WASHINGTON, D.C., April 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled 9-7 to uphold Ohio’s Down Syndrome Non-Discrimination Act. Signed into law in 2017, this legislation prohibits abortions performed due to a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome. The decision by the full “en banc” court reverses a three-judge panel ruling and upholds the law.
The law still allows babies with Down Syndrome to be aborted, but the mother must give as her reason for aborting the child another excuse.
In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled against a similar prohibition on discrimination abortion in Indiana. Today’s favorable ruling by the Sixth Circuit in favor of Ohio’s Down syndrome law has created a circuit split – a development that greatly increases the possibly of Supreme Court review.
“We applaud the Sixth Circuit ruling that upholds Ohio as a safe haven for unborn babies with Down Syndrome,” responded Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “This law includes reasonable, compassionate measures to prevent lethal discrimination in the womb. We also recognize and celebrate that this legislation has the potential to pose a significant challenge to Roe v. Wade. Now that a circuit split has occurred on the issue of whether states may prohibit the eugenic practice of discrimination abortion, the Supreme Court has even more reason to weigh in on this important matter and declare these laws as constitutional.”
“We encourage the high court to act now that this issue has received further consideration in the lower courts. Discriminatory abortions based on sex, race and disability are no less than modern-day eugenics, and must swiftly come to an end.”
Chuck Donovan, President of the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI), added: “In certain countries, children with Down Syndrome are being devastatingly eliminated from the population. CLI’s research has shown the vast majority of children with Down Syndrome lead happy, productive, and fulfilled lives. Justice Clarence Thomas has confirmed that this is an issue of first impression and that it remains an ‘open question’ whether states may implement protections such as these. We are encouraged by this ruling and hope the Supreme Court will now weigh in on this important human rights issue.”