talking about leveraging government resources to determine a strategy to reduce or "cure" autism at it's root causes is not crazy speak, it's refreshing, and something i'd like to hear more of from the united states and any other government. you might even call it "progressive" in the legitimate early to mid-twentieth century sense of the term.

however, i'm certain that it will be determined in the end that once you diagnose autism in development using genetic analysis, the only real solution is abortion.

now, i'm actually in support of that, because i don't believe in god. i don't see the point in the burden. i'm not interested in some kind calvinist elect, or some kind of jobsian ethics play or something. the existentialist literature doesn't need this entry, or at least not by state dictate. amy connet barrett probably isn't, because she does believe in god.

there are already lots of good reasons to put restrictions on where people can smoke, and to try to get the world off of oil. the reality that air pollution is causing higher prevalences of autism is just another one to add to the already long list.