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.

Hospital administrators do, yes

Which legislator do they call? How do they choose?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The real problem is they want to ban abortion, with no exceptions. The vague exceptions they write only serve to give them plausible deniability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The real problem is they want to ban abortion, with no exceptions. The vague exceptions they write only serve to give them plausible deniability.

And the people pretending the exceptions are real are their handmaidens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The real problem is they want to ban abortion, with no exceptions. The vague exceptions they write only serve to give them plausible deniability.

Yes, that's the substantive problem - the procedural problem is that the legislature makes laws, then it's up to other branches to interpret them. The legislature has no more say once the law is passed.

[Anonymous]

Here is a great article illustrating how these laws are supposed to function. How they have been crafted to function. How the forced birth activists are operating.
They are meant to be complete bans.
They exceptions are for political cover only. They are not meant to be accessible for doctors and patients. This is intentional.


https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-anti-abortion-meeting-with-tennessee-republican-lawmakers

[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."”

DP. This is too vague. At what point is a pregnancy considered life threatening? For example, in situations where there's premature rupture of membranes prior to the point of viability, yet still a heartbeat, where does the doctor draw the line? How close to septic does a woman need to be before this type of futile pregnancy is finally considered "life threatening"?
How about cases where fetal abnormalities affect the health or future fertility of the mother? Where's that "life threatening" threshold supposed to be set?
The laws were written specifically to be vague on this. It was absolutely intentional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."”

DP. This is too vague. At what point is a pregnancy considered life threatening? For example, in situations where there's premature rupture of membranes prior to the point of viability, yet still a heartbeat, where does the doctor draw the line? How close to septic does a woman need to be before this type of futile pregnancy is finally considered "life threatening"?
How about cases where fetal abnormalities affect the health or future fertility of the mother? Where's that "life threatening" threshold supposed to be set?
The laws were written specifically to be vague on this. It was absolutely intentional.

Also, it has to be an "emergency." A 10 year old can carry for a long time before it's an emergency. It's possible it would never become an emergency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."”

DP. This is too vague. At what point is a pregnancy considered life threatening? For example, in situations where there's premature rupture of membranes prior to the point of viability, yet still a heartbeat, where does the doctor draw the line? How close to septic does a woman need to be before this type of futile pregnancy is finally considered "life threatening"?
How about cases where fetal abnormalities affect the health or future fertility of the mother? Where's that "life threatening" threshold supposed to be set?
The laws were written specifically to be vague on this. It was absolutely intentional.

Also, it has to be an "emergency." A 10 year old can carry for a long time before it's an emergency. It's possible it would never become an emergency.

Until delivery. One of the stories shared at the time of this 10 year old girl’s ordeal was a 9 or a 10 year old girl who ended up hemorrhaging after delivery and the only treatment that worked was an emergency hysterectomy.

[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."”

And the counsel for National Right to Life says you’re completely wrong and she should have given birth. And it’s his people who wrote the law. So why do you think the hospital should have believed anyone would have protected them from charges?

[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.

Phone call

To whom? The legislators that wrote the laws? The ones that voted for it? The ones that opposed it? Whose counsel is a hospital supposed to take and what member of the legislature is taking these calls? Go ahead and post those numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."”

DP. This is too vague. At what point is a pregnancy considered life threatening? For example, in situations where there's premature rupture of membranes prior to the point of viability, yet still a heartbeat, where does the doctor draw the line? How close to septic does a woman need to be before this type of futile pregnancy is finally considered "life threatening"?
How about cases where fetal abnormalities affect the health or future fertility of the mother? Where's that "life threatening" threshold supposed to be set?
The laws were written specifically to be vague on this. It was absolutely intentional.

+1 And just wanted to add that every pregnancy is more life-threatening for the woman or girl compared to an abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."”

DP. This is too vague. At what point is a pregnancy considered life threatening? For example, in situations where there's premature rupture of membranes prior to the point of viability, yet still a heartbeat, where does the doctor draw the line? How close to septic does a woman need to be before this type of futile pregnancy is finally considered "life threatening"?
How about cases where fetal abnormalities affect the health or future fertility of the mother? Where's that "life threatening" threshold supposed to be set?
The laws were written specifically to be vague on this. It was absolutely intentional.

+1 And just wanted to add that every pregnancy is more life-threatening for the woman or girl compared to an abortion.

Because they don’t give two s*its about women. All of this, all the “why don’t women report rape?” faux handwringing, all the banning abortion in fascist controlled states, all the casual two stepping about them going after birth control next, the playing off pregnancy and delivery like it’s nothing and not risky, it’s to try and put women back in a subordinate position. They hate that girls are doing well in school. They hate that there were cracks in the patriarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad all the outrage here is directed at the Supreme Court, rather than the rapist who raped a 10 year old.

Bravo!

We can multitask. The point is the government is traumatizing this child all over again. This is on you too.

Maybe start taking rape crimes seriously for a change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad all the outrage here is directed at the Supreme Court, rather than the rapist who raped a 10 year old.

Bravo!

We can multitask. The point is the government is traumatizing this child all over again. This is on you too.

Maybe start taking rape crimes seriously for a change.

This rapist was convicted and is serving life in prison. That doesn’t mean the next rapist’s victim should be forced to become his child’s mother.

[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

Which legislator do they call? How do they choose?

That’s for them to learn, if they haven’t already. If I’m a hospital administrator, this is something I have posted in my office