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:
Considering 6 weeks is barely "a week late", certainly not long enough to be showing obvious signs of pregnancy, I'm once again skeptical of how this came to light in the first place if there was no acute assault and ensuing manhunt for the perpetrator. Pregnancy is not the first thought when a child that young is a few days off on her menses.
Child was groomed, raped, finally told her mom, and was able to tell the police exactly who did it. It might have been ongoing and they had a program about predation in her school where she told the presenter. She also could have been having random spotting or severe morning sickness and her mom/dad took her to the doctor.

Keep an eye on the news, you'll see someone in ohio sentenced to life in prison over the next year.
 
I don't know why everyone is believing this story at face value. Sure, somewhere, a 10 year old got pregnant. I fully believe that. Do I believe it's in relation to these people and their narrative? Fuck no.
Why?
Because white liberal activist crazy-eyed leftist women rarely tell the truth.

1656900845396.png
1656901055098.png

I mean this fucking whackjob ticks all the boxes. I bet she's also been raped a million times too.
 
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 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.
You're shittier at law assumedly sober than I am when drinking.
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.

Oh look, an entire section unto itself on minors having abortions.
read the whole thing said:
(A) For the purpose of this section, a minor shall be considered "emancipated" if the minor has married, entered the armed services of the United States, become employed and self-subsisting, or has otherwise become independent from the care and control of her parent, guardian, or custodian.

(B) No person shall knowingly perform or induce an abortion upon a pregnant minor unless one of the following is the case:

(1) The attending physician has secured the informed written consent of the minor and one parent, guardian, or custodian;

(2) The minor is emancipated and the attending physician has received her written informed consent;

(3) The minor has been authorized to consent to the abortion by a court order issued pursuant to division (C) of this section, and the attending physician has received her informed written consent;

(4) The court has given its consent in accordance with division (C) of this section and the minor is having the abortion willingly.

(C) The right of a minor to consent to an abortion under division (B)(3) of this section or judicial consent to obtain an abortion under division (B)(4) of this section may be granted by a court order pursuant to the following procedures:

(1) The minor or next friend shall make an application to the juvenile court of the county in which the minor has a residence or legal settlement or the juvenile court of any county that borders the county in which she has a residence or legal settlement. The juvenile court shall assist the minor or next friend in preparing the petition and notices required by this section.

The minor or next friend shall thereafter file a petition setting forth all of the following: the initials of the minor; her age; the names and addresses of each parent, guardian, custodian, or, if the minor's parents are deceased and no guardian has been appointed, any other person standing in loco parentis of the minor; that the minor has been fully informed of the risks and consequences of the abortion; that the minor is of sound mind and has sufficient intellectual capacity to consent to the abortion; that the minor has not previously filed a petition under this section concerning the same pregnancy that was denied on the merits; that, if the court does not authorize the minor to consent to the abortion, the court should find that the abortion is in the best interests of the minor and give judicial consent to the abortion; that the court should appoint a guardian ad litem; and if the minor does not have private counsel, that the court should appoint counsel. The petition shall be signed by the minor or the next friend.

(2)(a) A hearing on the merits shall be held on the record as soon as possible within five days of filing the petition. If the minor has not retained counsel, the court shall appoint counsel at least twenty-four hours prior to the hearing. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the interests of the minor at the hearing. If the guardian ad litem is an attorney admitted to the practice of law in this state, the court may appoint the guardian ad litem to serve as the minor's counsel. At the hearing, the court shall do all of the following:

(i) Hear evidence relating to the emotional development, maturity, intellect, and understanding of the minor; the nature, possible consequences, and alternatives to the abortion; and any other evidence that the court may find useful in determining whether the minor should be granted the right to consent to the abortion or whether the abortion is in the best interests of the minor;

(ii) Specifically inquire about the minor's understanding of the possible physical and emotional complications of abortion and how the minor would respond if the minor experienced those complications after the abortion;

(iii) Specifically inquire about the extent to which anyone has instructed the minor on how to answer questions and on what testimony to give at the hearing.

(b) If the minor or her counsel fail to appear for a scheduled hearing, jurisdiction shall remain with the judge who would have presided at the hearing.

(3) If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is sufficiently mature and well enough informed to decide intelligently whether to have an abortion, the court shall grant the petition and permit the minor to consent to the abortion.

If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the abortion is in the best interests of the minor, the court shall give judicial consent to the abortion, setting forth the grounds for its finding.

If the court does not make either of the findings specified in division (C)(3) of this section, the court shall deny the petition, setting forth the grounds on which the petition is denied.

The court shall issue its order not later than twenty-four hours after the end of the hearing.

(4) No juvenile court shall have jurisdiction to rehear a petition concerning the same pregnancy once a juvenile court has granted or denied the petition.

(5) If the petition is granted, the informed consent of the minor, pursuant to a court order authorizing the minor to consent to the abortion, or judicial consent to the abortion, shall bar an action by the parents, guardian, or custodian of the minor for battery of the minor against any person performing or inducing the abortion. The immunity granted shall only extend to the performance or inducement of the abortion in accordance with this section and to any accompanying services that are performed in a competent manner.

(6) An appeal from an order issued under this section may be taken to the court of appeals by the minor. The record on appeal shall be completed and the appeal perfected within four days from the filing of the notice of appeal. Because the abortion may need to be performed in a timely manner, the supreme court shall, by rule, provide for expedited appellate review of cases appealed under this section.

(7) All proceedings under this section shall be conducted in a confidential manner and shall be given such precedence over other pending matters as will ensure that the court will reach a decision promptly and without delay.

The petition and all other papers and records that pertain to an action commenced under this section shall be kept confidential and are not public records under section 149.43 of the Revised Code.

(8) No filing fee shall be required of or court costs assessed against a person filing a petition under this section or appealing an order issued under this section.

(9) Nothing in division (C) of this section shall constitute a waiver of any testimonial privilege provided under the Revised Code or at common law.

(D) It is an affirmative defense to any civil, criminal, or professional disciplinary claim brought under this section that compliance with the requirements of this section was not possible because an immediate threat of serious risk to the life or physical health of the minor from the continuation of her pregnancy created an emergency necessitating the immediate performance or inducement of an abortion.

(E) Whoever violates division (B) of this section is guilty of unlawful abortion, a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of this section, unlawful abortion is a felony of the fourth degree.
(F) Whoever violates division (B) of this section is liable to the pregnant minor and her parents, guardian, or custodian for civil, compensatory, and exemplary damages.

The relevant shit if you don't want to read that:
relevant shit said:
(D) It is an affirmative defense to any civil, criminal, or professional disciplinary claim brought under this section that compliance with the requirements of this section was not possible because an immediate threat of serious risk to the life or physical health of the minor from the continuation of her pregnancy created an emergency necessitating the immediate performance or inducement of an abortion.

Now you can read that shit and think "immediate" means right now, but there's plenty of physical health problems that are an immediate danger and require immediate action to prevent said danger that aren't necessarily "immediately" threatening. There's also the legal definition of immediate: 1 2 and the related concept of imminence, which involves immediacy: 1:
imminent risk 1 said:
Imminent risk of harm means that individuals' actions, omissions or conditions endanger the life, or seriously jeopardize the physical or mental health or safety of themselves or others, if protective action would not be taken immediately.
Also this which would probably more likely apply: 2 :
imminent risk 2 said:
Imminent danger is an immediate threat of harm, which varies depending on the context in which it is used. For example, one state statute defines imminent danger in relation to mines as "the existence of any condition or practice in a mine which could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical harm to any worker if mine operations were to proceed in the affected area or if workers were to enter the affected area before the condition or practice was eliminated."

TL;DR: No judge nor prosecutor would have a problem with a minor having an abortion, I'd think, if they met the qualifications under the minor's section and went through with the process, especially if they're a ten year old girl. Nobody with a basic understanding of human anatomy should have a problem with understanding why a ten year old's pregnancy is an immediate and impending threat to their bodily and mental safety should no actions be taken. If anyone's a lawyer here, and I'm very much not, feel free to chime in on why you think someone would block a child from having one under this shit.
 
Last edited:
I don't know why everyone is believing this story at face value. Sure, somewhere, a 10 year old got pregnant. I fully believe that. Do I believe it's in relation to these people and their narrative? Fuck no.
Why?
Because white liberal activist crazy-eyed leftist women rarely tell the truth.

View attachment 3454085
View attachment 3454094

I mean this fucking whackjob ticks all the boxes. I bet she's also been raped a million times too.
I would HOPE it's not common. But people like HER would MAKE it common.
 
I don't know why everyone is believing this story at face value. Sure, somewhere, a 10 year old got pregnant. I fully believe that. Do I believe it's in relation to these people and their narrative? Fuck no.
Why?
Because white liberal activist crazy-eyed leftist women rarely tell the truth.

View attachment 3454085
View attachment 3454094

I mean this fucking whackjob ticks all the boxes. I bet she's also been raped a million times too.
Yeah her claims in that thread are laughable. Let's check the demographics for Muncie, first, and then check to see if we can find a teen pregnancy rate. As you can see it's down 10% since 2019 and 69% since the peak year which was 1991.

All this stuff is tracked by the health department, but most people don't ask those follow-up questions when they hear a salacious story.

Also- pregnant girls under the age of about 14 would likely NOT be seen by a family practice doctor. They would be followed by maternal-fetal medicine which cares for women at high risk of complications. You can quickly confirm that such a practice exists in Ball Memorial.

As for how common pregnancies under 15 are, here is an old article, and remember rates have decreased markedly since that time:

About one in 1,000 girls under the age of 15 became pregnant in 2008, the researchers write in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology. That compares with about 68 per 1,000 girls between ages 15 and 19.
 
So my views on this Roe v Wade debacle don't jive with the rest of folks on here. Not my body, not really my place to dictate shit.

But this just reeks of BS to me.

A 10 year old girl? Are there not confidentiality rules doctors have to follow? HIPAA? Shouldn't there be even more due care being made not to reveal potentially identifying information for a minor? This all seems awfully convenient that the almost perfect example against RvW being overturned pops up like this, and to hell with any sort of trauma/attention/etc that a 10 year old child might incur by being brought into the media spotlight.

"Ten year old girl" is not identifying information. There is absolutely zero chance of the child being identified from that.

There are a lot of ten year old girls, and a non-trivial number of them are rape victims.

A 10 year old girl in Ohio, admitted within the hospital system this doctor works at, who was exactly 6 weeks and 3 days along as of the day of this interview?

If you want to talk HIPAA, data must be stripped of Protected Health Information. The article doesnt look like it discloses anything illegal (assuming they're telling the truth).
  • Names
  • Geographic subdivisions smaller than a state
  • All elements of dates (except year) related to an individual (including admission and discharge dates, birthdate, date of death, all ages over 89 years old, and elements of dates (including year) that are indicative of age)
  • Telephone, cellphone, and fax numbers
  • Email addresses
  • IP addresses
  • Social Security numbers
  • Medical record numbers
  • Health plan beneficiary numbers
  • Device identifiers and serial numbers
  • Certificate/license numbers
  • Account numbers
  • Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers including license plates
  • Website URLs
  • Full face photos and comparable images
  • Biometric identifiers (including finger and voice prints)
  • Any unique identifying numbers, characteristics or codes
 
That's Ohio's parental consent statute. The heartbeat bill would still apply.


Definitions:

References 2011 viability statute definitions:

The girl's life wasn't at immediate risk - there was no obvious exception under "medical emergency"

"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.

So the section of the statute relevant is this:
"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.

So carrying a child to term wrecking her mental health is excluded. Age isn't a medically diagnosed condition. Whether the legislature intended it or not, they did not provide an exception for getting pregnant while 10. Something had to be demonstrably wrong besides just being 10.

That's my good faith argument about this specific instance - the girl was sent out of state because the statute required her to have a diagnosed condition. Which meant if they couldn't currently diagnose one they'd have to wait until they could. *If* it even happened.
 
Last edited:
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Marika
Since they haven't named the father yet, I assume either this story is made up, or that the father is also a child.
Its probably someone like John Cranley, from MTV to democrat mayor and now governor candidate. Would you be shocked if him or someone similar was the father? The hush hush nature makes me think someone powerful did it and its being half covered up or its all fake and gay.


Lol.... "COLUMBUS, Ohio -- In high school, John Cranley got a bit role in a play hoping to meet girls. Instead, it helped launch him on a path that led him to serve as mayor of Cincinnati and eventually seek the Democratic nomination for Ohio governor."
 
I'll want an apology after reading through this.
part A said:
(A) Except as provided in division (B) of this section, no person shall knowingly and purposefully perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying and whose fetal heartbeat has been detected in accordance with division (A) of section 2919.192 of the Revised Code. Whoever violates this division is guilty of performing or inducing an abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, a felony of the fifth degree.
part B said:
(B) Division (A) of this section does not apply to a physician who performs a medical procedure that, in the physician's reasonable medical judgment, is designed or intended 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.
This is where it gets a bit fucky for your presentation of it.
Part B cont. said:
A physician who performs a medical procedure as described in this division shall declare, in a written document, that the medical procedure is necessary, to the best of the physician's reasonable medical judgment, to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreverwsible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.
I would think that any physician should be able to describe to a judge why a ten year old girl can't reasonably give birth without bolded section being relevant.
Part B cont. said:
In the document, the physician shall specify the pregnant woman's medical condition that the medical procedure is asserted to address and the medical rationale for the physician's conclusion that the medical procedure is 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.
Ditto. Included for completeness.
Part B end said:
A physician who performs a medical procedure as described in this division shall place the written document required by this division in the pregnant woman's medical records. The physician shall maintain a copy of the document in the physician's own records for at least seven years from the date the document is created.
""
Part C said:
(C) A person is not in violation of division (A) of this section if the person acts in accordance with division (A) of section 2919.192 of the Revised Code and the method used to determine the presence of a fetal heartbeat does not reveal a fetal heartbeat.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but isn't this additive? As in, you don't have to fit both B and C to qualify for immunity from A. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
Part D said:
(D) Division (A) of this section does not have the effect of repealing or limiting any other provision of the Revised Code that restricts or regulates the performance or inducement of an abortion by a particular method or during a particular stage of a pregnancy.
How does this interact with this:
relevant shit said:
(D) It is an affirmative defense to any civil, criminal, or professional disciplinary claim brought under this section that compliance with the requirements of this section was not possible because an immediate threat of serious risk to the life or physical health of the minor from the continuation of her pregnancy created an emergency necessitating the immediate performance or inducement of an abortion.
from my earlier post? Because it reads to my non-lawyer eyes that it wouldn't impact it.
The girl's life wasn't at immediate risk - there was no obvious exception under "medical emergency"
So the section of the statute relevant is this:
So carrying a child to term wrecking her mental health is excluded. Age isn't a medically diagnosed condition. Whether the legislature intended it or not, they did not provide an exception for getting pregnant while 10. Something had to be demonstrably wrong besides just being 10.
Let me point it out for you:
(K) A medically diagnosed condition that constitutes a "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" include 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.

You'll have to honestly say to me that your second or even third language is english not to have picked up on the subtext from the bolded parts of that.
 
They already tried treating precocious puberty with blockers. It led to osteoporosis and bone cancer in their late twenties and early thirties. The most famous is Lupron which was a drug meant as a last resort to extend the life of terminal prostate cancer patients. They do still use inhibitors, but I think they slow the rate of production rather than cut it off. Still a risk for bone related afflictions.

And this isn't precocious puberty, that shit is when you're 5 or 7. 9 to 10 is considered normal. Precocious puberty isn't even a percentage of our population and typically is caused not by diet but the pituitary gland or hypothalamus. You're not wrong that obesity increases the likelihood of maturing faster, but I feel like then we should be upping food standards or banning those plastics that fuck with our endocrine system. Not trying to treat a symptom of the two with drugs.

Not that I mean to accuse you of supporting it, but I felt it needed to be said and I might actually get to learn more.
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply either I supported their use but I know of girls that have started their periods at 8 or 9 and...it is just too common and terrifying. Boys are normally a year behind girls and they have been exhibiting the same trends.


There was also an article about this written about 6 weeks ago in the nyt, but it is paywalled.
 
It won't let me quote you. You're referencing separate statute and their penalties. 2919.12 and 121 are distinct from 2919.193, which is distinct from 2919.195.

2919.12 requires either parental or judicial consent OR you can take your chances in court with the affirmative defense of it being an emergency.

2919.192&3 Covers performing an abortion without bothering to determine if it has a heartbeat. It imposes the same criminal penalty as if you disregarded a heartbeat.

2919.195 is the penalty for performing an abortion when a heartbeat has been detected and the procedure laid out in 2919.194. It does not provide an explicit affirmative defense like 2919.12. They also chose to use a reasonable standard. In ohio that might imply an affirmative defense - that's what I'm unsure of.

What's shared between 2919.192 and 29.194 is the definitions.

You'll have to honestly say to me that your second or even third language is english not to have picked up on the subtext from the bolded parts of that.

It doesn't matter - it requires a medical diagnosis. What do you diagnose?
 
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply either I supported their use but I know of girls that have started their periods at 8 or 9 and...it is just too common and terrifying. Boys are normally a year behind girls and they have been exhibiting the same trends.


There was also an article about this written about 6 weeks ago in the nyt, but it is paywalled.
Yeah, they found that high fat diets and low exercise can actually speed up puberty in girls and delay it in boys. So that's probably what's happening. The solution would be to actually mandate exercising in school - even something low like yoga - and stop this healthy at every size horseshit. Because it's clearly messing with the children. I just hate they're so fucking lazy they'll turn to radical hormone treatment instead of actually curing the disease.

Then again, the FDA is in Big Pharma's pockets and the conspiracy theorist in me is saying all of this shit is intended so they can prescribe drugs to children being fed fat inducing diets that the FDA approves of because it ain't just drugs they cover. Hope he's wrong.

EDIT: Forgot this was pandemic shit, there was no school. It would be better to pressure parents to ensure their kids get exercise and eat healthy, maybe work out a system with local producers to accept EBT or SNAP so they can get healthy vegetables.
 
If you want to talk HIPAA, data must be stripped of Protected Health Information. The article doesnt look like it discloses anything illegal (assuming they're telling the truth).
  • Names
  • Geographic subdivisions smaller than a state
  • All elements of dates (except year) related to an individual (including admission and discharge dates, birthdate, date of death, all ages over 89 years old, and elements of dates (including year) that are indicative of age)
  • Telephone, cellphone, and fax numbers
  • Email addresses
  • IP addresses
  • Social Security numbers
  • Medical record numbers
  • Health plan beneficiary numbers
  • Device identifiers and serial numbers
  • Certificate/license numbers
  • Account numbers
  • Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers including license plates
  • Website URLs
  • Full face photos and comparable images
  • Biometric identifiers (including finger and voice prints)
  • Any unique identifying numbers, characteristics or codes

I was genuinely asking because I'm not an American and wasn't sure what the particulars are.

Assuming that it is true, I was curious if "10 year old pregnant girl from Ohio" would be identifiable enough. Perhaps not for the general public, but for people who may know the victim. I don't know if that runs afoul of anything, but it looks like it doesn't. And I'm being super optimistic that there aren't a ton of 10 year olds needing abortions in Ohio with that assumption.
 
It won't let me quote you. You're referencing separate statute and their penalties. 2919.12 and 121 are distinct from 2919.193, which is distinct from 2919.195.

2919.12 requires either parental or judicial consent OR you can take your chances in court with the affirmative defense of it being an emergency.
2919.192&3 Covers performing an abortion without bothering to determine if it has a heartbeat. It imposes the same criminal penalty as if you disregarded a heartbeat.


2919.195 is the penalty for performing an abortion when a heartbeat has been detected and the procedure laid out in 2919.194. It does not provide an explicit affirmative defense like 2919.12. They also chose to use a reasonable standard. In ohio that might imply an affirmative defense - that's what I'm unsure of.
You're giving me a headache having to read all this bullshit.
2919.194 said:
(A) Notwithstanding division (A)(3) of this section, if a person who intends to perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman has determined, under section 2919.192 of the Revised Code, that the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying has a detectable heartbeat, the person shall not, except as provided in division (B) of this section, perform or induce the abortion without meeting all of the following requirements and without at least twenty-four hours elapsing after the last of the requirements is met:
All the requirements listed:
reqs said:
(1) The person intending to perform or induce the abortion shall inform the pregnant woman in writing that the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying has a fetal heartbeat.

(2) The person intending to perform or induce the abortion shall inform the pregnant woman, to the best of the person's knowledge, of the statistical probability of bringing the unborn human individual possessing a detectable fetal heartbeat to term based on the gestational age of the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying or, if the director of health has specified statistical probability information pursuant to rules adopted under division (C) of this section, shall provide to the pregnant woman that information.

(3) The pregnant woman shall sign a form acknowledging that the pregnant woman has received information from the person intending to perform or induce the abortion that the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying has a fetal heartbeat and that the pregnant woman is aware of the statistical probability of bringing the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying to term.
(1) They should be required to do anyway, regardless of local abortion laws. (2) and (3) seem like they would be standard procedure tbh.
Part B said:
(B) Division (A) of this section does not apply if the person who intends to perform or induce the abortion believes that a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with that division.
"Being ten years old and pregnant" seems like a pretty fucking obvious medical emergency to me. You keep arguing the letter of this but not engaging with the idea that maybe, just maybe people who'd have a law written by politicians they voted for wouldn't expect it to be followed autistically to the T against a ten year old girl.
Rest of the document said:
(C) The director of health may adopt rules that specify information regarding the statistical probability of bringing an unborn human individual possessing a detectable heartbeat to term based on the gestational age of the unborn human individual. The rules shall be based on available medical evidence and shall be adopted in accordance with section 111.15 of the Revised Code.
(D) This section does not have the effect of repealing or limiting any other provision of the Revised Code relating to informed consent for an abortion, including the provisions in section 2317.56 of the Revised Code.
(E) Whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of performing or inducing an abortion without informed consent when there is a detectable fetal heartbeat, a misdemeanor of the first degree on a first offense and a felony of the fourth degree on each subsequent offense.
C-E are self explanatory I think so far.
What's shared between 2919.192 and 29.194 is the definitions.
Which I've already quoted? You've yet to explain what exactly the problem with my take on those definitions and how'd they apply.
It doesn't matter - it requires a medical diagnosis. What do you diagnose?
Being pregnant as a ten year old? I would like to think everyone old enough to drive is old enough to understand - and I get that public school is shitty but still - the basic anatomical problems with a ten year old carrying a child to term. Comes off more as you think the states who'd have such a law on the books, and have legislators who'd make such a law, are entirely populated by people who for some reason or another are literally too stupid to have an exception for cases like this if and when they occur. Which I've pointed out the language from the sources you've shown so far giving breathing room for exactly such circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, they found that high fat diets and low exercise can actually speed up puberty in girls and delay it in boys. So that's probably what's happening. The solution would be to actually mandate exercising in school - even something low like yoga - and stop this healthy at every size horseshit. Because it's clearly messing with the children. I just hate they're so fucking lazy they'll turn to radical hormone treatment instead of actually curing the disease.

Then again, the FDA is in Big Pharma's pockets and the conspiracy theorist in me is saying all of this shit is intended so they can prescribe drugs to children being fed fat inducing diets that the FDA approves of because it ain't just drugs they cover. Hope he's wrong.

EDIT: Forgot this was pandemic shit, there was no school. It would be better to pressure parents to ensure their kids get exercise and eat healthy, maybe work out a system with local producers to accept EBT or SNAP so they can get healthy vegetables.
Recess would mean not studying for bullshit standardized tests. Think of all the money the school won't get from the government if test scores go down!
 
Recess would mean not studying for bullshit standardized tests. Think of all the money the school won't get from the government if test scores go down!
I want to travel back in time right before "No Child Left Behind" gets signed and swat George Bush with a newspaper and tell him, "No, bad president! BAD!"
 
I've already said I didn't think anyone was going to prosecute you if you did this. I've also said the legislature didn't intend this.

The issue is that by making it illegal by the letter of the law, you've created ethical and liability issues for the healthcare providers. Sending the 10 year old out of state was both unquestionably legal and ethical. The doctors either needed to wait till they could make a diagnosis (bad for the girl), make up a diagnosis (the statute was written to discourage this), or declare a medical emergency where there wasn't one.

If sending the girl out of state wasn't an option they would have had to bring in their ethics committee. The ethical and legal way forward would have been to file a lawsuit against the state and get an emergency injunction against the law.

I disagree with your interpretation of those sections because it shouldn't be the doctors responsibility to find "wiggle room" in a statute written to discourage it. It wasn't a medical emergency and there was nothing (currently) to diagnose as the girl was barely pregnant.

The root of the problem is this law was passed when it was purely virtue signalling. They didn't have to consider the problems or the consequences because the federal courts were going to bar it immediately.

That's part of the beauty of Dobbs. The supreme court put the state legislatures on notice that they were done being a safeguard against the consequences of bad legislation. The governor of Arkansas nearly shit himself when the supreme court didn't issue an emergency stay against the total ban he signed earlier this year.

Edit: making hard, outrageous edge cases another state's problem to deal with is how you'll wind up with a constitutional amendment.
 
Last edited:
Its probably someone like John Cranley, from MTV to democrat mayor and now governor candidate. Would you be shocked if him or someone similar was the father? The hush hush nature makes me think someone powerful did it and its being half covered up or its all fake and gay.


Lol.... "COLUMBUS, Ohio -- In high school, John Cranley got a bit role in a play hoping to meet girls. Instead, it helped launch him on a path that led him to serve as mayor of Cincinnati and eventually seek the Democratic nomination for Ohio governor."
Tbh Cincinnati will make anyone mayor. Jerry Springer was mayor, too.
 
Back