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

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

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?

That exemption should exist for minors, not adults, there's no good reason to kill a baby which a woman can safely birth.

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

"Life in danger" is determined by doctors; if someone is at risk of dying, likely due to health conditions or age, then they can get an abortion. You just don't want to accept that most abortions are for frivolous reasons, not risks to one's life.

I just wish that the modding was more consistent, although it seems to have improved in the past few weeks in that regard

I disagree, you're still here.

 

[Haramburger]

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

colored for value; green is presenting (what I assume are)facts with personal opinions. Red is a shitty thing to do, demanding another user you don't agree with face your argument; take that shit to Debates if you need an audience or a private convo. Yellow is drawing conclusions from their recent lack of addressing the point/s you want, but veers into insulting and putting words in their mouth.

I wouldn't delete this but it could've been a better post. If you disagree on the overall discussion and keep circling the same points, at some point the conversation ought to end until you have input from other people that refreshes the discussion. You can walk away gracefully(either side) or dig in your heels and escalate the verbal violence until someone gets a time out. Please get over this yourselves so the thread doesn't have to get nuclear.

 

[Wormy]

Real critical thinking hours right here, repeating ourselves in a loop like chatbots in a facile effort to score an own in a political topic.

On one of the most boring and go-nowhere topics this side of race.

 

[X Prime]

I wouldn't delete this but it could've been a better post. If you disagree on the overall discussion and keep circling the same points, at some point the conversation ought to end until you have input from other people that refreshes the discussion. You can walk away gracefully(either side) or dig in your heels and escalate the verbal violence until someone gets a time out. Please get over this yourselves so the thread doesn't have to get nuclear.

I'm confused.

Do you not realize that the yellow part is the actual purpose of the post, and the rest is just an easy loopable vehicle to pretend there's an actual discussion so you won't delete it?

 

[Fomo Hoire]

What, no joke about the A word in there?

Son, I am disappointed. There was a perfect setup.

Naw, I ain't pro-abortion, I need to evaluate the situation first. If I'm not in there with them, I don't need to break out.

Their arguments don't come from an honest place and yours do, that's the problem.

Kind of a short sighted way to argue tbh. If for some reason I hypothetically had to choose one of the two extreme strawman positions, no refunds... Well there's a reason smarter people say winning a debate isn't about besting the opponent, it's about turning the bystanders.

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.

Oftentimes when a video is a slogh to sit through, Open Transcript is a cool guy. It absolutely lacks sentence structure and it isn't perfect but it gives you a general idea what's happening and you can use it to jump to any interesting / unclear parts of the video you spot.

From skimming the transcript alone without watching the video, news to me, mixed with my commentary :

• The mother is pregnant with the suspect's child. This makes DNA testing the siblings make more sense - they may be using the age of the siblings to determine how long Gerson Fuentes has been in the family's life
• He's been in the US for 7 years, but I'm not sure if the mother was already in the US 8 years ago so I hesitate to say 7 years is a hard limit on anything
• Someone in the thread already said Columbus is a sanctuary city. Video says its in spirit, not officially, so I guess they don't have official laws to that effect yet?
• Suggests the mom is defending him because he brings in money. I guess if Columbus isn't a real sanctuary city, it might not have expanded gibs as much as say, California.
• Someone is trying to get the man a lower bond because he's got a place to stay away from the child. But, bond wasn't high because of his living arrangement, it was because he's a flight risk so wtf? Also now I'll assume that the Law&Crime article did good to get the official paperwork but maybe they misread the conditions for bail as it actually being granted.

 

[Norbert the Tiger]

The best way to deal with a broken record that skips and keeps playing the same passage over and over again is to turn it off. Since that broken record cannot get off the merry go round, it is imperative for others to do so. You all know what this tiger is talking about....

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

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:
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.

That has nothing to do with rape, nor does it mention it. Now, do you think it's fucked up that Ohio doesn't allow an exemption for rape?

colored for value; green is presenting (what I assume are)facts with personal opinions. Red is a shitty thing to do, demanding another user you don't agree with face your argument; take that shit to Debates if you need an audience or a private convo. Yellow is drawing conclusions from their recent lack of addressing the point/s you want, but veers into insulting and putting words in their mouth.

I wouldn't delete this but it could've been a better post. If you disagree on the overall discussion and keep circling the same points, at some point the conversation ought to end until you have input from other people that refreshes the discussion. You can walk away gracefully(either side) or dig in your heels and escalate the verbal violence until someone gets a time out. Please get over this yourselves so the thread doesn't have to get nuclear.

Hey now, I progressed the discussion (with the green part), and threw in an insult since he keeps answering my question with an answer that has nothing to do with my question. He is refusing to answer it when it's very relevant to the discussion. You said this was okay upthread

 

[Lurker]

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

a thing that people don't seem to realize is that maternal mortality, in the united states, is alarmingly high for what is allegedly a "first world" nation. if pregnancy itself isn't so dangerous, why all the deaths?

the point we're trying to make, fellow abortionspergs, is that if you believe that abortion is wrong due to the belief that a fetus is indeed a person, it would be hypocritical to say a 10 year old should be allowed to abort it, regardless of how she ended up pregnant or how dangerous said pregnancy will be. no one is arguing that such a thing is okay, but we're arguing that it's a hypocritical stance. basically, we're taking such a stance to its final, logical conclusion.

i realize many of you most likely aren't cool with 10 year olds being raped and getting pregnant, which is the correct opinion to have. but the fact remains that there are people that think such a thing is acceptable, and these people are loud and proud about having such shitty opinions.

it saddens me that the mother and child felt they needed to cross state lines because of the antiabortion rhetoric that's been going on these days. if the girl were able to get an abortion in ohio, she and her mother certainly didn't believe they could, and i can't blame them for not wanting to take the risk. (i'm talking about the mother as though she's a normal good mother and not an enabler like she most likely is in this case.) i'm not even getting into the shit in the background because depending on your source and your political opinions you're going to see two entirely different points of view that may or may not be wrong.

funnily enough i requested that @Haramburger threadban me to stop me from being tempted to post here, but since they haven't done that yet, and may not, I just wanted to make a final post here before I cease posting in this topic.

carry on, fellow abortionspergs. know that other people may not share your opinions and that's okay (unless their opinions are terrible like forcing a 10 year old girl to give birth)

 

[LurkTrawl]

I wouldn't delete this but it could've been a better post. If you disagree on the overall discussion and keep circling the same points, at some point the conversation ought to end until you have input from other people that refreshes the discussion. You can walk away gracefully(either side) or dig in your heels and escalate the verbal violence until someone gets a time out. Please get over this yourselves so the thread doesn't have to get nuclear.

The only reason the "discussion" is circling the same points is because he keeps repeating the same shit over and over. You can go to the thread I quoted earlier where I went in-depth with another person who I disagreed with on this specific issue and see how that went if you want an example of how I'd normally engage with someone on this topic, and I was drinking then, sober now.

At what point does it stop being a "both sides" issue is what I'm curious about. The guy has a history of this and saying he's a:

desired poster for their takes that often go against the grain, and that promotes critical thinking and scrutiny.

when his entire history on this section of the site is that of a man slinging and smearing shit blindly like a rabid chimp is a bit off-putting. Not for nothing, I'll disengage if that's what you want, but I don't see the point of just trying to ignore the guy when he ends up inevitably under "content that might grind your gears" spoilers for pages on end on every thread he enters. Not saying he's getting special treatment per se as this section of the site more or less had no moderation until very recently, but maybe, just maybe put a pin in this and take note of how many times this shit happens with this guy. And more importantly who's at fault as some people took to @'ing him into threads which is pretty fucked up.

 

[Norbert the Tiger]

Naw, I ain't pro-abortion, I need to evaluate the situation first. If I'm not in there with them, I don't need to break out.


Kind of a short sighted way to argue tbh. If for some reason I hypothetically had to choose one of the two extreme strawman positions, no refunds... Well there's a reason smarter people say winning a debate isn't about besting the opponent, it's about turning the bystanders.


Oftentimes when a video is a slogh to sit through, Open Transcript is a cool guy. It absolutely lacks sentence structure and it isn't perfect but it gives you a general idea what's happening and you can use it to jump to any interesting / unclear parts of the video you spot.

From skimming the transcript alone without watching the video, news to me, mixed with my commentary :

• The mother is pregnant with the suspect's child. This makes DNA testing the siblings make more sense - they may be using the age of the siblings to determine how long Gerson Fuentes has been in the family's life
• He's been in the US for 7 years, but I'm not sure if the mother was already in the US 8 years ago so I hesitate to say 7 years is a hard limit on anything
• Someone in the thread already said Columbus is a sanctuary city. Video says its in spirit, not officially, so I guess they don't have official laws to that effect yet?
• Suggests the mom is defending him because he brings in money. I guess if Columbus isn't a real sanctuary city, it might not have expanded gibs as much as say, California.
• Someone is trying to get the man a lower bond because he's got a place to stay away from the child. But, bond wasn't high because of his living arrangement, it was because he's a flight risk so wtf? Also now I'll assume that the Law&Crime article did good to get the official paperwork but maybe they misread the conditions for bail as it actually being

Naw, I ain't pro-abortion, I need to evaluate the situation first. If I'm not in there with them, I don't need to break out.


Kind of a short sighted way to argue tbh. If for some reason I hypothetically had to choose one of the two extreme strawman positions, no refunds... Well there's a reason smarter people say winning a debate isn't about besting the opponent, it's about turning the bystanders.


Oftentimes when a video is a slogh to sit through, Open Transcript is a cool guy. It absolutely lacks sentence structure and it isn't perfect but it gives you a general idea what's happening and you can use it to jump to any interesting / unclear parts of the video you spot.

From skimming the transcript alone without watching the video, news to me, mixed with my commentary :

• The mother is pregnant with the suspect's child. This makes DNA testing the siblings make more sense - they may be using the age of the siblings to determine how long Gerson Fuentes has been in the family's life
• He's been in the US for 7 years, but I'm not sure if the mother was already in the US 8 years ago so I hesitate to say 7 years is a hard limit on anything
• Someone in the thread already said Columbus is a sanctuary city. Video says its in spirit, not officially, so I guess they don't have official laws to that effect yet?
• Suggests the mom is defending him because he brings in money. I guess if Columbus isn't a real sanctuary city, it might not have expanded gibs as much as say, California.
• Someone is trying to get the man a lower bond because he's got a place to stay away from the child. But, bond wasn't high because of his living arrangement, it was because he's a flight risk so wtf? Also now I'll assume that the Law&Crime article did good to get the official paperwork but maybe they misread the conditions for bail as it actually being granted.

That covers a lot of points but there are additional bits for those who want to get up to speed. A lot of it is from the audio of seeing a third world brown person who still cannot speak the langauge despite leaving here about a decade. I do think the video is worth watching but it is probably best to skip forward a minute if he starts apologizing for the video he retracted.

Matt is cool headed and temperate as always. For more incendiary, gloves off commentary I am looking forward to commentary by the likes of Vincent James and Devon Stacks--real right wing fanatics who don't pull punches about race. Matt is trying to stay on YouTube as long as he can so that's part of why his commentary is less salient. Rebecca aka Blond will be more blunt but I think a lot of her schtick is "I'm hot and I like to say things that shock normies."

 

[X Prime]

OK no, asking for a threadban because you might not be able to stop posting is something straight out of modern Something Awful. Tell me that was a joke. Lie if you must.

 

[Haramburger]

funnily enough i requested that @Haramburger threadban me to stop me from being tempted to post here, but since they haven't done that yet, and may not, I just wanted to make a final post here before I cease posting in this topic.

carry on, fellow abortionspergs. know that other people may not share your opinions and that's okay (unless their opinions are terrible like forcing a 10 year old girl to give birth)

I haven't seen it yet(@Francis York Morgan and I started processing reports simultaneously this afternoon without discussing it with each other) but you're underselling your intelligence in just walking away, credit where credit's due. If you feel like asking for a thread ban and then you just leave, the next time you can just snip the first part and look cooler.

when his entire history on this section of the site is that of a man slinging and smearing shit blindly like a rabid chimp is a bit off-putting. Not for nothing, I'll disengage if that's what you want, but I don't see the point of just trying to ignore the guy when he ends up inevitably under "content that might grind your gears" spoilers for pages on end on every thread he enters. Not saying he's getting special treatment per se as this section of the site more or less had no moderation until very recently, but maybe, just maybe put a pin in this and take note of how many times this shit happens with this guy. And more importantly who's at fault as some people took to @'ing him into threads which is pretty fucked up.

Valid feelings, learning to cope with his existence is an exercise in growing as a user. He's no Dyn that's for sure.

 

[Lurker]

I haven't seen it yet(@Francis York Morgan and I started processing reports simultaneously this afternoon without discussing it with each other) but you're underselling your intelligence in just walking away, credit where credit's due. If you feel like asking for a thread ban and then you just leave, the next time you can just snip the first part and look cooler.

if i wanted to look cool i wouldn't be in this thread in the first place

 

[Haramburger]

if i wanted to look cool i wouldn't be in this thread in the first place

mmmm, so cool

please have my babies(and then be forced to carry them to term against your will)

Hey now, I progressed the discussion (with the green part), and threw in an insult since he keeps answering my question with an answer that has nothing to do with my question. He is refusing to answer it when it's very relevant to the discussion. You said this was okay upthread

You are not owed a response from anyone, and it's disruptive to continue demanding one. State your position, the ball then is on their side of the court and its out of your hands. If they never respond back & leave or never refute your points, you have effectively 'won' the argument and may coom. You cannot stay on the field and continue to shout into the void "swing, bitch! Pick that ball back up, Imma SMASH it back, any angle, any inch of this court nigga!"

 

[Local FloRida-man]

And just think: without Roe being overturned pro-abortionists wouldn't have used thus case as a soapbox, drawing pro-life attention and scrutiny to it, and leading to an arrest.

B-B-Based Justice Thomas and Pro-lifers saving babies and children yet again.

 

[Fomo Hoire]

mmmm, so cool

please have my babies(and then be forced to carry them to term against your will)

No stop, 19 years of child support isn't worth it, get out while you still can! (+1 year to cover the pregnancy itself)

And just think: without Roe being overturned pro-abortionists wouldn't have used thus case as a soapbox, drawing pro-life attention and scrutiny to it, and leading to an arrest.

Agreed but mission not accomplished, do not drop the autism yet. Is still entirely possible for them to sweep this under the rug and make the arrest amount to nothing more than a minor inconvenience.

Its not like the pro-lifers are burning America down in a summer of love to get this girl justice. That's a privilege reserved for the other kind of minority.

 

[Spud]

What, no joke about the A word in there?

Son, I am disappointed. There was a perfect setup.

Abortion jokes always fail cause they're not allowed to come to term

 

[Francis York Morgan]

I haven't seen it yet(@Francis York Morgan and I started processing reports simultaneously this afternoon without discussing it with each other) but you're underselling your intelligence in just walking away, credit where credit's due. If you feel like asking for a thread ban and then you just leave, the next time you can just snip the first part and look cooler.

Almost felt like giving this thread an abortion earlier. My apologies for stepping on your toes. It's difficult to tell whether or not something is being acted on and, well, we got over a dozen reports with this thread alone. Hopefully everyone is settling down now.

As for the subject on hand, I've kind of been avoiding the discussion here not because of the absolute shitshow it's causing but rather out of disgust for the situation. Way I see it, every adult around this ten year old girl failed her seemingly all for the sake of some agenda. It's maddening that we got to the point where we're more concerned about who won the political/social points from this rather than the welfare of a child who will be carrying this trauma with them for the rest of their lives.

 

[Ralph Barnhardt]

I apparently need to add more than just mockery to people hung up that the Ohio law doesn't explicitly give an exception to 10 year olds who were raped by Guatemalan illegals. I apologize and will attempt to rectify that.

"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

This is pure cope. The average weight of an American 10 year old girl is around 35-40 pounds, even counting America's obesity problem. The average newborn runs around 7-8 pounds. The expectancy that a ten year old can survive carrying and birthing something that's a fifth of her body weight is ludicrous. To try to back up your argument that "uhm ackshuly every pregnancy is dangerous" is ridiculous. Something like 96% of all abortions are purely elective and the percentage of abortions due to rapes are so small that they have to be counted with abortions due to incest.

We also do not legislate for extremes like this or every single possibility/outcome. That too is ludicrous.

To be absolutely clear, I am against abortion and even I think this little girl getting an abortion was the right call. What happened to her was a travesty. She was abused and abandoned by every adult in her life. Even the doctor who performed the abortion did not go to the media for the sake of the little girl and her plight. She went to the media to defend Roe. Even Biden didn't care about her when he parroted everything.

 

[Haramburger]

Almost felt like giving this thread an abortion earlier. My apologies for stepping on your toes. It's difficult to tell whether or not something is being acted on and, well, we got over a dozen reports with this thread alone. Hopefully everyone is settling down now.

At the time when I saw we handled one report near simultaneously, I figured we'd split it down the middle so I started picking reports out of order rather than actually talking to you because I thought I'd tag a few before you got to them. I'll open a convo next time but we worked fine silently without discussing the queue. It's interesting to see how the software reacts to simultaneous users in certain timeframes. Eventually I decided to just post in thread because it made more sense to just address the complaints directly and I think people liked airing their grievances and talking to staff.