Since the early sixties, it has increasingly turned its attentions away from curing genetic disorders and birth defects to detecting and eliminating them. As a result, amniocentesis and abortion have become its chief concerns, consuming a vast majority of its funding. Instead of trying to solve the problem of birth defects, the March of Dimes now disposes of those problems by funding "search and destroy" missions.
Eighty-eight percent of all March of Dimes geneticists favor abortion-on-demand. Seventy-one percent argue that if amniocentesis diagnostic tests prove a child to be defective, he should be terminated regardless of the stage of pregnancy. A large number even revealed that hey were involved in live fetal experimentation and fetal harvesting. This despite the persistent claims of the organization that it is "abortion neutral."
The connection between the March of Dimes and Planned Parenthood is not just philosophical. Many faithful donors would be shocked to discover that the money they have given over the years to "help fight birth defects" has actually wound up in Planned Parenthood coffers. In 1980, for instance, the March of Dimes gave more than $0.5 million to a Planned Parenthood abortionist for a major research project. The results of the study, published in Obstetrics and Gynecology, have been widely heralded in pro-abortion circles and selectively circulated by Planned Parenthood affiliates all around the country.
In response to prolife criticism of its close relationship with Planned Parenthood, the national office of the March of Dimes called its critics "ideological zealots eager to invent new enemies." Today, the kinship between the two groups is friendlier than ever. They display and distribute each other's literature. They refer clients back and forth to each other's programs. They cooperate in sponsoring genetic research and perinatal medical conferences. And they support each other in their political lobbying efforts."
George Grant, Immaculate Deception: The Shifting Agenda of Planned Parenthood, p.139-140 (1996)