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

I believe things like this happen…daily, around the world. And, it’s very sad.
With that said, there’s no corroborating evidence to this woman’s claim.

we have one of three things:
1. It’s true as claimed, but authorities don’t have all the info. So, nothing to confirm
2. It’s true as claimed but person wants to “bait” Right wing to pounce on story as false - making it even more dramatic when revealed as true.
3. It’s a scam and it’s blown up. As someone posted earlier Jessie Smollet(?) 2.0

I vote for #3

 

You mean this?
Columbus man charged in rape of 10-year-old that led to abortion

 

I felt certain it had been unreported to law enforcement, which is pretty common in such scenarios for a host of reasons. But looks like that was not the case

 

If true, I’m still sorry for the child and hope they got the right guy and punish him accordingly.

As far as the OP, it’s my understanding that abortion was available to the child and not prohibited by Ohio law. If I’m wrong, please advise.

 

Wow.

That clown of an AG needs to resign yesterday.

 

This aged well.

 

Jussie 2.0 guys!

 

#2 FTW!

 

I wonder if Kristi Noem will be apologizing to the Doctor and media sources for defaming them now that there has been an arrest made. *I don't actually wonder this*

 

Will you return to this thread now that an arrest has been made in the case to apologize for calling this woman a liar?

 

Now there is evidence. Glad the suspect is arrested and hope he is punished to the full extent of the law. Until this report people relied on one person to run with a story.

 

You called it a hoax without any evidence that it was, when you could have just said "we don't know everything."

 

I think the only exception is health of the mother. The current law is asking a medical facility's lawyers to determine whether a 10 year old can have a child or whether the very act is a danger to the mother (and one issue is that these exceptions are always poorly defined since pregnancy always has some risk to the mother).

 

Let's see: you accused people here of being gullible, told them that it was okay that they fell for it, and compared it to Jussie Smollett. Will you admit that you fell for the right-wing pushback without proper evidence to say that it was a hoax, as you did?

 

Just as gullible as one of those dang liberals, must be a bad feeling

 

Credit to Kessler, who irritates me generally for updating, although he still tries to cover his original skepticism by framing as to whether journalists should wait for law enforcement confirmation before publishing. Obviously any reputable journalistic organization has to make some judgment calls about credibility for unverified story.

But it strikes me that his framing about waiting for confirmation from law enforcement is exactly the wrong construction. First, law enforcement generally has proven to be a highly unreliable source, almost always self-interested in media relations without compunctionas first principle. Many many injustices have occurred to the overreliance on law enforcement as a source, although you risk freezeout if you don't.

But second, you have to consider whether the story is the type that is susceptible to confirmation in that way. As I mentioned earlier, a 10-year-old that is raped and wants to cross state lines to get an abortion is exactly the type of scenario whereby those counseling her might elect not to go through formal processes, including police. If they genuinely believe it's in her best interest to terminate the pregnancy, they have to appreciate that merely going to law enforcement may remove that option. She may also get re-victimized through that process.

Of course there are other considerations as well, like trying to stop the rapist from attacking others. But it's certainly reasonable to presume that an adult with her best interests in mind might make the decision never to report it to law enforcement, including figuring out a way to get around mandatory reporting if they are covered.



This is an interesting example of the limitations that journalists face in corroborating a story without evidence confirmed by law enforcement. Should Bernard have disclosed the case before the police charged a suspect? Should the IndyStar have published her account without a second source? Should other news organizations have repeated the story without doing their own reporting? Those are questions beyond the purview of the Fact Checker, but worthwhile for readers and media pundits to consider.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory-about-10-year-old-an-abortion-goes-viral/

 

I said "I guess" this looks like Jussie Smollett2.0. So yes, both you and I should've not commented whatsoever until there was evidence.

 

There wasn't evidence before today. You choosing to believe something that ultimately came true was luck. Unless you were in the Ohio police department that knew about this. Good try. I didn't "fall for right wing pushback". I wanted proof, not one person's take on it. If you are cool with taking one persons word for everything, that's your issue. I said until there is proof. Maybe you don't understand simple words? It's ok. I'll try to dumb it down for you next time.

 

^^^ This you bro? You seem pretty sure in this follow up post.

 

You declared it made up and declared it a hoax. One would think that being so wrong in calling everybody else gullible and definitively calling it a hoax would teach you some humility. Guess not. Guess you really just can't admit to being wrong. Regardless, take your L.