“Reproductive rights and disability rights are intertwined”

Posted by Marcy Darnovsky October 21, 2010
Biopolitical Times
What do these recent events have in common?
  • British advice columnist and television pundit Virginia Ironside tells BBC that "a loving mother" would abort an unwanted or disabled baby.
  • The Nobel Committee awarded its prize in medicine to IVF pioneer Robert Edwards without acknowledging his discriminatory views. Edwards has said that it would be a "sin of parents to have a child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease. We are entering a world where we have to consider the quality of our children."
Generations Ahead, a public interest organization that works for "just and ethical uses of human genetic technologies," points out that both events reflect
the presumption that disability renders a life not worth living and that people with disabilities are a burden on society. Moreover, they seem to imply that the only appropriate response to disability is elimination, thereby limiting women's reproductive choices; they suggest that all women must either abort fetuses with disabilities or use IVF to de-select for disability.
In response, Generations Ahead is circulating a sign-on letter (90 names as of this writing) asserting that disability rights and reproductive rights should not be used to undermine each other. Its key point:
We hold both disability rights and reproductive rights together, refusing arguments for women's reproductive autonomy that deny disability rights, and refusing arguments for the human rights of people with disabilities that deny the right of women and families to make the best reproductive decisions for themselves.

Full (and proud) disclosures: Generations Ahead originated as the Gender, Justice and Human Genetics Program of the Center for Genetics and Society, and evolved into a separate organization in 2008; I'm one of the signers.

Previously on Biopolitical Times: