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.

 

[TheBigZee]

It's either an emergency warranting calling for a clinic in Indianapolis to have it done as soon as possible or it isn't a medical emergency.

That exemption from prosecution requires it to be the level of a critical emergency that a stroke, aneurysm, or something like diagnosed cauda equina would be. I'm not sure you've been by someone's side when they've experienced something like that. Usually they don't even get to sign any forms before they rush them back to the CT scanner. As soon as they've diagnosed it, they get surgery residents to come sit with the patient and they get them into surgery ASAP.

I'm not lying or being disingenuous - that's what that portion requires. I read it over and over again because the other exception was too vague.

They already did in the quoted sections that you refuse to actually argue with, instead offering conjecture

Because they are subordinate to the first requirement. Which is explicit. A medical diagnosis. Without a medical diagnosis (a disease, deformity, or injury) it's irrelevant.

Which aren't limited to specifics but rather those that could cause irreparable harm. As I've already quoted those sections I won't again here.You can absolutely diagnose someone as "being pregnant at ten years old". How on earth do you justify acting as if though a ten year old being pregnant is the same as a fully grown woman being pregnant?

Pregnancy is the diagnosis. Being 10 years old is a factor that complicates the prognosis. But the diagnosis is pregnancy. Does pregnancy so complicate a pregnancy as to create a "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function"?

Right now oncologists are sending patients out of state in Ohio for abortions because of similar issues with wording further in the definition. The cancer nor the treatment complicates the pregnancy to threaten the mother's well being. The treatment is still going to kill the fetus. If the pregnancy is past six weeks, they cannot abort the fetus until the conditions of the statute are met.

The letter of the law as pertaining to that I've already quoted and commented on, and it's vague precisely for cases like this. You're actually trying to downplay the one part of this that you should agree with for whatever reason and I hope it isn't just to be disingenuous.Except the language I've pointed out already shows that there's allowances for extenuating circumstances within the bill. That's what you called "vague" earlier. This is why I said you'd have to be ESL to not get what's written as pertaining to these laws, from the sources you yourself have claimed have relevance.

But the issue is the english language clauses around the vagueness are specific. That wording *matters*. There have been multimillion dollar lawsuits that hinged on the presence or absence of a comma. There are people in prison over the placement of an "and".

But if nobody's being prosecuted, and there's no reasonable argument that a ten year old girl being pregnant isn't a medical emergency, then I fail to understand what exactly the problem here is, seeing as by your own admission no doctor would be tried for this and the legislature didn't intend for this situation... though arguably they did by leaving what you called "wiggle room" earlier for exactly such cases as this if they were to arise.

The reason it matters is because the practice of medicine interacts with the insurance industry, federal law, and other statutes.

If the doctor says it was a surgical emergency, gets the girl to surgery and has the abortion done - they'll have to justify the emergency nature of the procedure to her insurance. Guess what happens if it's not a medical emergency? (it isn't).

If the doctor fudges something to meet the requirements of the wording of the statute and the girl is on medicaid - congrats, they've violated federal law.

It varies state by state - some states allow an insurer to deny coverage because of illegal conduct. Not conviction. conduct. Some insurance policies allow this. Malpractice insurance probably has it's regulations in Ohio. Pediatric malpractice claims exist for a decade after someone turns 18. Whether or not the doctor followed the letter of a criminal statute now can cause them to have to declare bankruptcy then.

And don't think I haven't noticed that you've went from quoting the bill to a considerable lack of quotation of it after I started quoting and reading the parts you specified in their entirety.

Because that's it. That's all there is to the statute. I didn't post it in it's entirety because I figured anyone who cared could go to ohio's website for themselves.

 

[Mister Ferro]

So Megan Fox of PJ Media did a thread about this story and the many red flags surrounding the whole thing.
Link|Archive
Here are 2 that I will highlight.
AG Rokita asks court to lift multiple abortion injunctions following Dobbs decision

Days after Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to lift multiple injunctions against state abortion laws.


Rokita submitted the filings Monday and released a copy of a joint stipulation in a case involving Whole Women’s Health Alliance that “halts expansion plans by abortion providers Whole Woman’s Health Alliance and Planned Parenthood in the cities of South Bend and Evansville, respectively.”


One of the laws Rokita wants an injunction lifted from includes a measure that a parent must be notified when a court approves an abortion for a minor child without parental consent, barring some extenuating circumstances. The other bans “discriminatory abortions” performed because of the unborn child’s race, sex or a disability.


Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky are named as plaintiffs in the two motions.


Rokita has also requested an expedited motion to vacate a preliminary injunction entered by Senior Judge Sarah Evans Barker against a 2019 law banning “dismemberment abortions,” medically known as “dilation and evacuation,” which typically take place during the second trimester of pregnancies. Dr. Caitlin Bernard is the plaintiff in that case in a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.


The attorney general has requested responses from the plaintiffs within three days of Monday’s filing.

Here is the law:

And the 2nd that I'm highlighting is Snopes:

Did Ohio’s Abortion Ban Force a 10-Year-Old Rape Victim to Travel to Indiana?​

Dozens of Snopes readers searched our site or contacted us wondering whether that had actually happened. To find out, we reached out to Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an obstetrician-gynecologist based in Indianapolis and who spoke to The Columbus Dispatch, about the headline-generating story. As of this writing, Bernard had not returned our request for an interview, but we will update this story if that changes.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

@TheBigZee

Pregnancy is the diagnosis. Being 10 years old is a factor that complicates the prognosis. But the diagnosis is pregnancy. Does pregnancy so complicate a pregnancy as to create a "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function"?

Nobody actually doing the medical work, arguing the law, or adjudicating the law is going to be this autistic about the matter.

 

[Ebonic Tutor]

@TheBigZee

Nobody actually doing the medical work, arguing the law, or adjudicating the law is going to be this autistic about the matter.

The only reason to get into this autistic of a an argument about the verbiage used is because they aren't arguing from an honest place.

I realized it right away tbh. (not you, Zee)

It's all semantics and gotcha's with them, which they aren't even good at.

 

[TheBigZee]

@TheBigZee

Nobody actually doing the medical work, arguing the law, or adjudicating the law is going to be this autistic about the matter.

That's the first I have to disagree with you. This also touches the insurance industry and they've pioneered punctuation based litigation.

 

[LurkTrawl]

That exemption from prosecution requires it to be the level of a critical emergency that a stroke, aneurysm, or something like diagnosed cauda equina would be.

You keep insisting on this yet not backing it up with any kind of legal logic. I've asked as to why exactly this wouldn't qualify under the context of "immediate" in a legal sense earlier:

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 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 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."

You've yet to respond to this in specific.

Usually they don't even get to sign any forms before they rush them back to the CT scanner. As soon as they've diagnosed it, they get surgery residents to come sit with the patient and they get them into surgery ASAP.

Citation needed.

I'm not lying or being disingenuous - that's what that portion requires. I read it over and over again because the other exception was too vague.

Is this a joke? So you're saying outright that you read it multiple times, an outline with vague exemptions, to find a specific interpretation of it? That sounds pretty disingenuous to me that you'd say the exemptions are "too vague" while simultaneously claiming they're too strict. Pick one and stick with it.

Pregnancy is the diagnosis. Being 10 years old is a factor that complicates the prognosis. But the diagnosis is pregnancy. Does pregnancy so complicate a pregnancy as to create a "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function"?

Yes.

But the issue is the english language clauses around the vagueness are specific. That wording *matters*. There have been multimillion dollar lawsuits that hinged on the presence or absence of a comma. There are people in prison over the placement of an "and".

So you're back to arguing a quoted part of the bill without actually quoting it and ignoring the argument I've made over the verbiage in favor of just repeating yourself.

The reason it matters is because the practice of medicine interacts with the insurance industry, federal law, and other statutes.

Insurance doesn't care, the federal law has nothing on the books for this and it's local, and the only other statutes you have quoted in relation to this have been read through and quoted for the purpose of comment as to why they'd also allow this. Unless you can come up with a specific statute that goes against this as well I'm wondering where this argument is even coming from.

If the doctor says it was a surgical emergency, gets the girl to surgery and has the abortion done - they'll have to justify the emergency nature of the procedure to her insurance. Guess what happens if it's not a medical emergency? (it isn't).
A ten year old being pregnant is a medical emergency. Explain how exactly it isn't and we'll be getting somewhere on this point, but you've yet to do that.

If the doctor fudges something to meet the requirements of the wording of the statute and the girl is on medicaid - congrats, they've violated federal law.

Same answer as above.

It varies state by state - some states allow an insurer to deny coverage because of illegal conduct. Not conviction. conduct. Some insurance policies allow this. Malpractice insurance probably has it's regulations in Ohio. Pediatric malpractice claims exist for a decade after someone turns 18. Whether or not the doctor followed the letter of a criminal statute now can cause them to have to declare bankruptcy then.

Still waiting on that explanation.

Because that's it. That's all there is to the statute. I didn't post it in it's entirety because I figured anyone who cared could go to ohio's website for themselves.

No, you didn't post it in it's entirety because the parts you kept quoting favored your view on the situation when put forth as specific excerpts.

@TheBigZee

Nobody actually doing the medical work, arguing the law, or adjudicating the law is going to be this autistic about the matter.

I'm still curious as to what kind of mentality it takes to say with a straight face that a ten year old girl being pregnant isn't a medical emergency. I assume they haven't explained as to why it isn't yet as anyone trying to would sound like a cracked-out fucking psychopath if not a pedophile.

 

[Sarcastic sockpuppet]

Because it's the right thing to do. If we could undo the rape, we would undo the rape. But abortion does not undo rape. It does not heal any trauma nor is it a noble act. While I agree that prohibiting the girl from getting an abortion might seem bad, the alternative is just horrifying.

Abortion will prevent further traumas rather than inflicting another. It will prevent the victim the trauma of having to deal with an unwanted pregnancy (which is 9 fucking months long in case you retards forgot) and birth. It will prevent the victim the trauma of birthing an unwanted child. It will prevent medical problems that can arise as the result of pregnancy as well as social isolation from her peers because of her pregnancy.

If you get pregnant with you rapist's child and can't abort it's nine months of being continuously reminded of the rape and having to talk about it to every person who get's in contact with you.

What kind of retard are you for wishing something like that upon somebody.

 

[Mayor Adam West]

Abortion will prevent further traumas rather than inflicting another. It will prevent the victim the trauma of having to deal with an unwanted pregnancy (which is 9 fucking months long in case you retards forgot) and birth. It will prevent the victim the trauma of birthing an unwanted child. It will prevent medical problems that can arise as the result of pregnancy as well as social isolation from her peers because of her pregnancy.

If you get pregnant with you rapist's child and can't abort it's nine months of being continuously reminded of the rape and having to talk about it to every person who get's in contact with you.

What kind of retard are you for wishing something like that upon somebody.

I don’t wish that upon anyone. However abortion is murder and thus cannot be tolerated.

 

[Sarcastic sockpuppet]

I don’t wish that upon anyone. However abortion is murder and thus cannot be tolerated.

1/It's not murder
2/Even if it was sometimes killing people is ok

 

[Kiwisee]

Abortion will prevent further traumas rather than inflicting another. It will prevent the victim the trauma of having to deal with an unwanted pregnancy (which is 9 fucking months long in case you retards forgot) and birth. It will prevent the victim the trauma of birthing an unwanted child. It will prevent medical problems that can arise as the result of pregnancy as well as social isolation from her peers because of her pregnancy.

If you get pregnant with you rapist's child and can't abort it's nine months of being continuously reminded of the rape and having to talk about it to every person who get's in contact with you.

What kind of retard are you for wishing something like that upon somebody.

On one hand, I agree with you in principal and would never judge a rape victim for choosing to abort.

On the other hand, I met a rape victim who chose to keep the baby and is the most loving mother you’ll ever meet whose glad she didn’t choose to abort. Which is why I think it’s unfair to assume that abortion would ease all victim’s trauma; sometimes that can actually make their trauma worse as they’d be faced with even more guilt.

Granted, no child should be forced to go through pregnancy. That should always end in abortion, due to their own safety. I hate the idea of abortion, but I’d much rather the child survive than to deal with a dead child + baby. Lesser of two evils, you know.

 

[Sarcastic sockpuppet]

On one hand, I agree with you in principal and would never judge a rape victim for choosing to abort.

On the other hand, I met a rape victim who chose to keep the baby and is the most loving mother you’ll ever meet whose glad she didn’t choose to abort.

How is that relevant? The point is: she had a choice. other women should have a choice.

Which is why I think it’s unfair to assume that abortion would ease all victim’s trauma; sometimes that can actually make their trauma worse as they’d be faced with even more guilt.

The only reason the victim would be faced with more guilt and more trauma is if she is surrounded by basket cases who think abortion is murder and that the well-being of the mother, both physical and mental, is worth less that the potential life she is carrying.
That would indeed be pretty traumatizing but the problem isn't the abortion, it's the culture of shame surrounding it.

Just make abortion under 8 weeks fast, free, and easy-access, no questions asked, no protesters, no guilt-tripping, and you will save victims tones of trauma. and yes it needs to be easy-access if not, even rape victims will have to jump through hoops.

 

[Ebonic Tutor]

Just make abortion under 8 weeks fast, free, and easy-access, no questions asked, no protesters, no guilt-tripping, and you will save victims tones of trauma. and yes it needs to be easy-access if not, even rape victims will have to jump through hoops.

Ah make it easier for abusers to hide their victims.

Really am beginning to think you faggots that are arguing from a dishonest place are just doing it for personal reasons. (Like hiding your own illegal mistakes)

 

[Sarcastic sockpuppet]

Ah make it easier for abusers to hide their victims.

just take your meds for once, you are saying nonsense

 

[Ebonic Tutor]

just take your meds for once, you are saying nonsense

Gaslighting just like an abuser would do, lovely.

Point still stands. Lot of you 2021 fags are fuckin' awful and dishonest people and it shows.

I know you here cause of byuu just by your regdate nigga.

 

[Sarcastic sockpuppet]

Gaslighting just like an abuser would do, lovely.

Point still stands. Lot of you 2021 fags are fuckin' awful and dishonest people and it shows.

I know you here cause of byuu just by your regdate nigga.

You live in a world of make-believe shit. Don't understand how that's relevant but I don't think I even posted in the byuu thread.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Abortion will prevent further traumas rather than inflicting another

Having a guy scrape up your uterus after you dilate for several hours isn't exactly non-traumatic. Neither is taking drugs that make you cycle between bedroom to bathroom for several hours so you can bleed out what would have been a newborn into a toilet.

You talk about abortion like it's magic.

If you get pregnant with you rapist's child and can't abort it's nine months of being continuously reminded of the rape and having to talk about it to every person who get's in contact with you.

You think people just forget rape along with the baby? You think that's how that works?

 

[Cpl. Long Dong Silver]

How did a fake article get 15 pages?

 

[Satanic Porn Addiction]

If nobody else has posted this:

https://usabortionlaws.com/ohio/

"When Can You Get an Abortion in Ohio?​

In Ohio, you can get an abortion until the fetus is viable outside of the womb, which is typically around 20 to 22 weeks. After 22 weeks, an abortion can only be performed if the life or health of the mother is at risk."

As a 10 year old giving birth would be life threatening... This story is bullshit.

 

[derpherp2]

How did a fake article get 15 pages?

Autistic newfags apparently?

 

[TheBigZee]

If nobody else has posted this:

https://usabortionlaws.com/ohio/

"When Can You Get an Abortion in Ohio?​

In Ohio, you can get an abortion until the fetus is viable outside of the womb, which is typically around 20 to 22 weeks. After 22 weeks, an abortion can only be performed if the life or health of the mother is at risk."

As a 10 year old giving birth would be life threatening... This story is bullshit.

Ohio passed a law with a trigger in 2019. This is no longer the law in ohio.

You've yet to respond to this in specific.

"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.

Condition - This is a fact about the situation

Physicians good faith judgement - This is the standard to be applied. The physician is to apply their medical training. Barring mental health.

At the time - What is known about the condition, the judgement does not have to be exhaustive, and can be made with the facts at hand.

necessitate:

As used in jurisprudence, the word “necessary” does not always import an absolute physical necessity, so strong that one thing, to which another may be termed “necessary,” cannot exist without that other. It frequently imports no more than that one thing is convenient or useful or essential to another. To employ the means neccssanj to an end is generally understood as employing any means calculated to produce the end, and not as being confined to those single means without which the end would be entirely unattainable. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 310, 413, 4 L. Ed. 579. As to necessary “Damages,” “Deposit,” “Domicile,” “Implication,” “Intromission,” “Parties,” “Repairs,” and “Way,” see those titles.

That statute earlier defers to the doctors good faith judgement. It puts no conditions on the necessity or further guidance. The doctor alone determines whether the abortion was necessary under this exception to violating the statute. There are further requirements beyond necessary though:

Immediate:

Immediate - "Present; at once; without delay ; not deferred by any interval oftime. In this sense, the word, without any very precise signification, denotes that action is or must be taken either instantly or without any considerable loss of time.Immediately does not, in legal proceedings, necessarily import the exclusion of any interval of time, it is a word of no very definite signification, and is much in subjection to its grammatical connections."

This is important. You have to read the rest of the statute to see if the legislature clarifies a standard. We will come across a word in this definition later - delay.

Peformance or inducement - this is the act.

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

This is the justification for the act. The legislature provided their own definitions. You use those rather than a law dictionary.

That brings us to the final part of the statute:

that delay in the performance or inducement of the abortion would create.

This clarifies the usage of immediate earlier. We are talking about immediate in the context of delay.

The statute puts that in the realm of medical judgement, not legal.

What does "immediate" mean in medicine when talking about situations that could result in death or severe injury? Exactly what immediate means - the smallest interval of time possible.

The statute requires that in a doctors best medical judgement, the abortion has to be both necessary and required immediately.


Can the abortion wait till tomorrow without substantially raising the risk?