’s reproductive health and the perceived weakening of parental rights and U.S. primacy.
A recent piece by Sierra published by RH Reality Check argued for the morality of aborting a disabled fetus. This is a response to that argument.
Having an abortion to prevent a child from being born with Down syndrome or another disability can be a positive moral choice. Okay, now let’s go on (assuming you’re not already plotting my demise).
Rand Paul, the Tea Party candidate who won the Kentucky Republican nomination for Senate, is one scary dude who is finding that his politics of division and hatred don’t transfer very well under the harsh glare of fact and sanity.
this article considers the simutaneously anti choice and anti life aspects of futile care impositions on patients and families.