Lifesite News has reported that

"both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) are recommending that all pregnant women, not just those over 35, should be screened, including with invasive procedures such as amniocentesis, to discover whether they have a risk of bearing a child with Down’s Syndrome."

The purpose of this is to give women "the opportunity" to abort their baby (oh excuse me, if the baby is not wanted it is "the pregnancy") if there is a chance that their "product of conception" will be less than perfect. The SOGC is going as far as to ensure that all
"Pregnant women over the age of 40 should “automatically be given amniocentesis", as reported by the National Post.
Does this mean they are considering this to be a mandatory screening? With my last pregnancy at the age of 38, even my obstetrician, who knows very well that I am a staunch pro-life activist, really pushed for me to have an amniocentisis (no, I did not.). What will happen if women refuse? Will our medicare system refuse to cover expenses of this birth? Perhaps penalize us financially? Don't laugh....this is not past the realm of possibility....

This is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt at eliminating the disabled of our society, in other words, the practice of eugenics. Already 89 percent of Down Syndrome babies in Canada, and 90 percent in the U.S. are killed before birth. Is this being fueled by the economic pressures of our health care system? With the current push for the acceptance of euthansia, and indeed, the acceptance of the "right to die" turning into an "obligation to die" so as to not be a further burden on our already overwhelmed health care(?) system, it is only a matter of time before infanticide becomes the next accepted "solution".

The other statement I take great issue with comes from Dr. James Goldberg, the former chairman of the ACOG's committee on genetics. In an interview with the New York Times, Dr. Goldberg said

that the recommendation to offer younger women the invasive procedures was worth the risk of miscarriage. He said that for most couples, “losing a normal pregnancy secondary to the procedure is not as problematic as the birth of a Down syndrome child, so they’re willing to take that risk.”

Wow. What a complete affront to those of us who have lost children to miscarriage, and to those who are raising a Down syndrome child. So, it's better to have a child die than to have a child with Down syndrome? This Dr. Goldberg has obviously never spoken with any parent who has actually lost a child through miscarriage. To suggest that it is better to miscarry than have a baby with a birth defect shows just how little human life is valued.

Here in Manitoba, we have groups, the Society of Manitobans with Disabilities, the Down Syndrome Society, Autism Society, and several others. Wherever we are in Canada, we need to encourage members of these organizations to stand up and be counted as members of a Right to Life group. We need to actively invite them to join, and to have their members automatically belong to our Respect Life Organizations.

We need to strengthen our numbers. If we don't all band together, sometime in the not so distant future, we may all find ourselves the target of some sort of "elimination" campaign.