In all the kerfuffle over Cathy's poorly executed piece on the REAL potential dangers of journalism as advocacy the one question the skeptics brought up that was never answered is WHY did the 10 year old have to go to Indiana to receive services in the first place?
"It also seems likely... that a pregnant 10-year-old would have also qual…
In all the kerfuffle over Cathy's poorly executed piece on the REAL potential dangers of journalism as advocacy the one question the skeptics brought up that was never answered is WHY did the 10 year old have to go to Indiana to receive services in the first place?
"It also seems likely... that a pregnant 10-year-old would have also qualified for the "life or health" exemption written into Ohio’s law banning abortions beyond six weeks. The law states that the ban:
"... does not apply to a physician who performs a medical procedure that, in the physician's reasonable medical judgment, is designed or intended to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman."
So it seems that the referral to an abortionist in Indiana wasn't required in the first place. The referral was made by a "child abuse doctor" (whatever TF that is) who apparently doesn't know what Ohio law says. I am sure that every available specialist in Ohio knows and understands the law.
Perhaps journalists should explore why providers in Ohio would refuse to do a procedure that so clearly falls within the exceptions of the Ohio law? The 3 days "past the 6 weeks" limit excuse doesn't hold water.
Without getting an answer to that question one could be cynical enough to believe, with Dr. Bernard refusing to divulge who the "child abuse doctor" was, that the whole crisis was manufactured. The "child abuse doctor" would not have been required to divulge confidential patient information and would not have been required to be publicly identified. Perhaps the "child abuse doctor" could provide information about what efforts had been attempted to obtain services in Ohio. Further inquiries could be made why service providers in Ohio felt compelled to refuse assisting the rape victim. Yet any attempts at finding this source was rebuffed. It is these people who need to answer for this having happened--- not the Supreme Court.
The most generous explanation is that the referring physician was ignorant of Ohio law, too afraid to advocate for the rape victim in Ohio, and Ohio providers were just too afraid of criminal liability (although any lawyer, capable of reading the statute, could help them sort through the law) to assist this child.
The most ungenerous possibility is that the "child abuse doctor" is just an abortion rights activist using the 10 year old rape victim as a pawn in his/her propaganda campaign by manufacturing a crisis around service provision.
The only point here is that no one has investigated WHY the a 10 year old rape victim was not assisted in Ohio. It is an important question for women in need of services and for service providers.
Ok, then in light of your factual assumptions: I am in fact a lawyer. I am capable of reading the statute. And there is no way in hell I would be able to give a doctor in Ohio comfort (particularly anything approaching certainty) that the procedure, done in Ohio, would be legal (at least not until the patient did in fact develop life-threatening, or major-bodily-function-threatening, complications). And what kind of twisted mind would want to force a 10 year old to continue to carry their rapist’s baby unless and until such circumstances existed?
I think it’s pretty obvious imo. They wrote an ambiguous law. The doctor doesn’t want to be put in legal jeopardy. It is a lot easier to refer them to a different state where it isn’t an issue. One last thought, why do you think a 10 year old would be put in medical jeopardy because of a pregnancies? You really think that the legislator would allow doctors to make such decisions? Imagine a doctor who said every pregnancy threatens a woman’s life and thus all pregnancies could be legal.
Your opinion here may be correct but it would be helpful to know why?
The law isn't vague. A physician is the final decision maker and would be able to document medical necessity.
Under this law any physician trying to abuse the exceptions provided would probably loose licensure.
To me the only vague part of the stupid law is trying to quantify the six weeks that one could know when a patient is 3 or 6 days beyond the limit with LEGAL precision.
Of course in a few months abortion will likely be illegal in both Ohio and Indiana.
In all the kerfuffle over Cathy's poorly executed piece on the REAL potential dangers of journalism as advocacy the one question the skeptics brought up that was never answered is WHY did the 10 year old have to go to Indiana to receive services in the first place?
"It also seems likely... that a pregnant 10-year-old would have also qualified for the "life or health" exemption written into Ohio’s law banning abortions beyond six weeks. The law states that the ban:
"... does not apply to a physician who performs a medical procedure that, in the physician's reasonable medical judgment, is designed or intended to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman."
So it seems that the referral to an abortionist in Indiana wasn't required in the first place. The referral was made by a "child abuse doctor" (whatever TF that is) who apparently doesn't know what Ohio law says. I am sure that every available specialist in Ohio knows and understands the law.
Perhaps journalists should explore why providers in Ohio would refuse to do a procedure that so clearly falls within the exceptions of the Ohio law? The 3 days "past the 6 weeks" limit excuse doesn't hold water.
Without getting an answer to that question one could be cynical enough to believe, with Dr. Bernard refusing to divulge who the "child abuse doctor" was, that the whole crisis was manufactured. The "child abuse doctor" would not have been required to divulge confidential patient information and would not have been required to be publicly identified. Perhaps the "child abuse doctor" could provide information about what efforts had been attempted to obtain services in Ohio. Further inquiries could be made why service providers in Ohio felt compelled to refuse assisting the rape victim. Yet any attempts at finding this source was rebuffed. It is these people who need to answer for this having happened--- not the Supreme Court.
The most generous explanation is that the referring physician was ignorant of Ohio law, too afraid to advocate for the rape victim in Ohio, and Ohio providers were just too afraid of criminal liability (although any lawyer, capable of reading the statute, could help them sort through the law) to assist this child.
The most ungenerous possibility is that the "child abuse doctor" is just an abortion rights activist using the 10 year old rape victim as a pawn in his/her propaganda campaign by manufacturing a crisis around service provision.
My God this is a bad take. On just about every point.
Definitely. Check out for example Texas suing the Biden administration for requiring them to provide abortions in the case of medical emergencies.
The only point here is that no one has investigated WHY the a 10 year old rape victim was not assisted in Ohio. It is an important question for women in need of services and for service providers.
Ok, then in light of your factual assumptions: I am in fact a lawyer. I am capable of reading the statute. And there is no way in hell I would be able to give a doctor in Ohio comfort (particularly anything approaching certainty) that the procedure, done in Ohio, would be legal (at least not until the patient did in fact develop life-threatening, or major-bodily-function-threatening, complications). And what kind of twisted mind would want to force a 10 year old to continue to carry their rapist’s baby unless and until such circumstances existed?
I think it’s pretty obvious imo. They wrote an ambiguous law. The doctor doesn’t want to be put in legal jeopardy. It is a lot easier to refer them to a different state where it isn’t an issue. One last thought, why do you think a 10 year old would be put in medical jeopardy because of a pregnancies? You really think that the legislator would allow doctors to make such decisions? Imagine a doctor who said every pregnancy threatens a woman’s life and thus all pregnancies could be legal.
Your opinion here may be correct but it would be helpful to know why?
The law isn't vague. A physician is the final decision maker and would be able to document medical necessity.
Under this law any physician trying to abuse the exceptions provided would probably loose licensure.
To me the only vague part of the stupid law is trying to quantify the six weeks that one could know when a patient is 3 or 6 days beyond the limit with LEGAL precision.
Of course in a few months abortion will likely be illegal in both Ohio and Indiana.