A “push poll” asks someone to make a supposedly unbiased decision by slanting the question. “Would you be more or less likely to vote for Joe if you knew he had killed his grandmother?” Nevermind if Joe’s grandmothers are alive and well.

Imagine the question is more important: would you rather have a baby with Down Syndrome, or terminate the pregnancy? Given that question, apparently, 90% of women choose the latter. But frequently, the question is loaded. Down Syndrome is presented as a irredemably awful outcome, prefaced by “I’m sorry, but….” Abortion, though, with all of its cultural freight, gets presented ambiguously.

Amy Harmon wrote in yesterday’s New York Times about a campaign by parents of children with Down Syndrome, designed to give pregnant women real-life information about raising children with DS. This is because millions more women will have their pregnancies screened for genetic disorders, at the recommendation of the The American College of OB/GYNs. This means more women face a genetic disorder “diagnosis” prior to birth, according to the Times.
Except the tests don’t “diagnose.” They merely reflect an increased risk. Poorly.

For example, if a baby truly has Down Syndrome, the new tests will produce a “positive” result 78% of the time — but falsely show a negative 22% of the time. On the other hand, if the baby does not have Down Syndrome, 5-8% of tests will falsely show a positive. Confused? That’s about as much clarity as doctors can provide, without additional, invasive tests that carry their own set of risks.

But young parents hear “diagnose,” “Down Syndrome” and “terminate?” in the same sentence. If they say “no,” they’re asked if they’re sure. And then, if they’re really sure. With information so poor, presentations so slanted, and pressure so intense, it’s little wonder that 90% of women chose the option presented as some kind of alternative.

Good for these parents, who are reminding us that the numbers being given by doctors are not as important as the faces that go with them.

This morning, I attended a talk by Mark DeVine, at the Blue River/Kansas City Baptist Association’s “Leader Learning Lunch.” Dr. DeVine is writing (at a furious pace) about the good, the bad and the ugly of the “emerging” and “emergent” church. I won’t attempt to re-write what he said, since his papers state his position clearly, but here are a few thoughts that stood out* (below the ‘more’):

(more…)