Prenatal Testing Framework

which will be discussed later. Abby Lippman, in her article “Prenatal Genetic Testing and Screeening: Constructing Needs and Reinforcing Inequalities” she also acknowledges this issue of autonomy through creation of her model of reproductive autonomy. In her framework, she believes that having access to a prenatal genetic screening is crucial to a woman’s reproductive autonomy or the ability to be better informed about reproductive choices that she, as a mother, can make (Lippman, 22). Similar to Botkin, Lippman’s autonomy based framework supports the access to prenatal testing. The implications of autonomy do not directly address the presence of governmental involvement in this issue, but patient autonomy does encourage the accessibility to

Botkin acknowledges this argument along with his argument with parent/physician autonomy. He maintains that the lack equal access to prenatal screening on a societal level will violate the principle of social justice (Botkin, 878). Unequal access would increase the health disparities within the population due to a population without adequate health insurance to cover prenatal screening will have more babies born with genetic defects. This would put an already disadvantaged population at further disadvantage. Botkin also brings up cost-analysis of offering prenatal screening (878). If insurance provides prenatal screening to prevent genetic disorders money will be saved from not having to care for a disabled child, which can financially crippling. However, the author acknowledges that the cost analysis should not be the sole reason in promoting prenatal screening on a societal level. The article concludes with another reminder that while prenatal screening should be available, it should only be utilized in concurrence with moral beliefs (Botkin, 880). The framework of social justice concludes that socially universal prenatal screening would be beneficial to society as a whole. By the reduction of disparity and the potentially reduced cost to society, this framework suggests that it would be ethical for the government to step in

Hobby Lobby ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby giving family owned businesses the right to be exempted from laws for religious exceptions. This lawsuit was in response to the Affordable Care Act’s insurance mandate of providing birth control to female employees. But some strict Christians are against certain methods of contraception due to the belief that the contraception prevents fertilized embryos from implantation. By allowing a business owner to remove the birth control methods that do not follow their Christian faith, the government is opening the door for other religious groups and businesses to reject other government mandated decisions. These decisions differ from the current conscientious objection laws that prevent healthcare providers from having to participate in procedures, such as abortions, if it goes against their moral beliefs (Harris, 981). However, the difference between conscientious objection and the results of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is the limiting of access as result of the rulings. In the case of conscientious objection, an individual seeking an abortion may not be able to receive an abortion from her doctor because it is against the doctor’s morals to perform the procedure, but the patient will be given references on who will perform the procedure for her. In the case of the result of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the employees of Hobby Lobby do not have the option of having an IUD placement covered by their insurance, unless they