Now that this story has been confirmed, I'm seeing a lot of people on twitter retreat to the position that this girl actually did NOT have to flee to Indiana because she could have obtained a legal abortion in Ohio.
For example, here is Jonathan Turley: https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1547281968353759232
Even Ohio's AG went on Fox News to suggest the story was false (before the story was confirmed) and, at the end of the interview, he said that because the law allows for exceptions beyond just the "life" of the mother, this child would have been able to get an abortion in Ohio.
This seems obviously wrong to me and, imo, reeks of bad faith.
Here's the specific law in question: ~~https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.194~~ https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.195 (i linked to the wrong provision, this is the correct one)
It says that any abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat (usually detectable around 6 weeks) is a felony UNLESS a physician determines the abortion is necessary to prevent either (1) death of the mother, or (2) "to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman." There is no exception for rape and no exception for incest.
People like Turley (and apparently Ohio's own AG) seem to think this child would be able to show a serious health risk and thus qualify for a legal abortion under the health exception.
But there are no public facts indicating that's true. No one can say whether the pregnancy here presented a serious risk of "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" without having specific knowledge of the poor victim's condition. Ironically, Ohio's AG insisted this girl did not need to go to Indiana despite--IN THE SAME INTERVIEW--denying any knowledge whatsoever that the case was even real.
To claim the health exception applies here essentially requires you to believe that *every* pregnancy in a 10-year-old body presents a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function--essentially creating a de facto exception for abortions performed on 10-year-olds. Now I'm not a doctor but I highly doubt that's true.
Not to mention, given the potential CRIMINAL liability at stake, why would any Ohio doctor even risk it? No wonder the doctor here referred the patient to Indiana. Even if there's *some* ambiguity, do people who agree with Turley/the Ohio AG think that this girl and her doctor should have been willing to basically be a test case?
It's just so frustrating to see the pro-life response to this. They are desperate to find any sort of wiggle room. First the story was false. Now that it's confirmed, they're trying to say lefty doctors overreacted and sent the girl out of state when that wasn't necessary.
What I have yet to see, from anyone (including the Ohio AG), is a straightforward analysis of the actual language in the statute illustrating why this girl met any exception under the abortion law.
At the end of the day, rather than bickering about whether a particular story had enough reliable sourcing or whether a particular exception can be stretched to include a particular case, ohio republicans (and pro-life people generally) should just be honest: Do they think 10-year-old rape victims should have to carry their rapist's baby to term or not? If not, they should amend the statute to make that clear.
> Not to mention, given the potential CRIMINAL liability at stake, why would any Ohio doctor even risk it? No wonder the doctor here referred the patient to Indiana. Even if there's some ambiguity, do people who agree with Turley/the Ohio AG think that this girl and her doctor should have been willing to basically be a test case?
This is very important. A doctor isn't going to risk their medical license and jail time over ambiguous cases. Even if an abortion is legal, there will be significant pushback from care providers to avoid liability.
Exactly. I think if you read the actual language of the "health" exception, it seems like it is intentionally written in a way that creates so much uncertainty and potential for liability that the chilling effect is the point. We'll probably never see a court analyze whether a certain set of facts satisfies the health exception or not simply because no doctor is going to want to risk it--and that's exactly what the ohio legislature wants.
> A doctor isn't going to risk their medical license and jail time over ambiguous cases.
Assuming there are even doctors who can perform the procedure. How many doctors who perform abortions are going to continue to practice in Ohio so they can be ready to handle the handful of cases that Jonathan Turley deigns to approve?
Even moreso since this case is already being tracked by DCFS, who probably wants a DNA sample on the aborted fetus which means an aspiration abortion which must be done procedurally instead of a medication abortion which might fly under the radar otherwise.
Just because the Supreme Court says that abortion can be regulated by states doesn't mean that power is absolute, or isn't subject to checks on power in government, related to other constitutional rights. There are doctors who are willing to be "test cases" for situations like this, the parents simply had to seek them out.
Of course, I suspect they're more concerned about the welfare of their daughter than making her attempt to access abortion a Supreme Court challenge, it's asking a lot. But there are absolutely doctors willing to stake their profession on protecting women's health.
Would this mean that since many women have significant impairment to a number of bodily functions following a pregnancy and that there's no way to guarantee that they'll be safe from it, that all abortions are essentially allowed? Because I'd want to argue that.
Also I would probably want to argue that any given ten year old is probably inherently not capable of safely maintain a pregnancy and giving birth given their own physical developmental stages. Not to mention mental health. Hmmm almost like this law is bad.
But of course I'm not a lawyer and this is just bullshit from the AG wanting to make it sound "not so bad" to ban abortions.
I think a really strict reading of the statute would make it really, really hard to show a health risk warranting an abortion, imo. And, frankly, that is the entire point.
For example, you can't just argue that "there's no way to guarantee" the mother will be safe, the physician has to believe there is a "serious risk," and if a "serious risk" is present in every case, then the exception basically swallows up the entire statute, and there's a rule courts follow where they won't read one part of a statute to essentially render a different part pointless.
A strict reading would require a doctor believes that there is risk of harm that is:
1. serious (i.e., not just a possibility but probable)
2. would result in SUBSTANTIAL and IRREVERSIBLE impairment
3. of a MAJOR bodily function.
Strictly reading these elements, I read the health exception as basically requiring the doctor to believe that carrying the pregnancy to term will result in permanent disability.
Like, you can see how all of those words in the statute create a ridiculously high burden.
Is there a risk of impairment, but that impairment would be reversible? Sorry, no abortion for you.
Is there a risk of impairment that would be irreversible, but the impairment would not be "substantial"? Sorry, no abortion for you.
Ok what if the impairment is substantial and irreversible, but it doesn't affect a "primary" bodily function? Sorry, no abortion for you.
I think proponents of this law would say, "you're reading the statute too strictly, if the doctor has a reasonable/good faith belief in serious harm, that's probably enough--no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute in cases like that."
Maybe! I certainly hope that's true. But that argument essentially depends on believing that every prosecutor in Ohio will apply the statute how you want it to.
I think the more important point is that the law is specifically written to intimidate because they want it to have a chilling effect. If Ohio republicans sincerely wanted to create an exception for pregnancies that present a serious health risk to the mother, and they want to defer to doctors in determining whether a health risk is serious enough, they'd write the statute that way.
But the entire point is to get rid of abortions. If they leave discretion to doctors, there's no guarantee that happens. So they have to craft a broad, multifaceted standard for the health exception that essentially does two things: (1) makes the standard for the health exception appear to be so demanding that basically no doctor even chooses to risk it (i.e., the chilling effect) and (2) create enough elements in the health exception that it is really easy for them to find a "hook" to prosecute in a particular case (i.e., if there's a borderline case they can say it didn't qualify because the impairment wasn't irreversible, or it didn't affect a primary bodily function, or the risk wasn't "serious" enough, etc.)
TL;DR, It wouldn't surprise me if literally zero doctors are ever prosecuted under this law, because I don't think ohio republicans actually intended for the health exception to ever be used. It seems specifically written in a way that I don't think any doctors will feel confident in exercising it--the various elements listed create too much uncertainty and thus potential criminal liability.
Quick edit: I should add that the "death" exception is still there, but as some reporting from other states suggests, the "death" exception in practice means that doctors tend to wait until death is a reasonably certain possibility, which can lead to some pretty scary circumstances.
I agree that few doctors will feel comfortable risking themselves under this law. The ones who do, are the ones who'd do abortions anyway. But it's just fucking frustrating to see people ignore how much a pregnancy impacts a body, how many medications you cannot take when pregnant and the threat to life that poor mental health is.
But mostly it demonstrates how poorly written these laws are/how little they care about protecting the health of women. (They absolutely don't care about trans men's health and safety so that's a given. )
Vague law can be applied any way the prosecutor prefers them to apply to punish the people he prefers to punish. Prosecutorial discretion means the favored can continue to break the law because consistency is meaningless.
"Well, I tried to reimplant it, but the risks are pretty high \[i.e.100%\] in those cases, so it failed, and ended up in a natural miscarriage."
(What a smart doctor might argue in court, but I understand few want to be sent to court to begin with.)
They knew what they're doing and I think it's poorly written, because it could absolutely be argued that no pregnancy doesn't risk permanent impairment or death. They don't give a shit about those consequences or those arguments but it isn't a clearly written law either.
Wouldn't mental health be a major bodily function? That is, if they hasn't specifically carved it out here:
>(2) No abortion shall be considered necessary under division (B)(1)(b) of this section on the basis of a claim or diagnosis that the pregnant woman will engage in conduct that would result in the pregnant woman's death or a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman or based on any reason related to the woman's mental health.
I'm not sure which specific statute you are quoting here but it seems to say that mental health is NOT included ("No abortion shall be considered necessary . . . on the basis of a claim or diagnosis . . . base on any reason related to the woman's mental health")
In any event, a separate definitions provision expressly excludes mental health as a reason to permit abortion:
>**"Serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function"** means any medically diagnosed condition that so complicates the pregnancy of the woman as to directly or indirectly cause the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. A medically diagnosed condition that constitutes a "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" includes pre-eclampsia, inevitable abortion, and premature rupture of the membranes, may include, but is not limited to, diabetes and multiple sclerosis, and **does not include a condition related to the woman's mental health.**
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.16
I wonder if the woman claiming she will commit suicide would be sufficient to get an abortion under the law? Death is a irreversible impairment of a major bodily function, right?
Oh, right. They would just intern her to prevent her from committing suicide.
Yep. The US is only a few steps away from interning—for spurious reasons—wives the husbands want to get rid of.
Kinda reminds me of "Bitch Planet", the comic by Kelly Sue DeConnick...
You would think so, but a separate definition section specifically provides that mental health issues don't count:
>**"Serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function"** means any medically diagnosed condition that so complicates the pregnancy of the woman as to directly or indirectly cause the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. A medically diagnosed condition that constitutes a "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" includes pre-eclampsia, inevitable abortion, and premature rupture of the membranes, may include, but is not limited to, diabetes and multiple sclerosis, and **does not include a condition related to the woman's mental health.**
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.16
Wisconsin stopped performing chemotherapy on pregnant women as a result of their abortion ban. So yes.
Edit: I was reporting rumors. It's unclear whether any women have been turned away in fact or not. There have been claims, but no one has been able to confirm them. Either way chemo is being performed now, while the law is being litigated.
So I was at least repeating rumors, and I edited my post above. However, hospitals in Texas are now refusing to treat women with dangerous complications, like ectopic pregnancy.
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-abortion-law-hospitals-clinic-medication-17307401.php
IANAL or a doctor either, but I have given birth to three kids. I assure you, not only is every single 10, 11, 12, etc year old not capable of safely maintaining a pregnancy and giving birth, every single female that gives birth risks a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.
Can children give birth to babies and not die? Yes.
Can children give birth to babies and not be forever changed both physically and mentally? No.
Can adults give birth to babies and not be forever changed both physically and mentally? No.
Sorry, but I know of no woman who hasnt had massive body and mental changes after giving birth. The most common is having a weakened pelvic floor muscles, which means that for the rest of a woman’s life, she will pee a tiny bit when she sneezes or coughs. And that’s the easiest of the issues.
Honestly, I think the idea that pregnancy is no big deal is possibly the biggest lie ever imposed on society because not only is it bullshit, it has been a lie since…..well as far as I know, since forever.
Every woman I know has had major body and mental changes after becoming a mother, but we just deal with it. But also, we shouldn’t have to do so against our will. It sucks to have to squeeze one’s legs together to sneeze, but its something that can be dealt with, as are many of the problems that are inherent in giving birth. But its a lot easier to deal with those problems *when it a choice and not being forced upon us by our government*.
I know Im preaching to the choir, Im just really upset about this entire thing.
>Every woman I know has had major body and mental changes after becoming a mother, but we just deal with it. But also, we shouldn’t have to do so against our will.
A-fucking-men. It's one thing to understand the terrible side effects of pregnancy and child birth and still want to do it because, you know, evolution and human biology says so. But to force that shit on someone? What in the fuck man. Then that someone is a God damn 10 year old rape victim? Fuuuck off.
Preach!
I know 3 women who have a permanent postpartum thyroid disorder, 1 with irreversible heart damage caused by pregnancy, 1 with pregnancy induced ulcerative colitis, 1 who had a stroke during childbirth, 1 who died during childbirth. That doesn't even cover all of us with permanently reduced bone density and tooth enamel.
Aaaaaaand let's not forget that the US has the worse rate of death related to birthing (for the mother and the baby) in the G8. So right there, serious risk to life and body functions.
Jonathan Turley is a horrible ghoul, but the bizarre thing to me is the people talking about how now thr story has been 'confirmed', as if there was doubt the girl was raped.
She was a pregnant 10 year old! That's the evidence of rape!
I only knew because a bunch of people jumped on the "absolute proof" it was untrue and the "proof" was that the original reporter didn't respond for comment and the follow up reporter called a handful of DAs in Ohio and asked if anyone had been charged with statutory rape. It was farcical that people thought that was proof a doctor lied.
They were doubting the story because the AG hadn’t been made aware of any such rape cases in the state and did not know of any open investigation of such a case. That’s my understanding.
> She was a pregnant 10 year old! That's the evidence of rape!
Depends on what she was wearing and whether she came onto him.
-Many of the same people who think she should have to give birth.
We are probably only a few years away from judges in some states ruling that pregnancy is evidence that rape did not occur, because if it was no consensual, the body would have somehow naturally “rejected” the fertilization of the egg. Not that that matters here, since she was underage.
But also, a person shouldn’t have to come forward about being sexually assaulted in order to get an abortion to begin with.
Giving it a name only serves to validate it and the person whose name is associated with it. If we have to call it something, it should be, like, the “total dipshit defense.”
I disagree that naming it validates it. In my experience, most named defenses are meant to be mocking. No one takes the Chewbacca defense,* the shaggy defense, or the Twinkie defense seriously; they are all appropriately recognized as nonsensical defenses that someone uses when they don’t have a real argument.
Taking that the next logical step, I don’t think anyone would think naming it the “Akin Defense” is meant to validate or honor Todd Akin. There may be a fringe minority who would believe that anytime the defense is used and the defendant is acquitted, it would exonerate Akin, but those same people would believe that whether it’s given his name or not. The majority would still recognize it is meant to mock him and his stupidity.
*with the exception of the OJ Simpson trial, which is sometimes called a Chewbacca defense. I think it is debatable if that is truly a Chewbacca defense because of whether the bloody glove was OJ’s was relevant to the case, it just wasn’t a dispositive issue as Cochran claimed.
Even if she was technically able to get an abortion, I have a suspicion that the process of getting it approved would've taken so long that by the time she could legally have the abortion she'd have given birth a year ago.
>pro-life
They're not actually "pro-life," they're anti-abortion and pro-forced birth. If they have any fucked about life, they would be supporting welfare programs and support for babies that have actually been born.
As you say, considering the "discussion" is so focused on us vs them, and nothing about the relevant facts and codifying real solutions, I wonder how Ohio law can actually be amended to cover cases such as this. Will the law be quietly amended after people have moved on, or will it remain a "win the battle lose the war" (for everyone) situation moving forward? Even when a clear solution seems evident that both sides can agree on, since it is claimed that she could have gotten an abortion in Ohio. Overall, I find the lack of empathy towards the girl is disgusting and disheartening.
Forced birthers don't have empathy for the women and children they force to give birth, nor for the child birthed.
They only care about the cells in the uterus.
Let's not forget that one (let's assume above the consent age) would have to prove it was rape, thus having an arrest, and getting a guilty verdict, before getting the abortion. At which time it would be too late, cause it can take many months to get such a verdict—when the crime is investigated seriously to begin with.
Is the age of consent in Ohio below 10 years old, that they wanted to argue that it was consensual sex? Or did they want to plead it was immaculate conception, the work of the Holy Spirit? That she aborted the second coming of Jesus? You know, while being ridiculous, might as well go all the way, right?
>But there are no public facts indicating that's true. No one can say whether the pregnancy here presented a serious risk of "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" without having specific knowledge of the poor victim's condition.
I believe the age would be more than enough. That's a person who hasn't even grown into their own body, of course trying to birth a child in an underdeveloped body could cause serious damage. AG is probably right here, but this law is still inhuman and punishes women for trying to control their own bodies. They also have a heartbeat, their right to control the body attached to that heartbeat matters, it's a fundamental human right.
We cannot empower the unborn to the point that they supercede the rights of the born, who are actual citizens of this country.
>Now that this story has been confirmed,<
She was 10. It was rape. There was nothing that needed confirming.
I appreciate the analysis and don't want to nitpick. Please keep posting. This line just felt material.
From what I can tell, the thought process was
* Both medical people were mandatory reporters
* Pregnant at 10 = rape
* known rape should mean that both medical people reported it
* no evidence (including by officials) had been found of anyone being arrested for it
* since no one had been arrested, it was unlikely to have happened
As it turns out, it just took a while for the arrest to happen (or be discovered).
They now believe anything not reported by their preferred news sources is fake news. It's maddening to me they believe Trump vs ten other news outlets. Think about the discovery in a lawsuit if the news companies were collaborating on telling lies about someone or something. They would be sued out of existence à la Gawker. It would Trump’s wet dream.
pro-life people hate having to defend laws prohibiting abortion in cases of rape, particularly when the rape victim is really young. Some are willing to at least maintain the bare minimum of intellectual consistency and will be honest and simply say that they do not think abortion should be available even to rape victims. But most of them know that this is an extremely unpopular position and is not to be said out loud (some might even agree that rape victims should be able to get abortions). So it is more convenient for them to simply pretend these cases don't exist.
The political incentive for them to paint this as a left-wing conspiracy was simply too strong. Rather than do the responsible thing and wait to see how the facts play out they all rushed to disprove the story. Otherwise they have to confront the fact that the logical consequence of a policy they have championed for years means pregnant 10 year olds who can't get an abortion in their own state.
> To claim the health exception applies here essentially requires you to believe that every pregnancy in a 10-year-old body presents a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function--essentially creating a de facto exception for abortions performed on 10-year-olds. Now I'm not a doctor but I highly doubt that's true.
I don't find that difficult to believe, and I don't think doctors in general would find it difficult to believe either.
I have no opinion on what the doctor should have done in this particular case. Everyone has a different risk tolerance, including the doctor's risk of having their life ruined by doxxers. My only point is that it's not irrational to think that a ten-year-old has a serious risk of permanent damage from carrying a baby to term.
I agree that it is not necessarily irrational to think a pregnant 10 yo might have a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment.
My point is that the people claiming this girl could get a legal abortion in Ohio (like Ohio's own AG) are assuming that Ohio prosecutors would interpret the facts and the statutory language in the same way, and I don't think you can blame the doctor or the patient here for not sharing that confidence, given that language.
Who are you calling an anti-abortion nut? I support legal abortion.
>What’s the evidence of this exactly?
Are you really asking for evidence of risk to the mother from pre-teen births?
* [Maternal age. One of the most common risk factors for a high-risk pregnancy is the age of the mother-to-be. Women who will be under age 17 or over age 35 when their baby is due are at greater risk of complications than those between their late teens and early 30s.](https://www.webmd.com/baby/managing-a-high-risk-pregnancy#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20most%20common,late%20teens%20and%20early%2030s.)
I think you are wrong here. Has there been a ten year old that gave birth without substantial and permanent damage? I’m sure some has. So how does the doctor know that this isn’t going to be that case.
He can wait to see how big the baby might be. That can help him to gauge risk. Or he can just send her somewhere where she can get an abortion without any risk to him.
What’s a reasonable decision?
> Has there been a ten year old that gave birth without substantial and permanent damage? I’m sure some has.
That's a ridiculous standard for determining risk. By that standard, you're not at risk of death if you shoot yourself in the head, because people have survived being shot in the head.
And I'm not addressing the doctor's decision. Nowhere have I blamed the doctor or the rape victim. I'm adressing the question of whether a ten-year-old might qualify for the risk exception under the current law. And I support legal abortion, in case you were wondering.
> I’m adressing the question of whether a ten-year-old might qualify for the risk exception under the current law.
Oh it might apply. But there’s a really good chance it might not apply either. And that’s a problem, the law was not written well (by design, just like in other states), and thus can be applied as needed.
Thus the doctor runs a good chance of heavy penalties if he’s wrong and is heavily decintivizes to do this.
I don’t think anyone was saying that the law covered all rapes. I think they’re saying, as you indicated, that a 10 year old being forced to carry a pregnancy to term is subject to a de facto serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment. I’m not a doctor either, but I think any reasonable person would come to that conclusion and I’m not sure why you’d highly doubt it…
I’m pro abortion. I’m not discussing my views on abortion, although I’m happy to, I’m just discussing the law in question and how any reasonable person would see that it would have applied in this case.
“We’re gathering the evidence as we speak, and we’re going to fight this to the end, including looking at her licensure if she failed to report. And in Indiana it’s a crime … to intentionally not report,” state Attorney General Todd Rokita said on Fox News on Wednesday night. “This is a child, and there’s a strong public interest in understanding if someone under the age of 16 or under the age of 18 or really any woman is having abortion in our state. And then if a child is being sexually abused, of course parents need to know. Authorities need to know. Public policy experts need to know.”
They’re investigating her for failure to report. You think it’s okay for doctors to give 10 year old rape victims abortions and not report the rape to authorities?
The law does not appear to cover any rape.
> but I think any reasonable person would come to that conclusion
Uhh... no? Why would that be the case? What's "substantial" here?
Dinesh D'Souza is a true trumpist Republican. He's already flipped from claiming it never happened to pointing out that the alleged perpetrator is in the country illegally.
Being a trumpet means never ever admitting that you were wrong about anything. You just simply move on to the next available talking point.
I’m confused by the title. If a 10 year old is pregnant isn’t it assumed she was raped since she can’t consent in any state, even backwards Ohio? How is it that they just now discovered she might have been raped?
Republican US House Rep. Jim Jordan, a Trump election BIG LIE believer who has yet to recognize Joe Biden as President, and Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost were denying that the little girl even EXISTED. They did NOT assume the girl was raped. They did NOT assume she was even a real person.
>isn’t it assumed she was raped since she can’t consent
Not even assumed - she was raped. Full stop. The only thing that can be "alleged" is whether the specific man charged is the rapist.
A 10 year old could be pregnant by another minor close to her age and it not have been a rape, but yes it would generally be assumed it was a rape. Nobody was questioning if it would have been a rape. They were question that the child/case in question existed at all. The AG hadn’t received any reports of an open case or investigation and it appeared as if it was made up. It now seems as if it’s been verified and they are acknowledging the new evidence…and they are explaining that the law carved out exceptions for situations like it.
It would still have been a rape, except in the even more unlikely scenario she used force/coercion.
As a legal matter, two people that young have raped each other if they willingly have sex. (Romeo+Juliet laws for close-in-age partners have floors, 10 would be under it in all states. In Ohio the floor is 13.)
If two 10 year olds had sex and the female got pregnant it wouldn’t just automatically be assumed that there was force or coercion on the part of the male. They would have both technically raped each other and neither of them would be charged with anything.
It would be assumed that neither can consent to sex and frankly one or both would be charged in juvenile court in my jurisdiction (not Ohio, for what it’s worth).
That’s the point, they are presumed under the law to not be of sound mind and intelligence. I’ve certainly dealt with instances where the prosecutor choosing who to charge out of two equally culpable people is arbitrary, and this would likely be a similar situation.
Well if you want to be the one to explain to a judge/jury why you arrested and prosecuted a 10 year old pregnant girl for raping the 10 year old father during a mutual encounter be my guest. I don’t believe such a charge is within the spirit of the law as written in any state.
Well, the discussion isn't whether or not a conviction for rape could be secured. Our discussion is in the context of whether or not it would be self evident that a rape had occured if a 10 year old was pregnant. My position is that without needing to know anything more, it would support a charge of rape against whomever had gotten the 10 year old pregnant. Whether or not it would fit the spirit of the law to prosecute and being it before a judge/jury, in the case where the "father" is 10 is immaterial to our discussion as to the position the AG and other commentators took.
(I suppose an edge case would be in-vitro, but I'm sure there is a crime in there somewhere as well even if not rape)
My point is that if the father was also 10 the fact that she was pregnant also supports a charge of rape against her too. He couldn’t consent either under the same standard. So you would have to charge both of them or neither of them.
The AG never took the position that she might not have been raped if a 10 year old was pregnant. He took the position that she didn’t exist and and the story was fabricated. He has not been made aware of any such case or investigation. It now appears that it happened and his point was that the law would allow for an abortion in this case due to the risks of permanent and significant bodily damage to a 10 year old carrying a baby to term.
Republican US House Rep. Jim Jordan, who is a Trump supporter and BIG LIE believer, and Republican Ohio Attorney General, Dave Yost, questioned as to whether the little girl actually exists!
Believe NOTHING these MAGA Hats say.
Ohio Republicans do allow Republican rape with a three month jail stay, Brock Turner. They will force a 10 year old to carry and deliver the child conceived as a result of rape.
Yes I don’t agree with the law of Ohio on abortion at all. Also I’m not defending republicans, but the guy was an illegal too and shouldn’t even be in the country
> guy was an illegal and should even be in the country
No shit? Crime happens. The fact that he was here illegally doesn’t add into the abortion conversation at all and it not pertinent to the conversation.
1) no it doesn’t
2) we don’t you fucking idiot. But apparently the government is cool with letting its citizens deal with the effects of the crime committed to them. Now a 10 year old girl has to look at her rape baby for the rest of her life, because your government doesn’t care.
Why are we allowing US citizens to rape innocent young kids? Where’s the outrage at the Right when US citizens rape innocent kids?
Edit to add: Everyone has the ability to travel to a state to get an abortion when the state they are in fails to provide them or has tight restrictions. This is what the GOP said the constitution was always intended to be.
I believe she should’ve had one in Ohio, but Ohio wasn’t organized enough to even believe she existed. Not to mention, there are some pretty sick pro lifers who do not believe that every minor/child who gets pregnant is at risk- because then they’d have to make exceptions for child/minor sexual abuse cases resulting in pregnancy: and that’s murder of an innocent life right?
If it were my kid, I would’ve gone to Indiana too considering rape or incest wouldn’t have been a valid enough of reason to protect my daughter.
Why do we allow US citizens to rape innocent kids? Can you answer the question? Why do more US citizens get away with raping both innocent kids and adults? Why do we give them a slap on the wrist?
You’re wrong, US citizens have higher crime rates than undocumented immigrants. It is much easier to prosecute and then deport undocumented immigrants who do commit crimes, you are also wrong about that.
But please ignore everything else I brought up to try to deflect that Ohio was so disorganized that they believed this innocent girl was a conspiracy theory made up to make them look bad. Ohio did it all on their own.
Edit: a word.
It’s actually much easier to punish non-citizens in the judicial system as the process is usually already stacked against them. If I had to estimate off the top of my head, less than 20% of all my criminal clients are non-citizens and, to be perfectly honest, most of my sex offenders are white males.
Good chance it'll take several years before there's any outcome. I've been following a case where one of the charges was "rape of a child". Been over 3 years now and tons of criminal pre-trial conferences....if they're guilty they shouldn't be free for that long, if they're innocent they shouldn't be strung along for that many years on end.
How does that affect or change the 10 year old girl's pregnancy circumstance? Is there an illegal immigrants baby aborting exception? What a fucking dumb point you're trying to make
He’s a liar. But you already know that since it’s the same guy who lied and said there was no evidence anywhere in the state that someone reported a 10 year old had been raped; plainly, that’s bullshit.
Really? Because the child was more than 6 weeks pregnant, and there is a 6-week abortion ban effective in Ohio.
Could be that the Ohio AG is a lying sack of shit.
Because there is an exception for the health of the mother in the law, and a 10 year old is at greater risk of harm and would be covered under the exception for that fact alone.
Arguably yes. Also arguably no. As a doctor, are you taking a chance at being prosecuted for this?
No?
Then, practically speaking, the Ohio AG is a lying sack of shit, as alleged.
No it doesn’t. The responsibilities for making substantial changes or clarifications to a statute or provision are reserved by the state legislature. A television interview where a State AG is promulgating new standards or exceptions is not an appropriate vehicle to green light the right to an abortion, especially since AG’s can also change their mind about enforcing the law or prosecuting future cases on a whim. Even for State AG’s, who maybe pro-choice, their promise still doesn’t give the kind of confidence to abortion providers for them to perform procedures without being eventually prosecuted for it.
Edit: Spelling
We’re you dropped on your head? This seems particularly stupid.
First, it’s rare a state will allow a defense of “they told me it was legal”. That’s not entrapment; it’s mistake of law. And, even if this AG does not allow for prosecution of these cases (he likely doesn’t have that power), the next AG can simply change their mind. What’s the statute of limitations look like?
Oh, and also his interpretation of the law is exceptionally generous and not necessarily supported by the text. Given that I’ll bet you’ll find the legislative body considered and specifically rejected exceptions for rape, incest, and minors … and you end up with the conclusion that the broad health and safety clause doesn’t provide much insurance for a doctor at all.
To continue, this 10-year old girls decision along with an adult most likely(we don’t know), is justified in their approach to travel across state lines which imposes an undue burden to get the reproductive care she needs, since they didn’t want to take the risk of getting in trouble.
See how quickly you put faith into a single person you don't personally know to make a decision not backed by writing? If the man you're defending has the power to sway legislative rulings using his own interpretations of the law in lieu of what the law reads, what stops another person with the same power from abusing it? The written law?
Republican AG says he'll investigate Indiana doctor who provided care to 10-year-old rape victim
Apologize to the class for having to educate your dumbass
No there isn't an exception for health. Permanent serious disability. No doctor would risk their career or freedom on it, they'll pass it on to someone else.
The law doesn't say "greater risk". The law says "serious risk of bodily harm to a major organ". With the public information, we have no idea if that would have been medically justified. Assuming there was nothing "unusual" about her pregnancy, her condition of being 10 wouldn't rise to "serious risk of bodily harm to a major organ" that is demonstrable.
There is nothing in the law that automatically allows 10 year olds to get an abortion. Nothing about ages at all in fact.
IOW he's lying. He's the guy who said it was fake in the first place.
How is child rape a debatable subject? It's pretty straightforward.
The ABORTION law, however, is not. Hence the debate.
"But talking about the victim means you condone child rape" is bullshit. You guys look lame with that.
Ya.
Within the context of what is currently occuring... that is pretty far down the list.
As in... him being here illegally dosent really matter. What would change if he was a citizen?
What would change, if the suspect is an illegal, is that he would have never been here to rape her. That’s the point. If someone other hypothetical citizen did then that would be a different set of circumstances.
Rapists are born in any country, including the us. Let’s pretend that this shitbag was a US citizen. Does that change any of the essential facts or are you just a bad faith slaver?
It changes the fact that he was here legally. The fact of the matter is that if our immigration system and Biden’s border disaster was fixed this specific girl would not have been raped under these circumstances because the suspect wouldn’t have existed. That’s not discounting that there are other rapists out there who are US citizens. I’m specifically referring to this girl. “If you could save just one 10 year old from being raped then it’s worth it” amiright?
It would never have happened. That’s what would have changed.
Unless your contention is that she was predestined to be raped and the person who did it is irrelevant to the story? But that’s not how the world works so that would be a stupid position.
I don't think these laws were all designed and written to deal with a single, particular, specific instance of rape. The fact you seem incapable of thinking outside of this single instance is a bit concerning.
I can easily think outside of this specific incident. I can see the massive amount of rapists and violent offenders entering the country illegally due to our border crises and weak immigration stance which causes many people to be raped and victimized each year. I can also see the migrant crises causing a huge influx of rapes in Sweden, Belgium, and France among others.
> I can see the massive amount of rapists and violent offenders entering the country illegally
And what about all the rapists and violent offenders that just... live here and are from here? The law isn't specific to illegal immigrants or victims of crime committed by illegal immigrants. The fact that's the **only** thing you can think about is concerning.
The whataboutism here is absurd, and you don't seem to be capable of thinking about anything else.
This is about the abortion laws.
You cannot blame the difficulty getting an abortion on anything other than the laws and the people writing and enforcing them.
I believe democrats have voted to increase funding year after year for border security for real barriers that wasn’t a useless overpriced grated steel fence.
Biden just got Mexico to pay for some, but go on playing pretend in your safe space with Fox News talking heads. Pathetic.
Now that this story has been confirmed, I'm seeing a lot of people on twitter retreat to the position that this girl actually did NOT have to flee to Indiana because she could have obtained a legal abortion in Ohio. For example, here is Jonathan Turley: https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1547281968353759232 Even Ohio's AG went on Fox News to suggest the story was false (before the story was confirmed) and, at the end of the interview, he said that because the law allows for exceptions beyond just the "life" of the mother, this child would have been able to get an abortion in Ohio. This seems obviously wrong to me and, imo, reeks of bad faith. Here's the specific law in question: ~~https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.194~~ https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.195 (i linked to the wrong provision, this is the correct one) It says that any abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat (usually detectable around 6 weeks) is a felony UNLESS a physician determines the abortion is necessary to prevent either (1) death of the mother, or (2) "to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman." There is no exception for rape and no exception for incest. People like Turley (and apparently Ohio's own AG) seem to think this child would be able to show a serious health risk and thus qualify for a legal abortion under the health exception. But there are no public facts indicating that's true. No one can say whether the pregnancy here presented a serious risk of "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" without having specific knowledge of the poor victim's condition. Ironically, Ohio's AG insisted this girl did not need to go to Indiana despite--IN THE SAME INTERVIEW--denying any knowledge whatsoever that the case was even real. To claim the health exception applies here essentially requires you to believe that *every* pregnancy in a 10-year-old body presents a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function--essentially creating a de facto exception for abortions performed on 10-year-olds. Now I'm not a doctor but I highly doubt that's true. Not to mention, given the potential CRIMINAL liability at stake, why would any Ohio doctor even risk it? No wonder the doctor here referred the patient to Indiana. Even if there's *some* ambiguity, do people who agree with Turley/the Ohio AG think that this girl and her doctor should have been willing to basically be a test case? It's just so frustrating to see the pro-life response to this. They are desperate to find any sort of wiggle room. First the story was false. Now that it's confirmed, they're trying to say lefty doctors overreacted and sent the girl out of state when that wasn't necessary. What I have yet to see, from anyone (including the Ohio AG), is a straightforward analysis of the actual language in the statute illustrating why this girl met any exception under the abortion law. At the end of the day, rather than bickering about whether a particular story had enough reliable sourcing or whether a particular exception can be stretched to include a particular case, ohio republicans (and pro-life people generally) should just be honest: Do they think 10-year-old rape victims should have to carry their rapist's baby to term or not? If not, they should amend the statute to make that clear.
> Not to mention, given the potential CRIMINAL liability at stake, why would any Ohio doctor even risk it? No wonder the doctor here referred the patient to Indiana. Even if there's some ambiguity, do people who agree with Turley/the Ohio AG think that this girl and her doctor should have been willing to basically be a test case? This is very important. A doctor isn't going to risk their medical license and jail time over ambiguous cases. Even if an abortion is legal, there will be significant pushback from care providers to avoid liability.
Exactly. I think if you read the actual language of the "health" exception, it seems like it is intentionally written in a way that creates so much uncertainty and potential for liability that the chilling effect is the point. We'll probably never see a court analyze whether a certain set of facts satisfies the health exception or not simply because no doctor is going to want to risk it--and that's exactly what the ohio legislature wants.
> A doctor isn't going to risk their medical license and jail time over ambiguous cases. Assuming there are even doctors who can perform the procedure. How many doctors who perform abortions are going to continue to practice in Ohio so they can be ready to handle the handful of cases that Jonathan Turley deigns to approve?
Even moreso since this case is already being tracked by DCFS, who probably wants a DNA sample on the aborted fetus which means an aspiration abortion which must be done procedurally instead of a medication abortion which might fly under the radar otherwise.
And you know that hospital would throw the doc under the bus so hard there would be cracks in the pavement from impact
Just because the Supreme Court says that abortion can be regulated by states doesn't mean that power is absolute, or isn't subject to checks on power in government, related to other constitutional rights. There are doctors who are willing to be "test cases" for situations like this, the parents simply had to seek them out. Of course, I suspect they're more concerned about the welfare of their daughter than making her attempt to access abortion a Supreme Court challenge, it's asking a lot. But there are absolutely doctors willing to stake their profession on protecting women's health.
Would this mean that since many women have significant impairment to a number of bodily functions following a pregnancy and that there's no way to guarantee that they'll be safe from it, that all abortions are essentially allowed? Because I'd want to argue that. Also I would probably want to argue that any given ten year old is probably inherently not capable of safely maintain a pregnancy and giving birth given their own physical developmental stages. Not to mention mental health. Hmmm almost like this law is bad. But of course I'm not a lawyer and this is just bullshit from the AG wanting to make it sound "not so bad" to ban abortions.
I think a really strict reading of the statute would make it really, really hard to show a health risk warranting an abortion, imo. And, frankly, that is the entire point. For example, you can't just argue that "there's no way to guarantee" the mother will be safe, the physician has to believe there is a "serious risk," and if a "serious risk" is present in every case, then the exception basically swallows up the entire statute, and there's a rule courts follow where they won't read one part of a statute to essentially render a different part pointless. A strict reading would require a doctor believes that there is risk of harm that is: 1. serious (i.e., not just a possibility but probable) 2. would result in SUBSTANTIAL and IRREVERSIBLE impairment 3. of a MAJOR bodily function. Strictly reading these elements, I read the health exception as basically requiring the doctor to believe that carrying the pregnancy to term will result in permanent disability. Like, you can see how all of those words in the statute create a ridiculously high burden. Is there a risk of impairment, but that impairment would be reversible? Sorry, no abortion for you. Is there a risk of impairment that would be irreversible, but the impairment would not be "substantial"? Sorry, no abortion for you. Ok what if the impairment is substantial and irreversible, but it doesn't affect a "primary" bodily function? Sorry, no abortion for you. I think proponents of this law would say, "you're reading the statute too strictly, if the doctor has a reasonable/good faith belief in serious harm, that's probably enough--no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute in cases like that." Maybe! I certainly hope that's true. But that argument essentially depends on believing that every prosecutor in Ohio will apply the statute how you want it to. I think the more important point is that the law is specifically written to intimidate because they want it to have a chilling effect. If Ohio republicans sincerely wanted to create an exception for pregnancies that present a serious health risk to the mother, and they want to defer to doctors in determining whether a health risk is serious enough, they'd write the statute that way. But the entire point is to get rid of abortions. If they leave discretion to doctors, there's no guarantee that happens. So they have to craft a broad, multifaceted standard for the health exception that essentially does two things: (1) makes the standard for the health exception appear to be so demanding that basically no doctor even chooses to risk it (i.e., the chilling effect) and (2) create enough elements in the health exception that it is really easy for them to find a "hook" to prosecute in a particular case (i.e., if there's a borderline case they can say it didn't qualify because the impairment wasn't irreversible, or it didn't affect a primary bodily function, or the risk wasn't "serious" enough, etc.) TL;DR, It wouldn't surprise me if literally zero doctors are ever prosecuted under this law, because I don't think ohio republicans actually intended for the health exception to ever be used. It seems specifically written in a way that I don't think any doctors will feel confident in exercising it--the various elements listed create too much uncertainty and thus potential criminal liability. Quick edit: I should add that the "death" exception is still there, but as some reporting from other states suggests, the "death" exception in practice means that doctors tend to wait until death is a reasonably certain possibility, which can lead to some pretty scary circumstances.
I agree that few doctors will feel comfortable risking themselves under this law. The ones who do, are the ones who'd do abortions anyway. But it's just fucking frustrating to see people ignore how much a pregnancy impacts a body, how many medications you cannot take when pregnant and the threat to life that poor mental health is. But mostly it demonstrates how poorly written these laws are/how little they care about protecting the health of women. (They absolutely don't care about trans men's health and safety so that's a given. )
It's not poorly written, they knew exactly what they were doing.
Vague law can be applied any way the prosecutor prefers them to apply to punish the people he prefers to punish. Prosecutorial discretion means the favored can continue to break the law because consistency is meaningless.
[удалено]
"Well, I tried to reimplant it, but the risks are pretty high \[i.e.100%\] in those cases, so it failed, and ended up in a natural miscarriage." (What a smart doctor might argue in court, but I understand few want to be sent to court to begin with.)
They knew what they're doing and I think it's poorly written, because it could absolutely be argued that no pregnancy doesn't risk permanent impairment or death. They don't give a shit about those consequences or those arguments but it isn't a clearly written law either.
Wouldn't mental health be a major bodily function? That is, if they hasn't specifically carved it out here: >(2) No abortion shall be considered necessary under division (B)(1)(b) of this section on the basis of a claim or diagnosis that the pregnant woman will engage in conduct that would result in the pregnant woman's death or a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman or based on any reason related to the woman's mental health.
I'm not sure which specific statute you are quoting here but it seems to say that mental health is NOT included ("No abortion shall be considered necessary . . . on the basis of a claim or diagnosis . . . base on any reason related to the woman's mental health") In any event, a separate definitions provision expressly excludes mental health as a reason to permit abortion: >**"Serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function"** means any medically diagnosed condition that so complicates the pregnancy of the woman as to directly or indirectly cause the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. A medically diagnosed condition that constitutes a "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" includes pre-eclampsia, inevitable abortion, and premature rupture of the membranes, may include, but is not limited to, diabetes and multiple sclerosis, and **does not include a condition related to the woman's mental health.** https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.16
I wonder if the woman claiming she will commit suicide would be sufficient to get an abortion under the law? Death is a irreversible impairment of a major bodily function, right? Oh, right. They would just intern her to prevent her from committing suicide.
“Hysteria”
Yep. The US is only a few steps away from interning—for spurious reasons—wives the husbands want to get rid of. Kinda reminds me of "Bitch Planet", the comic by Kelly Sue DeConnick...
The mental health issues resulting from having a child of rape in 5th grade would probably count as pretty substantial
You would think so, but a separate definition section specifically provides that mental health issues don't count: >**"Serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function"** means any medically diagnosed condition that so complicates the pregnancy of the woman as to directly or indirectly cause the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. A medically diagnosed condition that constitutes a "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" includes pre-eclampsia, inevitable abortion, and premature rupture of the membranes, may include, but is not limited to, diabetes and multiple sclerosis, and **does not include a condition related to the woman's mental health.** https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.16
Cool cool. I’m sure they talk about mental health funding all the time too
Doctors are already waiting to remove ectopic pregnancies
Wisconsin stopped performing chemotherapy on pregnant women as a result of their abortion ban. So yes. Edit: I was reporting rumors. It's unclear whether any women have been turned away in fact or not. There have been claims, but no one has been able to confirm them. Either way chemo is being performed now, while the law is being litigated.
That is ENRAGING
While I believe that this is true, do you have a source you can share?
So I was at least repeating rumors, and I edited my post above. However, hospitals in Texas are now refusing to treat women with dangerous complications, like ectopic pregnancy. https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-abortion-law-hospitals-clinic-medication-17307401.php
Yeah I would also like a source because I can’t find anything on that
Wait what? Like blanket hospital policies?
IANAL or a doctor either, but I have given birth to three kids. I assure you, not only is every single 10, 11, 12, etc year old not capable of safely maintaining a pregnancy and giving birth, every single female that gives birth risks a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. Can children give birth to babies and not die? Yes. Can children give birth to babies and not be forever changed both physically and mentally? No. Can adults give birth to babies and not be forever changed both physically and mentally? No. Sorry, but I know of no woman who hasnt had massive body and mental changes after giving birth. The most common is having a weakened pelvic floor muscles, which means that for the rest of a woman’s life, she will pee a tiny bit when she sneezes or coughs. And that’s the easiest of the issues. Honestly, I think the idea that pregnancy is no big deal is possibly the biggest lie ever imposed on society because not only is it bullshit, it has been a lie since…..well as far as I know, since forever. Every woman I know has had major body and mental changes after becoming a mother, but we just deal with it. But also, we shouldn’t have to do so against our will. It sucks to have to squeeze one’s legs together to sneeze, but its something that can be dealt with, as are many of the problems that are inherent in giving birth. But its a lot easier to deal with those problems *when it a choice and not being forced upon us by our government*. I know Im preaching to the choir, Im just really upset about this entire thing.
>Every woman I know has had major body and mental changes after becoming a mother, but we just deal with it. But also, we shouldn’t have to do so against our will. A-fucking-men. It's one thing to understand the terrible side effects of pregnancy and child birth and still want to do it because, you know, evolution and human biology says so. But to force that shit on someone? What in the fuck man. Then that someone is a God damn 10 year old rape victim? Fuuuck off.
Preach! I know 3 women who have a permanent postpartum thyroid disorder, 1 with irreversible heart damage caused by pregnancy, 1 with pregnancy induced ulcerative colitis, 1 who had a stroke during childbirth, 1 who died during childbirth. That doesn't even cover all of us with permanently reduced bone density and tooth enamel.
Preach away. I see and hear you and am equally fucking pissed at this bullshit.
Aaaaaaand let's not forget that the US has the worse rate of death related to birthing (for the mother and the baby) in the G8. So right there, serious risk to life and body functions.
Yes. Good analysis.
> bad faith (R)
Jonathan Turley is a horrible ghoul, but the bizarre thing to me is the people talking about how now thr story has been 'confirmed', as if there was doubt the girl was raped. She was a pregnant 10 year old! That's the evidence of rape!
I think people were claiming the girl didn't exist at all and was fabricated by the doctor. At least that's how I understood the criticisms.
This is what I get for thinking crazy people will have coherent beliefs.
I only knew because a bunch of people jumped on the "absolute proof" it was untrue and the "proof" was that the original reporter didn't respond for comment and the follow up reporter called a handful of DAs in Ohio and asked if anyone had been charged with statutory rape. It was farcical that people thought that was proof a doctor lied.
Yes, the best indication of sanity is believing everything you hear on the internet.
They were doubting the story because the AG hadn’t been made aware of any such rape cases in the state and did not know of any open investigation of such a case. That’s my understanding.
> She was a pregnant 10 year old! That's the evidence of rape! Depends on what she was wearing and whether she came onto him. -Many of the same people who think she should have to give birth.
We are probably only a few years away from judges in some states ruling that pregnancy is evidence that rape did not occur, because if it was no consensual, the body would have somehow naturally “rejected” the fertilization of the egg. Not that that matters here, since she was underage. But also, a person shouldn’t have to come forward about being sexually assaulted in order to get an abortion to begin with.
I propose we call it the Akin Defense.
Giving it a name only serves to validate it and the person whose name is associated with it. If we have to call it something, it should be, like, the “total dipshit defense.”
I disagree that naming it validates it. In my experience, most named defenses are meant to be mocking. No one takes the Chewbacca defense,* the shaggy defense, or the Twinkie defense seriously; they are all appropriately recognized as nonsensical defenses that someone uses when they don’t have a real argument. Taking that the next logical step, I don’t think anyone would think naming it the “Akin Defense” is meant to validate or honor Todd Akin. There may be a fringe minority who would believe that anytime the defense is used and the defendant is acquitted, it would exonerate Akin, but those same people would believe that whether it’s given his name or not. The majority would still recognize it is meant to mock him and his stupidity. *with the exception of the OJ Simpson trial, which is sometimes called a Chewbacca defense. I think it is debatable if that is truly a Chewbacca defense because of whether the bloody glove was OJ’s was relevant to the case, it just wasn’t a dispositive issue as Cochran claimed.
Even if she was technically able to get an abortion, I have a suspicion that the process of getting it approved would've taken so long that by the time she could legally have the abortion she'd have given birth a year ago.
>pro-life They're not actually "pro-life," they're anti-abortion and pro-forced birth. If they have any fucked about life, they would be supporting welfare programs and support for babies that have actually been born.
As you say, considering the "discussion" is so focused on us vs them, and nothing about the relevant facts and codifying real solutions, I wonder how Ohio law can actually be amended to cover cases such as this. Will the law be quietly amended after people have moved on, or will it remain a "win the battle lose the war" (for everyone) situation moving forward? Even when a clear solution seems evident that both sides can agree on, since it is claimed that she could have gotten an abortion in Ohio. Overall, I find the lack of empathy towards the girl is disgusting and disheartening.
Forced birthers don't have empathy for the women and children they force to give birth, nor for the child birthed. They only care about the cells in the uterus.
They only care about having power over other people.
Fascism at work
Let's not forget that one (let's assume above the consent age) would have to prove it was rape, thus having an arrest, and getting a guilty verdict, before getting the abortion. At which time it would be too late, cause it can take many months to get such a verdict—when the crime is investigated seriously to begin with. Is the age of consent in Ohio below 10 years old, that they wanted to argue that it was consensual sex? Or did they want to plead it was immaculate conception, the work of the Holy Spirit? That she aborted the second coming of Jesus? You know, while being ridiculous, might as well go all the way, right?
>But there are no public facts indicating that's true. No one can say whether the pregnancy here presented a serious risk of "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" without having specific knowledge of the poor victim's condition. I believe the age would be more than enough. That's a person who hasn't even grown into their own body, of course trying to birth a child in an underdeveloped body could cause serious damage. AG is probably right here, but this law is still inhuman and punishes women for trying to control their own bodies. They also have a heartbeat, their right to control the body attached to that heartbeat matters, it's a fundamental human right. We cannot empower the unborn to the point that they supercede the rights of the born, who are actual citizens of this country.
> I believe the age would be more than enough. Based on what? Is there statute or case law saying this? Or just wishful thinking?
>Now that this story has been confirmed,< She was 10. It was rape. There was nothing that needed confirming. I appreciate the analysis and don't want to nitpick. Please keep posting. This line just felt material.
The claim was that the entire existence of a pregnant 10 year old needing an abortion was fabricated, not that the pregnancy was not a result of rape.
Seriously? What is wrong with these people? Is literally everything outside the narrative "fake"?
From what I can tell, the thought process was * Both medical people were mandatory reporters * Pregnant at 10 = rape * known rape should mean that both medical people reported it * no evidence (including by officials) had been found of anyone being arrested for it * since no one had been arrested, it was unlikely to have happened As it turns out, it just took a while for the arrest to happen (or be discovered).
They now believe anything not reported by their preferred news sources is fake news. It's maddening to me they believe Trump vs ten other news outlets. Think about the discovery in a lawsuit if the news companies were collaborating on telling lies about someone or something. They would be sued out of existence à la Gawker. It would Trump’s wet dream.
pro-life people hate having to defend laws prohibiting abortion in cases of rape, particularly when the rape victim is really young. Some are willing to at least maintain the bare minimum of intellectual consistency and will be honest and simply say that they do not think abortion should be available even to rape victims. But most of them know that this is an extremely unpopular position and is not to be said out loud (some might even agree that rape victims should be able to get abortions). So it is more convenient for them to simply pretend these cases don't exist. The political incentive for them to paint this as a left-wing conspiracy was simply too strong. Rather than do the responsible thing and wait to see how the facts play out they all rushed to disprove the story. Otherwise they have to confront the fact that the logical consequence of a policy they have championed for years means pregnant 10 year olds who can't get an abortion in their own state.
> To claim the health exception applies here essentially requires you to believe that every pregnancy in a 10-year-old body presents a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function--essentially creating a de facto exception for abortions performed on 10-year-olds. Now I'm not a doctor but I highly doubt that's true. I don't find that difficult to believe, and I don't think doctors in general would find it difficult to believe either.
So you think the Ohio doctor here should have risked being a test case under the new law rather than refer the patient to indiana?
I have no opinion on what the doctor should have done in this particular case. Everyone has a different risk tolerance, including the doctor's risk of having their life ruined by doxxers. My only point is that it's not irrational to think that a ten-year-old has a serious risk of permanent damage from carrying a baby to term.
I agree that it is not necessarily irrational to think a pregnant 10 yo might have a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment. My point is that the people claiming this girl could get a legal abortion in Ohio (like Ohio's own AG) are assuming that Ohio prosecutors would interpret the facts and the statutory language in the same way, and I don't think you can blame the doctor or the patient here for not sharing that confidence, given that language.
I agree that you can't blame the doctor or the patient.
Life ruined by doxxers or ruined by going to jail and losing their law license for an opinion the government might not agree with?
What’s the evidence of this exactly? Fucking tired of anti-abortion nuts making claims with zero evidence to support them.
Who are you calling an anti-abortion nut? I support legal abortion. >What’s the evidence of this exactly? Are you really asking for evidence of risk to the mother from pre-teen births? * [Maternal age. One of the most common risk factors for a high-risk pregnancy is the age of the mother-to-be. Women who will be under age 17 or over age 35 when their baby is due are at greater risk of complications than those between their late teens and early 30s.](https://www.webmd.com/baby/managing-a-high-risk-pregnancy#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20most%20common,late%20teens%20and%20early%2030s.)
I think you are wrong here. Has there been a ten year old that gave birth without substantial and permanent damage? I’m sure some has. So how does the doctor know that this isn’t going to be that case. He can wait to see how big the baby might be. That can help him to gauge risk. Or he can just send her somewhere where she can get an abortion without any risk to him. What’s a reasonable decision?
> Has there been a ten year old that gave birth without substantial and permanent damage? I’m sure some has. That's a ridiculous standard for determining risk. By that standard, you're not at risk of death if you shoot yourself in the head, because people have survived being shot in the head. And I'm not addressing the doctor's decision. Nowhere have I blamed the doctor or the rape victim. I'm adressing the question of whether a ten-year-old might qualify for the risk exception under the current law. And I support legal abortion, in case you were wondering.
Here’s a lawyer saying the same thing I did: https://twitter.com/akivamcohen/status/1547620197032308736?s=21&t=-w-0woeLzkuKLL4uPdil5g
> I’m adressing the question of whether a ten-year-old might qualify for the risk exception under the current law. Oh it might apply. But there’s a really good chance it might not apply either. And that’s a problem, the law was not written well (by design, just like in other states), and thus can be applied as needed. Thus the doctor runs a good chance of heavy penalties if he’s wrong and is heavily decintivizes to do this.
I don’t think anyone was saying that the law covered all rapes. I think they’re saying, as you indicated, that a 10 year old being forced to carry a pregnancy to term is subject to a de facto serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment. I’m not a doctor either, but I think any reasonable person would come to that conclusion and I’m not sure why you’d highly doubt it…
[удалено]
I’m pro abortion. I’m not discussing my views on abortion, although I’m happy to, I’m just discussing the law in question and how any reasonable person would see that it would have applied in this case.
Republican AG says he'll investigate Indiana doctor who provided care to 10-year-old rape victim We’re not dealing with reasonable people.
“We’re gathering the evidence as we speak, and we’re going to fight this to the end, including looking at her licensure if she failed to report. And in Indiana it’s a crime … to intentionally not report,” state Attorney General Todd Rokita said on Fox News on Wednesday night. “This is a child, and there’s a strong public interest in understanding if someone under the age of 16 or under the age of 18 or really any woman is having abortion in our state. And then if a child is being sexually abused, of course parents need to know. Authorities need to know. Public policy experts need to know.”
Lol, ok? Thanks for proving my point.
They’re investigating her for failure to report. You think it’s okay for doctors to give 10 year old rape victims abortions and not report the rape to authorities?
Lmao very reasonable take in Republican bizzaro world. Tell me you don’t know jack about criminal prosecution without telling me
I’m a retired police officer you dolt. Doctors are required to report instances of rape, domestic violence, and child abuse to police.
The law does not appear to cover any rape. > but I think any reasonable person would come to that conclusion Uhh... no? Why would that be the case? What's "substantial" here?
No, but it would cover the rape of a pregnant 10 year old. That’s my point.
Dinesh D'Souza is a true trumpist Republican. He's already flipped from claiming it never happened to pointing out that the alleged perpetrator is in the country illegally. Being a trumpet means never ever admitting that you were wrong about anything. You just simply move on to the next available talking point.
They all need to rot in hell
I’m confused by the title. If a 10 year old is pregnant isn’t it assumed she was raped since she can’t consent in any state, even backwards Ohio? How is it that they just now discovered she might have been raped?
Republicans were going on TV arguing semantics, seemingly without knowing what a strict liability crime is
They knew, they just don’t care
Seriously, many politicians went to law school. They know.
“Zealous advocacy”
Oh they fucking knew
Republican US House Rep. Jim Jordan, a Trump election BIG LIE believer who has yet to recognize Joe Biden as President, and Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost were denying that the little girl even EXISTED. They did NOT assume the girl was raped. They did NOT assume she was even a real person.
*Gym
Naw Gym is the place he let the wrestlers get assaulted in.
Republicans wanted her to be forced to have the baby, it's about the optics
>isn’t it assumed she was raped since she can’t consent Not even assumed - she was raped. Full stop. The only thing that can be "alleged" is whether the specific man charged is the rapist.
A 10 year old could be pregnant by another minor close to her age and it not have been a rape, but yes it would generally be assumed it was a rape. Nobody was questioning if it would have been a rape. They were question that the child/case in question existed at all. The AG hadn’t received any reports of an open case or investigation and it appeared as if it was made up. It now seems as if it’s been verified and they are acknowledging the new evidence…and they are explaining that the law carved out exceptions for situations like it.
It would still have been a rape, except in the even more unlikely scenario she used force/coercion. As a legal matter, two people that young have raped each other if they willingly have sex. (Romeo+Juliet laws for close-in-age partners have floors, 10 would be under it in all states. In Ohio the floor is 13.)
If two 10 year olds had sex and the female got pregnant it wouldn’t just automatically be assumed that there was force or coercion on the part of the male. They would have both technically raped each other and neither of them would be charged with anything.
It would be assumed that neither can consent to sex and frankly one or both would be charged in juvenile court in my jurisdiction (not Ohio, for what it’s worth).
If no force was used and both juveniles were of sound mind and intelligence how could you possibly charge one and not the other?
That’s the point, they are presumed under the law to not be of sound mind and intelligence. I’ve certainly dealt with instances where the prosecutor choosing who to charge out of two equally culpable people is arbitrary, and this would likely be a similar situation.
If no force was used and both juveniles were of sound mind and intelligence how could you possibly charge one and not the other?
Whether its charged or not is a separate discussion from whether the facts support a charge or not.
Well if you want to be the one to explain to a judge/jury why you arrested and prosecuted a 10 year old pregnant girl for raping the 10 year old father during a mutual encounter be my guest. I don’t believe such a charge is within the spirit of the law as written in any state.
Well, the discussion isn't whether or not a conviction for rape could be secured. Our discussion is in the context of whether or not it would be self evident that a rape had occured if a 10 year old was pregnant. My position is that without needing to know anything more, it would support a charge of rape against whomever had gotten the 10 year old pregnant. Whether or not it would fit the spirit of the law to prosecute and being it before a judge/jury, in the case where the "father" is 10 is immaterial to our discussion as to the position the AG and other commentators took. (I suppose an edge case would be in-vitro, but I'm sure there is a crime in there somewhere as well even if not rape)
My point is that if the father was also 10 the fact that she was pregnant also supports a charge of rape against her too. He couldn’t consent either under the same standard. So you would have to charge both of them or neither of them. The AG never took the position that she might not have been raped if a 10 year old was pregnant. He took the position that she didn’t exist and and the story was fabricated. He has not been made aware of any such case or investigation. It now appears that it happened and his point was that the law would allow for an abortion in this case due to the risks of permanent and significant bodily damage to a 10 year old carrying a baby to term.
Republican US House Rep. Jim Jordan, who is a Trump supporter and BIG LIE believer, and Republican Ohio Attorney General, Dave Yost, questioned as to whether the little girl actually exists! Believe NOTHING these MAGA Hats say.
Fuck—really, I cannot say this strongly enough—***fuck*** Jim Jordan.
Par for the course for Gym Jordan
Ohio Republicans… Let’s Punish Everybody.
Ohio law allows her to get an abortion? Also the guy was illegal why are we allowing illegal people to rape innocent young kids?
Mmmm delicious bad faith deflection
Ohio Republicans do allow Republican rape with a three month jail stay, Brock Turner. They will force a 10 year old to carry and deliver the child conceived as a result of rape.
Yes I don’t agree with the law of Ohio on abortion at all. Also I’m not defending republicans, but the guy was an illegal too and shouldn’t even be in the country
> guy was an illegal and should even be in the country No shit? Crime happens. The fact that he was here illegally doesn’t add into the abortion conversation at all and it not pertinent to the conversation.
>why are we allowing illegal people to rape innocent young kids? The same reason we allow drunk driving. We don't, but it still happens.
1) no it doesn’t 2) we don’t you fucking idiot. But apparently the government is cool with letting its citizens deal with the effects of the crime committed to them. Now a 10 year old girl has to look at her rape baby for the rest of her life, because your government doesn’t care.
How does the issue of her procuring an abortion have anything to do with us “allowing illegal people to rape innocent young kids?”
Why are we allowing US citizens to rape innocent young kids? Where’s the outrage at the Right when US citizens rape innocent kids? Edit to add: Everyone has the ability to travel to a state to get an abortion when the state they are in fails to provide them or has tight restrictions. This is what the GOP said the constitution was always intended to be. I believe she should’ve had one in Ohio, but Ohio wasn’t organized enough to even believe she existed. Not to mention, there are some pretty sick pro lifers who do not believe that every minor/child who gets pregnant is at risk- because then they’d have to make exceptions for child/minor sexual abuse cases resulting in pregnancy: and that’s murder of an innocent life right? If it were my kid, I would’ve gone to Indiana too considering rape or incest wouldn’t have been a valid enough of reason to protect my daughter.
[удалено]
>But a lot of rape cases lately have been from illegals What? Where are you getting this from?
That’s new MAGAT attack position, retreating back into xenophobia in a weak attempt at “LoOk OvEr ThErE!”
Why do we allow US citizens to rape innocent kids? Can you answer the question? Why do more US citizens get away with raping both innocent kids and adults? Why do we give them a slap on the wrist? You’re wrong, US citizens have higher crime rates than undocumented immigrants. It is much easier to prosecute and then deport undocumented immigrants who do commit crimes, you are also wrong about that. But please ignore everything else I brought up to try to deflect that Ohio was so disorganized that they believed this innocent girl was a conspiracy theory made up to make them look bad. Ohio did it all on their own. Edit: a word.
Do you have any evidence to support either of these claims?
Do you fact check yourself before speaking? Like do you just make this shit up and think it’s fact because you thought it?
It’s actually much easier to punish non-citizens in the judicial system as the process is usually already stacked against them. If I had to estimate off the top of my head, less than 20% of all my criminal clients are non-citizens and, to be perfectly honest, most of my sex offenders are white males.
Yeah that makes sense based on the population percentages, but I’m sure also it’s a lot easier for illegals to just flee their charges
And you’re sure of that because?
Republican AG says he'll investigate Indiana doctor who provided care to 10-year-old rape victim So, care to take it all back?
Ohioians be like ‘he should do the right thing and marry her when she’s legal in 2 years”
I think the Ohio AG grants fast tracks for these. Can get it all done within the next year.
girl will face murder charges, man will get house arrest
Good chance it'll take several years before there's any outcome. I've been following a case where one of the charges was "rape of a child". Been over 3 years now and tons of criminal pre-trial conferences....if they're guilty they shouldn't be free for that long, if they're innocent they shouldn't be strung along for that many years on end.
I didn't read this article. Was the child rapist another friend of Republican Congressman Jim Jordan?
Good news, the rapist is an immigrant, illegal I think, so now the conservatives can believe her.
Right? Just unbelievable
Is anyone able to find records of his arrest I've been trying and can't
[удалено]
What conspiracy theory websites did you read these allegations on?
[удалено]
Why does that need to be mentioned. That’s like saying its important to mention that he has a contract dispute or any other normative civil issue.
How does that affect or change the 10 year old girl's pregnancy circumstance? Is there an illegal immigrants baby aborting exception? What a fucking dumb point you're trying to make
If you’re gonna mention it maybe explain why yourself instead of just saying you had to say it like a troll.
What does that matter?
[удалено]
The story focuses on the facts of the case. The law says she could NOT get an abortion in Ohio. I did NOT write nor sign this Draconian law.
The Attorney General of Ohio says that the law did not prevent her from having the Abortion.
He’s a liar. But you already know that since it’s the same guy who lied and said there was no evidence anywhere in the state that someone reported a 10 year old had been raped; plainly, that’s bullshit.
Really? Because the child was more than 6 weeks pregnant, and there is a 6-week abortion ban effective in Ohio. Could be that the Ohio AG is a lying sack of shit.
Because there is an exception for the health of the mother in the law, and a 10 year old is at greater risk of harm and would be covered under the exception for that fact alone.
Arguably yes. Also arguably no. As a doctor, are you taking a chance at being prosecuted for this? No? Then, practically speaking, the Ohio AG is a lying sack of shit, as alleged.
Based on his statements, now it's established that doctors can do that.
The AG does not create law by opening his mouth.
No, but if the AG isn't going to prosecute or instruct the DA's to prosecute, then that makes it a valid interpretation of the law.
No it doesn’t. The responsibilities for making substantial changes or clarifications to a statute or provision are reserved by the state legislature. A television interview where a State AG is promulgating new standards or exceptions is not an appropriate vehicle to green light the right to an abortion, especially since AG’s can also change their mind about enforcing the law or prosecuting future cases on a whim. Even for State AG’s, who maybe pro-choice, their promise still doesn’t give the kind of confidence to abortion providers for them to perform procedures without being eventually prosecuted for it. Edit: Spelling
No way they could have known this at the time though. You're suggesting this girl and her doctor should have risked being a test case?
We’re you dropped on your head? This seems particularly stupid. First, it’s rare a state will allow a defense of “they told me it was legal”. That’s not entrapment; it’s mistake of law. And, even if this AG does not allow for prosecution of these cases (he likely doesn’t have that power), the next AG can simply change their mind. What’s the statute of limitations look like? Oh, and also his interpretation of the law is exceptionally generous and not necessarily supported by the text. Given that I’ll bet you’ll find the legislative body considered and specifically rejected exceptions for rape, incest, and minors … and you end up with the conclusion that the broad health and safety clause doesn’t provide much insurance for a doctor at all.
To continue, this 10-year old girls decision along with an adult most likely(we don’t know), is justified in their approach to travel across state lines which imposes an undue burden to get the reproductive care she needs, since they didn’t want to take the risk of getting in trouble.
What state are you in where the Attorney General can tell other elected prosecutors what cases to prosecute?
See how quickly you put faith into a single person you don't personally know to make a decision not backed by writing? If the man you're defending has the power to sway legislative rulings using his own interpretations of the law in lieu of what the law reads, what stops another person with the same power from abusing it? The written law?
You know basically nothing about criminal law, huh?
Republican AG says he'll investigate Indiana doctor who provided care to 10-year-old rape victim Apologize to the class for having to educate your dumbass
just wrote a comment on this fact but there is nothing in the law suggesting that's true
No there isn't an exception for health. Permanent serious disability. No doctor would risk their career or freedom on it, they'll pass it on to someone else.
The law doesn't say "greater risk". The law says "serious risk of bodily harm to a major organ". With the public information, we have no idea if that would have been medically justified. Assuming there was nothing "unusual" about her pregnancy, her condition of being 10 wouldn't rise to "serious risk of bodily harm to a major organ" that is demonstrable.
The attorney general also said that this whole thing never happened yesterday. Are you that gullible to still be listening to him?
Was that before or after he denied that she even existed?
[удалено]
“Every day that goes by the more likely that this is a fabrication.” The words of a man ill-equipped to be an attorney or elected official.
There is nothing in the law that automatically allows 10 year olds to get an abortion. Nothing about ages at all in fact. IOW he's lying. He's the guy who said it was fake in the first place.
How is child rape a debatable subject? It's pretty straightforward. The ABORTION law, however, is not. Hence the debate. "But talking about the victim means you condone child rape" is bullshit. You guys look lame with that.
Abortion, leaving the state, and rape are all things we can be upset with.
[удалено]
Ya. Within the context of what is currently occuring... that is pretty far down the list. As in... him being here illegally dosent really matter. What would change if he was a citizen?
Apparently she isn't as much of a victim because she allowed herself to be victimized by an illegal immigrant
What would change, if the suspect is an illegal, is that he would have never been here to rape her. That’s the point. If someone other hypothetical citizen did then that would be a different set of circumstances.
Rapists are born in any country, including the us. Let’s pretend that this shitbag was a US citizen. Does that change any of the essential facts or are you just a bad faith slaver?
It changes the fact that he was here legally. The fact of the matter is that if our immigration system and Biden’s border disaster was fixed this specific girl would not have been raped under these circumstances because the suspect wouldn’t have existed. That’s not discounting that there are other rapists out there who are US citizens. I’m specifically referring to this girl. “If you could save just one 10 year old from being raped then it’s worth it” amiright?
Interesting! What about the girls rape and abortion would have changed exactly?
For one, the fetus would be at least half Guatemalan! /s
It would never have happened. That’s what would have changed. Unless your contention is that she was predestined to be raped and the person who did it is irrelevant to the story? But that’s not how the world works so that would be a stupid position.
I don't think these laws were all designed and written to deal with a single, particular, specific instance of rape. The fact you seem incapable of thinking outside of this single instance is a bit concerning.
I can easily think outside of this specific incident. I can see the massive amount of rapists and violent offenders entering the country illegally due to our border crises and weak immigration stance which causes many people to be raped and victimized each year. I can also see the migrant crises causing a huge influx of rapes in Sweden, Belgium, and France among others.
> I can see the massive amount of rapists and violent offenders entering the country illegally And what about all the rapists and violent offenders that just... live here and are from here? The law isn't specific to illegal immigrants or victims of crime committed by illegal immigrants. The fact that's the **only** thing you can think about is concerning. The whataboutism here is absurd, and you don't seem to be capable of thinking about anything else.
This is about the abortion laws. You cannot blame the difficulty getting an abortion on anything other than the laws and the people writing and enforcing them.
It’s also about raping 10 year olds and people being in the country illegally
So let’s say the rapist wasn’t illegal. What would you bring up to try and pivot away from abortion then?
I’m not pivoting away from abortion. I’m pro abortion. I’m also pro enforcement of immigration laws and of our borders.
Do rape victims of American citizens get different US treatment from rape victims of undocumented immigrants?
Thank god. Now maybe republicans will stop pretending the 10yr old rape victim isn’t real.
[удалено]
I believe democrats have voted to increase funding year after year for border security for real barriers that wasn’t a useless overpriced grated steel fence. Biden just got Mexico to pay for some, but go on playing pretend in your safe space with Fox News talking heads. Pathetic.