OuelletteA., “Selection against Disability: Abortion, ART, and Access,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics43, no. 2 (2015): 211–223.
2.
Id.
3.
YurkiewiczI., “Prenatal Whole-Genome Sequencing – Is the Quest to Know a Fetus's Future Ethical?”New England Journal of Medicine370, no. 3 (2014): 195–197.
4.
Nearly a decade ago I suggested that these practices illustrate ways that ART implicates equality concerns. CrossleyM., “Dimensions of Equality in Regulating Assisted Reproductive Technologies,”Journal of Gender, Race & Justice9, no. 2 (2005): 273–289. Ouellette goes further by identifying how laws prohibiting sex-based selection connect the two practices.
5.
See Ouellette, supra note 1.
6.
Id.
7.
Id.
8.
Id.
9.
FordhamB., “Disability and Designer Babies,”Valparaiso University Law Review45, no. 4 (2011): 1473–1528.
10.
See Ouellette, supra note 1.
11.
See, generally, SolomonA., Far From the Tree (Scribner: New York, 2012).
12.
CzapanskiyK., “Chalimony: Seeking Equity Between Parents of Children with Disabling Conditions and Chronic Illnesses,”N.Y.U. Journal of Law & Social Change34, no. 2 (2010): 253–298.
AschA.WassermanD., “Informed Consent and Prenatal Testing: The Kennedy-Brownback Act,”AMA Journal of Ethics11, no. 9 (2009): 721–724.
18.
Id., at 723.
19.
EmensE., “Framing Disability,”University of Illinois Law Review2012, no. 5 (2012): 1383–1441.
20.
RobertsD.JesudasonS., “Movement Intersectionality: The Case of Race, Gender, Disability, and Genetic Technologies,”Du Bois Review10, no. 2 (2013): 313–328.
21.
Id., at 318.
22.
Id. (describing the work of the organization Generations Ahead).