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:
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?
Lmao. You spent all that time backtracking the thread to negrate people and you still couldn't read any of it.
For all you know I already did whatever it is you think you can demand of me to do.
 
Lmao. You spent all that time backtracking the thread to negrate people and you still couldn't read any of it.
For all you know I already did whatever it is you think you can demand of me to do.
Lol Answer the question.

Don't you think it's fucked up that the Ohio law doesn't make an exception for rape victims?
 
Lol Answer the question.

Don't you think it's fucked up that the Ohio law doesn't make an exception for rape victims?
Lmao. You spent all that time backtracking the thread to negrate people and you still couldn't read any of it.
For all you know I already did whatever it is you think you can demand of me to do.
repeat ad nausem etc. etc.
 
@X Prime & @LurkTrawl 's avatars are so similar, I almost started merging posts for double-posting. Almost.

Please try to converse without off-topic attacks of other posters, the report queue is filling up via exceptional individuals on both sides. Any Ohio residents are fair game for any baseless insult though
 
Lol Answer the question.

Don't you think it's fucked up that the Ohio law doesn't make an exception for rape victims?
I ain't going through 20 pages of a bunch of Republican boomer autism. Just answer the question instead of dodging it like it's a formal education
The answer has already been explained at length, given, and with sources, that you're incorrect and apparently illiterate.
@X Prime & @LurkTrawl 's avatars are so similar, I almost started merging posts for double-posting. Almost.

Please try to converse without off-topic attacks of other posters, the report queue is filling up via exceptional individuals on both sides. Any Ohio residents are fair game for any baseless insult though
Going to just put it bluntly: is it expected to just put up with this clown insulting people ad nauseam and not insult him? Seems pretty shitty to me if the guy can just shit up a thread, insulting people, and the worst that happens is everyone else gets blamed for it. Which has been a pattern for a while now.

Maybe the incendiary, obnoxious asshole who turns every thread instantly to shit when people don't outright ignore him might be the problem? I've disagreed somewhat frequently with leftists on here and for some strange reason it mostly never turns into shit-flinging.
 
The answer has already been explained at length, given, and with sources, that you're incorrect and apparently illiterate.

Going to just put it bluntly: is it expected to just put up with this clown insulting people ad nauseam and not insult him? Seems pretty shitty to me if the guy can just shit up a thread, insulting people, and the worst that happens is everyone else gets blamed for it. Which has been a pattern for a while now.

Maybe the incendiary, obnoxious asshole who turns every thread instantly to shit when people don't outright ignore him might be the problem? I've disagreed somewhat frequently with leftists on here and for some strange reason it mostly never turns into shit-flinging.

Their arguments don't come from an honest place and yours do, that's the problem.
 
For those interested, Matt Christiansen offers a good summary of.thenfscts as we know them so far, although he spends far too much time apologizing for retracting a video when the video was very sound based on the information he had then at the time.


I do hope the facts of this situation help wake more people up to the necessity of a hard-line approach to immigration policy.anf border control. This is horrific but smacks of third world problems, and I don't want them here.
 
Going to just put it bluntly: is it expected to just put up with this clown insulting people ad nauseam and not insult him? Seems pretty shitty to me if the guy can just shit up a thread, insulting people, and the worst that happens is everyone else gets blamed for it. Which has been a pattern for a while now.
I'll try to be blunt(and as concise as possible) as well: The point of A&N threads is to discuss the thread title/topic. Off-topic discussion can reasonably veer off if everyone involved is having a good time, like a climate thread suddenly talking about its impact to penguins and then people start posting penguin trivia/cute pengu pics/Madagascar memes. If it's disruptive off-topic discussion, reports get sent out and we're expected to steer the conversation back on track. Sometimes that involves deleting useless posts(at our discretion).

If users are insulting you and not saying anything about raped Ohio girls, that's a violation. Click report and we'll probably delete it and tell the offender "cut it out." Repeated violations in a short window would escalate to drunk tank-style timeouts from posting. If you're talking about the subject matter as a first priority and slip in a small jab with a little wordplay, probably not a delete, we'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The long and short of it is some users are baiting others into swinging back harder and we don't necessarily see every offense, so the "swinging back harder" may get reported but the shitfliging that started it may not have been seen. I don't read every topic in depth when looking at a report, unless it's interesting and I think it's worth a deeper dive for context. In general, Hogan is a desired poster for their takes that often go against the grain, and that promotes critical thinking and scrutiny. Hogan is also known for swinging below the belt like any other user and has had insulting posts deleted. They're not getting special treatment.

I'm not asking for anyone to drastically alter their posting behavior, just try not to take the bait and if you think some posts are ruining a thread, report it & give a brief explanation of why you think it's bad and it'll get looked at. If it is bad, it'll be dealt with. The processes in place are designed to keep things on track. Use the ignore feature on users you positively cannot stand, report problems as you see them and stay on topic yourself. Trust The Plan™
 
I do hope the facts of this situation help wake more people up to the necessity of a hard-line approach to immigration policy.anf border control. This is horrific but smacks of third world problems, and I don't want them here.

It reeks of problems like that have Britain with some of the Middle Easterner Grooming Gangs and how they covered it up there too.
 
Just answer the question (maybe again) and I will move on. It'll take you 10 seconds to type it out. It'd take me a lot longer to read 20 pages of boomer sperging about abortion
I already have twice. The answer is you're incorrect and the only reason I can think of that you continue on like this is a lack of capacity to read the written word. I've quoted the exact portions of the law twice that are relevant and the only question that keeps not being answered here is:

"Do you seriously think a ten year old girl being pregnant isn't a medical emergency of the severity that would allow for an exception to be made wrt an abortion in her case?" or more succinctly:
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.
Because the only way your argument or even indeed your insipid question works is if the girl wouldn't have been given an exception due to her condition not being a medical emergency. So either you're right and a ten year old girl being pregnant somehow isn't an emergency (which would require an explanation as to how exactly it isn't, as it's common sense that it would be) or you're wrong and your repeated question is retarded and baseless.

Until that question gets answered yours doesn't get answered in a way that you'd like because otherwise yours doesn't even make sense. But since you keep getting a correct answer that you don't like you keep asking it hoping for a different response. Which leaves me wondering at what point that kind of behavior isn't just shitting up a thread for the sake of it.
If users are insulting you and not saying anything about raped Ohio girls, that's a violation. Click report and we'll probably delete it and tell the offender "cut it out." Repeated violations in a short window would escalate to drunk tank-style timeouts from posting. If you're talking about the subject matter as a first priority and slip in a small jab with a little wordplay, probably not a delete, we'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Well from this definition I'd say I'm doing the latter and not the former as much as Mr. HHH over here.
In general, Hogan is a desired poster for their takes that often go against the grain, and that promotes critical thinking and scrutiny. Hogan is also known for swinging below the belt like any other user and has had insulting posts deleted. They're not getting special treatment.

I'm not asking for anyone to drastically alter their posting behavior, just try not to take the bait and if you think some posts are ruining a thread, report it & give a brief explanation of why you think it's bad and it'll get looked at. If it is bad, it'll be dealt with. The processes in place are designed to keep things on track. Use the ignore feature on users you positively cannot stand, report problems as you see them and stay on topic yourself. Trust The Plan™
Well I'd ask then if you could take a look back through the past few pages of this thread and tell me who you think is shitting it up and getting it off track. Forgive me if I don't use the report feature for anything other than double-posts, huge images, or unspoilered awful shit like PPP's asshole photo, I'm more of an "ignore user" kind of guy but when a guy shits up a thread past a certain point you can't exactly ignore him now can you?
 
I already have twice. The answer is you're incorrect and the only reason I can think of that you continue on like this is a lack of capacity to read the written word. I've quoted the exact portions of the law twice that are relevant and the only question that keeps not being answered here is:

"Do you seriously think a ten year old girl being pregnant isn't a medical emergency of the severity that would allow for an exception to be made wrt an abortion in her case?" or more succinctly:
I didn't ask about the law; you're dodging the question again with a non-sequitur. I asked don't you think it's fucked up that Ohio law doesn't allow an exemption for rape?

The law says "mother's life is in danger", but doesn't define that. Every pregnancy the mother's life is in danger. Yes, a ten year old's pregnancy would be higher risk than an adult's, but that still doesn't mean an adult's pregnancy is not putting her life in danger, too. Now, stop dodging the question and answer it. I've asked you a bunch of times and you keep dodging it because you're afraid to admit you disagree with your fellow theocratical Republican boomers or afraid to admit that you think rape victims should be forced to carry their babies
 
you know, maybe people would follow the rules if there was a sticky in a&h that explicitly stated the rules instead of people just having to guess based on whether a mod chooses to explain themselves or not. i know this is offtopic but if we're going to rulesperg i figure i should contribute my two-cents.

and maybe threadbanning people for repeatedly breaking said rules should be a thing.
 
you know, maybe people would follow the rules if there was a sticky in a&h that explicitly stated the rules instead of people just having to guess based on whether a mod chooses to explain themselves or not. i know this is offtopic but if we're going to rulesperg i figure i should contribute my two-cents.

and maybe threadbanning people for repeatedly breaking said rules should be a thing.
I just wish that the modding was more consistent, although it seems to have improved in the past few weeks in that regard
 
I didn't ask about the law; you're dodging the question again with a non-sequitur. I asked don't you think it's fucked up that Ohio law doesn't allow an exemption for rape?
This exact question is a non-sequitur, HHH. You're asking me if I think it's fucked up that Ohio law doesn't allow an exemption, but yet you didn't ask me about the law?
The law says "mother's life is in danger", but doesn't define that. Every pregnancy the mother's life is in danger. Yes, a ten year old's pregnancy would be higher risk than an adult's, but that still doesn't mean an adult's pregnancy is not putting her life in danger, too. Now, stop dodging the question and answer it. I've asked you a bunch of times and you keep dodging it because you're afraid to admit you disagree with your fellow theocratical Republican boomers or afraid to admit that you think rape victims should be forced to carry their babies
For the third time:
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.

Nowhere in this short exception does the word "mother" exist. It states that "a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with that division". The division in question being:
Part A 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:

The entire premise of both your question and your argument hinges on both a phrase that doesn't exist in the law and a situation that didn't need to occur. Neither "mother's life is in danger" appears in the bill you're thinking of nor did this unfortunate girl have to leave the state as a minor being pregnant, especially at that age, is a medical emergency. You either cede that you think a kid being pregnant isn't enough of a medical emergency to allow an abortion under division B or you don't even have a point.
 
Back