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




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

 

[X Prime]

I too, agree that taking one rando's position as emblematic of a group of people is smart.

Why do people like Lurker think pedos should not be killed, to own the chuds, given historical statements by others?

 

[Shidoen]

I too, agree that taking one rando's position as emblematic of a group of people is smart.

Why do people like Lurker think pedos should not be killed, to own the chuds, given historical statements by others?

Hell a few people I now lynched a few for frontier justice. It’s no drama if the guys were monsters anyway.

 

[LurkTrawl]

I too, agree that taking one rando's position as emblematic of a group of people is smart.

Why do people like Lurker think pedos should not be killed, to own the chuds, given historical statements by others?

Yeah this "pick leaders of random organizations loosely affiliated with your position to assert you also believe the exact same things they do" game doesn't work out so well when your side of the political spectrum has people openly declaring "love has no age" and other similarly disgusting and reprehensible shit.

Of course they know the game they're playing I assume as otherwise it's the logic of the mentally handicapped.

Again pointing out that any arguing of the main point that she didn't have to leave the state has stopped entirely in lieu of planting down a field of strawmen and burning them ritualistically.

 

[Lurker]

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

ON A POLITICO ARTICLE???????

if you're allowed to use breitbart, i'm allowed to use politico. seems fair.

So one lawyer is supposed to speak for the entire mindset that I have, or does one senator in your state represent every belief you hold?

it just seems to me like you disagree because agreeing would make you look kinda sus.

I too, agree that taking one rando's position as emblematic of a group of people is smart.

Why do people like Lurker think pedos should not be killed, to own the chuds, given historical statements by others?

at least you used my name. you're getting it! also i think we should kill anyone we don't like and anyone we disagree with, in addition to pedos.

 

[Shidoen]

if you're allowed to use breitbart, i'm allowed to use politico. seems fair.


it just seems to me like you disagree because agreeing would make you look kinda sus.


at least you used my name. you're getting it! also i think we should kill anyone we don't like and anyone we disagree with, in addition to pedos.

So I don’t think abortion should be used as a contraceptive but I agree abortion should be used in cases of rape or life threatening situations. How am I the same as the guy you just mentioned?

 

[derpherp2]

if you're allowed to use breitbart, i'm allowed to use politico. seems fair.


it just seems to me like you disagree because agreeing would make you look kinda sus.


at least you used my name. you're getting it! also i think we should kill anyone we don't like and anyone we disagree with, in addition to pedos.

1. Using it to cite the events happening (also you bitched about my 'source' earlier due to muh bias iirc, so uh. lmao) = Using a journalist site to tell everyone what their opinions actually are.

2. I'd/We'd probably state my/our real opinion, but you two retards would go on about how that isn't our actual opinion. So I'd rather shit on you for the lulz. Until I get bored, or you go in circles like HHH. Hint: Oddly enough some of us aren't even the political affiliation you two faggots keep screeching about. Lmfao.

3. Whataboutism autism

 

[LurkTrawl]

if you're allowed to use breitbart, i'm allowed to use politico. seems fair.

I used the article as it had a direct statement from the Attorney General of Ohio. You quoted Politico, for a quote from some randomer who's part of some pro life organization as if it was some kind of gotcha.

To think they're comparable speaks volumes.

it just seems to me like you disagree because agreeing would make you look kinda sus.

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.

Tell me I didn't hit the nail on the head.

 

[derpherp2]

I'd say he's trying to play dumb, but the word "play" is probably too optimistic.

I'd say he's trying to play smart, considering the massive rule changes of this subforum.
The fact that it looks dumb kind of says a lot tbqhfamalam.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

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.

The basis of the pro-life position is that the fetus is a human being, so this take isn't quite accurate.

It is the case that many laws touted by pro-life proponents make exceptions in case of rape or incest, but that's clearly inconsistent with said basis-- it's just that saying that someone should carry to term a child conceived by rape is a tall order for a lot of people, even if the child themselves didn't do anything.

The reason why abortion in case of deadly threat to the mother's life ends up being consistent is because at that point, you have to make the choice between losing one life or losing two. Rape/incest don't, by themselves, present that dilemma.

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

ON A POLITICO ARTICLE???????


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.

Bopp isn't talking about this case in that phone interview, I hope you realized. When he says:

“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.

he's talking about his model legislation, indicated by the previous paragraph:

Jim Bopp, an Indiana lawyer who authored the model legislation in advance of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, told POLITICO on Thursday that his law only provides exceptions when the pregnant person’s life is in danger.

He's speaking of a hypothetical "she", which is why there's no citation of him acknowledging the age of the girl in this case, or attempting to refute the idea that she would be in active danger by continuing the pregnancy, or any indication that POLITICO made Bopp aware of her age. It doesn't even look like they called him to discuss this case in any capacity.

What's worse about this is that his model legislation does allow for abortion in case of rape/incest, even if he doesn't quite like the idea:

While Bopp’s model legislation, which was released in advance of the Supreme Court’s ruling late last month, encourages states to ban all abortions unless necessary to save the life of the pregnant person, it notes “it may be necessary in certain states to have additional exceptions, such as for a women pregnant as a result of rape or incest.”

“Unless her life was at danger, there is no exception for rape,” Bopp said. “The bill does propose exceptions for rape and incest, in my model, because that is a pro-life position, but it’s not our ideal position. We don’t think, as heartwrenching as those circumstances are, we don’t think we should devalue the life of the baby because of the sins of the father.”

I'm starting to get a bit upset by the pro-choice/pro-abortion camp's inability to read laws and statements insistence on deception.

 

[Paul Pelosi's Boyfriend]

Politico is fair game, it's Jacobin that employs the real crackpots.

 

[X Prime]

I'm starting to get a bit upset by the pro-choice/pro-abortion camp's inability to read laws and statements.

It could be worse. We could be getting Galtataur in here for paragraphs of being a pretend lawyer on top of that. At least this current jester is mercifully short.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

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.

Ohio AG Yost: A 10-Year-Old Rape Victim Can Still Get an Abortion in …

archived 14 Jul 2022 01:22:33 UTC

archive.ph

View attachment 3497643

"If the life of the mother is at risk" is pretty vague statement. Technically every pregnancy the pregnant woman's life is at risk. Pregnancy is pretty high risk in general, even in normal pregnancies. Again, the word of the law isn't clear what constitutes "life of the mother" is in danger.

You Republicans could at least admit that Ohio's law is too restrictive if you're gonna pretend to be giving a bad faith argument anyway

 

[X Prime]

Where is that meme of McCain air-quoting "life of the mother" and shoving it aside in times like this?

 

[LurkTrawl]

"If the life of the mother is at risk" is pretty vague statement. Technically every pregnancy the pregnant woman's life is at risk. Pregnancy is pretty high risk in general, even in normal pregnancies. Again, the word of the law isn't clear what constitutes "life of the mother".

You Republicans could at least admit that Ohio's law is too restrictive if you're gonna pretend to be giving a bad faith argument anyway

Explain to me in three sentences or less how a ten year old being pregnant isn't a risk to the life of the mother, or a medical emergency, or even how it's comparable to an adult woman being pregnant. Pick any of the three or any combination thereof if you want.

Reminder the argument you and other people pushing this bullshit hinge on is that somehow, an impregnated ten year old child is at the same risk as a pregnant adult during pregnancy. Something any doctor or hell any layman should have no problem explaining or really even need to explain to get an exception, as pointed out both in my posts in the old thread and various people in this one, and by that AG. The exceptions are pretty clearly demarcated and unless you're going to directly quote the section of the law that makes your case, I'm just throwing it out as it's just more assertations without anything backing them up.

I mean fuck if you're so bothered about it why don't you actually read the law through concerning this like I did? Or is it not actually that big of a deal to you to be worth it?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Explain to me in three sentences or less how a ten year old being pregnant isn't a risk to the life of the mother, or a medical emergency, or even how it's comparable to an adult woman being pregnant. Pick any of the three or any combination thereof if you want.

Reminder the argument you and other people pushing this bullshit hinge on is that somehow, an impregnated ten year old child is at the same risk as a pregnant adult during pregnancy. Something any doctor or hell any layman should have no problem explaining or really even need to explain to get an exception, as pointed out both in my posts in the old thread and various people in this one, and by that AG.

Again, the law isn't clear and doesn't define what would constitute a dangerous pregnancy.

Instead of just admitting that maybe, just maybe, your fellow religious crackpots made a law too restrictive in Ohio, you can't do that, because you're a partisan hack.

Also, it's ironic that the guy who got a mod warning for talking sexually about children is calling me a "pedo" without even tagging me because he's a pussy (and a pedo on top of that). Then again, he's a QAnoner so anyone who isn't a Republican is a pedo to him

 

[derpherp2]

So since you two are retarded, there's this thing in a debate called "common sense"
When you 'debate' you usually cite a source for your claims, or your claims are 'common sense' and thus needs no source. (inb4 you two autistically mash the 'needs no source cuz muh common sense lmao im only pretending to be retarded #social_experiement' button btw).

The fact that you two keep saying, essentially, that "A 10 year old being pregnant is the same as an adult being pregnant" implies. To us.
That you think said statement isn't common sense.

And we go to nonverbal assumptions to cement a psych profile of your opinions (which is how you build a proper strawman btw) etc. etc.
In short. Lmao pedophiles.

 

[X Prime]

Explain to me in three sentences or less

Dear God man. You could ask for something less demonstrably impossible. Like, say, cut off a hand like we're in Evil Dead.

 

[Shidoen]

The basis of the pro-life position is that the fetus is a human being, so this take isn't quite accurate.

It is the case that many laws touted by pro-life proponents make exceptions in case of rape or incest, but that's clearly inconsistent with said basis-- it's just that saying that someone should carry to term a child conceived by rape is a tall order, even if the child themselves didn't do anything.

The reason why abortion in case of deadly threat to the mother's life ends up being consistent is because at that point, you have to make the choice between losing one life or losing two. Rape/incest don't, by themselves, present that dilemma.


Bopp isn't talking about this case in that phone interview, I hope you realized. When he says:


he's talking about his model legislation, indicated by the previous paragraph:

He's speaking of a hypothetical "she", which is why there's no citation of him acknowledging the age of the girl in this case, or attempting to refute the idea that she would be in active danger by continuing the pregnancy, or any indication that POLITICO made Bopp aware of her age.

What's worse about this is that his model legislation does allow for abortion in case of rape/incest, even if he doesn't quite like the idea:


I'm starting to get a bit upset by the pro-choice/pro-abortion camp's inability to read laws and statements.

For rape I’d say it’s a personal choice to keep the baby with the majority choosing not to. For incest, I mean the kids already going to be fucked up so that should be an obvious choice, then again cousin fuckers aren’t the smartest. For life threatening, a kid who got raped/incest is gonna get that fetus yanked out regardless.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

So since you two are retarded, there's this thing in a debate called "common sense"
When you 'debate' you usually cite a source for your claims, or your claims are 'common sense' and thus needs no source. (inb4 you two autistically mash the 'needs no source cuz muh common sense lmao im only pretending to be retarded #social_experiement' button btw).

The fact that you two keep saying, essentially, that "A 10 year old being pregnant is the same as an adult being pregnant" implies. To us.
That you think said statement isn't common sense.

And we go to nonverbal assumptions to cement a psych profile of your opinions (which is how you build a proper strawman btw) etc. etc.
In short. Lmao pedophiles.

Again, I see you just cannot admit that your fellow religious nutjobs in Ohio made a stupid law.

Now, will you or will you not admit that it's fucked up that Ohio's law doesn't give exception for rape?

 

[LurkTrawl]

Dear God man. You could ask for something less demonstrably impossible. Like, say, cut off a hand like we're in Evil Dead.

I don't think it's too onerous given that it keeps being stated as if it's a simple fact of life that somehow a girl that young being pregnant is equivalent in danger to a fully grown woman being pregnant.

Again, the law isn't clear and doesn't define what would constitute a dangerous pregnancy.

Actually read the post I made where I pointed out exactly how clear it is, you just keep repeating this with no further sources or justification. Repetition of statements does not in fact increase their veracity, HHH.

Instead of just admitting that maybe, just maybe, your fellow religious crackpots made a law too restrictive in Ohio, you can't do that, because you're a partisan hack.

You can't even be asked to read the law that you're bitching about to quote what exactly your argument is based off of, yet want people who do to just accept repetition as some kind of substantive argument. "Just accept you're wrong even though I have been demonstrably proven wrong and keep asserting you're wrong" is a shit take for anyone to have.

Also, it's ironic that the guy who got a mod warning for talking sexually about children is calling me a "pedo" without even tagging me because he's a pussy (and a pedo on top of that). Then again, he's a QAnoner so anyone who isn't a Republican is a pedo to him

Dunno who you're talking about but yeah it gives off serious pedophile vibes to keep insinuating that a young girl being pregnant isn't a serious fucking medical emergency.

And to clarify for the thread and the second time for you in particular:

(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:

(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.

Explain to me how "pregnant at ten years old" isn't a medical emergency and I'll cede that maybe you have a point. But you can't, and don't.