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."
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.
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.