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:
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'm just not reading the same document then as I've pointed out why I don't think even by the letter of the law here that it reads as something outright preventing this from being reconciled legally and in plenty of time so as to not further traumatize the kid. I pointed out in the sections of it I quoted for specific comment on, that it seems pretty cut and dry that the exceptions listed are pretty blatantly not the only medical reasons acceptable for an abortion and I again fail to see how you can tell me with a straight face that a doctor of any kind would have trouble explaining in simple language why a ten year old girl being pregnant is a huge fucking medical problem that requires as immediate action as the court/local medical services can allow.
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.
So you don't think a ten year old girl being pregnant, is a medical emergency? :story: I'm failing to see how you need "wiggle room" in a law that explicitly allows for such so as not to invite such situations to begin with. Assuming this story is even true or accurate.

Edit: And now that I think on it a little further, the point is to give what you call "wiggle room". In anything that's restricted whether it be abortion or carbon emissions you have to give that "wiggle room" otherwise it's an actual no-shit outright ban. That's the difference between a ban, and regulation/restriction, isn't it? And you have to clearly define what exactly the limits of that "wiggle room" are.
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.
I'm not really seeing where specifically in the law these comments and your reading of it seem to add up to what you're presenting here. Unless you're going to tell me how exactly a prosecutor is going to argue to a judge that a child can't have an abortion, I'm not really getting what the basis for this opinion is, really. And if you've already admitted that in a case like this a prosecutor isn't going to press charges, and the legislature didn't intend for something like this to be necessary (which is obvious to me at least from what I read and commented on last night in previous posts) it seems to me like you're making much ado about nothing and drawing some strange conclusions to boot.
 
Last edited:
"Let's go get rid of the evidence, honey, it's for your own good..."
Lol Matt Walsh logic. The child can be passed off as one of the family members. She'd also DIE giving birth.
There’s obviously a thing or two missing here. Who is the father? Why did they wait six weeks? Why is this just now coming up after the SC ruling?

Too politically convenient.
Because the girl was likely too traumatized and the hospital didn't treat her there. The father is the rapist.
So do most prolifers.
And that's why exceptions for rape and incest don't exist in the states with trigger laws.
I'm sorry, but I'm doubting the validity of this story. How was this girl discovered? Did you contact the authorities, or did law enforcement contact you? Where are her parents? Were they arrested? Is there an investigation?
I get that doctor's have to protect their patient's privacy but considering that this girl's case is barely brushed upon in the article (despite being the literall headline) makes me think that this story was made up to pull at people's heart strings.
I hope I'm right.
Even if fake, a ten year old was raped and impregnated and denied a medical procedure that would save her life. She'd die giving birth, but people care more about the fetus than the child being pregnant.
These cases have happened in Brazil, so it's possible.
 
Even if fake, a ten year old was raped and impregnated and denied a medical procedure that would save her life.
Despite the fact that the law allows the procedure to be done, since it would be in service of saving her life.

She'd die giving birth, but people care more about the fetus than the child being pregnant.
If that were the case, here, then she wouldn't be told to go to another state in order to get an abortion-- assuming this is a real story.
 
And that's why exceptions for rape and incest don't exist in the states with trigger laws.
Wrong, as I already demonstrated:

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.

Can you people PLEASE try checking facts first?
 
I'm just not reading the same document then as I've pointed out why I don't think even by the letter of the law here that it reads as something outright preventing this from being reconciled legally and in plenty of time so as to not further traumatize the kid. I pointed out in the sections of it I quoted for specific comment on, that it seems pretty cut and dry that the exceptions listed are pretty blatantly not the only medical reasons acceptable for an abortion and I again fail to see how you can tell me with a straight face that a doctor of any kind would have trouble explaining in simple language why a ten year old girl being pregnant is a huge fucking medical problem that requires as immediate action as the court/local medical services can allow.
The law requires a diagnosis. That has a meaning both legally and medically. I'm going to ask you again - what do you diagnose?
So you don't think a ten year old girl being pregnant, is a medical emergency? :story: I'm failing to see how you need "wiggle room" in a law that explicitly allows for such so as not to invite such situations to begin with. Assuming this story is even true or accurate.
Obviously it was not a medical emergency - they wouldn't have been calling a clinic in indianapolis. They would have been sending them to the closest emergency room. That also has a meaning in medicine and the statute sets the requiremet that there can be no possible delay. Delay was obviously possible so the doctors didn't consider it a medical emergency. I don't think most doctors would.

Edit: And now that I think on it a little further, the point is to give what you call "wiggle room". In anything that's restricted whether it be abortion or carbon emissions you have to give that "wiggle room" otherwise it's an actual no-shit outright ban. That's the difference between a ban, and regulation/restriction, isn't it? And you have to clearly define what exactly the limits of that "wiggle room" are.

I'm not really seeing where specifically in the law these comments and your reading of it seem to add up to what you're presenting here. Unless you're going to tell me how exactly a prosecutor is going to argue to a judge that a child can't have an abortion, I'm not really getting what the basis for this opinion is, really. And if you've already admitted that in a case like this a prosecutor isn't going to press charges, and the legislature didn't intend for something like this to be necessary (which is obvious to me at least from what I read and commented on last night in previous posts) it seems to me like you're making much ado about nothing and drawing some strange conclusions to boot

Medicine is the most regulated, beauracratic profession there is. After reading the statute, the doctor did the right thing by everyone involved. If Ohio wants doctors to perform an abortion on a six week pregnant ten year old absent a diagosible medical condition or a medical emergency in state they need to make it explicit this statute can't be used against the doctor.
 
Tbh Cincinnati will make anyone mayor. Jerry Springer was mayor, too.
In his defense, he was the least retarded Mayor Cincinnati has had in a while. Note I said least retarded. He was sandwiched in between Street Car retard and Mayor Aflac, it's not a high bar to clear.

Edit: I meant Cranley, to be clear, Springer wasn't that bad either, except for that whole checks and hookers thing. It's not a high bar to clear
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Troonologist PhD
I know your baiting people to respond, but I'm going to reply anyway to get the last word in and for lols.

The law requires a diagnosis. That has a meaning both legally and medically. I'm going to ask you again - what do you diagnose?
Nigga, you can get a pregnancy diagnosis in 3 minutes.
proxy-image (74).jpeg

Obviously it was not a medical emergency - they wouldn't have been calling a clinic in indianapolis. They would have been sending them to the closest emergency room. That also has a meaning in medicine and the statute sets the requiremet that there can be no possible delay. Delay was obviously possible so the doctors didn't consider it a medical emergency. I don't think most doctors would.
1. This implies this case is even real, and not made up bullshit created to push a satanic agenda.

2. If you seriously believe that most doctors wouldn't look at a 56 inch tall 70 lb 10 year old girl that is going through pregnancy with very deep concern at the very least, you are ether mentally stunted or come from the heavily polluted end of an impoverished third world nation. Or both.

Medicine is the most regulated, beauracratic profession there is.
Sir, I have quite the selection of troon children to introduce you to. Don't forget to ask them for their pronouns, or they'll scream bloody murder and make you a wanted man in Canada.
 
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.

Conspiracy theorists are so ignorants.
Unfortunately sexual abuse of minor isn't a rare thing. It's not "convenient that the almost perfect exemple yada Yada" this type of horrible stuff happens all. the. time.
In each class of cute little kids you see passing by there's several victims.
1 in 5 girls are victims of sexual abuse during childhood and 1 in 20 boys. The statistic on straight-up rape is way lower (less that 2%), but enough that I can guarantee you that she isn't alone: This one girl is making the news anonymously but at this very moment in this country others like her are also looking to abort their rapist's offspring.
 
1 in 5 girls are victims of sexual abuse during childhood and 1 in 20 boys. The statistic on straight-up rape is way lower (less that 2%), but enough that I can guarantee you that she isn't alone: This one girl is making the news anonymously but at this very moment in this country others like her are also looking to abort their rapist's offspring.
Every study I've seen claiming as high a rate as 1 in 5 has included offenses as basic as "stranger on bus stared uncomfortably long" or "received compliment in public" as sexual abuse. Care to back your numbers up?
 
Or they are, and flexo is being kind enough to point out that whoever they are trusting for their information mislead them.

Or you're some new fag pushing an agenda and getting blown the fuck out.

Trying to spin it like that isn't going to help you.

99% you're looking at black letter law and refusing to read what the words say on the page

Maybe if you read for two seconds instead of being a retarded nigger running on your fee-fee's you'd see I was right. (Go back like one page)

Who'd thunk you weren't even reading what was said? I for one am shocked.
 
Last edited:
Back