In Response to the Reversal of Roe v. Wade and Its Impact on People With Disabilities

The Center for Dignity in Healthcare for People with Disabilities is deeply concerned about the overturning of Roe v Wade and what it means for the control people with disabilities have over their reproductive health. As an organization that is dedicated to addressing healthcare inequities faced by people with disabilities, we know that a more reproductively just system would reduce healthcare inequities among this population. 

While many urge for reproductive rights, arguing that people should have access to abortion so that they are able to control whether or not they are pregnant, we would also like to call for more reproductive justice. By this, we mean that we call for a system that looks at unjust reproductive control as a whole. Unfortunately, disenfranchised people, and including people with disabilities, not only lack access to the option to terminate a pregnancy, but also lack the support and healthcare to choose to become pregnant. Many of these women are usually multiply marginalized (BIPOC, Poor, Queer, etc) and often report not having equitable access to any type of reproductive medicine. Thus far, their stories have been excluded from much of the dialogue around the overturning of Roe.

"While many urge for reproductive rights, arguing that people should have access to abortion so that they are able to control whether or not they are pregnant, we would also like to call for more reproductive justice. By this, we mean that we call for a system that looks at unjust reproductive control as a whole." 
Image of Center for Dignity Logo and row of 5 faceless people standing together.

Research shows us that these healthcare inequities for people with disabilities exist due to a system rooted in ableism and stigma that produces a lack of access. This begins with a lack of access to sex education, which leads to many people with disabilities deprived of a full understanding of their options for controlling their own reproduction. For those that have had access to sex education within their communities, many people with disabilities report being removed from these opportunities due to ableism and stigma that people with disabilities are de-sexualized and are not or should not be having sexual relations to begin with. This de-sexualization of people with disabilities also further creates gaps in access to birth control and/or morning after pills as providers often make ableist assumptions about reproductive health. 

Access to abortion and reproductive health is a matter of healthcare equity and must be part of trauma informed care.  Many people with disabilities experience health conditions associated with their disability that require abortion access. These health conditions make pregnancy risky for the life and health of the disabled person. Further, we know that 83% of women with disabilities (Stimpson & Best, 1991) experience sexual violence in their lifetimes. This number is double to that of their nondisabled peers. Access to abortion services is vitally important in these situations.

The Center for Dignity in Healthcare for People with Disabilities strongly encourages a framing of reproductive justice that takes a more holistic view of access to reproduction and all of the health supports it entails. The health care inequities against people with disabilities is explicit and interferes in people’s reproductive choices at all levels- in both choosing a pregnancy and in choosing to terminate a pregnancy. 


Multi Colored Trim on a square box. Black text on white background reads: To Promote More Informed Healthcare and Greater Equity Towards People with Disabilities: 1. Insurance Coverage of independent genetic counseling. 2. FDA Regulation of Advertising claims made by testing labs. 3. better educational infrastructure for patients to understand testing and disabilities. 4. Insurance coverage of testing contingent on the provision of better patient education and access to independent pre-test and post-test counseling

In Response to the NY Times: Prenatal Screening and the Social Bias Against Disability

By Stephanie Meredith

A recent New York Times article, “When They Warn of Rare Disorders, These Prenatal Tests Are Usually Wrong” by Sarah Kliff, indicates that when cell-free DNA prenatal screening results show that a baby has high chances for some rare genetic conditions, the baby actually does not have the condition 70-90% of the time (a false positive) (2022). Many parents at the other end of the screening results describe the experience as stressful and scary because they weren’t given sufficient information about the accuracy of the tests and the possibility of false positives. Kliff shares that one reason why expectant parents misunderstand the screening tests is because testing labs describe their screening tests as “reliable,” “highly accurate,” etc. in their advertising materials. Moreover, the author asserts that the companies are highly motivated to expand testing so that they can increase profits in a highly lucrative market. Yet, this widening pool of expectant parents who are undergoing testing can leave some parents in the lurch when they don’t receive the counseling and information they need to properly understand the screening tests. Kliff effectively highlights these important issues and presents a strong case for FDA regulation of advertising claims made by testing labs and insurance coverage of independent genetic counseling.

Continue reading

COVID-19 Vaccines and Masking Guidance

Authored by: Tracy Waller, Esq., MPH; With contribution by: Tiffany Banks, MSW, LCSW

Schools that do not require masking fail to meet the needs of children with disabilities

Based on the rise of the delta variant of COVID-19, and the increasing number of breakthrough infections, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revised its masking guidance on July 27, 2021. The CDC continues to recommend that people ages 2 and older and those who are not fully vaccinated should wear a mask in indoor public places. In addition, the CDC guidance recommends that fully vaccinated people should wear a mask indoors in public in areas of substantial or high transmission

Continue reading