Serious question for Pro Life folks
- Thread starter TMFT
- Start date
So the mom defends the rapist. The state should look into removing the child.
fox59.com
‘Everything they are saying against him is a lie’: Mother of 10-year-old rape victim defends suspect to reporter
FRANKLIN COUNTY, Ohio — The mother of a 10-year-old rape victim who traveled to Indiana for an abortion has seemingly expressed support for her daughter’s accused rapist, Telemundo repo…
fox59.com
The presumption is with the doctor. If the doc relies on the exception, the state will have to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
So long as the doc follows the law, I don’t see a problem. If the doc fudges because of disagreement with the law, yeah, the doc will have an issue.
You continue to ignore the routine situation where a blanket policy is set by a hospital or medical group for all doctors to follow, and so no case-by-case decision is there to be made by any doctor.
Whether it's "We aren't doing elective surgeries here at IU Health Bloomington until COVID positivity rate falls below x%" or "We aren't doing any abortions, here, from now forward, since our liability is unclear"
IT.
HAPPENS.
ALL.
THE.
TIME.
It’ll be like any other affirmative defense where the defendant has to prove and the prosecution will rebut then it’s up to the jury. The doctor will absolutely not start with a presumption that they’re in an exception.
All that will need to happen to bring charges is a prosecutor with a favorable doctor to their position then it’s on.
And a doctor who performs say 100 abortions a year is exposing themselves to up to 100 investigations/charges/convictions. Every year.
And that’s why doctors are going to punt, it’s not worth the risk in even a semi-close case.
I haven’t ignored it. I don’t believe your point is relevant. A blanket employer policy might affect employment status, but it has no bearing on whether the doc committed a crime.
Jurisdictions vary in terms of D’s burden on an affirmative defense, but in the final analysis, the prosecution must disprove this beyond a reasonable doubt.
I have no comment on the whether doctors punt. People vary about the strength of their convictions.
It has every bearing on whether a doc must turn down patients for a medical procedure, purely for non-medical reasons, and instead specifically for the reason of conforming with policy, a policy set to protect the practice or hospital (and its valuable assets, its doctors) from legal liability.
You say that the doc can always use his or her best judgement. But the ability even to use that judgement can quite easily be taken away.
Have your clients ever settled a case when they honestly believed they did nothing wrong? Yes. Because it’s a risk analysis. It’s not about strength of beliefs, it’s about risk analysis.
Mostly agree. Bureaucratic protocols are a problem thoughout medicine. Welcome to government healthcare.
This story just keeps getting worse.So the mom defends the rapist. The state should look into removing the child.
‘Everything they are saying against him is a lie’: Mother of 10-year-old rape victim defends suspect to reporter
FRANKLIN COUNTY, Ohio — The mother of a 10-year-old rape victim who traveled to Indiana for an abortion has seemingly expressed support for her daughter’s accused rapist, Telemundo repo…
I don’t get why it has to be all or nothing? I’m definitely pro-life but I support abortion in certain scenarios - rape, incest, early to second term when mothers life is in danger or child has a serious medical issue. It just seems like common sense. But abortion with no real medical issues just makes me uncomfortable. I just can’t comprehend someone doing it.
I saw nothing in the news report that stated she reported the rape directly to law enforcement or Child protective Services. She filed a report with the Department of Health Services two days after the abortion took place. She complied with the abortion statute but, did she comply with The statute below? She knew of the rape at the time the abortion took place. At that time, she should have contacted Child protective Services and/or a law enforcement agency. Some details of the story must be missing. The two day delay in reporting the rape of a 9/10 year old makes no sense.Yes, she absolutely did:
The terminated pregnancy report, obtained by FOX59’s Angela Ganote, shows that Caitlin Bernard, an Indiana obstetrician-gynecologist, reported the abortion on July 2, two days after the abortion was performed and within the three days required for terminations to be reported.
It was submitted to both the Department of Child Services and the Indiana Department of Health.
In the report, Bernard indicated that the child suffered abuse, which is why the report also went to the Department of Child Services, as per state protocol.
Abortion report confirms Indiana doctor followed law after AG vowed investigation
INDIANAPOLIS — After Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita threatened to go after the license of an Indiana physician who provided an abortion to a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio, documents obtai…
IC 31-33-5-2.5Notification of individual in charge of hospital; report
Sec. 2.5. (a) This section applies only to an individual required to make a report under this article in the individual's capacity as a member of the staff of a hospital licensed under IC 16-21-2.
(b) If an individual is required to make a report under this article in the individual's capacity as a member of the staff of a hospital licensed under IC 16-21-2, the individual shall immediately notify the individual in charge of the hospital or the designated agent of the individual in charge of the hospital.
(c) An individual notified under subsection (b) shall immediately report or cause a report to be made to:
(1) the department; or
(2) the local law enforcement agency.
As added by P.L.183-2017, SEC.33.
I don’t think it has to be all or nothing.
But if abortion is murder, as is commonly stated, what about being the product of rape makes it less of a murder? While I personally understand why that exception would exist, I don’t get how a person who believes that a fetus is a human being (not potential life, but literally a human being with full rights) could support any exceptions.
Similarly, I think an exception for the health of the mother is a no-brainer. But allowing such an exception implicitly means that the mother’s life has more value than the baby’s because her interests take precedence if there is a conflict.
The most I’ve gotten out of this thread so far is that the exceptions are more a practical decision made to satisfy political interests to limit abortion as much as possible without consideration of the inherent contradiction in the moral arguments that are the basis for the vast majority of anti-choice rhetoric.
Read the next code section
IC 31-33-5-3 Effect of compliance on individual's own duty to report
Sec. 3. This chapter does not relieve an individual of the obligation to report on the individual's own behalf, unless a report has already been made to the best of the individual's belief.
The report had been in the hands of Ohio police for like 10 days at the point of the abortion. She was relieved of her duty under this statute. Reporting to the Indiana DOH is not reporting to law enforcement and getting it in early would not have initiated additional police investigation. How do we know that? Because weeks after reporting Rokita still had no idea it had been filed to the extent he went on national TV to talk trash.
Did you read the second paragraph of the news report? I will help you find it, with some bolding:
"The terminated pregnancy report, obtained by FOX59’s Angela Ganote, shows that Caitlin Bernard, an Indiana obstetrician-gynecologist, reported the abortion on July 2, two days after the abortion was performed and within the three days required for terminations to be reported to the Department of Child Services and the Indiana Department of Health"
It is exactly what it is. Right now there is no stomach for the country as a whole to accept the morally logical POV. Rape, incest, and life of mother are 3 items that are more rare than the main reason to have an abortion.
There is a moral question here and a political/legal question. You are demanding that the two should be logically consistent. That just does not happen in politics. Many of the people who would espouse the idea that a woman has a right to bodily autonomy and therefore should be able to terminate a pregnancy and end another life because of an arbitrary line overlap quite a bit with the same group who demanded you get the shot. They want the government out of their uterus and want to have privacy with their doctor but want the government to pay for it. They will tell you a man has no right to the decision but will demand that he be financially responsible for that which he had no responsibility for a couple of inches and a few minutes ago.
I think abortion is morally wrong in most cases. But I also realize that making perfect the enemy of good is stupid politically. If the left has taught me anything in observing them for over 30 years, it is that you get what you can now, even if it is not ideologically logical and then you keep pushing to get to where you want to go. I don't have to get perfect at the moment, I need to advance the ball. And lying, I'm sorry, evolving my opinion as time goes on is a perfectly natural and acceptable argument if/when I push for more.
Why does the left have to push so much? Are they battling a party with extremists or something who would take away more their rights?
Rokita sent cease and desist letter:
fox59.com
Attorney for Dr. Bernard sends cease and desist to AG Rokita for ‘false and misleading statements’
INDIANAPOLIS — Kathleen DeLaney, the attorney for Dr. Caitlin Bernard, has sent a cease and desist to Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita stating he had made “false and misleading statements…
fox59.com
That's only for the abortion, which she did appear to comply. The second issue is did she properly report the child abuse which occurred? It is a separate issue. The child abuse statute requires immediate reporting of child abuse, in this case, the rape of a child. The agency she should have reported the rape to is Indiana Child Protective Services. She also could have contact law enforcement. Read the statute.
Is she required to report it 8n Indiana if it is already reported in Ohio? The girl was referred to this doctor from a child abuse specialist in Ohio.
That's good question. Certainly, one that will be in controversy. If I'm her attorney, no. If I'm the the state Indiana....it needed to be reported in state. How would the state of Indiana know had been reported in Ohio?
Maybe that's the reason the mother brought her to Indiana for the abortion. I saw the interview with the mother. She seemed to be very sympathetic to the perpetrator and even defended him. Very odd situation. Did the mom even try to get an abortion for her daughter in Ohio?
When something doesn't make sense, usually it's because you don't have all the facts.
Last edited:
It also it ignores the reality of insurance. But COH isn’t here for the honest debate part.
It was reported to both places, dude. If it were a 25 year old woman, abuse would not have been reported to child protective services. It was reported to TWO DIFFERENT AGENCIES. It is plain English.
DUDE, you are obviously are more concerned about trying to be right than understanding the difference between the two statutes and different obligations created by each. I give up, It's like talking to a wall.
Your argument is “nuh-huh?” And it’s not even like a crazy claim she’s making. What about it has you so confident that it’s BS?
You're new here, aren't you?
Debbie Downer has had these 'friends' for years.....not unlike Harvey the rabbit.
Always unsourced, unidentified, unverifiable, 'friends'..
Idaho GOP: No life of the mother exceptions.
idahocapitalsun.com
No exception for life of mother included in Idaho GOP’s abortion platform language • Idaho Capital Sun
Idaho Republican delegates rejected an amendment that would have provided an exception for a mother who has an abortion to safe her life.
idahocapitalsun.com
Over the years Zeke has had many convenient friends to support whatever argument she’s making. So many that it’s often hard to believe they exist. It’s possible they do, but I’ve developed some skepticism.
How can anyone back the Idaho GOP position? Saving the life of the mother does NOT justify an abortion? Bizarre.
The vote was 412-164.
The vote was 412-164.
Last edited:
The silence on the Idaho story is interesting.
They make it clear that, in Idaho anyway, anti-abortion votes have NOTHING to do with preserving life. After all, the mother has a life, and they don't give a damn about it. It seems to be stripped down to the basic goal of men wanting control over women.
They make it clear that, in Idaho anyway, anti-abortion votes have NOTHING to do with preserving life. After all, the mother has a life, and they don't give a damn about it. It seems to be stripped down to the basic goal of men wanting control over women.
Last edited:
