With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". birth to a child who could possibly be afflicted with a physical abnormality. There is sufficient evidence in the record of this case to enable a jury to make that determination. In addition, in establishing proximate cause for wrongful birth, plaintiffs must show that the resulting birth defect was reasonably foreseeable, that is, not too remote in relation to defendants’ negligence, and that had defendants not been negligent, the pregnancy would have been terminated. See, e.g., Berman, supra, 80 N.J. at 426, 404 A.2d 8 (imposing liability for wrongful birth on premise that proximate cause was met where plaintiff, once notified that her child, if born, would have been afflicted with Down’s Syndrome, would have terminated pregnancy); Haymon v. Wilkerson, 535 A.2d 880, 882 (D.C.1987) (<HOLDING>); Proffitt v. Bartolo, 162 Mich.App. 35, 412

A: holding infertility is a pregnancy related condition where plaintiff claimed she was terminated because she took time off work to undergo in vitro fertilization
B: holding appellant produced no evidence that when she made her complaints to management she ever mentioned that she felt she was being treated unfairly due to her race or sex
C: holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination
D: holding that plaintiff must establish that had she learned of impairment during her pregnancy she would have terminated pregnancy
D.