Crime (Update) Arrest Made in Rape of Ohio 10-Year-Old Who Had to Travel Out of State for Abortion

Link: https://www.thedailybeast.com/colum...o-traveled-to-indiana-for-abortion?ref=scroll
Archive: http://archive.md/2022.07.13-203034...o-traveled-to-indiana-for-abortion?ref=scroll


2BD82FDD-0F45-461E-A597-E6E5B37D2512.jpeg

An Ohio man was arrested Tuesday for raping a 10-year-old girl who became a central figure in the debate over abortion rights after she reportedly traveled to Indiana to have an abortion when Ohio outlawed the procedure last month.

Arrest records and court records viewed by The Daily Beast confirm that Gerson Fuentes, 27, was arrested Tuesday in Franklin County on a felony charge of raping a person under 13. The Columbus Dispatch, who first reported on his arrest, attended Fuentes’ arraignment in Columbus on Wednesday.

The unidentified girl’s plight became national news when the Indianapolis Star quoted a doctor who said a 10-year-old rape victim, who was six weeks and three days pregnant, had been forced to travel from her home in Columbus to Indiana for an abortion. Her home state had a trigger law that immediately outlawed abortions after six weeks once the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

A Columbus Police detective, identified by the Dispatch as Jeffrey Huhn, testified in court Wednesday that the 10-year-old victim was impregnated and had an abortion in Indianapolis.


“The victim went out of state to have a medically terminated abortion,” he said, according to video of the arraignment.

The video showed Fuentes staring blankly during the arraignment and standing with a slouch as a translator relayed the proceedings to him in Spanish.

Court records say the alleged rape occurred on May 12. Detectives said in court that police were made aware of the girl’s pregnancy through a referral filed with the local child services’ branch by her mother on June 22. Eight days later, the girl had the abortion in Indianapolis.

The aborted fetus has since been tested for DNA and entered into evidence, Huhn said, and officials say Fuentes confessed to the rape when he was questioned.

Fuentes’ arrest comes as conservative media claimed the girl’s story was made up for political theater, something parroted by Fox News presenters as recently as Tuesday night—while Fuentes was already in custody.

But those also with egg on their face in light of the horrific crime: the top law-enforcement official in Ohio.

Indeed, state Attorney General Dave Yost spent much of the past week effectively dubbing the story a hoax, suggesting he had heard nothing about any such crime being reported.

“We have a decentralized law enforcement system in Ohio, but we have regular contact with prosecutors and local police and sheriffs,” Yost said in a Fox News segment Monday. “Not a whisper anywhere.”


Yost released a statement Wednesday afternoon that did not address his previous comments.

“My heart aches for the pain suffered by this young child,” he said. “I am grateful for the diligent work of the Columbus Police Department in securing a confession and getting a rapist off the street.”

Dr. Caitlin Bernard, the Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist who first described the rape and its aftermath to the Indy Star, previously told The Daily Beast she expected vindication.

“It will all come out in time,” she said via text message on Tuesday.


Court records show Fuentes is being held on a bond of $2 million. The judge said he was considered a flight risk and, given the brutality of the crime, a high bail was necessary to protect the child involved.

—with reporting by Pilar Melendez
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From page 2:

Relevant section:

Because being pregnant at ten years old is a medical emergency. Like I've said before. Because, duh.
Oh, and from the article in OP:

So instead of immediately contacting the cops and a lawyer, they waited eight days to begin worrying about getting an abortion. I've already argued the actual text of the law to death in what I thought was the other thread (no idea if they've been merged or not) so I'll not bother here.

I'm more concerned that you care more that you think a girl couldn't get an abortion at ten years old than with the fact she was raped but you do you.
I'd be more concerned why the two moral aggrandizing retards are trying to steer the conversation to about abortion when its been beyond the topic since early on in the original thread.

Oh by the way you two retards, there was an original thread.
I'd help you find it, but it's funnier this way.
It's certainly not because the topic was sus back then so I didn't give any shits about it other than to shit on the journalist for being so bad like I usually do.
 
"safety of the mother" is such nebulous phrasing. in fact, here is how it is phrased, "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman". well, that's certainly subjective, isn't it? after all, if a ten year old has her period,. then surely she is able to give birth. isn't that how you lovely people think? also pregnancy almost always carries a risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of bodily function. believe it or not, pregnancy isn't all fun and games. the act of being pregnant is in and of itself a dangerous thing regardless of a woman's age.
Link to post
From post said:
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.

Click to expand...
(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.

I dug through what the law actually says on the topic in the previous thread. I get that you think you're clever reaching for "well pregnancy is always dangerous :smug:" but being pregnant at a young age such as that, I shouldn't have to explain, is particularly dangerous. It's not comparable to an adult woman being pregnant.
and once again, if you're being logically consistent, then there is no difference between a fetus in a 10 year old and a fetus inside a grown adult woman. are you okay with killing a fetus because it's inside a 10 year old? that's pretty fucked up, if you believe in that sort of thing.
So you think there's no difference between a product of rape and the product of a one night stand? Interesting.
 
From page 2:

Relevant section:

Because being pregnant at ten years old is a medical emergency. Like I've said before. Because, duh.
Oh, and from the article in OP:

So instead of immediately contacting the cops and a lawyer, they waited eight days to begin worrying about getting an abortion. I've already argued the actual text of the law to death in what I thought was the other thread (no idea if they've been merged or not) so I'll not bother here.

I'm more concerned that you care more that you think a girl couldn't get an abortion at ten years old than with the fact she was raped but you do you.
Except by the word of the law, she did have to. The AG is saying that now to cover for their law being retarded. They didn't say it before the abortion actually happened, if you notice.

You theocrats could just say, "The Ohio law is too restrictive", but no, you gotta white knight your fellow religious zealots instead

If you have to ask, no, you aren't understanding the person you're trying to emulate, and you'll be about as persuasive as this dude

View attachment 3497602
I know that it upsets you religious zealots when we post what Jesus actually said, and how it's the opposite of what you want, and it shows how awful, hypocritical people you are.
 
@LurkTrawl
So you think there's no difference between a product of rape and the product of a one night stand? Interesting.
lol that's pretty much what the "pro-life" mindset is. it doesn't matter if a woman is raped or if it's consensual, because the fetus is still a real human bean and therefore more important than the life of the actual mother. i'm not agreeing with this, but this is the mindset "pro-life" people have.
 
@LurkTrawl

lol that's pretty much what the "pro-life" mindset is. it doesn't matter if a woman is raped or if it's consensual, because the fetus is still a real human bean and therefore more important than the life of the actual mother. i'm not agreeing with this, but this is the mindset "pro-life" people have.
That's as vapid a take as saying all pro-choice people are whores, sluts, and coomers. It's easy to paint entire groups of people, wide swathes of them, with retarded labels when you spend your time telling them they're lying when they don't say what agrees with the version of them in your head and twisting everything they say that somewhat agrees with you into an affirmation of your psychotic vision of their political stances.

Besides none of that has to do with the fact that this unfortunate girl definitely did not have to leave the state to seek treatment.
Except by the word of the law, she did have to. The AG is saying that now to cover for their law being retarded. They didn't say it before the abortion actually happened, if you notice.
I literally posted the part of the law that shows why she wouldn't have had to, and the AG explains it pretty clearly. You're either incapable of the reading comprehension of the average Breitbart reader, or you literally just didn't read that part of my post at all. Either way, if it says that in the law, well I quoted it - find the part that does or get a lawyer who can on the line. Otherwise, it's pretty clear unless someone can argue against it that exceptions existed that would've worked in this case that were written into the law to begin with.
 
It really is weird how oddly pedophillic their arguments become @LurkTrawl holy shit.
"10 year olds getting pregnant is the same as adults getting pregnant"
That's hillarious.

Also infuriating. But whatever.
Also imagine disagreeing with what the AG has to say about his own laws by saying "he's lying to cover his ass"
inb4 'DOKTOR DO TOO SO #OWNED ACK ACK'
 
It really is weird how oddly pedophillic their arguments become @LurkTrawl holy shit.
"10 year olds getting pregnant is the same as adults getting pregnant"
That's hillarious.

Also infuriating. But whatever.
Also imagine disagreeing with what the AG has to say about his own laws by saying "he's lying to cover his ass"
inb4 'DOKTOR DO TOO SO #OWNED ACK ACK'

I was about to say I believe he's got a fetish for forced birth with 10 year olds.
 
It really is weird how oddly pedophillic their arguments become @LurkTrawl holy shit.
"10 year olds getting pregnant is the same as adults getting pregnant"
That's hillarious.
i'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the supposed "pro-life" people. if it sounds fucked up, that's because it is. if a fetus is a person and it is wrong to abort a fetus because it is a person, then it would be wrong to abort a fetus if a 10 year old is carrying it.

but go off, my man.
 
i'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the supposed "pro-life" people. if it sounds fucked up, that's because it is. if a fetus is a person and it is wrong to abort a fetus because it is a person, then it would be wrong to abort a fetus if a 10 year old is carrying it.

but go off, my man.
The actual pro life argument is that it’s bad to abort a fetus since it is human IF it was your own negligence that got you pregnant. That doesn’t include rape or life threatening things, those are valid if you need an abortion. Like honest to god go outside and meet people instead of basing things off the internet.
 
Except by the word of the law, she did have to. The AG is saying that now to cover for their law being retarded. They didn't say it before the abortion actually happened, if you notice.
The AG said on Fox, something like three or four days before verification that this was real and him still under the impression that this was a hoax, that if this were to happen the 10 year old would've gotten the abortion and no doctor would've been prosecuted. I have no idea how that's covering for bad law when the law says, quite explicitly, that if the life of the mother is a risk then an abortion is legal. It's almost like retards only focus on part of the law that doesn't allow for abortion due to rape and ignore that a 10 year old carrying their rape baby is a death sentence to both the child and her child so, as the AG stated on record, it would've been allowed.
1657995359906.png
 
The actual pro life argument is that it’s bad to abort a fetus since it is human IF it was your own negligence that got you pregnant. That doesn’t include rape or life threatening things, those are valid if you need an abortion. Like honest to god go outside and meet people instead of basing things off the internet.

“She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child,” Bopp said in a phone interview on Thursday.

??????
 
...
Did you just base the entire opinion of an ideology.

ON A POLITICO ARTICLE???????
:story:

Seriously, imagine making a strawman, being surprised the strawman isn't human, and then being surprised when everyone laughs at you tardflailing at a strawman.
AND LOSING.
Jesus Christ my sides.

*:Actually I have to add, the people your strawman is based on then say 'that isn't a human' but then you go 'lmao YES IT IS' *proceeds to flail even harder*.
 
Back