I looked inside, and was referred to page 8 for more on Hudson.
There we learn how a photographer suggested him as a model and the editors thought "it would be nice to feature a child with Down syndrome on our November issue."
Why was it necessary to specify that Hudson had Down syndrome?
It's phenomenal that this little guy is on the cover of the magazine, but why couldn't he be included as simply part of the vast "kid" landscape, which he is, rather than being "identified" as having a syndrome? Why couldn't he just be Hudson, with a descriptor about his personality or what he likes?
Would we expect to see a descriptor of a cover model like this:
"We thought it would be nice to include an African American child on this issue."
"We thought it would be nice to include a child who wears glasses on this issue."
The fact of the matter is that there was no "story" inside about Down syndrome, so that part of his identity was immaterial to the photo description.
"We thought it would be nice to include a child with their arm in a cast on this issue."
"We thought it would be nice to include a child whose mother is an atheist on this issue.
None of this information is relevant to the pic of a gorgeous kid on the front of the magazine.
I think we'll have come a long way when magazines include stand-alone photos of children with disabilities as simply being who they are -- children!