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:
What, their guidelines somehow aren't going to allow abortion when the child will likely die?

The more relevant question is "was the child dying?". The entire legal landscape just got upended. What started all of this was you said something seemed fishy and you shared the statute. I'm telling you that assuming indiana wasn't just the closest hospital, the reason the child was sent out of state was risk management on the part of the liability insurance.

Same thing we saw when they started prosecuting doctors for opiate prescribing.
 
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.
Look man, I agree it's very unlikely to happen.

But on the other hand, are you seriously expecting the government to do the sensible thing?
 
I'll take things that never happened unless you live with the Whitackers for 10,000.
Where is the evidence this journo faked it or just made it up whole cloth? This reminds me of the grocery store shooting when people just claimed it was "glowies" and all was right in their world again. This is some SJW level "brush it under the rug because it doesn't fit our narrative" type stuff like the black on asian crime wave.
 
I'll take things that never happened unless you live with the Whitackers for 10,000.
It may have happened, but what really activates my almonds is the dating of the pregnancy. Normally you have to test positive and then there is still a delay in getting a dating ultrasound unless there is a medical emergency. Which there might have been, but the article is very vague which makes me think it is either bullshit or very coincidentally real. Girls are getting their periods shockingly young lately. I mean I have heard it happening to girls as young as 8. It is...not good.
 
I sure wish there was a part of this state law that had something like "necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman." If only. :(
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: SSj_Ness (Yiffed)
Yet no mention of whether or not the pedo has been identified/the girl being questioned by police about this.

Sounds like BS to me.

Edited to add: Also, did the abortionist notify CPS, or any hospital the girl has been in within the last three weeks? If the abortionist didn’t, they could face major repercussions such as losing their license for potentially allowing a child to be abused (assuming the girl was being raped by her father and/or someone she knows).

Also, was the embryo’s DNA sample at least handed over to authorities so that they could verify who the rapist is? I would think that would be something mentioned in the article.

You’d think the media would jump on the opportunity to paint the abortionist in a heroic light by letting us know.

As I’ve said in other posts, I’m pro choice in principal but something about this story stinks. I think the family should be able to remain anonymous, but there needs to be more info on whether or not there’s police involvement.
 
Last edited:
The more relevant question is "was the child dying?".
By your logic, it doesn't matter what the question is in the first place.

But on the other hand, are you seriously expecting the government to do the sensible thing?
I expect for nobody to be prosecuted for performing an abortion in the only genre of case that everyone can agree that abortion is at least a necessary evil, yes.
 
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.
Hey cut @The Last Stand a break. I'm sure he was doing his due diligence, but got distracted by a shiny picture of Hillary Clinton.
 
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.

It would be a longshot case that would be a media circus, as well. While few people are fine with "smash the baby's skull at 38 weeks, nbd," most people think it should be allowable in a select handful of extreme cases, so going to the mat to prosecute a doctor for giving an abortion to a 10-year-old rape victim is basically asking to lose your reelection.
 
Back