Do you remember Corky from the ABC series, “Life Goes On?” The story was about an Illinois family whose son, Corky, had Down Syndrome. It was a breakthrough for handicapped persons, showing persons with Down Syndrome could live loving lives.

If Corky lived in a post-Issue One Ohio, he could be aborted.

Advances in prenatal diagnosis now make it possible to detect handicap prior to birth. But does that technology exist to help improve the health outcomes of such children, or as identification tools in a “search and destroy” mission to abort them?

Denmark, for example, has reduced Down Syndrome not by curing the underlying defect, but by aborting people with it.

Various states—including neighboring Indiana—have banned abortion for eugenic purposes. The argument is simple: you don’t address handicap by eliminating the handicapped.

Pro-abortion forces in Ohio have fought for more than a decade to protect such lethal discrimination against the unborn in Ohio. Issue One would make aborting a child for reason of handicap (or any reason whatsoever), a “right” under the Ohio Constitution.

Don’t let the pro-abortion forces say this should be a family’s “choice.” If that’s true, why shouldn’t a family be able to eliminate that handicapped member a minute after birth?

The dirty little secret is that many do: such newborns are neglected in nurseries, denied the kind of care they would otherwise receive for their condition because their parents or doctor decide their life is “not worth living.”

Former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam let the cat out of the bag when he told a radio interview in 2019 that, “The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be “Resuscitated” if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother.”

To give or deny treatment based not on medical efficacy, but “what the mother and the family desired” or because a child’s life is characterized as “not worth living” is lethal discrimination. It denies medical care to someone because they are handicapped.

Or it says they can be aborted because they are handicapped.

Americans are proud of the “Americans with Disability Act” (ADA). ADA has sought to mainstream handicapped persons into society. It recognizes that the measure of a society’s humanity is how it treats its weakest, “the least of my brethren.”

Issue One would say that aborting a baby before birth just because he suffers from a handicap is a protected “right” that should be guaranteed on “principle.” Do you think it’s a “right” and “principle” to decide whether a child should live or die because he’s sick?

If you don’t, vote NO on Issue One.