That's about the same risk for a 43 year old woman to have a baby with Downs. So where are all the "biological clock is ticking" articles for men?
So for non-fundamentalist women, there is fear of having a Downs child, but it gets rolled into the package of "worried about getting to have a successful pregnancy at all".
A part of that is because the risk is a lot higher for women than men.
http://www.notsuperhuman.com/2010/02/pregnancy-chronicles-wi...
"University of California-Davis researchers studied close to 5 million births during the ’90s, a decade when autism spiked in the state.
"A woman’s risk for having an autistic child rose 18% for every five years she aged.
"40-year-old women had... a 77% greater risk (of autistic child) than women who gave birth before 25."
Being a new mom at 40 increases autism risk by 77%, vs. the 2% increase in autism risk from being a new dad at 40 or older.
I am guessing, since the article you link doesn't actually link to the scientific study, that it is referring to: http://pediatricbioscience.com/publications/pdf/Pub16.pdf This did not examine any form of causality, as the currently-linked study did, nor did it evaluate the children themselves. By not controlling for evaluation mechanisms, the study you link only addresses patterns of early diagnosis and treatment. While it is interesting, the researchers themselves say that the data is hardly conclusive. The current study, on the other hand, explores not just correlation but causation, and thus is far more persuasive.
Second, you are comparing increase in risk to total overall risk. The percentage increase for men going from age 25 to 40 is 110%, not 2%. The study you link found a comparable number for women over age 40 of 0.4%.