238 Comments

I went to the original article and saw nothing wrong with the sourcing being “light” as this was an incredibly sensitive issue concerning the identity of a minor. The fact that the original article wasn’t sensationalized and was written by competent journalists who named a healthcare professional source who was willing to go on record was enough proof for me to think this was most likely true.

Skepticism and “Trying to understand both sides” can be admirable qualities up to a limit. Past that, they can be dangerous. Skepticism of a me-too drug by a pharmacist is healthy. Skepticism of a vaccine by a lay person is dangerous. Trying to understand why people might have voted for Trump is healthy. Trying to see understand why Trump and Biden are both equally bad for democracy is dangerous.

https://youtu.be/a-gldvbNtKg

Expand full comment

I hate to bring this up but are we really not going to hear from Cathy about how and why she got this story so wrong

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment
founding

My God this is a bad take. On just about every point.

Expand full comment

Definitely. Check out for example Texas suing the Biden administration for requiring them to provide abortions in the case of medical emergencies.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment
founding

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?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

What do you say now Cathy? There is an arrest warrant? Look how Fox "Entertainment" spun it:

FoxNews.com, meanwhile, has updated its reporting on the case, now with a story, citing an ICE source, that the suspect in the case is an illegal immigrant.

Update: After suggesting that the story may be a hoax, Jesse Watters didn’t make any effort to correct the record or explain to viewers what happened. Instead, he claimed that his show “put on the pressure and how we’re glad justice is being served.” He also tried to pin blame on Bernard, claiming she covered it up, and suggested that there were questions of whether ” the alleged rapist’s immigration status played any role in the cover-up.”

Expand full comment

The whole thing is insane. There are now reports the mom is protecting the rapist over the daughter and the doctor is being investigated by Indiana.

Expand full comment

I’m actually a bit worried that she hasn’t published anything yet and is on twitter obfuscating again.

Expand full comment

Well, that settles it. "Yup."

Expand full comment

I don't think the Bulwark response meets how damaging this "fake news" article is to the Bulwark itself.

Most of us come here expecting better.

Expand full comment

Re the Ohio rape case. Woe to this columnist who joined the conservative noise machine. Franklin County (by the way) is home to the state capitol and is the largest Ohio county. Were I a reporter, I would have called child services in Franklin County.

Next time, I hope the writer will do a little reporting too.

By the way, Ohio has great services for the young and the elderly. So public services are easy to reach by telephone.

I get that this writer may oppose abortion. But she should understand the deep malice by many who push the anti abortion position. I say this as someone whose wife did have an abortion in Ohio decades ago - before I met her. When we married, she got pregnant again. We were poor but went to Planned Parenthood for pregnancy testing and for a referral for an ob/gyn (we had moved from out of state and had few resources). Our son was born and will be 44 in September but we ended up in debt collection to the hospital where he was born.

Expand full comment

We knew a family, quite closely, for over five years before we learned their 14 year old had been repeatedly raped and impregnated by a family friend. I never doubted this story, however it was sensationalized.

As per usual, these stories are a source of shame, embarrassment, and guilt. The parent's can't believe they didn't see what was happening, the child is coerced into silence, the perpetrator is in a position of trust and once the unthinkable happens, no one wants to talk about it. What none of us should ever think is that it is not happening on a larger scale than just this one story. Most victims are never heard from, they do not make the news. In religious circles they are forced to marry their rapists, in other situations they are just blamed for what happened and in too many they are just swept aside, no one cares what happens to them.

Expand full comment

Ok, so I love the Bulwark and I don’t normally go back to comment on something a few days old but now that this story has been confirmed as real I feel deeply annoyed that this platform was used to muddy the waters. This was exacerbated by Amanda in the podcast on Monday also calling the story into question. I’m annoyed you all got out over your skis on this in some sort of need to present both sides or appear unbiased or whatever other reason there may have been. Next time wait.

Expand full comment

Agreed. I think the bulwark will say/write something. They have a pretty good track record at looking at themselves and their mistakes honestly and doing a mea culpa

Expand full comment

I would hope that the retraction is as prominent as the original article.

Expand full comment

Cathy Young- Do you have any regrets about writing this piece? Please don’t try and hide behind the “I was just asking questions” defense. Maybe you ought to get your facts straight before indirectly maligning the victim, her family, the doctors and everyone else involved in nightmare. After all, it was you who said “Just the facts”.

In writing this piece, you followed the righteous, radical right-wing playbook of immediately believing that the doctor who performed the abortion on this 10 year old multiple rape victim was lying. After all she was the only source on this story. It doesn’t matter that the editor of the Indy Star stood behind the sourcing.

An apology is in order. And not some half baked apology but one that shows you have learned something from this horrific true story of a 10 year old being raped on multiple occasions then becoming pregnant and being told by the State of Ohio that she could not have an abortion.

The horror stories of a post Roe world are starting to come out. Believe them.

Expand full comment
Jul 15, 2022·edited Jul 15, 2022

Based on her responses to me, she has no regrets. It’s all about telling others they are bad actors. Definitely not about self examination of a light weight opinion article that drew heavily on other sources. And she got to look critical of others on her side for being critcal, all the while being completely uncritical of other sources. And she’s definitely the victim if anyone points out her belong out over her skies.

Expand full comment

Sue, I've been critical of Cathy here, but I think you're one step too harsh (apart from the fact that we all make mistakes). The source for the IndyStar was not the doctor who performed the abortion, it was an Indiana doctor reporting a request from an unidentified Ohio doctor for a referral.

Given the body of Cathy's writing, I think her thinking was to write a cautionary post to alert people on the Left not to accept information uncritically, because it could backfire. (I think Glenn Kessler had the same motive.) She went too far, and I bet she's much less likely to do so again. I do expect her to make a correction/apology, and when she does, that should be enough for now.

Expand full comment

Robert- According to the July 1 story in the Indy Star (the original source for the story) Dr. Caitlin Bernard an Ob-Gyn at IU Health, received a call from a colleague in Ohio who is a child abuse specialist. This colleague had a 10 year old in the office who was just over 6 weeks pregnant and in need of an abortion. Soon after this conversation, the child was sent to Indianapolis for an abortion, under the care of Dr. Bernard.

“Under the care of Dr. Bernard” implies that either she or someone under her supervision, like one of her residents, performed the abortion. So, according to reporting done by the Indy Star, Dr. Bernard is a primary party to this story. She was contacted by a colleague in Ohio about the case and the girl was sent to Indianapolis under her care.

Tonight on Fox News, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita announced that he is going to be scrutinizing Dr. Bernard’s medical record to see if he can challenge her medical license. He wouldn’t be doing that unless she is a primary party to the abortion.

Expand full comment

I bow to your superior argument, Sue.

Nice to see AG Rokita acting true to form. I live in Indiana, and take comfort in the predictability of its politics.

Expand full comment

My condolences on living in Indiana. My family and I recently moved back to Chicago after living in Indiana. The only good thing about Indiana is Indiana University Bloomington where my daughter graduated.

Go Hoosiers!

Expand full comment

I hope your daughter enjoyed her time at IU, Sue. It's a fine school and Bloomington is a good place. But the odd thing about living in Indiana, as I have for most of my life now, is that despite the politics, the people are generally kind and the land--especially below Indy--is beautiful. I don't talk politics with my neighbors.

Expand full comment

She loved her time at IU and she got a great education. IU is an under appreciated gem. And, Bloomington is a great town for young adults.

Expand full comment

No way, really?!?! I believe you sue, but my god how awful. They are really going to look into the doctors here and not at their laws? What a shameful way to approach the problem.

Expand full comment

Yes, really. The investigation is being done under the guise of seeing if she followed the Indiana child abuse laws. That is simply a cover for going after her because of the abortion.

And, keep in mind that abortion is currently legal in Indiana until 22 weeks. That will soon change as the Governor has called an emergency legislative session in order to severely curtail or end legal abortion.

Expect to hear more horror stories and see more witch hunts in this post Roe world.

Expand full comment

I love the Bulwark and I will not be canceling my subscription. What I WILL be doing is passing on Ms. Young's articles in the future. Since she passed along disinformation, and she stated in her article how important it is to pass along only the truth, I'll be waiting for an apology and more than the basic correction I currently see. And she insinuates that until we see how the law is going to be applied that we are overreacting. I live in Missouri and right now providers have asked our AG for guidance on how to treat pregnant women with a life threatening emergency. So seriously, Ms. Young, healthcare will change; maybe not in your state, but definitely in mine. You gaslighting me does not change the fact that in some hospitals in Missouri an ectopic pregnancy might have more value than the life of my daughter. In deep red states like mine, lawmakers enact policies based on their limited understanding of science--aka, disinformation. Maybe address that.

Expand full comment

If anything this whole event shows that ivf is so screwed. The doctor in Ohio has a 10 year old pregnant girl and tells her to go to another state to get an abortion because the risk of that doctor performing an abortion is too large. Red states are going to get/be screwed. Maybe it will make a difference in how they vote but I doubt it

Expand full comment

Shame on you. Instead of withholding judgement, people like you are happy to assume a story you don’t want to believe is fantastical. No wonder less than 1% of rapes lead to convictions. Because people like you have made Believe Women a joke.

Expand full comment
Jul 14, 2022·edited Jul 14, 2022

"Sorry" Cathy. "Let's stick to the facts": A man in Ohio was arrested Tuesday and charged with raping a 10-year-old girl who was impregnated and then denied an abortion under state law, forcing her to travel out of state, a case that gained widespread attention in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade—and one which some on the right doubted was a real case.

Look into cognitive bias sometime and enjoy all the condescending "Sorry" comments that follow because good for the goose is good for the gander.

I'm not particularly wedded to either side of this argument but you didn't help one little bit.

Expand full comment