As Ohio restricts abortions, 10-year-old girl travels to Indiana for procedure

Link (Archive - http://archive.today/ravJs)

On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.

Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.

Could Bernard help?

Indiana lawmakers are poised to further restrict or ban abortion in mere weeks. The Indiana General Assembly will convene in a special session July 25 when it will discuss restrictio ns to abortion policy along with inflation relief.


But for now, the procedure still is legal in Indiana. And so the girl soon was on her way to Indiana to Bernard's care.

Indiana abortion laws unchanged, but effect still felt across state​

While Indiana law did not change last week when the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking Dobbs decision, abortion providers here have felt an effect, experiencing a dramatic increase in the number of patients coming to their clinics from neighboring states with more restrictive policies.


Since Friday, the abortion clinics where Dr. Katie McHugh, an independent obstetrician-gynecologists works have seen “an insane amount of requests” from pregnant people in Kentucky and Ohio, where it is far more difficult to get an abortion.
A ban on abortions after six weeks took effect on last week in Ohio. Last Friday the two abortion providers in Kentucky shut their doors after that state’s trigger law banning abortions went into effect.
Indiana soon could have similar restrictions.
That pains doctors like Bernard.
“It’s hard to imagine that in just a few short weeks we will have no ability to provide that care,” Bernard said.

For now, Indiana abortion providers have been fielding more calls from neighboring states. Typically about five to eight patients a day might hail from out of state, said McHugh, who works at multiple clinics in central and southern Indiana. Now, the clinics are seeing about 20 such patients a day.

Kentucky patients have been coming to Indiana in higher numbers since earlier this spring when more restrictive laws took effect there, McHugh said.

Indianapolis abortion clinics seeing surge in patients from Ohio, Kentucky​


A similar dynamic is at play at Women’s Med, a medical center that performs abortions in Indianapolis that has a sister center in Dayton, Ohio. In the past week, they have doubled the number of patients they treat for a complete procedure, accepting many referrals from their Ohio counterpart.

More than 100 patients in Dayton had to be scheduled at the Indianapolis facility, a representative for Women’s Med, wrote in an email to IndyStar.

Women and pregnant people are “crying, distraught, desperate, thankful and appreciative,” the representative wrote.

The two centers are working together to route patients to Indianapolis for a termination after a pre-op appointment in Dayton. In recent months, they have also had people from southern states, like Texas, come north for a procedure.

Many patients, particularly from Ohio and Kentucky, are seeking care through Women’s Med while also making multiple appointments in other states so if one state closes down, they will still have some options, the representative wrote.

The center is advising pregnant people with a positive pregnancy test to book an appointment even though prior to the Supreme Court ruling they asked people to wait until their six-week mark to do so.

For years people have traversed state lines for abortions, particularly if a clinic across the border is closer to their home than the nearest in-state facility.

In 2021, 465, or about 5.5% of the more than 8,400 abortions performed, were done on out-of-state residents, according to the Indiana Department of Health's most recent terminated pregnancy report. More than half, 264, lived in Kentucky and 40 in Ohio.

Midwestern residents can also travel to Illinois, where abortion is likely to remain legal even in the wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling but for many Indiana is closer and until the lawmakers pass any measure to the contrary, abortion will be legal here.

Still, it remains murky what the future holds.

Thursday a lower court ruled that abortions could resume, at least for now, in Kentucky. On Wednesday abortion clinics in Ohio filed suit, saying that state’s new ban was unconstitutional.

In Indiana lawmakers have declined to provide specifics of what measures any abortion legislation considered here might contain.

For now, then, abortion providers are doing their best to accommodate all Hoosier patients as well those from neighboring states.

“We are doing the best we can to increase availability and access as long as we can, knowing that this will be a temporary time frame that we can offer that assistance,” McHugh said.
 
Last edited:
It shouldn't, tell me how killing the baby helps her and to a degree that infanticide is justifiable. Even adults regret abortion sometimes, forcing one on a minor, especially of her age, is not good.
You know what's worse, forcing a minor to SEX.

Why are you adamant on having a child carry ANOTHER child to term? That shouldn't even HAPPEN in a just society.

I cannot speak of such a situation to decide since thankfully, I've never experienced or SEEN such a horrific event.

Frankly, IMO, respect the family's privacy in deciding on an abortion to help their child.
 
You know what's worse, forcing a minor to SEX
Nobody is suggesting otherwise. Are you being disingenuous or retarded? I'm going to go with the latter.

Why are you adamant on having a child carry ANOTHER child to term? That shouldn't even HAPPEN in a just society.
Killing babies is more just?

I cannot speak of such a situation to decide since thankfully, I've never experienced or SEEN such a horrific event.

Frankly, IMO, respect the family's privacy in deciding on an abortion to help their child.
I'm almost certain due to the overwhelming likelihood of medical concerns that an abortion is going to happen, if it isn't fake, which it probably and hopefully is.
 
Last edited:
Okay, let's have a 10 year old carry a baby to term from being RAPED and have no other choice with that situation. And still have to retain contact with her rapist because that's the baby daddy. What the actual FUCK?

So now you're accusing people who are pro-life of being anti-rape laws? Or just raging incoherently. Because even in the rare situation where the pregnancy is not a threat to the health of the young mother (thus justifying an abortion even under strict anti-abortion laws) there is nobody, not one person, within the pro-life movement saying that rapists should get to share custody with the kids they beget through rape. Every pro-lifer I know is at least pro-harshest-constitutionally-possible punishment for rapists, especially those who target little kids. And many are pro-woodchipper/helicopter.

It isn't standard in any case for a rape victim to share custody with the man who attacked her. If you saw something in the news about it (I remember some fucked up case 20 years ago) it got to the media because it was a man bites dog aberration.

Fun fact, Planned Parenthood has been caught covering up pedophilia multiple times.

It's almost standard practice to not report these incidents to the police, and many people who posed as teenage girls to call up Planned Parenthood clinics even confirmed it.

It's almost as if abortion is inherently demeaning and misogynistic, because it's a tool used to cover up rape....hmmmmm....

Lila Rose did a hidden camera investigation proving just that. Many never heard of it because the story was actively censored by YouTube, Google, and the MSM for some reason.
 
Okay, let's have a 10 year old carry a baby to term from being RAPED and have no other choice with that situation. And still have to retain contact with her rapist because that's the baby daddy. What the actual FUCK?
You right now
alphaomegaandsigma_Insta_-00_CfUuP_ZOZlc_11-290790045_2924168731209562_2419893459534853282_n.jpg
 
Identifiability is, "if some rando read this and was able to accurately say hey, that's my coworker's daughter!"
Show me the statute that says that.

Also, if your coworkers are in the habit of disclosing to you their 10-year-old daughters being raped or sexually abused (likely by them), it might be time to find new employment.

At least two or three pro-lifers in this thread, myself included, have pointed out that this extreme scenario is exactly what is covered by the life-and-health of mother exceptions written into every abortion limitation in the USA. It's not automatically a threat to the life and health of an older adolescent to be pregnant, but at 10 the kid is undeveloped and small enough it likely is. When two lives are at stake and only one can be saved, you save the one you can save- the mother. No one is disputing that. There are also rape exceptions to every anti-abortion law I know of. A pregnant 10 year old is by definition a victim of rape. So two different ways she qualifies for an exception. I am not disagreeing with that or saying it should be different. There has to be discretion within the law that allows for these rare situations. But they are rare.
Not what we were talking about, don't care.
 
Last edited:
It shouldn't, tell me how killing the baby helps her and to a degree that infanticide is justifiable. Even adults regret abortion sometimes, forcing one on a minor, especially of her age, is not good.
Because the average ten year old girl by and large is not built to carry a child to term and the risk to her life is very real.
 
Me right now:

joanblondellslap.gif

That tweet doesn't even make any sense.

Children CAN get raped.

So now you're accusing people who are pro-life of being anti-rape laws? Or just raging incoherently. Because even in the rare situation where the pregnancy is not a threat to the health of the young mother (thus justifying an abortion even under strict anti-abortion laws) there is nobody, not one person, within the pro-life movement saying that rapists should get to share custody with the kids they beget through rape. Every pro-lifer I know is at least pro-harshest-constitutionally-possible punishment for rapists, especially those who target little kids. And many are pro-woodchipper/helicopter.
The back and forth I had with @SSj_Ness was, from my understanding, that a child should carry a baby to term, even after being raped because "it's killing babies." I'm only saying that eliminating an option such as abortion doesn't help in this case.
 
Do you have a source for that, please?
Here you go. Yes it's an activist group but they released hours of (very tedious) uncut footage for their stings to prove they were not "doctoring the tapes." I watched it all.

A tl;dr sort of, here.

In 2011, a Live Action undercover investigation gathered evidence of eight Planned Parenthood staffers in seven abortion clinics who appeared willing to aid and abet the trafficking of minors. Posing as child-sex traffickers, Live Action investigators visited Planned Parenthood facilities in New York, Arizona, New Jersey, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., inquiring about obtaining abortions, contraception, and STI tests for underage girls.

The investigation footage shows Planned Parenthood employees assisting these supposed traffickers, outlining the best ways to get abortions and birth control for 14- and 15-year-old victims. The staffers said that Planned Parenthood clinics would always ignore parental-consent laws and perform abortions for underage girls involved in sex work, and they explained illegal methods of obtaining from clinics both birth control and abortions for minors without health insurance.

After Live Action released the evidence from its initial investigation, Planned Parenthood told the media that it would train all clinic workers to detect and disclose suspected sexual abuse of minors. In a letter to then–attorney general Eric Holder, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards claimed that her group had looked into the trafficking claims and reported them to the relevant law-enforcement authorities.

But the letter named just four of the five jurisdictions targeted by Live Action’s original sting, suggesting that Planned Parenthood took the allegations less seriously than it claimed. And Live Action’s newest investigation, released yesterday, reveals that Planned Parenthood never followed through on Richards’s promise that it would report the trafficking claims, or on its previous public promises to train clinic workers to detect and report such crimes.
Show me the statute that says that.
You show me ONE statute, anywhere, that actually passed into law, was signed by a governor, and is currently in effect, that does NOT allow for rape/health/life of mother exceptions.
 
You show me ONE statute, anywhere, that actually passed into law, was signed by a governor, and is currently in effect, that does NOT allow for rape/health/life of mother exceptions.
As @SSj_Ness said: abortion is exempt if the MOTHER'S LIFE IS IN DANGER. However, I don't trust every state to follow through on that for whatever reason.
 
As @SSj_Ness said: abortion is exempt if the MOTHER'S LIFE IS IN DANGER. However, I don't trust every state to follow through on that for whatever reason.
Your emotional feelings ("I don't trust") are not the same as the letter or practice of the law. Who the hell cares about your feelings? Someone else may "not trust" the state to refrain from making exceptions wildly and letting women abort at 38 weeks because she feels sad. Their feels are also not informative as to the actual substance of the law.
 
Your emotional feelings ("I don't trust") are not the same as the letter or practice of the law. Who the hell cares about your feelings? Someone else may "not trust" the state to refrain from making exceptions wildly and letting women abort at 38 weeks because she feels sad. Their feels are also not informative as to the actual substance of the law.
What I'm saying is that having a law doesn't mean squat if it isn't upheld. I hope I'm wrong on this. I'm just saying a hypotethical.
 
As @SSj_Ness said: abortion is exempt if the MOTHER'S LIFE IS IN DANGER. However, I don't trust every state to follow through on that for whatever reason.
Abortionists are chomping at the bit to perform them like @Mothra1988 , and few would question the procedure in this case, so I don't think that's a likely scenario. If it's deemed medically necessary she'll get one, and probably still will even if it's not. If the rapist is her father or something he'll be sure to insist upon it.
 
You show me ONE statute, anywhere, that actually passed into law, was signed by a governor, and is currently in effect, that does NOT allow for rape/health/life of mother exceptions.
Cute deflection, but no, prince, I asked *you.* *You* brought up the subject of maternal danger, not me. I'm not debating the letter of the law; I'm debating the retarded attitude all you scrotes seem to have, namely that it's impossible that a ten-year-old might need an abortion, and that referring to such in an article with no further identifying information constitutes a violation of HIPAA.

If it isn't too much trouble, would you care to back up the assertion that you made, namely:

Identifiability is, "if some rando read this and was able to accurately say hey, that's my coworker's daughter!"
 
I do find it interesting that despite making up 3% of their business, banning abortions closes 100% of planned parenthoods. A new set of power numbers

Edit: and to the people upset that babies conceived in rape might not get murdered.

A. Abortion is murder and the children are innocent regardless of their dad’s crimes.

B. Abortion is a scar that never heals. Every person that walks into that PP is a mom. The only question is whether they are the mom of a dead child.

The Christian position is that the rapist needs to be executed not the baby. Liberals seem to think the opposite is the moral thing to do.
 
Cute deflection, but no, prince, I asked *you.* *You* brought up the subject of maternal danger, not me. I'm not debating the letter of the law; I'm debating the retarded attitude all you scrotes seem to have, namely that it's impossible that a ten-year-old might need an abortion, and that referring to such in an article with no further identifying information constitutes a violation of HIPAA.

If it isn't too much trouble, would you care to back up the assertion that you made, namely:
Maybe I'm just like my father: too bold.
 
Back