CNN’s Ana Navarro Promotes Eugenics To Avoid Having Kids With “Special Needs” Like “Down Syndrome,” “Autism”

This is one of the most horrific arguments I’ve ever heard anyone make on national television. It’s truly disgusting.

In a panel discussion following the SCOTUS decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Ana Navarro made a bizarre argument in favor of abortion: the difficulty of having a special needs child who could have been aborted. She explains that she has a severely physically and mentally disabled brother, a step-granddaughter with Down’s syndrome, and a step-grandson who is “very autistic.” She proceeds to make the argument that abortions should be legal in part because people like her three special needs family members are extremely difficult for families to take care of, and their family members might prefer to just dispose of a baby who will have special needs rather than birthing and caring for them. She’s insinuating that her brother and two step-grandchildren, and all the other special needs children out there, should be able to be aborted because of their special needs.

“I have a family with a lot of special needs kids. I have a brother who’s 57 and has the mental and motor skills of a one-year-old. And I know what that means financially, emotionally, physically for a family. And I know not all families can do it. And I have a step-granddaughter who was born with Down syndrome. And you know what? It is very difficult in Florida to get services. It is not as easy as it sounds on paper. And I’ve got another- another step-grandson who is very autistic, who has autism.

There are mothers and there are people who are in that society or in that community will tell you that they’ve considered suicide because that’s how difficult it is to get help, because that’s how lonely they feel, because they can’t get other jobs because they have financial issues, because the care that they’re able to give their other children suffers.”

This is eugenics. She wants people to be able to choose to dispose of a baby who they believe has something “wrong” with them that will be an inconvenience or require extra work.

But where does it end? Severely mentally and physically disabled babies like her brother, babies like her step-granddaughter with Down’s syndrome, or then babies who are born with a hole in their heart and require surgery immediately upon birth? Babies who will be blind or deaf? Babies with limb deformities that might need corrective surgery, prosthetics, or occupational therapy to master the use of their limbs?

And what about autistic children like her step-grandson? Does only “very autistic” count? Or would moderately or mildly autistic be sufficiently difficult for a family to deal with and warrant aborting the baby? Who decides where the spectrum cutoff is for an Ana Navarro eugenics abortion? What if doctors could identify babies who might be born with ADHD and require medication and special educational services? Or maybe babies who might develop a severe speech impediment and require intensive speech therapy? Oh, you don’t want to deal with the extra hassle of a child likely to develop a severe food allergy, eczema, or who has very curly hair? Brown eyes don’t fit in with the look of the rest of your family? You’d really prefer a blonde-haired, blue-eyed son? Where does it ever end?