10 year old girl has to travel out of state to get abortio

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the hospital cared about 10 year old rape victims, they would have done the abortion and when charged (if, actually), put it to the media. The charges (if any) would be dropped

Do you have any idea what HIPAA is or how it works or how forced birther ghouls enforce the law? Any idea whatsoever?

I think you just like the idea of little girls in peril. I honestly think many of you delight in this mentally. Take it from there because I’m not writing out all the words but I think this excites a lot of you.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you think about it. It’s my belief that hospitals are doing this to patients deliberately for the ‘cause’

What ‘cause’? Showing the legislature what the laws they passed prohibited? As interpreted by teams of lawyers employed by said hospitals?

From what I see of that law, there was no reason she would have been prevented from having an abortion in Ohio, given her age and risk to her life. The hospital refused, rather than clarify with legislature. The cause meaning turning away legitimate abortion cases to push the idea the state stopped it.

This is not a thing, and there is no mechanism by which to do so, but nice try.

What an abject idiot that PP is. Do they really think doctors call the legislature? Is there some hotline? This is so cringy.

Ha - I remember actually asking that question in law school. This was in our pre-1L intro session, when we were at the SUPER basic level. The professor was explaining how courts have to interpret laws to determine the legislature's intent = and I asked, why can't you just get in touch the legislature and ask them, in addition to doing all this other stuff? I was told that's just not how it's done. But it does seem reasonable to think there might be some mechanism for determining legislative intent like that, even though there isn't.

There is a mechanism for figuring out what the law is. It's hiring a lawyer, who will read the law, perhaps look at the legislative history, read some court cases, etc., and then advise you on what the law is and the risks in taking particular positions. And that's exactly what the hospital did, and they were advised that providing the abortion would be a crime that could land the doctors in jail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the hospital cared about 10 year old rape victims, they would have done the abortion and when charged (if, actually), put it to the media. The charges (if any) would be dropped

Do you have any idea what HIPAA is or how it works or how forced birther ghouls enforce the law? Any idea whatsoever?

I think you just like the idea of little girls in peril. I honestly think many of you delight in this mentally. Take it from there because I’m not writing out all the words but I think this excites a lot of you.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you think about it. It’s my belief that hospitals are doing this to patients deliberately for the ‘cause’

I got accused of the same when I complained about access to methotrexate. It’s used for auto-immune disorders, cancer treatment and treatment of ectopic pregnancies that haven’t ruptured. Once Dobbs was decided, doctors were afraid to prescribe it to their auto-immune patients. The only state that has a law about methotrexate is Texas, but doctors in many states are freaked out by the prospect of losing their license or going to jail.

If your “cause” is denying patients necessary treatment, then perhaps it is time to reconsider your stance and overall morals.

Your medical records (and others) will show that you’ve been diagnosed with a condition for which methotrexate has been prescribed. If a doctor is refusing, find another doctor. There’s a lot of grandstanding going on.

There’s a lot of vague laws and doctors that don’t want to go to jail. What a law does in theory is not what it does in practice, like the Ohio abortion law. You want to convince yourself that the poorly worded exceptions will allow for abortion, and refuse to accept that they prevent 10 year olds from getting abortions and people with auto-immune conditions from getting their needed treatment.

This is a big problem. Give it a goog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the hospital cared about 10 year old rape victims, they would have done the abortion and when charged (if, actually), put it to the media. The charges (if any) would be dropped

Do you have any idea what HIPAA is or how it works or how forced birther ghouls enforce the law? Any idea whatsoever?

I think you just like the idea of little girls in peril. I honestly think many of you delight in this mentally. Take it from there because I’m not writing out all the words but I think this excites a lot of you.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you think about it. It’s my belief that hospitals are doing this to patients deliberately for the ‘cause’

I got accused of the same when I complained about access to methotrexate. It’s used for auto-immune disorders, cancer treatment and treatment of ectopic pregnancies that haven’t ruptured. Once Dobbs was decided, doctors were afraid to prescribe it to their auto-immune patients. The only state that has a law about methotrexate is Texas, but doctors in many states are freaked out by the prospect of losing their license or going to jail.

If your “cause” is denying patients necessary treatment, then perhaps it is time to reconsider your stance and overall morals.

Your medical records (and others) will show that you’ve been diagnosed with a condition for which methotrexate has been prescribed. If a doctor is refusing, find another doctor. There’s a lot of grandstanding going on.

There’s a lot of vague laws and doctors that don’t want to go to jail. What a law does in theory is not what it does in practice, like the Ohio abortion law. You want to convince yourself that the poorly worded exceptions will allow for abortion, and refuse to accept that they prevent 10 year olds from getting abortions and people with auto-immune conditions from getting their needed treatment.

This is a big problem. Give it a goog.

Every forced birther hearing about these cases: “that’s completely irrelevant to my forced birther misogynistic politics. I’m just gonna go watch some more Fox because abortion is solved; now we just have to deal with those pesky brown people.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the hospital cared about 10 year old rape victims, they would have done the abortion and when charged (if, actually), put it to the media. The charges (if any) would be dropped

Do you have any idea what HIPAA is or how it works or how forced birther ghouls enforce the law? Any idea whatsoever?

I think you just like the idea of little girls in peril. I honestly think many of you delight in this mentally. Take it from there because I’m not writing out all the words but I think this excites a lot of you.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you think about it. It’s my belief that hospitals are doing this to patients deliberately for the ‘cause’

What ‘cause’? Showing the legislature what the laws they passed prohibited? As interpreted by teams of lawyers employed by said hospitals?

From what I see of that law, there was no reason she would have been prevented from having an abortion in Ohio, given her age and risk to her life. The hospital refused, rather than clarify with legislature. The cause meaning turning away legitimate abortion cases to push the idea the state stopped it.

This is not a thing, and there is no mechanism by which to do so, but nice try.

What an abject idiot that PP is. Do they really think doctors call the legislature? Is there some hotline? This is so cringy.

Ha - I remember actually asking that question in law school. This was in our pre-1L intro session, when we were at the SUPER basic level. The professor was explaining how courts have to interpret laws to determine the legislature's intent = and I asked, why can't you just get in touch the legislature and ask them, in addition to doing all this other stuff? I was told that's just not how it's done. But it does seem reasonable to think there might be some mechanism for determining legislative intent like that, even though there isn't.

There is a mechanism for figuring out what the law is. It's hiring a lawyer, who will read the law, perhaps look at the legislative history, read some court cases, etc., and then advise you on what the law is and the risks in taking particular positions. And that's exactly what the hospital did, and they were advised that providing the abortion would be a crime that could land the doctors in jail.

You are letting the forced birthers off the hook here. They have pushed SPECIFICALLY for legislation that’s murky. There are plenty of interviews with “right to life” activists championing this. The point is to make it so an abortion is impossible to legally perform. I believe it was the head of Tennessee Right to Life who wanted women to be almost dead before an abortion could be performed. They have been loud and proud for years. This was the plan. This is what they wanted. Laws written in a way, that any lawyer would advise against the procedure.
So, don’t blame doctors. Don’t blame hospitals.
Blame evangelicals.
Blame republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the posters blaming the FBI have a way for the federal government to ensure that local law enforcement believes rape reports and takes action— including even collecting the rape kits— i’m all ears.

But testing and taking action on rape kits— heck even 6 days after they’re collected— does nothing at all to protect girls from the consequences of the crime which has already taken place. A rape kit does not detect pregnancy.

So we’re back at the beginning. Why do you think these girls should have to give birth to their rapists babies?

Even the NYT writes articles using words like “almost” in their headlines because they know that rape is an exception.

What are you talking about? There is no rape exception in the Ohio law despite the governor asking for one.

And sadly rape is not an “exception”. There will be at least ten reported pregnancies in girls under 13 in Ohio this year. That doesn’t include the girls whose parents find a way to get them care. It is horrifically common.

In Ohio, she fell under this since the left agrees that 10 years old is too young and will cause bodily harm.

“Abortions beyond this threshold are legal if the provider determines it's a medical emergency and necessary to prevent the pregnant person's death or "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the hospital cared about 10 year old rape victims, they would have done the abortion and when charged (if, actually), put it to the media. The charges (if any) would be dropped

Do you have any idea what HIPAA is or how it works or how forced birther ghouls enforce the law? Any idea whatsoever?

I think you just like the idea of little girls in peril. I honestly think many of you delight in this mentally. Take it from there because I’m not writing out all the words but I think this excites a lot of you.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you think about it. It’s my belief that hospitals are doing this to patients deliberately for the ‘cause’

What ‘cause’? Showing the legislature what the laws they passed prohibited? As interpreted by teams of lawyers employed by said hospitals?

From what I see of that law, there was no reason she would have been prevented from having an abortion in Ohio, given her age and risk to her life. The hospital refused, rather than clarify with legislature. The cause meaning turning away legitimate abortion cases to push the idea the state stopped it.

This is not a thing, and there is no mechanism by which to do so, but nice try.

Phone call

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the hospital cared about 10 year old rape victims, they would have done the abortion and when charged (if, actually), put it to the media. The charges (if any) would be dropped

Do you have any idea what HIPAA is or how it works or how forced birther ghouls enforce the law? Any idea whatsoever?

I think you just like the idea of little girls in peril. I honestly think many of you delight in this mentally. Take it from there because I’m not writing out all the words but I think this excites a lot of you.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you think about it. It’s my belief that hospitals are doing this to patients deliberately for the ‘cause’

What ‘cause’? Showing the legislature what the laws they passed prohibited? As interpreted by teams of lawyers employed by said hospitals?

From what I see of that law, there was no reason she would have been prevented from having an abortion in Ohio, given her age and risk to her life. The hospital refused, rather than clarify with legislature. The cause meaning turning away legitimate abortion cases to push the idea the state stopped it.

Your fellow forced birthers disagree

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/14/anti-abotion-10-year-old-ohio-00045843

Opinions are like a&&holes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the hospital cared about 10 year old rape victims, they would have done the abortion and when charged (if, actually), put it to the media. The charges (if any) would be dropped

Do you have any idea what HIPAA is or how it works or how forced birther ghouls enforce the law? Any idea whatsoever?

I think you just like the idea of little girls in peril. I honestly think many of you delight in this mentally. Take it from there because I’m not writing out all the words but I think this excites a lot of you.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you think about it. It’s my belief that hospitals are doing this to patients deliberately for the ‘cause’

What ‘cause’? Showing the legislature what the laws they passed prohibited? As interpreted by teams of lawyers employed by said hospitals?

From what I see of that law, there was no reason she would have been prevented from having an abortion in Ohio, given her age and risk to her life. The hospital refused, rather than clarify with legislature. The cause meaning turning away legitimate abortion cases to push the idea the state stopped it.

This is not a thing, and there is no mechanism by which to do so, but nice try.

What an abject idiot that PP is. Do they really think doctors call the legislature? Is there some hotline? This is so cringy.

Hospital administrators do, yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the hospital cared about 10 year old rape victims, they would have done the abortion and when charged (if, actually), put it to the media. The charges (if any) would be dropped

Do you have any idea what HIPAA is or how it works or how forced birther ghouls enforce the law? Any idea whatsoever?

I think you just like the idea of little girls in peril. I honestly think many of you delight in this mentally. Take it from there because I’m not writing out all the words but I think this excites a lot of you.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you think about it. It’s my belief that hospitals are doing this to patients deliberately for the ‘cause’

What ‘cause’? Showing the legislature what the laws they passed prohibited? As interpreted by teams of lawyers employed by said hospitals?

From what I see of that law, there was no reason she would have been prevented from having an abortion in Ohio, given her age and risk to her life. The hospital refused, rather than clarify with legislature. The cause meaning turning away legitimate abortion cases to push the idea the state stopped it.

This is not a thing, and there is no mechanism by which to do so, but nice try.

What an abject idiot that PP is. Do they really think doctors call the legislature? Is there some hotline? This is so cringy.

Ha - I remember actually asking that question in law school. This was in our pre-1L intro session, when we were at the SUPER basic level. The professor was explaining how courts have to interpret laws to determine the legislature's intent = and I asked, why can't you just get in touch the legislature and ask them, in addition to doing all this other stuff? I was told that's just not how it's done. But it does seem reasonable to think there might be some mechanism for determining legislative intent like that, even though there isn't.

So you got no answer from your professor, just a reply

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the hospital cared about 10 year old rape victims, they would have done the abortion and when charged (if, actually), put it to the media. The charges (if any) would be dropped

Do you have any idea what HIPAA is or how it works or how forced birther ghouls enforce the law? Any idea whatsoever?

I think you just like the idea of little girls in peril. I honestly think many of you delight in this mentally. Take it from there because I’m not writing out all the words but I think this excites a lot of you.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you think about it. It’s my belief that hospitals are doing this to patients deliberately for the ‘cause’

What ‘cause’? Showing the legislature what the laws they passed prohibited? As interpreted by teams of lawyers employed by said hospitals?

From what I see of that law, there was no reason she would have been prevented from having an abortion in Ohio, given her age and risk to her life. The hospital refused, rather than clarify with legislature. The cause meaning turning away legitimate abortion cases to push the idea the state stopped it.

This is not a thing, and there is no mechanism by which to do so, but nice try.

What an abject idiot that PP is. Do they really think doctors call the legislature? Is there some hotline? This is so cringy.

Hospital administrators do, yes

Can you post this "Ohio legislative intent hotline" number for us?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the posters blaming the FBI have a way for the federal government to ensure that local law enforcement believes rape reports and takes action— including even collecting the rape kits— i’m all ears.

But testing and taking action on rape kits— heck even 6 days after they’re collected— does nothing at all to protect girls from the consequences of the crime which has already taken place. A rape kit does not detect pregnancy.

So we’re back at the beginning. Why do you think these girls should have to give birth to their rapists babies?

Even the NYT writes articles using words like “almost” in their headlines because they know that rape is an exception.

What are you talking about? There is no rape exception in the Ohio law despite the governor asking for one.

And sadly rape is not an “exception”. There will be at least ten reported pregnancies in girls under 13 in Ohio this year. That doesn’t include the girls whose parents find a way to get them care. It is horrifically common.

In Ohio, she fell under this since the left agrees that 10 years old is too young and will cause bodily harm.

“Abortions beyond this threshold are legal if the provider determines it's a medical emergency and necessary to prevent the pregnant person's death or "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."”

Yet she had to leave the state to get an abortion. So your forced birth law is as crappy as everyone is trying to tell you it is while you keep arguing it’s decent. Such a moronic take on the world. Oh, well the law says this, kind of. I guess screw those girls and their lives and future fertility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the hospital cared about 10 year old rape victims, they would have done the abortion and when charged (if, actually), put it to the media. The charges (if any) would be dropped

Do you have any idea what HIPAA is or how it works or how forced birther ghouls enforce the law? Any idea whatsoever?

I think you just like the idea of little girls in peril. I honestly think many of you delight in this mentally. Take it from there because I’m not writing out all the words but I think this excites a lot of you.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you think about it. It’s my belief that hospitals are doing this to patients deliberately for the ‘cause’

What ‘cause’? Showing the legislature what the laws they passed prohibited? As interpreted by teams of lawyers employed by said hospitals?

From what I see of that law, there was no reason she would have been prevented from having an abortion in Ohio, given her age and risk to her life. The hospital refused, rather than clarify with legislature. The cause meaning turning away legitimate abortion cases to push the idea the state stopped it.

This is not a thing, and there is no mechanism by which to do so, but nice try.

What an abject idiot that PP is. Do they really think doctors call the legislature? Is there some hotline? This is so cringy.

Hospital administrators do, yes

Who exactly in the "legislature" do they call? Be specific. If it's a known fact that hospital administrators call legislatures to get advice on laws that affect medical care then there must be an office that is responsible for answering such questions.

Or did you just make that up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the hospital cared about 10 year old rape victims, they would have done the abortion and when charged (if, actually), put it to the media. The charges (if any) would be dropped

Do you have any idea what HIPAA is or how it works or how forced birther ghouls enforce the law? Any idea whatsoever?

I think you just like the idea of little girls in peril. I honestly think many of you delight in this mentally. Take it from there because I’m not writing out all the words but I think this excites a lot of you.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you think about it. It’s my belief that hospitals are doing this to patients deliberately for the ‘cause’

What ‘cause’? Showing the legislature what the laws they passed prohibited? As interpreted by teams of lawyers employed by said hospitals?

From what I see of that law, there was no reason she would have been prevented from having an abortion in Ohio, given her age and risk to her life. The hospital refused, rather than clarify with legislature. The cause meaning turning away legitimate abortion cases to push the idea the state stopped it.

This is not a thing, and there is no mechanism by which to do so, but nice try.

What an abject idiot that PP is. Do they really think doctors call the legislature? Is there some hotline? This is so cringy.

Ha - I remember actually asking that question in law school. This was in our pre-1L intro session, when we were at the SUPER basic level. The professor was explaining how courts have to interpret laws to determine the legislature's intent = and I asked, why can't you just get in touch the legislature and ask them, in addition to doing all this other stuff? I was told that's just not how it's done. But it does seem reasonable to think there might be some mechanism for determining legislative intent like that, even though there isn't.

So you got no answer from your professor, just a reply

DP and you give no answer to the question "which office or person in the legislature is responsible for answering questions from doctors and hospitals about laws that affect their work," just a reply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the hospital cared about 10 year old rape victims, they would have done the abortion and when charged (if, actually), put it to the media. The charges (if any) would be dropped

Do you have any idea what HIPAA is or how it works or how forced birther ghouls enforce the law? Any idea whatsoever?

I think you just like the idea of little girls in peril. I honestly think many of you delight in this mentally. Take it from there because I’m not writing out all the words but I think this excites a lot of you.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you think about it. It’s my belief that hospitals are doing this to patients deliberately for the ‘cause’

What ‘cause’? Showing the legislature what the laws they passed prohibited? As interpreted by teams of lawyers employed by said hospitals?

From what I see of that law, there was no reason she would have been prevented from having an abortion in Ohio, given her age and risk to her life. The hospital refused, rather than clarify with legislature. The cause meaning turning away legitimate abortion cases to push the idea the state stopped it.

This is not a thing, and there is no mechanism by which to do so, but nice try.

What an abject idiot that PP is. Do they really think doctors call the legislature? Is there some hotline? This is so cringy.

Ha - I remember actually asking that question in law school. This was in our pre-1L intro session, when we were at the SUPER basic level. The professor was explaining how courts have to interpret laws to determine the legislature's intent = and I asked, why can't you just get in touch the legislature and ask them, in addition to doing all this other stuff? I was told that's just not how it's done. But it does seem reasonable to think there might be some mechanism for determining legislative intent like that, even though there isn't.

So you got no answer from your professor, just a reply

I mean the answer is that law isn't done like that. You have to look at the written record. I now understand reasons for not calling lawmakers back to ask them what they really meant, if that's what you're asking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the hospital cared about 10 year old rape victims, they would have done the abortion and when charged (if, actually), put it to the media. The charges (if any) would be dropped

Do you have any idea what HIPAA is or how it works or how forced birther ghouls enforce the law? Any idea whatsoever?

I think you just like the idea of little girls in peril. I honestly think many of you delight in this mentally. Take it from there because I’m not writing out all the words but I think this excites a lot of you.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you think about it. It’s my belief that hospitals are doing this to patients deliberately for the ‘cause’

What ‘cause’? Showing the legislature what the laws they passed prohibited? As interpreted by teams of lawyers employed by said hospitals?

From what I see of that law, there was no reason she would have been prevented from having an abortion in Ohio, given her age and risk to her life. The hospital refused, rather than clarify with legislature. The cause meaning turning away legitimate abortion cases to push the idea the state stopped it.

This is not a thing, and there is no mechanism by which to do so, but nice try.

What an abject idiot that PP is. Do they really think doctors call the legislature? Is there some hotline? This is so cringy.

Hospital administrators do, yes

Who exactly in the "legislature" do they call? Be specific. If it's a known fact that hospital administrators call legislatures to get advice on laws that affect medical care then there must be an office that is responsible for answering such questions.

Or did you just make that up?

It just wouldn't be up to legislators at that point. Who would you even ask? It's not like one lawmaker is responsible for the whole bill. And the lawmaker saying, "yes, of course we didn't intend for 10 year old rape victims to be forced to become mothers" wouldn't have any effect - because at that point it's up to police and prosecutors. So they are the ones you'd actually have to ask. But they can't give yuo a clear and binding answer either.