FuturePundit points me to a research paper, Impact of a new national screening policy for Down's syndrome in Denmark: population based cohort study:
Results The number of infants born with Down's syndrome decreased from 55-65 per year during 2000-4 to 31 in 2005 and 32 in 2006. The total number of chorionic villus samplings and amniocenteses carried out decreased from 7524 in 2000 to 3510 in 2006. The detection rate in the screened population in 2005 was 86% (95% confidence interval 79% to 92%) and in 2006 was 93% (87% to 97%). The corresponding false positive rates were 3.9% (3.7% to 4.1%) and 3.3% (3.1% to 3.4%).
Conclusion The introduction of a combined risk assessment during the first trimester at a national level in Denmark halved the number of infants born with Down's syndrome. The strategy also resulted in a sharp decline in the number of chorionic villus samplings and amniocenteses carried out, even before full implementation of the policy.
- Log in to post comments
Are you aware how offensive the title of this post is? One should be careful about alluding to eugenics, especially when discussing a country that was under Nazi occupation.
do you know that the scandinavian social democracies were among the last nations give up the practice of forced sterilization? get over yourself.
Recognizing that Denmark is not the USA, if a woman's right to an abortion means anything, it means she determines the criteria for termination. If this means no Down's babies, or no boy babies, or no girl babies, or no black babies, etc., so be it. Some members of NOW and NARAL have expressed outrage that in some countries (e.g., India) women choose to abort girl babies. Too damn bad; it's their right.
A bigger eugenics issue is the fact that Planned Parenthood targets black women for abortions. Considering Planned Parenthood's sordid history of attempting to reduce the numbers of blacks, poor whites and Jews, this practice deserves more public scrutiny.
A bigger eugenics issue is the fact that Planned Parenthood targets black women for abortions.
do you have any evidence of this? seems slanderous unless you have support? (i do know that some people who donate to PP are old school eugenicists, but no evidence that these are numerous)
Bob Sykes says:
A bigger eugenics issue is the fact that Planned Parenthood targets black women for abortions. Considering Planned Parenthood's sordid history of attempting to reduce the numbers of blacks, poor whites and Jews, this practice deserves more public scrutiny.
Planned Parenthood is simply putting up shop where economic demands for their services are the greatest. It isn't their fault that a disproportionate number of certain ethnic minorities choose to seek abortions.
I think the negative connotations against the word eugenics are undeserved. Especially considering most people support laws that are essentially eugenic. Consider the laws against brother-sister incest, which are on the books of most states in the U.S, a primary justification of which is the disproportionate number of genetic disorders amongst the products of incestuous procreation.
The demonization of eugenics is more often then not politically motivated by creationists who want to slander evolutionists, pro-life advocates who want to slander the pro-choice movement and leftist egalitarianists who fear a resurgence of national socialism, which I think is rather paranoid. Most modern advocates of eugenics have explicitly stated that they have no interest in reinstating the coercive measures of past governments and have advocated for incentive based policies instead. Ultimately whether such policies would have any significant effect are up for debate, but I think it unfair to characterize such people as evil-incarnate as various political factions have is rather laughable and hyperbolic.
Dear Razib, try this site,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/25/planned-parenthood-targ…
The Washington Times is a conservative paper, but they're not a bunch of right-wing wack jobs.
Also, Margaret Sanger, one of Planned Parenthood's founders, was a notorious racist and elitist who hoped that contraception could be used to reduce the lower classes. However, I don't think she supported abortion, although I may be wrong.
Bob Sykes says:
The Washington Times is a conservative paper, but they're not a bunch of right-wing wack jobs.
The Washington Times is owned by the Unification Church's founder, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon who I'd consider the picture-perfect definition of a right-wing wack-job.
Also, Margaret Sanger, one of Planned Parenthood's founders, was a notorious racist and elitist who hoped that contraception could be used to reduce the lower classes. However, I don't think she supported abortion, although I may be wrong.
Alot of people in Margaret Sanger's day were openly racist and elitist. So what? What matters is what Planned Parenthood believes now, not what beliefs its founder held.
FWIW, I'm not a fan of Planned Parenthood or abortion, but while I may disagree with what a lot of people at PP believe, I think most would be horrified at the idea that they are targeting poor and African-American women to improve the nation's demographics. If anything they think they are helping these women, not culling the unfit from society.
In reality, though, as someone here said they're really just going where the demand is.