Apregnant woman whose living child was affected with cystic fibrosis (CF) sought prenatal testing for the disease at a university hospital in the Southwest. When testing revealed that the expected child would also be affected with the CF, the woman and her husband faced an agonizing decision. They ultimately decided not to abort the fetus. Their insurance company, a health management organization, had agreed to extend special coverage for this woman's prenatal testing. It decided as well that it would not provide medical coverage for an affected child, a child who would be born with a pre-existing condition on account of the prenatal diagnostic procedure. insurance company's message was clear: The parents could either abort the defective baby or struggle alone with the financial burden of a sick child. ''1 Although the HMO ultimately capitulated and agreed to cover the child's treatment, their initial policy serves as a sign of the new limits on maternal choice that may evolve as the capacity for prenatal diagnosis advances. The American College of Obstetridans and Gynecologists (ACOG) committee statement on maternal choice reflects serious concern about restrictions on maternal decision making in the management of pregnancy. In particular, the document addresses the use of court orders to mandate cesarean delivery and the use of the force of law against women who put their fetuses at risk because of certain personal habits or behavior. As stated in the document, Actions of coercion to obtain consent or force a course of action limit maternal freedom of choice, threaten the doctor-patient relationship, and violate the principles underlying the informed consent process. ''2 The ACOG statement was stimulated by the perception that some segments of society sought to restrict reproductive choice for women with the aim of protecting the fetuses they carry. Measures aimed at the criminalization of certain behaviors by pregnant women have been implemented in some states (e.g., Florida, Minnesota). Court orders mandating cesarean section delivery in the face of maternal refusal have been obtained in several jurisdictions. 3 Particular efforts have recently been aimed at limiting a woman's freedom to electively terminate a pregnancy. The last 20 years have also seen the discussion of a relatively subtle but perhaps more insidious form of restriction on maternal choice; this involves limiting choices made in the face of the prenatal diagnosis of fetal disease or deformity. Two decades ago, Bentley Glass, 4 in his presidential address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, suggested that No