These inductions are particularly wrong-headed because the 'proportionate reasons' mentioned in the Bishops' Directives must relate to the physical well-being of BOTH mother and child. For instance, if a pregnant mother has uterine cancer but could carry the baby until, say, the 27th week, they can induce labor at that time in order to save BOTH mother and baby, i.e. the baby, unharmed, goes to Neonatal Intensive Care and the mother gets the hysterectomy or chemo or whateve she needs to treat the cancer.
It is absolutely illicit and prohibited to do such a thing for the mother's emotional reasons, in the case of a Trisomy 13 or other afflicted baby. For one thing, the mother in this case does not have a medical condition which can be treated by via induced labor; for another thing, there is no evidence that such a procedure has better psychological outcomes for the women.
And why would it? Having a baby that you can hold, care for and love for its expected short life is a challenge and a heartache, but it is not traumatic: certainly not if the family has adequate support. But deliberately ending the baby's life IS traumatic: it adds to the mother's distress the very real guilt of having killed her child. It's the difference between caring for a dear one who has reached the end of his natural lifespan, and murder.
David Reardon and other post-abortionr esearchers have found that the mothers who fare worst, psychologically, after abortion, are those who abort a wanted child under pressure from someone else (a husband, a doctor, a 'bioethicist'), and/or who do so late in the pregnancy.
The final point, which is the fundamental ethical point ignored by these unfaithful Judas priests and their pathetic bioethicists, is that in this case the death of the child is directly willed: that is, it is not an undesired "double effect." If inducing labor routinely resulted in the child living just as long as full-term babies with the same genetic or chromosomal condition, they would never induce. Why would they? The death of the child is not collateral: it is the directly intended effect.
“The death of the child is not collateral: it is the directly intended effect.” It is murder, and since it is planned to kill the alive little one, it is premditated murder. And our ‘poseur-elect’ worked hard to defend this premeditated murder in Illinois.