In this article:

The Americans with Disabilities Act has radically improved the lives of those living with disabilities in many structural ways, i.e., in accommodation, employment, and protections from discrimination. But how successful has it been in changing attitudes toward disability? The rapid development and acceptance of prenatal testing to identify disabilities prior to birth is evidence that those with disabilities, especially intellectual disabilities, are still not welcome by the majority in U.S. society. Unfortunately, the politics of abortion make it difficult to have a reasonable conversation about prenatal discrminiation. We still have much work to do to realize the noble goals of the ADA. Read on...

On July 26, 2015 the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) signed by President George H. W. Bush in 1990 turned 25. It was the first legislation of its kind focused solely on prohibiting discrimination against persons with disabilities and mandating that all Americans be accorded equality in pursuing jobs, goods, services and other opportunities.

The ADA has radically improved the lives of individuals living with physical, intellectual, and developmental disabilities over the last 25 years, especially in the areas of accessibility, education, and employment. But 25 years later, one of the reasons we have a Down Syndrome Awareness Month is because we are still seeing forms of discrimination – to a greater or lesser extent – in American societal attitudes, especially toward those with intellectual disabilities like Down syndrome.

In August of this year, new projections were released for the anticipated global growth of the prenatal testing market through 2019. In 2012 that market was valued at $1.12 billion. Projections are that by 2019, that market will have grown to $8.37 billion. The market for noninvasive prenatal tests surpasses testing in general with projected growth of 37.6%! It does not take rocket science to understand the reason for that phenomenal growth – it is a market fueled by fear.

Prenatal tests are the only medical tests that have been developed that can offer no therapeutic benefit. Their primary objective is to allow parents the opportunity to selectively terminate an otherwise wanted child because a trait has been discovered that is considered undesirable.

A prenatal test cannot reveal who a particular child will be, the extent of their disability, or how his or her life will impact the life of the family. The decision to terminate is a form of discrimination clearly in conflict with the findings and philosophical underpinnings of the ADA, and other legal protections that have been put into place in the U.S. to shield those with disabilities from discrimination.

The ADA called for the federal government to play a central role in enforcing the standards it established on behalf of individuals with disabilities. Unfortunately, this area of disability rights interfaces with a topic that is perhaps the most contentious one in public discourse in the U.S. – abortion. Disability-selective abortion is fundamentally an issue of social justice that transcends pro-life and pro-choice politics. When politics and ideology impede social progress, the ones who usually suffer most are those who cannot speak for themselves.

As we remember this 25th anniversary year of the Americans with Disabilities Act, we need to be grateful for the many advances that have been made on behalf of those with all disabilities. But we need to commit ourselves to working toward consistency with regard to the law, and the “inherent right to life” of persons with disabilities, as Article 10 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities states.

As we look at a projected market growth in noninvasive prenatal testing of over 37% in the next four years, it is past time for a serious evaluation of how our use and acceptance of prenatal diagnosis damages the disability community by reinforcing attitudes that focus only on the disability and not on the person.

We often quote from Adrienne Asch, the now deceased disability rights activist who said, “the only thing a prenatal diagnosis can provide is a ‘first impression’ of who a child will become.” Making radical and exclusionary decisions against a person based upon a first impression, is to make a decision that is based upon an uninformed opinion, and not one based on reason or experience. That is one of the definitions of prejudice. The intent of the ADA was to protect those with disabilities from all forms of prejudice. We can say in at least one area, that we still have much work to do.