Fact check: Did Iceland really ‘eradicate’ Down syndrome in that country?

A viral online controversy revived the claim that Iceland aborts nearly every baby with Down syndrome; Catholic sources on the ground and Icelandʼs own data point to a more complicated reality.

A high-profile online controversy in early June reignited one of bioethics’ most charged debates: the morality of terminating a pregnancy following a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome.

As the discussion spread across social media platforms, a familiar claim resurfaced alongside it — that Iceland has effectively eliminated Down syndrome births through abortion, with virtually every baby diagnosed prenatally with the condition terminated before birth.

The claim has circulated for years in media and social commentary, often stated as established fact. EWTN News went looking for current, primary sourcing and reached out to Catholic organizations on the ground in Iceland to find the truth of these claims.

How the narrative took hold

The origin of the claim about Iceland mostly comes from a 2017 CBS News report, which mentioned that since prenatal screening tests were introduced in Iceland in the early 2000s, close to 100% of women who received a positive test for Down syndrome terminated their pregnancy.

By law, Icelandic doctors are required to inform pregnant mothers about the availability of a screening test that can indicate (among many other things) the presence of Down syndrome in the babies they are carrying.

The piece quoted a leading Icelandic geneticist, Kári Stefánsson, saying “we have basically eradicated, almost, Down syndrome from our society — that there is hardly ever a child with Down syndrome in Iceland anymore.”

That report is now nearly nine years old. It is, nonetheless, the source most frequently referenced in the current wave of social media posts and the one used as a jumping-off point for other articles.

A more complete picture

When EWTN News contacted Caritas Iceland and the Chancery of the Catholic Church in Iceland, both groups referred EWTN News to April Frigge, who sits on the board of Lífsvernd, the pro-life group of the Diocese of Reykjavík.

Frigge highlighted a response that Dr. Hulda Hjartardóttir, chief of obstetrics at Iceland’s National University Hospital, gave to Morgunblaðið, Iceland’s most prominent newspaper, within days of the CBS report airing.

Hjartardóttir had been one of the doctors CBS interviewed, and she was direct about what had been left out. “I went over this with CBS’ journalists, but then they decided to publish one thing and not the other,” she told the paper.

What CBS had omitted, Hjartardóttir explained, was that the 100% termination figure applied only to a specific subset of women.

She explained that 80% to 85% of pregnant women in Iceland choose to undergo prenatal screening, while 15% to 20% decline it altogether. Among those who receive screening results indicating a higher risk of Down syndrome, about 75% to 80% proceed with additional testing, but roughly 20% to 25% decide against further tests and continue their pregnancies. Hjartardóttir noted that these were women who, after counseling and discussions, couldn’t “bear the thought of ending the pregnancy despite the Down syndrome emerging.”

Taken together, she estimated that about one-third of Icelandic mothers either decline screening from the outset or choose not to pursue further testing after an initial positive result, opting instead to continue their pregnancies regardless of the outcome.

Frigge noted that this fuller account received a fraction of the attention that the original CBS report generated and that it remains largely absent from the online debate nearly a decade later.

These figures were also addressed by Iceland’s Ministry of Welfare, which rejected claims that the government encourages mothers carrying children diagnosed with Down syndrome to terminate their pregnancies. The ministry stated that prenatal screening for Down syndrome is voluntary and that women are neither required to undergo testing nor mandated to have an abortion if a diagnosis is confirmed.

What this means is that children with Down syndrome are being born in Iceland precisely because a significant portion of mothers either decline pregnancy screening or choose not to pursue confirmatory testing after an initial positive result.

What research shows

A 2020 study drawing on Icelandic prenatal screening data from 2012 to 2016 adds context to the situation. During that period, 79% of pregnant women chose to undergo a first-trimester screening test, amounting to 16,649 screenings.

Of the women screened, 333 received high-risk results and were offered further testing. Down syndrome was subsequently confirmed in 44 pregnancies. Of those, 43 ended in abortion, while one woman chose to carry her child to term.

Over the same five-year period, 12 children with Down syndrome were born in Iceland. Five were born to women who declined prenatal screening, six followed false-negative test results, and one was born to the woman who continued her pregnancy after receiving a confirmed diagnosis.

What the current data does and does not show

Iceland recorded 4,311 births and 1,147 abortions in 2024, the most recent year for which official figures are available. However, publicly available data does not specify how many of those births or abortions involved a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, making precise assessment difficult.

What can be said with reasonable confidence is that the pattern documented in 2017 has not fundamentally changed.

A March 2026 article published through the U.N.’s regional information network noted that approximately 80% to 85% of pregnant women in Iceland still undergo prenatal screening and that nearly all pregnancies with a confirmed Down syndrome diagnosis continue to be terminated, resulting in only two to three children with Down syndrome born in Iceland each year.

EWTN News attempted to contact Downs félagið (The Downs Society), an Icelandic association that advocates for the rights of individuals with Down syndrome, but was unable to obtain a response.

Read original article