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:
No one is going to perform an abortion in these states outside of an immediate life threatening emergency. Not until/unless the legislature gives a list of qualifying conditions that result in immediate dismissal by a judge.
There's definitely an issue since if a doctor fucks up and aborts when it wasn't life threatening enough they can face criminal penalties. Alternatively there is no penalty to always deny an abortion, so there's pressure for doctors to lean one way.

Legislatures just need to stop being gigantic-giga-nigger-faggots and actually write what they mean into law instead of relying on other people to interpret their vague shit. Most useless fucking cocksuckers on the planet.
 
No one is going to perform an abortion in these states outside of an immediate life threatening emergency.
That's not the statute.

The statute puts determination solely in the purview of the doctor. Even if someone could and would conceivably sue for this, I'm absolutely certain that "it's barely unbelievable that this child is capable of being pregnant in the first place, she hasn't developed the body structures to support a pregnancy without dying" is not a statement that is going to be contested.
 
That's not the statute.

The statute puts determination solely in the purview of the doctor. Even if someone could and would conceivably sue for this, I'm absolutely certain that "it's barely unbelievable that this child is capable of being pregnant in the first place, she hasn't developed the body structures to support a pregnancy without dying" is not a statement that is going to be contested.

It's a criminal offense. You wouldn't be sued. You'd be prosecuted.
 
That's not a refutation of my argument.

The point is that the decision to prosecute would be by the government. And the doctor has the authority to self determine whether or not the circumstances were life threatening in that moment (or more likely a planned operation).

We aren't starting from scratch, we already have legal standards for this. The prosecution would not only have to prove that the doctor performed the abortion, but that he knowingly lied or committed gross malpractice in his medical opinion (where he is by law already deferred to) to make the determination. Its a high bar and why its so difficult to prosecute doctors who make lots of mistakes. The state actually relies on the medical boards to regulate doctors and only prosecutes the obvious bad actors.
 
A child also shouldn't be forced to carry her rapist's baby to term regardless unless you're some kind of sadist.
Which I completely agree with, in case I wasn't clear enough.
That's when you start blasting.
I would do the same if I didn't lose my guns in that accident on the lake a few years back.
 
Hmm so here’s a hypothetical. What if some ho gets pregnant, doesn’t want to keep it so she induces a life threatening complication or massively deformed baby but claims ‘lol I didn’t know I was pregnant!’? Seems like the kinda thing a BPD whore would do but unless she left lots of evidence to show she was lying how could she be prosecuted?
 
None of these laws accounted to children being raped. Or adults having the sense TO enact action against ... children being raped.
Idaho - Adopted in 2020, Idaho’s trigger law will only allow abortions in cases of rape, incest and if the mother’s life is at-risk.
Mississippi - Willfully or knowingly by means of instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance causing any pregnant woman to abort or miscarry, unless it's performed by a licensed physician and done to save the mother's life* or when the pregnancy was the result of a rape**.
North Dakota - The ban prohibits the use of any "substance, device, instrument, medicine, or drug" with the intent to procure an abortion, unless necessary to preserve the woman’s life or the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest.
Utah -
(iii)
(A)the woman is pregnant as a result of:
(I)rape, as described in Section 76-5-402;
(II)rape of a child, as described in Section 76-5-402.1; or
(III)incest, as described in Subsection 76-5-406(2)(j) or Section 76-7-102; and
Wyoming - Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.


By my count, 5 is greater than none. Please do reasearch.
 
The point is that the decision to prosecute would be by the government. And the doctor has the authority to self determine whether or not the circumstances were life threatening in that moment (or more likely a planned operation). We aren't starting from scratch, we already have legal standards for this. The prosecution would not only have to prove that the doctor performed the abortion, but that he knowingly lied or committed gross malpractice in his medical opinion to make the determination. Its a high bar and why its so difficult to prosecute doctors who make lots of mistakes. The state actually relies on the medical boards to regulate doctors and only prosecutes the obvious bad actors.

Rule #1 of professional criminal risk management is always take the option that gives you 0% risk of prosecution. Telling people to go to Illinois/Indiana for a planned operation gives you 0% civil liability and 0% criminal liability.

Hmm so here’s a hypothetical. What if some ho gets pregnant, doesn’t want to keep it so she induces a life threatening complication or massively deformed baby but claims ‘lol I didn’t know I was pregnant!’? Seems like the kinda thing a BPD whore would do but unless she left lots of evidence to show she was lying how could she be prosecuted?

People were prosecuted for this before the Roe reversal. Criminal matters are largely a state thing, so it's going to be different in every state.
 
Hmm so here’s a hypothetical. What if some ho gets pregnant, doesn’t want to keep it so she induces a life threatening complication or massively deformed baby but claims ‘lol I didn’t know I was pregnant!’? Seems like the kinda thing a BPD whore would do but unless she left lots of evidence to show she was lying how could she be prosecuted?
A lot of them would probably get away with it. But those genuine kinds of complications are difficult or impossible to create or you just end up dead.

These people usually pull an android raptor and their kid dies of sids.
 
I could say that 10% of all 10 year old girls in Ohio is still a lot of kids, I could say that there's a chance the girl in the article had some details changed to protect her privacy, I could say that a random citizen somehow accessing hospital records to identify the girl (which you seem to be suggesting is a possibility?) is insanely unlikely and itself a grave violation of HIPAA; but it doesn't matter, because your mind is made up. Who am I to argue with a feeling?
You people understand we have this thing called the internet and you can double check this stuff, right?
10-14 years 827,811

51.4 % of the state is female. So just assuming the percentage is consistent across the age ranges, that's 425,495 girls 10-14 (rounding up). If we also assume that the population is spread evenly across that 5 year span, that means we can roughly estimate Ohio has 85,099 10 year old girls last we have statistics for.
 
Rule #1 of professional criminal risk management is always take the option that gives you 0% risk of prosecution.
The state is not going to prosecute a hospital for performing an abortion procedure on a 10-year old on account of her being 10 years old and being likely to die even during gestation.

The only way it could get more cut and dry is if it was an ectopic pregnancy.
 
Frankly, IMO, respect the family's privacy in deciding on an abortion to help their child.
I'm rather concerned it is the family's privacy that resulted in the child being pregnant in the first place.

Because I can assure you, if it was my daughter I would bring her to the hospital along with the decapitated head of the father so they can do a DNA match.
 
The state is not going to prosecute a hospital for performing an abortion procedure on a 10-year old on account of her being 10 years old and being likely to die even during gestation.

The only way it could get more cut and dry is if it was an ectopic pregnancy.
If doctors refuse to perform life-saving medical procedures that are perfectly legal on the grounds "I'm skeeered" that is simple cowardice and malpractice. When they use their cowardly refusal as a leverage point to force the legalization across the board of elective, medically unjustified, late term abortions- I can't think of any word but evil.
 
The state is not going to prosecute a hospital for performing an abortion procedure on a 10-year old on account of her being 10 years old and being likely to die even during gestation.

The only way it could get more cut and dry is if it was an ectopic pregnancy.

If it's possible to be prosecuted that's still non zero risk. No idea in ohio, but here "reasonable" means a prosecutor has discretion to investigate/bring charges. The doctor was probably just following a flow chart from their liability insurance if they want to be covered.

If doctors refuse to perform life-saving medical procedures that are perfectly legal on the grounds "I'm skeeered" that is simple cowardice and malpractice. When they use their cowardly refusal as a leverage point to force the legalization across the board of elective, medically unjustified, late term abortions- I can't think of any word but evil.

That isn't the case here. The family had the means to travel, and I'd guess they had a couple of weeks at least before it could be life threatening. I don't know shit about pregnant 10 year olds though, other than the rapist needs a lungful of cyanide gas.
 
Back