Ohio. A shining monument to Red State policies and moral standards

[Yssup Rider]

The AG is getting sued by the doctor he libeled.

Meanwhile, Jordan and other DPST darlings are eating crow.

https://apple.news/A4TVhM18vStmR3sZbAvcN5w

[Jacuzzme]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The AG is getting sued by the doctor he libeled.

Meanwhile, Jordan and other DPST darlings are eating crow.

https://apple.news/A4TVhM18vStmR3sZbAvcN5w

What kind of bullshit story is that? The entire crux of it, and what democrats tried to score political points from by taking advantage of a raped child, was that she had to leave the state to end the pregnancy. She did not, which makes the story 100% fake. Not only did the poor girl get raped by an illegal alien, the democrats decided to rape her again for their own political gain.

[Grace Preston]

Here's the thing-- there are a lot of doctors currently turning women away because there is so much confusion about the law as it is written.


So while it may have been "legal" for her to end the pregnancy in Ohio--- legality doesn't matter if the doctors here are too unsure of what the rules are. There have also been a couple of cases of women with tubal pregnancies where the doctors would not act without first consulting a lawyer. A lot of these bills were passed quickly and with some fairly ambiguous language. Yost is likely pointing to the section where it is allowed if: “to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman”. However-- that's pretty vague and I can see why there would be concerns. Particularly since there are lawmakers here who have specifically said that the age of the pregnant individual is not a factor.


There is NO exception in the Ohio law for rape or incest.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by texasgentleman1

What surprises me was Mr. Biden was babbling about this several days before it hit the news. That has to be a first because he is normally lagging in everything. Sounds like some democratic assistance to the story.

Yeah, I can envision an aide running down the hall waving this story yelling "we got'em, we got'em! The perfect story to show how cruel and evil Republicans are but as usual, in their haste to get this story out, they raise more questions than answers.



Did the OHIO abortion doctor know about these exceptions to Ohio's abortion law? You would think an abortion doctor would be very familiar with the law or could it be this politically motivated doctor and I say that because she made multiple appearances on news broadcasts, think Hmm, if we drive her across state lines even if un-necesarily, we will have a front page story. Couldn't happen? Shitttt, happens everyday.


And tonight on Jesse Waters, he has a clip of a Telemundo reporter interviewing the mother who says "he didn't do it, it's all lies", Whoa! talk about raising more questions. Do they even have the right guy? Surely DNA from the abortion was saved in a rape case, wouldn't you think? So did they arrest him on circumstantial evidence, what ever that may be or was he a DNA match. Or is this like one of those TV shows when the detectives are told the DNA needed to make their case can't be tested because there is no money to do it and and there are hundreds of cases before theirs anyway.


Who the hell knows. All we know for sure is the motive of the abortion doctor since she violated HIPA regulations by talking about this story in public but I have no doubt she thought, nope, too important, I'll take my punishment in order to get this possibly false story out there, kinda reminds me of Christine Blassey Ford in the Kavanaugh trial where a bunch of left wing women told Ford she had to take one for the team, ironically to save Roe, whoops.


Of course that's all speculation on my part which I think we are still allowed to do though I don't know how long that's going to last in this country.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

According to Attorney General Yost (Ohio), there was no need to treat this young girl like some sort of science project. This is a demonstration of the cruelty of the left to put her through this for PR purposes. Plus, we add in the fact that the evil was dismissed by the left and protected by an officer of the court...up until they needed his arrest to prove that this happened. How many other times has he committed criminal acts of this nature?

Where is the left when it is time to stand up for the young, the innocent, for the victims when they don't stand to make a political point?

Jesse Waters of Fox News is taking credit for applying the pressure to get this outcome. Unlike the OP, Waters was not duped by this story. He had it and reviewed it critically. Many things, intentionally hidden, laid open the story to doubt. Why did the left try to hide these inconvenient little facts?

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Yep, Waters of FOX NEWS, did exactly what a good journalist ( that leaves out whoever the OP used ) should do, question the story instead of "confirmation bias", singular since I'm only describing one issue.

But as we have all seen, the OP doesn't give a hoot about good journalism, seems nobody on the left does but he does seem very skeptical about everything said by people who he ideologically opposes and will not take the time to watch Fox News to get the truth of the story. When will they learn.

waters wasn't the only one who noticed something fishy with this. a female journalist from PJ media noticed it too.

[dilbert firestorm]

hold the phone....

did YR say.. "illegal immigrant"? being the big lefty he is, should he be saying 'undocumented immigrant"????

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Here's the thing-- there are a lot of doctors currently turning women away because there is so much confusion about the law as it is written.


So while it may have been "legal" for her to end the pregnancy in Ohio--- legality doesn't matter if the doctors here are too unsure of what the rules are. There have also been a couple of cases of women with tubal pregnancies where the doctors would not act without first consulting a lawyer. A lot of these bills were passed quickly and with some fairly ambiguous language. Yost is likely pointing to the section where it is allowed if: “to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman”. However-- that's pretty vague and I can see why there would be concerns. Particularly since there are lawmakers here who have specifically said that the age of the pregnant individual is not a factor.


There is NO exception in the Ohio law for rape or incest.

So you are saying the Ohio AG lied? I did a little research and this is what I came up with from a liberal source.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ctim-abortion/


What Ohio abortion law says about a 10-year-old rape victim



The conservative effort to cast a story about a pregnant 10-year-old Ohio rape victim as a hoax has now fallen apart, with confirmation of the case arriving Wednesday. While some merely noted the initial report hadn’t been confirmed, several conservative media figures and Republican politicians went significantly further in casting it as a dirty trick meant to make the GOP’s post-Roe v. Wade laws look bad; high on that list was Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R).



But as attention now turns to the reality of the case and what it means, something else Yost claimed Monday on Fox News looms large: that the girl didn’t actually have to leave Ohio to seek the abortion in Indiana, as she reportedly did.

“Speaking of hoaxes, though, can I correct something that everybody’s reporting wrong nationally?” Yost asked the host.
He continued: “Ohio’s heartbeat law has a medical emergency exception broader than just the life of the mother. This young girl, if she exists, and if this horrible thing actually happened to her — breaks my heart to think about it — she did not have to leave Ohio to find treatment.”

Yost’s appeared to be arguing that Ohio’s law — which bans almost all abortions after a heartbeat can be detected, usually around six weeks — isn’t actually so stringent that it would actually force a 10-year-old rape victim to carry a child to term. That aspect of all this is important in light of the GOP’s controversial post-Roe plans, which often include not providing abortion exceptions for rape and incest. It’s why the case became big news in the first place.

Yost’s meaning wasn’t entirely clear, and his office hasn’t yet responded to a request for elaboration.
Some took his comment as claiming Ohio has a rape exception in its abortion ban; it clearly and unambiguously does not. The applicable law allows abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected:

• “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”

Yost didn’t say there was a rape exception. He was apparently arguing that a 10-year old would qualify under one of the actual exceptions — probably the latter, given that it’s the one that’s “broader than just the life of the mother.”

While his office hasn’t provided clarity, some have wagered that a pregnant 10-year-old would trigger that exception. An opinion piece at the conservative Washington Examiner puts it like this:
Even if a girl gets her first period at 10 or younger, she likely has not developed a pelvis capable of safely carrying a pregnancy to term, let alone delivering a live baby. Although most conservatives may disagree with Ohio’s six-week abortion ban failing to include a rape and incest exception, just about nobody of note in the pro-life movement would ever favor denying an abortion when a pregnancy seriously imperils the life and physical health of the mother.
The Examiner’s editorial board went as far as to cite Yost’s assurance and conclude: “So contrary to the original story, this girl was evidently not taken to Indiana because Ohio law bans such a procedure.”
Apparently such certitude, even after all this, is a difficult habit to kick.

It’s certainly conceivable that a prosecutor would decide or a court would rule that this case would qualify for that second exception. The World Health Organization has estimated that childbirth and complications from pregnancy are the world’s leading cause of death for girls and women ages 15 to 19.

But that doesn’t mean it’s nearly as clear as Yost or the Examiner editorial board concluded.

Indeed, the nonpartisan Ohio Legislative Service Commission has reportedly determined that such circumstances don’t automatically qualify for an exception. Chris Geidner shared a letter that Yost’s 2022 Democratic opponent received from an analyst from the commission, Amy Archer. Archer in the letter addresses whether “minor victims of sexual assault are able to receive abortions within Ohio after six weeks gestation.”
“No,” she reportedly said, “Ohio’s abortion prohibition applies regardless of the circumstances of conception or the age of the mother.”

(Archer did not respond to a similar question Thursday.)

Also, what is the threshold for “serious risk?” And would any resulting impairment necessarily be “substantial” and “irreversible?” (It must be both.)

That’s a crucial point. According to the Ohio law, any doctor who provides a post-fetal-heartbeat abortion that doesn’t qualify under one of these exceptions is guilty of a felony and could face up to a year in prison. Abortion rights advocates and abortion-providing doctors have long warned that vague and untested post-Roe standards would cause doctors to avoid providing abortions that might even cause such questions to be asked, for fear of being prosecuted.
(Some states have substantially steeper penalties for illegal abortions — including up to 15 years in Missouri and Tennessee and up to life in prison in Texas.)

Of course, the easy solution to all of this would be for lawmakers to more explicitly delineate whether cases like this deserve an exception. But Ohio and many other red states have deliberately gone in the direction of fewer exceptions, even as exceptions like rape and incest were once a consensus political issue — and remain overwhelmingly popular with voters writ large. High-profile GOP Senate candidates including in Ohio have indicated they oppose such exceptions.

And there’s little sign of the GOP truly rethinking that now that Roe has been overturned — even in light of this story and its confirmation.
So, perhaps not as clear as the AG made it sound. I sympathize with your legitimate concerns Grace but this is now up to the people of Ohio to decide after hearing about this case if they want to fine tune their law or leave it the way it is and possibly suffer losing their job. Ohio and all other states have about 4 months to decide what they want to do. I wonder how much difference there will be, if any, after Nov. 8th.

[1blackman1]

So in essence, if the AG said that she didn’t have to leave Ohio he’d have been lying because that’s not clearly the the case. What it sounds like he was actually saying and intending was “she did not necessarily have to leave Ohio for the abortion because she might have fit an exception”.

As you can see those are two totally different things. It’s unclear without a lot of medical evaluation, exams measurements etc to determine whether she could have carried the child to term regardless of her age while attempting an abortion in Ohio. If it was determined that she could then Ohio law would have required her to carry to term. I would say that the AG was at best misleading.

It makes far more sense to take the child to a state where none of the above determinations needed to be made so that the abortion could happen without further ridiculous determinations as to whether a 10 year old would need to carry to term.

[Jacuzzme]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

hold the phone....

did YR say.. "illegal immigrant"? being the big lefty he is, should he be saying 'undocumented democrats"????

FIFY

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

So in essence, if the AG said that she didn’t have to leave Ohio he’d have been lying because that’s not clearly the the case.

The mother was interviewed and said he did nothing wrong. The rapist has confessed. The girl was taken out of state to avoid getting law enforcement involved. It doesn't take a GED to figure it out. The mother wasn't trying to avoid abortion laws she was trying to avoid rape charges against her boyfriend and probably la migre too... although with the Biden regime being kicked out of the Country for rape is probably unlikely.

There are a lot of sick people out there... perhaps the worst are the Democrats that would abuse a raped girl to allow murder on demand of any unborn child anywhere, anytime.

[Yssup Rider]

That’s a sick conclusion, JL.

Perhaps the most sick I’ve seen in this thread.

Hopefully nobody in your family ever faces a decision like that.

SMFH

[texasgentleman1]

Some times the truth hurts, chin up better days coming soon

[Yssup Rider]

Was I addressing you?

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

So in essence, if the AG said that she didn’t have to leave Ohio he’d have been lying because that’s not clearly the the case.



I would counter with, if the case isn't clear the AG shouldn't be accused of lying if at the time be believed that the exception fit this case. It's unclear would seem to be the wording that should be used.


What it sounds like he was actually saying and intending was “she did not necessarily have to leave Ohio for the abortion because she might have fit an exception”.



I would agree.


As you can see those are two totally different things. It’s unclear without a lot of medical evaluation, exams measurements etc to determine whether she could have carried the child to term regardless of her age while attempting an abortion in Ohio. If it was determined that she could then Ohio law would have required her to carry to term. I would say that the AG was at best misleading.



If a determination as you say was made that she could not get the abortion in Ohio, she still had what, 14months to decide to go to Indiana? Yes, I realize going to Indiana would be more simple in that case.


It makes far more sense to take the child to a state where none of the above determinations needed to be made so that the abortion could happen without further ridiculous determinations as to whether a 10 year old would need to carry to term.

But it seems important that this issue came to the fore so the people of Ohio could make their own determination. All of this makes for an interesting intellectual debate but when all is said and done, we are right back to the state of Ohio and all other states will decide this matter and people will decide who to blame or not for their law and that's just what Democracy looks like as Democrats are fond of saying when it fits their narrative.


And if the economy wasn't in shambles and crime wasn't rampant and we weren't having this, in my opinion, ridiculous argument about asking 5 year olds to define their gender and come to terms that being White is evil and oppressive to minorities, abortion could be the issue that wins for Democrats but, in my opinion, that isn't the case.

[1blackman1]

Except that states like OK want it to be illegal to cross state lines for an abortion. And MCConnel wants a National ban on abortion.