Arizona law targeting Down syndrome abortions taken to the courts

Pro-choice advocates file suit to kill law - nonprofit seeks to defend

PHOENIX, Ariz. (KYMA, KECY) - Two pro-choice activists and three organizations opposing the protections for unborn babies diagnosed with Down syndrome filed a lawsuit, Isaacson v. Brnovich, seeking to have Senate Bill 1457 struck down.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing a nonprofit organization that aids families experiencing Down syndrome filed a motion in federal court Wednesday. This motion could allow the group to intervene and defend it.

“The legal challenge filed by the Plaintiffs [the two abortionists and three organizations] in this matter directly implicates Sharing Down Syndrome’s interests because it seeks to block crucial new legal protections for those with Down syndrome,” the motion filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona explains. “These protections can help ensure that children diagnosed with Down syndrome receive the same right to life and chance to grow and develop as babies without diagnosed genetic abnormalities.”

Since 2011, the state of Arizona has prohibited persons from “perform[ing] an abortion knowing that the abortion is sought based on the sex or race of the child or the race of a parent of that child.”

Governor Doug Ducey more recently added the extra layer of prohibition by signing SB 1457 to protect unborn children from discrimination on Tuesday, April 27.

“If Plaintiffs are successful, children with Down syndrome are likely to continue to be discriminatorily aborted based on the genetic abnormalities with which they are diagnosed,” the motion continues. “Plaintiffs’ success in ensuring that babies with Down syndrome are stripped of legal protections against discrimination will also inhibit Sharing Down Syndrome’s ability to reach, educate, and support children and families experiencing Down syndrome. As a result, Sharing Down Syndrome has unique interests to defend and information to supply to this Court in this litigation.”