Michael Hugo, the chair of the Framingham Democratic Committee, made the shocking proposal during a city council meeting earlier this month.

He questioned whether these centers misdiagnose women who have disabled children as informing them may convince them to get an abortion.

‘Our fear is that if an unqualified stenographer misdiagnoses a heart defect, an organ defect, spina bifida or encephalopathic defect, that becomes a very local issue, because our school budget would have to absorb the cost of the child in our special education budget,’ he said.

In a letter sent before the meeting that offered a preview of his remarks, he asked whether Massachusetts would ‘cover the cover the medical costs for a fetus that had sound medical reason to be terminated.’

He then went on to ask if the state ‘would cover the costs of special education for a Down syndrome-affected child,’ or ‘pay the extraordinary medical expense of a child with a (serious heart condition),’ implying he thought fetuses found to have either condition should have been terminated.

[The DM reports that his constituents are “disgusted” by the remarks and want him to resign. Why? He’s offering a fairly common pro-abortion argument, one that’s been around ever since Margaret Sanger. They may not like the eugenics argument made that boldly, but it’s present in every argument about the “burden” on mothers and families that babies present. This is exactly what abortion is — killing a human being for the convenience of those already born. — Ed]