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 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.
Going to the mat for that is asking for an unfortunate house fire. They wouldn't have the time to worry about reelection.
 
Is it concerning how I can't believe much about what's in the news anymore, even when it's something like this?
Wouldn't be surprised if this story fades out without the name/arrest of the pedophile rapist ever being mentioned, despite it generating millions of outrage clicks.
This seems to be spreading on social media, so I have no idea if it's a legitimate story that's gone viral or if it's little more than pro-choice copypasta.

20220703-cap-10yoabortion.png

The person that posted this has SJW tendencies, so I have no idea if the "This is child abuse" and "What are you doing, America? 🤮 " commentaries are intended to be for the (alleged 10 year old's) abortion, the impregnation, or both.
 
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?
I don't know dude. I learned a bunch of my classmates didn't just look different because of genetics and that FAS was a thing early in High School. As far as I know it had no legal/civil consequences for the mother beyond the FAS-y babby. So not really a hypothetical.
 
By your logic, it doesn't matter what the question is in the first place.

I fully understand your point - no one (in ohio) would actually use the law to prosecute in this case. But by using the word "reasonable", the law would allow investigation and prosecution - at least in my state - if the prosecutor believes it was unnecessary.

If the legislature intended for it to be total deference to the physicians judgement they wouldn't have stuck "reasonable" in there. Without a definition it means it's up to the courts to set a standard for reasonable. Which means someone actually has to be tried. Which means you can't be certain (thus risk existing) of what will be considered reasonable.

The ohio legislature only provided three clear cases: Pre-eclampsia, Inevitable abortion, Premature rupture of the membranes.

Meanwhile there is no question (at this time) that sending the girl out of the state sidesteps all legal concerns.


Googling shows 10 year olds can give birth:

There is no rape or severely underage exception (which means the legislature may have intended there to not be one).

Whether the legislature intended it or not, there are questions about whether this abortion would be legal *right now*.

That means risk exists and you're counting on the county prosecutor using their discretion. You could wind up getting prosecuted because the elected prosecutor needs to distract from some crazy stupid thing they did.
 
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.

It'd help if they pointed out who the scumbag rapist was? That's what makes it seem made up, they don't provide a name of the fuckhead that knocked up this innocent kid.

You'd think they'd let it be known, or explain how it happened if it wasn't some horrible thing like that?

"Oh it's to protect the victim"

Nigga I see tons of articles on here where it's the parents abusing the kids and they name the parents.
 
It'd help if they pointed out who the scumbag rapist was? That's what makes it seem made up, they don't provide a name of the fuckhead that knocked up this innocent kid.

You'd think they'd let it be known, or explain how it happened if it wasn't some horrible thing like that?

"Oh it's to protect the victim"

Nigga I see tons of articles on here where it's the parents abusing the kids and they name the parents.
It's an inconvenient fact for them for some reason.
:thinking:
 
I feel like in a situation where there's a pregnant ten year old, finding a way to get her to wherever they need to for an abortion is probably not going to be an issue considering that I'm assuming she's already with law enforcement or some state agency. The transportation is probably relatively simple compared to the whole WHO THE FUCK IMPREGNANTED A TEN YEAR OLD part.

you are absolutely mistaken. family law and child protection is state law (unless you're an injun). it's very, very difficult to move state wards out of state.
 

F) "Medical emergency" means a condition that in the physician's good faith medical judgment, based upon the facts known to the physician at that time, so complicates the woman's pregnancy as to necessitate the immediate performance or inducement of an abortion in order to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to avoid a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman that delay in the performance or inducement of the abortion would create.

This is the requirement under the heartbeat bill to perform an abortion. It's found in the viability bill from 2011.

An abortion on a ten year old outside of an immediate medical emergency looks to be illegal in Ohio.
 



This is the requirement under the heartbeat bill to perform an abortion. It's found in the viability bill from 2011.

An abortion on a ten year old outside of an immediate medical emergency looks to be illegal in Ohio.
Because it's common knowledge that ten year old girls are able to reasonably carry children to term.
What's that? It's the exact opposite?

It's also like what I said earlier, any prosecutor that would charge a doctor for this kind of situation would have both sides aiming to unironically lynch them and you know it.
 
Because it's common knowledge that ten year old girls are able to reasonably carry children to term.
What's that? It's the exact opposite?

Re-read the quote. The key words are "necessitate an immediate". It has to be life threatening right now. The legislature further barred hypothetical risk in 2011.

It's also like what I said earlier, any prosecutor that would charge a doctor for this kind of situation would have both sides aiming to unironically lynch them and you know it.

It doesn't matter. It's illegal. Insurance won't cover you civilly or criminally if they give you guidelines and you ignore them. They'll also drop you if you don't do what they say. Getting dropped by your liability insurance is a big deal. You're required to carry it in most states.
 
Re-read the quote. The key words are "necessitate an immediate". It has to be life threatening right now. The legislature further barred hypothetical risk in 2011.

Well it will be an immediate when she's in labor... so why not do it now?

I'm 99% you're being a disingenuous fuckwit. Like most left leaning 21/22 users seem to be.
 
Back