Converging Worlds
I just posted this on my political blog. And although I generally try not to mix the content or purpose of the two blogs, today I feel I must:
I just received an e-mail from someone at Britannica Blog who thought I would be interested in a recent post on autism and presidential politics. She was right. I have to say that although my focus on this [my political] blog is more traditional right to life issues, there is a convergence for me on autism, the right to life and the elections.
Let me explain--
Autism is not a condition that can be screened for before birth. That said, I have seen some pretty obnoxious comments on the internet. Things along the lines of "if these people know their kid is going to have a disability, why don't they have an abortion?" My concern is that most insurance companies in a vast majority of states (last I checked, 42 of them) do NOT cover therapy for children with autism. Our insurance company does but that's because the employer is based in Washington, D.C. and purchases its insurance package from the state of Maryland-- which is one of eight states that DOES require insurance companies to cover services for autism.
The monthly total for our sons' two hours/each a week private therapy is approximately $4400. No, that's not a typo.
Currently, research is focusing on genetic causes for autism and my fear is that the day will come when we will be able to screen for autism just like Down syndrome. And just like Down syndrome, approximately 90 percent of those babies testing positive will be aborted.
The very fact that parents can go bankrupt paying for services their insurance companies do not cover could encourage parents to turn to abortion.
This is very much a right to life issue. Thus far, autism has played a minor role in the presidential race and certainly abortion, as the larger issue, has played a much more significant role.
But with 1 out of every 150 children being diagnosed with autism, the impact of this issue in the next presidency, and on the pro-life cause, cannot be understated.
I just received an e-mail from someone at Britannica Blog who thought I would be interested in a recent post on autism and presidential politics. She was right. I have to say that although my focus on this [my political] blog is more traditional right to life issues, there is a convergence for me on autism, the right to life and the elections.
Let me explain--
Autism is not a condition that can be screened for before birth. That said, I have seen some pretty obnoxious comments on the internet. Things along the lines of "if these people know their kid is going to have a disability, why don't they have an abortion?" My concern is that most insurance companies in a vast majority of states (last I checked, 42 of them) do NOT cover therapy for children with autism. Our insurance company does but that's because the employer is based in Washington, D.C. and purchases its insurance package from the state of Maryland-- which is one of eight states that DOES require insurance companies to cover services for autism.
The monthly total for our sons' two hours/each a week private therapy is approximately $4400. No, that's not a typo.
Currently, research is focusing on genetic causes for autism and my fear is that the day will come when we will be able to screen for autism just like Down syndrome. And just like Down syndrome, approximately 90 percent of those babies testing positive will be aborted.
The very fact that parents can go bankrupt paying for services their insurance companies do not cover could encourage parents to turn to abortion.
This is very much a right to life issue. Thus far, autism has played a minor role in the presidential race and certainly abortion, as the larger issue, has played a much more significant role.
But with 1 out of every 150 children being diagnosed with autism, the impact of this issue in the next presidency, and on the pro-life cause, cannot be understated.
Comments