Cathy, if a report to CPS (Child Protective Services) was required under the circumstances, and I assume it was, I would be astonished if the laws of the applicable states would make such a report discoverable to anyone without a "need to know"-- law enforcement, social services, possibly the courts, the appropriate prosecutor's office. …
Cathy, if a report to CPS (Child Protective Services) was required under the circumstances, and I assume it was, I would be astonished if the laws of the applicable states would make such a report discoverable to anyone without a "need to know"-- law enforcement, social services, possibly the courts, the appropriate prosecutor's office. It would most definitely NOT be available to the press-- ie, the general public. Even as a prosecutor I often had to go through "back channels" to get reports from CPS on a child or family that landed on my caseload.
Bottom line, no reporter could-- or should-- get access to those reports. That Kessler, you or any other journalist was unable to does not at all mean that they don't exist.
Let me please add here that it really torques me off when people who don't really understand much about that on which they are venturing an opinion in such a public manner as you and Mr. Kessler do so without trying to talk to someone -- like me-- who has some familiarity with what amounts to some relatively specialized knowledge.
Scott, I think you are right on. And I appreciate your sharing your specialized knowledge and experiences. From my vantage point, there are multiple very good reasons why this story couldn't be fact-checked or verified in the typical manner. Additionally, I taught elementary and middle school for fourteen years, and girls beginning menstruation at nine/ten was not at all uncommon. If I read correctly, Mr. Kessler followed up with only the largest jurisdictions in Ohio, but why would we assume the case comes from one of them?
Scott fully nailed it. I’m literally shocked that Cathy continues to argue about this. If you doubt the story Cathy, do the work to disprove it. Do the work to understand the potential issues that Scott is highlighting. Dont continue to bring up random issues, ask him to explain it, then ignore his explanation
But once again, no one is asking for a copy the report to be made available to journalists. All that would be needed is to say "Yes, this case is under investigation. We have no further comment." In fact, it sounds like the response Kessler (or his staffers) got was "We don't have such a case," not "We can't comment."
I really appreciate your work in this difficult field, Scott, as I'm sure we all do. But I notice that none of your examples include a pregnant 10-year-old. And again, I'm not saying that it's impossible, just very unlikely.
You really fought hard to defend a lie. This is not a good sign. And given how new the story really way - you should have let the matter go. Now that the story has been proven true you need to go back to your desk and think of all those who lied to you. It was not the pro-abortion folks by the way.. but the gleeful folks thinking that they had a gotcha moment.
Also add in that the Dr in Indiana can't disclose who the patient was, or any other identifying details - HIPAA. Kessler's reporting ("declined to identify") implies that Bernard had a choice in the matter. She didn't. She could easily lose her license to practice.
Let's also understand why these non-disclosure laws exist - so that these victims names don't get plastered all over the internet and follow them for the rest of their lives.
And yet you made a conclusion in the article about this. You have no idea whatsoever and are just a culpable as the people you are criticizing for spreading misinformation here.
Cathy, if a report to CPS (Child Protective Services) was required under the circumstances, and I assume it was, I would be astonished if the laws of the applicable states would make such a report discoverable to anyone without a "need to know"-- law enforcement, social services, possibly the courts, the appropriate prosecutor's office. It would most definitely NOT be available to the press-- ie, the general public. Even as a prosecutor I often had to go through "back channels" to get reports from CPS on a child or family that landed on my caseload.
Bottom line, no reporter could-- or should-- get access to those reports. That Kessler, you or any other journalist was unable to does not at all mean that they don't exist.
Let me please add here that it really torques me off when people who don't really understand much about that on which they are venturing an opinion in such a public manner as you and Mr. Kessler do so without trying to talk to someone -- like me-- who has some familiarity with what amounts to some relatively specialized knowledge.
Scott, I think you are right on. And I appreciate your sharing your specialized knowledge and experiences. From my vantage point, there are multiple very good reasons why this story couldn't be fact-checked or verified in the typical manner. Additionally, I taught elementary and middle school for fourteen years, and girls beginning menstruation at nine/ten was not at all uncommon. If I read correctly, Mr. Kessler followed up with only the largest jurisdictions in Ohio, but why would we assume the case comes from one of them?
Scott fully nailed it. I’m literally shocked that Cathy continues to argue about this. If you doubt the story Cathy, do the work to disprove it. Do the work to understand the potential issues that Scott is highlighting. Dont continue to bring up random issues, ask him to explain it, then ignore his explanation
But once again, no one is asking for a copy the report to be made available to journalists. All that would be needed is to say "Yes, this case is under investigation. We have no further comment." In fact, it sounds like the response Kessler (or his staffers) got was "We don't have such a case," not "We can't comment."
I really appreciate your work in this difficult field, Scott, as I'm sure we all do. But I notice that none of your examples include a pregnant 10-year-old. And again, I'm not saying that it's impossible, just very unlikely.
You really fought hard to defend a lie. This is not a good sign. And given how new the story really way - you should have let the matter go. Now that the story has been proven true you need to go back to your desk and think of all those who lied to you. It was not the pro-abortion folks by the way.. but the gleeful folks thinking that they had a gotcha moment.
Also add in that the Dr in Indiana can't disclose who the patient was, or any other identifying details - HIPAA. Kessler's reporting ("declined to identify") implies that Bernard had a choice in the matter. She didn't. She could easily lose her license to practice.
Let's also understand why these non-disclosure laws exist - so that these victims names don't get plastered all over the internet and follow them for the rest of their lives.
Thank you for your comment, I agree.
And yet you made a conclusion in the article about this. You have no idea whatsoever and are just a culpable as the people you are criticizing for spreading misinformation here.
Thank you for your comment, I support it.