10 year old rape victim can't get abortion in Ohio

just because it’s reported doesn’t make it true. you’re smart enough to know that.

 

i do. especially ones that seem as far fetched as this one.
then you get posters going off on hyperbolic tangents claiming states are issuing bounties on 10 yr olds and doctors when it’s all fabricated BS.

 

There is no evidence that it was "completely fabricated." It is unverified (which is likely in a medical situation anyways, as they can't really provide patient details). But there is no evidence that it was fabricated.

 

Can you cite a source?

 

for something that doesn’t exist? no.

 

No, I mean a source that verifies that the story was concocted. Obviously, the story exists. You are claiming, with total resolution, that the story is made up. If you have no source, what are you basing your claim upon?

BTW - I'm not resolute one way or the other; am just curious about your source.

 

Dr. Caitlin Bernard, who made this claim, is a mandated reporter of child abuse. When did she report the rape of a 10 year old? One of the most important facts related to the story is the legal obligation of those involved. Physicians and reporters must disclose child abuse evidence to the police by law. Yet, in the days since, no arrests in such a case have been reported.

Dr. Caitlin is a liar. She wants abortions through 24 weeks and will do whatever she can to make it happen.

 

i have a great nose for smelling out BS.
but this probably could fall under what @mdgator05 calls unverified instead of fabricated.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory-about-10-year-old-an-abortion-goes-viral/

 

Thanks, the Wapo piece was the first one I found, too. I think you're correct that this story should be reported as "unverified." That, however, does not support your wish to lock & delete the thread.

 

The child deserves her privacy. It's not only possible, but highly probable the police already knew and started and investigation before Dr. Caitlin got involved. At which point, she is absolved of any reporting duty, as the police already know.

What will not be released is the girl's name. It's possible her assailant's name will remain hidden as well, especially if he is related to the girl.

Why? Simple. This girl has been through enough trauma. Anything that would identify her would put her in the middle of the current abortion maelstrom.

This means, that unless something leaks, we will either have to take this story as unverified, though reported by all major media outlets. Or, believe it to be fake, until if and when someone confesses to making it all up.

 

The Dr. may be obligated to report rape to the authorities, but not to you. Any such report would be confidential. Why try to flip this issue on the Dr. when the rape and denial of medical care are the story (rhetorical )? Do you know that Dr. Caitlin is a liar, or is it simply that you want it to be true?

 

How do you know any of this? Child sexual abuse cases don’t normally make the news and both the doctors and police would do all they can to protect the Identity of the victim which often means concealing the identity and crimes of the perpetrator to the extent that they can, when the person could be linked to the victim. Any person charged with sexual assault of a minor in that area could be the rapist… you’d never know..cases of sexual assault on a minor are occurs at a rate one every 9 minutes in the US…

 

And how do you know that she didn't report the identity of the perpetrator to the police or that no arrests have been made? As I stated in a previous post if the alleged rapist was also a juvenile which is very possible he is also entitled to confidentiality. Similarly, if he was a close relative of the victim public disclosure of his identity would in effect result in the disclosure of her identity. My guess is that you have been reading too much from right-wing websites or listening to too much right-wing talk radio.

 

If Caitlin Bernard were truly concerned about her patient's privacy or how much trauma they've been through, she wouldn't have made herself the source for this story.

My impression of her (after some internet research) is that she is a radical abortionist facing loss of her revenue stream, and now she's stepped over a line and can't take it back.

My opinion: an unverifiable story, but likely untrue.

 

The Doctor has a motive for being the source of the story. You think it's a profit motive. But maybe it's just too show the cruelness of the unintended consequence of the Ohio law.

 

She has either fabricated a story, or violated a patient's privacy (and her profession's code of ethics) to make her point. Whatever her motives, she's either dishonest, despicable, or both.

 

Since she didn't specifically identify the patient how did she violate the patient's privacy? While it is possible that she did fabricate the story it's rather disingenuous to suggest on one hand that she may have fabricated the story because she didn't reveal detailed information while on the other suggesting that she violated her patient's privacy because she revealed any information at all.

 

@VAg8r1 touched on this, but can you state the grounds on which she violated her profession's code of ethics? I don't think you can argue that she violated her patient's privacy in anyway, but if you have evidence of that, it would support your claim.

 

If the story is true, how is the patient's privacy been violated if we still don't know her identity?

If her motive is to show the horror the current Ohio law, and how it could cause an adolescent, pregnant rape victim be forced to go out of state to get an abortion, how is that despicable?