Bill 225, An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 respecting the provision of information respecting Down syndrome by regulated health professionals - Harvey and Gurvir’s Law (Provision of Information Respecting Down Syndrome), 1st Sess, 42nd Leg, Ontario, 2020.Google Scholar

Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Official Report of Debates (Hansard), 42nd Parl, 1st Sess, No 203 (2 November 2020) at 10187 (Sara Singh).Google Scholar

See Bill 224, supra note 1.Google Scholar

Bill 304, An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 respecting the provision of information about Down syndrome to expectant parents, regulated health professionals and the public - Harvey and Gurvir’s Law (Providing Information about Down Syndrome to Expectant Parents, Regulated Health Professionals and the Public), 1st Session, 42nd Legislature, Ontario, 2021.Google Scholar

Bill 101, An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 respecting the provision of information about Down syndrome to expectant parents, regulated health professionals and the public - Harvey and Gurvir’s Law (Providing Information about Down Syndrome to Expectant Parents, Regulated Health Professionals and the Public), 2nd Session, 42nd Legislature, Ontario, 2022.Google Scholar

Leach, M. W., “The Down Syndrome Information Act: Balancing the Advances of Prenatal Testing Through Public Policy,” Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 54, no. 2 (2016): 84–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Org, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. ___ (June 24, 2022), available at <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf> (last visited September 7, 2023).+(last+visited+September+7,+2023).>Google Scholar

Allyse, M. A. and Michie, M., “Prenatal Genetics in a Post-Roe United States,” Cell Reports Medicine 3, no. 7 (2022).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Whitby, G., et al., “Impacts of Overturning Roe v. Wade on Reproductive Health Care,” Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers 26, no. 7-8 (2022): 349–350.Google Scholar

R. v Morgentaler [1988] 1 SCR 30. (Can).Google Scholar

Martin, D., Miller, A. P., and Quesnel-Vallée, A., et al., “Canada’s Universal Health-Care System: Achieving its Potential,” The Lancet 391, no. 10131 (2018): 1718–1735, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30181-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Erdman, J. N., “In the Back Alleys of Health Care: Abortion, Equality, and Community in Canada,” Emory Law Journal 56 (2006): 1094–1155.Google Scholar

Berer, M., “Abortion Law and Policy around the World: In Search of Decriminalization Special Section on Abortion and Human Rights: Discussion,” Health & Human Rights Journal 19, no. 1 (2017): 1328.Google Scholar

Gareau-Léonard, A., Fillion, A., and Labine, L., et al., “Evolution of Down Syndrome Prenatal Screening Clinical Practices in Québec,” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 42, no. 4 (2020): 439–445, doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2019.09.025; J. L. Natoli, D. L. Ackerman, and S. McDermott, et al., “Prenatal Diagnosis of Down Syndrome: A Systematic Review of Termination Rates (1995-2011),” Prenatal Diagnosis 32, no. 2 (2012): 142-153, doi: 10.1002/pd.2910. PMID: 22418958.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

See Bill 101, supra note 5.Google Scholar

See Leach, supra note 6.Google Scholar

See Leach, supra note 6.Google Scholar

See Leach, supra note 6.Google Scholar

M. E. Lemoine and V. Ravitsky, “The Down Syndrome Information Act and ‘Mere Difference’: Redefining the Scope of Prenatal Testing Conversations?” Beyond Disadvantage: Disability, Law, and Bioethics (2021) (symposium, Harvard Law School.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hippman, C., et al., “What is a “Balanced” Description? Insight from Parents of Individuals with Down Syndrome,” Journal of Genetic Counseling 21 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sheets, K. B., et al., “Balanced Information about Down Syndrome: What is Essential?” American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 155a, no. 6 (2011): 1246–1257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

See Leach, supra note 6; Levenson, D., “Debate Surrounds State Laws for Down Syndrome Fact Sheets,” American Journal Of Medical Genetics Part A 170, no. 3 (2016): 555–556.Google Scholar

See Bill 101, supra note 5.Google Scholar

See Leach, supra note 6; and Levenson, supra note 22.Google Scholar

Lehman, A., et al., “Delivering a New Diagnosis of Down Syndrome: Parent Experience,” American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 185, no. 12 (2021): 3615–3622, doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.62408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

See Levenson, supra note 22.Google Scholar

See Leach, supra note 6.Google Scholar

Meredith, S., et al., “Impact of the Increased Adoption of Prenatal CFDNA Screening on Non-Profit Patient Advocacy Organizations in the United States,” Prenatal Diagnosis 36, no. 8 (2016): 714–719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Statham, H., et al., “Prenatal Diagnosis of Fetal Abnormality: Psychological Effects on Women in Low-Risk Pregnancies,” Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 14, no. 4 (2000): 731–747.Google ScholarPubMed

Audibert, F., et al., “No. 348-Joint SOGC-CCMG Guideline: Update on Prenatal Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy, Fetal Anomalies, and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes,” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 39, no. 9 (2017): 805–817.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rondal, J. A., “From the Lab to the People: Major Challenges in the Biological Treatment of Down Syndrome,” Aims Neuroscience 8, no. 2 (2021): 284–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beckman, E. Snure, et al., “Attitudes Toward Hypothetical Uses of Gene-Editing Technologies in Parents of People with Autosomal Aneuploidies,” The Crispr Journal 2, no. 5 (2019).Google Scholar

See Leach, supra note 6.Google Scholar

See Leach, supra note 6.Google Scholar