Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I’m sure conservatives don’t love the idea of a 10 year old going through a pregnancy. But to them, such cases are just collateral damage, something regretful but acceptable in the tradeoff of banning abortion. They accept making raped pregnant children bear babies if that’s what it takes to ban women from getting abortions. They won’t admit it, esp not on this forum. But it’s true.

Yup.

This is the truest thing ever. I keep having this exact conversation with dim witted GOOPERS.

+1

Republicans are so, so stupid. This is what you wanted. Now you don’t want since it’s exactly as bad as everyone told you it would be?

Anonymous wrote:Nothing will change until white Christian Republican women start dying in droves. Y’a know, the adult daughters of these legislators. Hopefully that happens quickly so these dimwits change the law quickly.

Yes, I am hoping for quick high-profile deaths of white Christian Republican women. Why? Because Republicans always fail to do the right thing until it affects them.

If you are a woman of color who needs to give birth, please try to do so in another state where you will get proper care. You are NOT safe in Ohio and much of the South,

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I didn’t think that the forced birthers supported child rape prior to this. How wrong I was. My God.

Correct. Go look at the GOP corruption thread for more. I lost track over the hundred plus pages of how many rapists and child rapists and other assorted life destroying sex crimes various Republican elected officials are guilty of. It’s disgusting and it’s clearly a serious problem in the party.

Yeah, I’m a political moderate who has voted for Republicans in the past, and I used to think that the Democrats were being pretty hypocritical about the sex assaults by Republicans because there are plenty of sex assaulter amongst the Democrats too. But the aftermath of the Roe decision has shown to me that this issue of Republican child rapists is deeply part of the party. They really, as a group, support child rape. It’s horrifying to watch.

I’m probably not going to vote Republican again in my lifetime, barring serious restructuring of the party. I can’t stomach it. Between the enthusiastic cheerleading for child rape (my God!!), the insurrection, and the blind allegiance to the gun lobby, I can’t see how I could ever vote for them.

WTF are you talking about? “Cheerleading for child rape”?? Do you even hear yourself?

What is inaccurate about that assessment and the current Republicans? They are in favor of child rape.

The more you repeat this garbage, the farther people will run from you. Please stop. No one - NO ONE - is in favor of child rape, or rape of any kind. You just sound like an utter psychopath.
DP

No, it sounds accurate. This is what the Republicans support now. It’s upsetting you because it’s true.

JFC. Seek help. There’s no point trying to converse with disturbed people like you.

I would think the people in favor of children being raped and forced to bear the child of their rapists are the ones who need to seek help. But if you don’t see anything wrong with that, I can’t help you.

+1

ٌYou venal pieces of crap. You seem to grasp on some level that forcing a child to continue a pregnancy is bad, to the extent that one of your mouthpieces speaking before congress literally said that an abortion for a ten year old isn’t abortion (as you have tried to say with ectopic and other life threatening pregnancies, even though the law is written such that doctors can’t give lifesaving abortions in these states).

Come off it. Your whole policy position is stupid and cruel. You know that everyone who isn’t a kool aid swilling forced birther sees that now and you are effing terrified. It’s just a matter of time before some poor 9 or 13 year old dies from pregnancy complications or some photogenic Instagram woman with three kids and 500,000 followers is murdered by your idiotic laws. You know it’s game over.

Isn’t the witness saying that the law would not prevent the 10 year old from seeking an abortion because she could be harmed?

The guy who wrote the law says the 10-year-old needs to stay pregnant and give birth.

Can I see that in a documented statement from the lawmaker who wrote the law please?

Would you like it notarized and in triplicate?

"Jim Bopp, an Indiana lawyer who authored the model legislation in advance of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, told POLITICO on Thursday that his law only provides exceptions when the pregnant person’s life is in danger. “She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child,” Bopp said in a phone interview on Thursday."
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/14/anti-abotion-10-year-old-ohio-00045843

In fact, if you go further down in this story, the law also says this:

"While Bopp’s model legislation, which was released in advance of the Supreme Court’s ruling late last month, encourages states to ban all abortions unless necessary to save the life of the pregnant person, it notes “it may be necessary in certain states to have additional exceptions, such as for a women pregnant as a result of rape or incest.”"

That seems like very informal language for a law, doesn't it?

Yes, because it's a freaking ARTICLE that summarizes the law, not the law itself.

Shame PP isn't bright enough to quote the actual text of the law.

It's pretty long - there are a lot of exceptions. You are capable of looking it up and reading it as I did.

I don't know what you were reading but here is the current law:

https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_133/bills/sb23/EN/05?format=pdf

But, as an earlier poster stated, the only exceptions are:

“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”

"Two" is not "a lot".

There was an entire section that talked about when the person in question was under 17. The part none of you are failing to see (I don’t know why - it’s right in the document you posted) that in emergency situations, there is more discretion, and this girl qualified due to age. Also, it was stated in the hearing that the ‘prevent serious risk … ‘ clause would have also applied. To state outright that there is no flex in the law is media hype. As I’ve said, because it’s a new law, the hospital lawyers seemed to be unclear. Their job is to protect their physicians and facility since the liability falls directly on them. Lawmakers need to clarify things with these facilities. The girl did not have to undergo surgery to induce abortion in Indiana so the pregnancy was indeed early. I’m glad adults were on the situation and as able to bring the rapist to justice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I didn’t think that the forced birthers supported child rape prior to this. How wrong I was. My God.

Correct. Go look at the GOP corruption thread for more. I lost track over the hundred plus pages of how many rapists and child rapists and other assorted life destroying sex crimes various Republican elected officials are guilty of. It’s disgusting and it’s clearly a serious problem in the party.

Yeah, I’m a political moderate who has voted for Republicans in the past, and I used to think that the Democrats were being pretty hypocritical about the sex assaults by Republicans because there are plenty of sex assaulter amongst the Democrats too. But the aftermath of the Roe decision has shown to me that this issue of Republican child rapists is deeply part of the party. They really, as a group, support child rape. It’s horrifying to watch.

I’m probably not going to vote Republican again in my lifetime, barring serious restructuring of the party. I can’t stomach it. Between the enthusiastic cheerleading for child rape (my God!!), the insurrection, and the blind allegiance to the gun lobby, I can’t see how I could ever vote for them.

WTF are you talking about? “Cheerleading for child rape”?? Do you even hear yourself?

What is inaccurate about that assessment and the current Republicans? They are in favor of child rape.

The more you repeat this garbage, the farther people will run from you. Please stop. No one - NO ONE - is in favor of child rape, or rape of any kind. You just sound like an utter psychopath.
DP

No, it sounds accurate. This is what the Republicans support now. It’s upsetting you because it’s true.

JFC. Seek help. There’s no point trying to converse with disturbed people like you.

I would think the people in favor of children being raped and forced to bear the child of their rapists are the ones who need to seek help. But if you don’t see anything wrong with that, I can’t help you.

+1

ٌYou venal pieces of crap. You seem to grasp on some level that forcing a child to continue a pregnancy is bad, to the extent that one of your mouthpieces speaking before congress literally said that an abortion for a ten year old isn’t abortion (as you have tried to say with ectopic and other life threatening pregnancies, even though the law is written such that doctors can’t give lifesaving abortions in these states).

Come off it. Your whole policy position is stupid and cruel. You know that everyone who isn’t a kool aid swilling forced birther sees that now and you are effing terrified. It’s just a matter of time before some poor 9 or 13 year old dies from pregnancy complications or some photogenic Instagram woman with three kids and 500,000 followers is murdered by your idiotic laws. You know it’s game over.

Isn’t the witness saying that the law would not prevent the 10 year old from seeking an abortion because she could be harmed?

Yes, that’s what she claimed. She also claimed that the 10 year old’s abortion wouldn’t be an abortion because she’s 10 and that’s different. But that’s not the way the law was written or interpreted by the hospital lawyers, hence her having to go out of state.

It’s like the forced birthers are so close to admitting the damage that forced birth does to all women and the children resulting from it, but they just want to punish women so damn badly they’ll twist themselves into these pretzels.

She’s trying to explain why the law would not apply to the child, i.e. it would not meet the terms of abortion defined by their law due to her age and due to rape. The hospital was in error here, and I would dare say negligent. Another in-state hospital could have made a different decision.

She wasn't trying to "explain" anything. She just made an assertion that was untrue because the truth is unpleasant.

You heard what you wanted to hear. She was very specific in saying the law would not apply to this child

But that is a lie. There is NO age limit in the law.

If you look at the law itself in detail (I did), she was certainly eligible for an abortion under Ohio law

No she wasn’t. Here’s a breakdown of the two exceptions. Will prevent maternal death or impairment of a major body system. Mental health cannot be considered. The link to the law is in this clear synopsis. FFS— if you care, read the law.

Sorry! Link here
https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/politics/ohio-politics/ohio-ag-files-motion-to-dissolve-injunction-on-six-week-abortion-ban-bill

If mental health cannot be considered, then.. What happens when pregnant woman commits suicide? I don't think she'd care about the legal consequences, the end result is the death of the fetus inside of her anyway. These morons cannot do basic logic, how do they pass the LSAT?

This moron got a 172 on the LSAT, and is telling you to take it up with he Ohio legislature. The statute specifically says mental health cannot be a consideration in providing the abortion. It’s in the affirmative defenses section of the full, 27 page text of the bill.

You really don’t seem to understand what lawyers do. We give advice based on what the law is, not what we wish it were. If it says no consideration of mental health, then giving a woman an abortion to prevent a suicide is a felony. Is it cruel? Absolutely. That seems to the the point for the GOP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I’m sure conservatives don’t love the idea of a 10 year old going through a pregnancy. But to them, such cases are just collateral damage, something regretful but acceptable in the tradeoff of banning abortion. They accept making raped pregnant children bear babies if that’s what it takes to ban women from getting abortions. They won’t admit it, esp not on this forum. But it’s true.

Yup.

This is the truest thing ever. I keep having this exact conversation with dim witted GOOPERS.

Anonymous wrote:Omg this poor girl. Could you imagine being 10 and pregnant and having national media coverage about it?! Horrifying. I feel terrible for her.

Anonymous wrote:Omg this poor girl. Could you imagine being 10 and pregnant and having national media coverage about it?! Horrifying. I feel terrible for her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I didn’t think that the forced birthers supported child rape prior to this. How wrong I was. My God.

Correct. Go look at the GOP corruption thread for more. I lost track over the hundred plus pages of how many rapists and child rapists and other assorted life destroying sex crimes various Republican elected officials are guilty of. It’s disgusting and it’s clearly a serious problem in the party.

Yeah, I’m a political moderate who has voted for Republicans in the past, and I used to think that the Democrats were being pretty hypocritical about the sex assaults by Republicans because there are plenty of sex assaulter amongst the Democrats too. But the aftermath of the Roe decision has shown to me that this issue of Republican child rapists is deeply part of the party. They really, as a group, support child rape. It’s horrifying to watch.

I’m probably not going to vote Republican again in my lifetime, barring serious restructuring of the party. I can’t stomach it. Between the enthusiastic cheerleading for child rape (my God!!), the insurrection, and the blind allegiance to the gun lobby, I can’t see how I could ever vote for them.

WTF are you talking about? “Cheerleading for child rape”?? Do you even hear yourself?

What is inaccurate about that assessment and the current Republicans? They are in favor of child rape.

The more you repeat this garbage, the farther people will run from you. Please stop. No one - NO ONE - is in favor of child rape, or rape of any kind. You just sound like an utter psychopath.
DP

No, it sounds accurate. This is what the Republicans support now. It’s upsetting you because it’s true.

JFC. Seek help. There’s no point trying to converse with disturbed people like you.

I would think the people in favor of children being raped and forced to bear the child of their rapists are the ones who need to seek help. But if you don’t see anything wrong with that, I can’t help you.

+1

ٌYou venal pieces of crap. You seem to grasp on some level that forcing a child to continue a pregnancy is bad, to the extent that one of your mouthpieces speaking before congress literally said that an abortion for a ten year old isn’t abortion (as you have tried to say with ectopic and other life threatening pregnancies, even though the law is written such that doctors can’t give lifesaving abortions in these states).

Come off it. Your whole policy position is stupid and cruel. You know that everyone who isn’t a kool aid swilling forced birther sees that now and you are effing terrified. It’s just a matter of time before some poor 9 or 13 year old dies from pregnancy complications or some photogenic Instagram woman with three kids and 500,000 followers is murdered by your idiotic laws. You know it’s game over.

Isn’t the witness saying that the law would not prevent the 10 year old from seeking an abortion because she could be harmed?

The guy who wrote the law says the 10-year-old needs to stay pregnant and give birth.

Can I see that in a documented statement from the lawmaker who wrote the law please?

Would you like it notarized and in triplicate?

"Jim Bopp, an Indiana lawyer who authored the model legislation in advance of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, told POLITICO on Thursday that his law only provides exceptions when the pregnant person’s life is in danger. “She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child,” Bopp said in a phone interview on Thursday."
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/14/anti-abotion-10-year-old-ohio-00045843

In fact, if you go further down in this story, the law also says this:

"While Bopp’s model legislation, which was released in advance of the Supreme Court’s ruling late last month, encourages states to ban all abortions unless necessary to save the life of the pregnant person, it notes “it may be necessary in certain states to have additional exceptions, such as for a women pregnant as a result of rape or incest.”"

That seems like very informal language for a law, doesn't it?

Yes, because it's a freaking ARTICLE that summarizes the law, not the law itself.

Shame PP isn't bright enough to quote the actual text of the law.

It's pretty long - there are a lot of exceptions. You are capable of looking it up and reading it as I did.

I don't know what you were reading but here is the current law:

https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_133/bills/sb23/EN/05?format=pdf

But, as an earlier poster stated, the only exceptions are:

“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”

"Two" is not "a lot".

There was an entire section that talked about when the person in question was under 17. The part none of you are failing to see (I don’t know why - it’s right in the document you posted) that in emergency situations, there is more discretion, and this girl qualified due to age. Also, it was stated in the hearing that the ‘prevent serious risk … ‘ clause would have also applied. To state outright that there is no flex in the law is media hype. As I’ve said, because it’s a new law, the hospital lawyers seemed to be unclear. Their job is to protect their physicians and facility since the liability falls directly on them. Lawmakers need to clarify things with these facilities. The girl did not have to undergo surgery to induce abortion in Indiana so the pregnancy was indeed early. I’m glad adults were on the situation and as able to bring the rapist to justice.

How odd that you are unable to post it via cut-and-paste.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I didn’t think that the forced birthers supported child rape prior to this. How wrong I was. My God.

Correct. Go look at the GOP corruption thread for more. I lost track over the hundred plus pages of how many rapists and child rapists and other assorted life destroying sex crimes various Republican elected officials are guilty of. It’s disgusting and it’s clearly a serious problem in the party.

Yeah, I’m a political moderate who has voted for Republicans in the past, and I used to think that the Democrats were being pretty hypocritical about the sex assaults by Republicans because there are plenty of sex assaulter amongst the Democrats too. But the aftermath of the Roe decision has shown to me that this issue of Republican child rapists is deeply part of the party. They really, as a group, support child rape. It’s horrifying to watch.

I’m probably not going to vote Republican again in my lifetime, barring serious restructuring of the party. I can’t stomach it. Between the enthusiastic cheerleading for child rape (my God!!), the insurrection, and the blind allegiance to the gun lobby, I can’t see how I could ever vote for them.

WTF are you talking about? “Cheerleading for child rape”?? Do you even hear yourself?

What is inaccurate about that assessment and the current Republicans? They are in favor of child rape.

The more you repeat this garbage, the farther people will run from you. Please stop. No one - NO ONE - is in favor of child rape, or rape of any kind. You just sound like an utter psychopath.
DP

No, it sounds accurate. This is what the Republicans support now. It’s upsetting you because it’s true.

JFC. Seek help. There’s no point trying to converse with disturbed people like you.

I would think the people in favor of children being raped and forced to bear the child of their rapists are the ones who need to seek help. But if you don’t see anything wrong with that, I can’t help you.

+1

ٌYou venal pieces of crap. You seem to grasp on some level that forcing a child to continue a pregnancy is bad, to the extent that one of your mouthpieces speaking before congress literally said that an abortion for a ten year old isn’t abortion (as you have tried to say with ectopic and other life threatening pregnancies, even though the law is written such that doctors can’t give lifesaving abortions in these states).

Come off it. Your whole policy position is stupid and cruel. You know that everyone who isn’t a kool aid swilling forced birther sees that now and you are effing terrified. It’s just a matter of time before some poor 9 or 13 year old dies from pregnancy complications or some photogenic Instagram woman with three kids and 500,000 followers is murdered by your idiotic laws. You know it’s game over.

Isn’t the witness saying that the law would not prevent the 10 year old from seeking an abortion because she could be harmed?

The guy who wrote the law says the 10-year-old needs to stay pregnant and give birth.

Can I see that in a documented statement from the lawmaker who wrote the law please?

Would you like it notarized and in triplicate?

"Jim Bopp, an Indiana lawyer who authored the model legislation in advance of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, told POLITICO on Thursday that his law only provides exceptions when the pregnant person’s life is in danger. “She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child,” Bopp said in a phone interview on Thursday."
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/14/anti-abotion-10-year-old-ohio-00045843

In fact, if you go further down in this story, the law also says this:

"While Bopp’s model legislation, which was released in advance of the Supreme Court’s ruling late last month, encourages states to ban all abortions unless necessary to save the life of the pregnant person, it notes “it may be necessary in certain states to have additional exceptions, such as for a women pregnant as a result of rape or incest.”"

That seems like very informal language for a law, doesn't it?

Yes, because it's a freaking ARTICLE that summarizes the law, not the law itself.

Shame PP isn't bright enough to quote the actual text of the law.

It's pretty long - there are a lot of exceptions. You are capable of looking it up and reading it as I did.

I don't know what you were reading but here is the current law:

https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_133/bills/sb23/EN/05?format=pdf

But, as an earlier poster stated, the only exceptions are:

“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”

"Two" is not "a lot".

There was an entire section that talked about when the person in question was under 17. The part none of you are failing to see (I don’t know why - it’s right in the document you posted) that in emergency situations, there is more discretion, and this girl qualified due to age. Also, it was stated in the hearing that the ‘prevent serious risk … ‘ clause would have also applied. To state outright that there is no flex in the law is media hype. As I’ve said, because it’s a new law, the hospital lawyers seemed to be unclear. Their job is to protect their physicians and facility since the liability falls directly on them. Lawmakers need to clarify things with these facilities. The girl did not have to undergo surgery to induce abortion in Indiana so the pregnancy was indeed early. I’m glad adults were on the situation and as able to bring the rapist to justice.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I didn’t think that the forced birthers supported child rape prior to this. How wrong I was. My God.

Correct. Go look at the GOP corruption thread for more. I lost track over the hundred plus pages of how many rapists and child rapists and other assorted life destroying sex crimes various Republican elected officials are guilty of. It’s disgusting and it’s clearly a serious problem in the party.

Yeah, I’m a political moderate who has voted for Republicans in the past, and I used to think that the Democrats were being pretty hypocritical about the sex assaults by Republicans because there are plenty of sex assaulter amongst the Democrats too. But the aftermath of the Roe decision has shown to me that this issue of Republican child rapists is deeply part of the party. They really, as a group, support child rape. It’s horrifying to watch.

I’m probably not going to vote Republican again in my lifetime, barring serious restructuring of the party. I can’t stomach it. Between the enthusiastic cheerleading for child rape (my God!!), the insurrection, and the blind allegiance to the gun lobby, I can’t see how I could ever vote for them.

WTF are you talking about? “Cheerleading for child rape”?? Do you even hear yourself?

What is inaccurate about that assessment and the current Republicans? They are in favor of child rape.

The more you repeat this garbage, the farther people will run from you. Please stop. No one - NO ONE - is in favor of child rape, or rape of any kind. You just sound like an utter psychopath.
DP

No, it sounds accurate. This is what the Republicans support now. It’s upsetting you because it’s true.

JFC. Seek help. There’s no point trying to converse with disturbed people like you.

I would think the people in favor of children being raped and forced to bear the child of their rapists are the ones who need to seek help. But if you don’t see anything wrong with that, I can’t help you.

+1

ٌYou venal pieces of crap. You seem to grasp on some level that forcing a child to continue a pregnancy is bad, to the extent that one of your mouthpieces speaking before congress literally said that an abortion for a ten year old isn’t abortion (as you have tried to say with ectopic and other life threatening pregnancies, even though the law is written such that doctors can’t give lifesaving abortions in these states).

Come off it. Your whole policy position is stupid and cruel. You know that everyone who isn’t a kool aid swilling forced birther sees that now and you are effing terrified. It’s just a matter of time before some poor 9 or 13 year old dies from pregnancy complications or some photogenic Instagram woman with three kids and 500,000 followers is murdered by your idiotic laws. You know it’s game over.

Isn’t the witness saying that the law would not prevent the 10 year old from seeking an abortion because she could be harmed?

The guy who wrote the law says the 10-year-old needs to stay pregnant and give birth.

Can I see that in a documented statement from the lawmaker who wrote the law please?

Would you like it notarized and in triplicate?

"Jim Bopp, an Indiana lawyer who authored the model legislation in advance of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, told POLITICO on Thursday that his law only provides exceptions when the pregnant person’s life is in danger. “She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child,” Bopp said in a phone interview on Thursday."
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/14/anti-abotion-10-year-old-ohio-00045843

In fact, if you go further down in this story, the law also says this:

"While Bopp’s model legislation, which was released in advance of the Supreme Court’s ruling late last month, encourages states to ban all abortions unless necessary to save the life of the pregnant person, it notes “it may be necessary in certain states to have additional exceptions, such as for a women pregnant as a result of rape or incest.”"

That seems like very informal language for a law, doesn't it?

Yes, because it's a freaking ARTICLE that summarizes the law, not the law itself.

Shame PP isn't bright enough to quote the actual text of the law.

It's pretty long - there are a lot of exceptions. You are capable of looking it up and reading it as I did.

I don't know what you were reading but here is the current law:

https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_133/bills/sb23/EN/05?format=pdf

But, as an earlier poster stated, the only exceptions are:

“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”

"Two" is not "a lot".

There was an entire section that talked about when the person in question was under 17. The part none of you are failing to see (I don’t know why - it’s right in the document you posted) that in emergency situations, there is more discretion, and this girl qualified due to age. Also, it was stated in the hearing that the ‘prevent serious risk … ‘ clause would have also applied. To state outright that there is no flex in the law is media hype. As I’ve said, because it’s a new law, the hospital lawyers seemed to be unclear. Their job is to protect their physicians and facility since the liability falls directly on them. Lawmakers need to clarify things with these facilities. The girl did not have to undergo surgery to induce abortion in Indiana so the pregnancy was indeed early. I’m glad adults were on the situation and as able to bring the rapist to justice.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I didn’t think that the forced birthers supported child rape prior to this. How wrong I was. My God.

Correct. Go look at the GOP corruption thread for more. I lost track over the hundred plus pages of how many rapists and child rapists and other assorted life destroying sex crimes various Republican elected officials are guilty of. It’s disgusting and it’s clearly a serious problem in the party.

Yeah, I’m a political moderate who has voted for Republicans in the past, and I used to think that the Democrats were being pretty hypocritical about the sex assaults by Republicans because there are plenty of sex assaulter amongst the Democrats too. But the aftermath of the Roe decision has shown to me that this issue of Republican child rapists is deeply part of the party. They really, as a group, support child rape. It’s horrifying to watch.

I’m probably not going to vote Republican again in my lifetime, barring serious restructuring of the party. I can’t stomach it. Between the enthusiastic cheerleading for child rape (my God!!), the insurrection, and the blind allegiance to the gun lobby, I can’t see how I could ever vote for them.

WTF are you talking about? “Cheerleading for child rape”?? Do you even hear yourself?

What is inaccurate about that assessment and the current Republicans? They are in favor of child rape.

The more you repeat this garbage, the farther people will run from you. Please stop. No one - NO ONE - is in favor of child rape, or rape of any kind. You just sound like an utter psychopath.
DP

No, it sounds accurate. This is what the Republicans support now. It’s upsetting you because it’s true.

JFC. Seek help. There’s no point trying to converse with disturbed people like you.

I would think the people in favor of children being raped and forced to bear the child of their rapists are the ones who need to seek help. But if you don’t see anything wrong with that, I can’t help you.

+1

ٌYou venal pieces of crap. You seem to grasp on some level that forcing a child to continue a pregnancy is bad, to the extent that one of your mouthpieces speaking before congress literally said that an abortion for a ten year old isn’t abortion (as you have tried to say with ectopic and other life threatening pregnancies, even though the law is written such that doctors can’t give lifesaving abortions in these states).

Come off it. Your whole policy position is stupid and cruel. You know that everyone who isn’t a kool aid swilling forced birther sees that now and you are effing terrified. It’s just a matter of time before some poor 9 or 13 year old dies from pregnancy complications or some photogenic Instagram woman with three kids and 500,000 followers is murdered by your idiotic laws. You know it’s game over.

Isn’t the witness saying that the law would not prevent the 10 year old from seeking an abortion because she could be harmed?

The guy who wrote the law says the 10-year-old needs to stay pregnant and give birth.

Can I see that in a documented statement from the lawmaker who wrote the law please?

Would you like it notarized and in triplicate?

"Jim Bopp, an Indiana lawyer who authored the model legislation in advance of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, told POLITICO on Thursday that his law only provides exceptions when the pregnant person’s life is in danger. “She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child,” Bopp said in a phone interview on Thursday."
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/14/anti-abotion-10-year-old-ohio-00045843

In fact, if you go further down in this story, the law also says this:

"While Bopp’s model legislation, which was released in advance of the Supreme Court’s ruling late last month, encourages states to ban all abortions unless necessary to save the life of the pregnant person, it notes “it may be necessary in certain states to have additional exceptions, such as for a women pregnant as a result of rape or incest.”"

That seems like very informal language for a law, doesn't it?

Yes, because it's a freaking ARTICLE that summarizes the law, not the law itself.

Shame PP isn't bright enough to quote the actual text of the law.

It's pretty long - there are a lot of exceptions. You are capable of looking it up and reading it as I did.

I don't know what you were reading but here is the current law:

https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_133/bills/sb23/EN/05?format=pdf

But, as an earlier poster stated, the only exceptions are:

“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”

"Two" is not "a lot".

There was an entire section that talked about when the person in question was under 17. The part none of you are failing to see (I don’t know why - it’s right in the document you posted) that in emergency situations, there is more discretion, and this girl qualified due to age. Also, it was stated in the hearing that the ‘prevent serious risk … ‘ clause would have also applied. To state outright that there is no flex in the law is media hype. As I’ve said, because it’s a new law, the hospital lawyers seemed to be unclear. Their job is to protect their physicians and facility since the liability falls directly on them. Lawmakers need to clarify things with these facilities. The girl did not have to undergo surgery to induce abortion in Indiana so the pregnancy was indeed early. I’m glad adults were on the situation and as able to bring the rapist to justice.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I didn’t think that the forced birthers supported child rape prior to this. How wrong I was. My God.

Correct. Go look at the GOP corruption thread for more. I lost track over the hundred plus pages of how many rapists and child rapists and other assorted life destroying sex crimes various Republican elected officials are guilty of. It’s disgusting and it’s clearly a serious problem in the party.

Yeah, I’m a political moderate who has voted for Republicans in the past, and I used to think that the Democrats were being pretty hypocritical about the sex assaults by Republicans because there are plenty of sex assaulter amongst the Democrats too. But the aftermath of the Roe decision has shown to me that this issue of Republican child rapists is deeply part of the party. They really, as a group, support child rape. It’s horrifying to watch.

I’m probably not going to vote Republican again in my lifetime, barring serious restructuring of the party. I can’t stomach it. Between the enthusiastic cheerleading for child rape (my God!!), the insurrection, and the blind allegiance to the gun lobby, I can’t see how I could ever vote for them.

WTF are you talking about? “Cheerleading for child rape”?? Do you even hear yourself?

What is inaccurate about that assessment and the current Republicans? They are in favor of child rape.

The more you repeat this garbage, the farther people will run from you. Please stop. No one - NO ONE - is in favor of child rape, or rape of any kind. You just sound like an utter psychopath.
DP

No, it sounds accurate. This is what the Republicans support now. It’s upsetting you because it’s true.

JFC. Seek help. There’s no point trying to converse with disturbed people like you.

I would think the people in favor of children being raped and forced to bear the child of their rapists are the ones who need to seek help. But if you don’t see anything wrong with that, I can’t help you.

+1

ٌYou venal pieces of crap. You seem to grasp on some level that forcing a child to continue a pregnancy is bad, to the extent that one of your mouthpieces speaking before congress literally said that an abortion for a ten year old isn’t abortion (as you have tried to say with ectopic and other life threatening pregnancies, even though the law is written such that doctors can’t give lifesaving abortions in these states).

Come off it. Your whole policy position is stupid and cruel. You know that everyone who isn’t a kool aid swilling forced birther sees that now and you are effing terrified. It’s just a matter of time before some poor 9 or 13 year old dies from pregnancy complications or some photogenic Instagram woman with three kids and 500,000 followers is murdered by your idiotic laws. You know it’s game over.

Isn’t the witness saying that the law would not prevent the 10 year old from seeking an abortion because she could be harmed?

The guy who wrote the law says the 10-year-old needs to stay pregnant and give birth.

Can I see that in a documented statement from the lawmaker who wrote the law please?

Would you like it notarized and in triplicate?

"Jim Bopp, an Indiana lawyer who authored the model legislation in advance of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, told POLITICO on Thursday that his law only provides exceptions when the pregnant person’s life is in danger. “She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child,” Bopp said in a phone interview on Thursday."
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/14/anti-abotion-10-year-old-ohio-00045843

In fact, if you go further down in this story, the law also says this:

"While Bopp’s model legislation, which was released in advance of the Supreme Court’s ruling late last month, encourages states to ban all abortions unless necessary to save the life of the pregnant person, it notes “it may be necessary in certain states to have additional exceptions, such as for a women pregnant as a result of rape or incest.”"

That seems like very informal language for a law, doesn't it?

Yes, because it's a freaking ARTICLE that summarizes the law, not the law itself.

Shame PP isn't bright enough to quote the actual text of the law.

It's pretty long - there are a lot of exceptions. You are capable of looking it up and reading it as I did.

I don't know what you were reading but here is the current law:

https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_133/bills/sb23/EN/05?format=pdf

But, as an earlier poster stated, the only exceptions are:

“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”

"Two" is not "a lot".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I didn’t think that the forced birthers supported child rape prior to this. How wrong I was. My God.

Correct. Go look at the GOP corruption thread for more. I lost track over the hundred plus pages of how many rapists and child rapists and other assorted life destroying sex crimes various Republican elected officials are guilty of. It’s disgusting and it’s clearly a serious problem in the party.

Yeah, I’m a political moderate who has voted for Republicans in the past, and I used to think that the Democrats were being pretty hypocritical about the sex assaults by Republicans because there are plenty of sex assaulter amongst the Democrats too. But the aftermath of the Roe decision has shown to me that this issue of Republican child rapists is deeply part of the party. They really, as a group, support child rape. It’s horrifying to watch.

I’m probably not going to vote Republican again in my lifetime, barring serious restructuring of the party. I can’t stomach it. Between the enthusiastic cheerleading for child rape (my God!!), the insurrection, and the blind allegiance to the gun lobby, I can’t see how I could ever vote for them.

WTF are you talking about? “Cheerleading for child rape”?? Do you even hear yourself?

What is inaccurate about that assessment and the current Republicans? They are in favor of child rape.

The more you repeat this garbage, the farther people will run from you. Please stop. No one - NO ONE - is in favor of child rape, or rape of any kind. You just sound like an utter psychopath.
DP

No, it sounds accurate. This is what the Republicans support now. It’s upsetting you because it’s true.

JFC. Seek help. There’s no point trying to converse with disturbed people like you.

I would think the people in favor of children being raped and forced to bear the child of their rapists are the ones who need to seek help. But if you don’t see anything wrong with that, I can’t help you.

+1

ٌYou venal pieces of crap. You seem to grasp on some level that forcing a child to continue a pregnancy is bad, to the extent that one of your mouthpieces speaking before congress literally said that an abortion for a ten year old isn’t abortion (as you have tried to say with ectopic and other life threatening pregnancies, even though the law is written such that doctors can’t give lifesaving abortions in these states).

Come off it. Your whole policy position is stupid and cruel. You know that everyone who isn’t a kool aid swilling forced birther sees that now and you are effing terrified. It’s just a matter of time before some poor 9 or 13 year old dies from pregnancy complications or some photogenic Instagram woman with three kids and 500,000 followers is murdered by your idiotic laws. You know it’s game over.

Isn’t the witness saying that the law would not prevent the 10 year old from seeking an abortion because she could be harmed?

The guy who wrote the law says the 10-year-old needs to stay pregnant and give birth.

Can I see that in a documented statement from the lawmaker who wrote the law please?

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

The 10-year-old Ohio girl who crossed state lines to receive an abortion in Indiana should have carried her pregnancy to term and would be required to do so under a model law written for state legislatures considering more restrictive abortion measures, according to the general counsel for the National Right to Life.

Jim Bopp, an Indiana lawyer who authored the model legislation in advance of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, told POLITICO on Thursday that his law only provides exceptions when the pregnant person’s life is in danger.

“She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child,” Bopp said in a phone interview on Thursday.

So, does this change ^PP"s mind? Probably not. Vile... forcing a 10 yr old girl to have her rapist's baby. Just vile. What kind of parent would be fine with this - forced birthers.

I'm the PP. I read further on in the story. It makes it clear that Bopp knows the law has rape/incest as an exception, but that Bopp has conflicts about that. Doesn't matter how he feels (or how anyone feels for that matter). What matters is if the girl was entitled to an abortion in Ohio given her age/circumstance and the answer is yes.

The flaw in their logic is that if a life is a life, then it doesn't matter how the life was conceived. So, why should rape be an exemption?

This is the problem with rigid thinking. It leaves no room for real life, which is often, shades of gray.

-signed the former pro-lifer and a mother of two

And thank God Bopp did not et his way, right? So clearly there was room for real life.

Yes, thank goodness that, in this case, a forced birther didn't get his way.

But, you still didn't answer the question: "if a life is a life, then it doesn't matter how the life was conceived. So, why should rape be an exemption?"

A life is a life, doesn't matter how it was conceived. Why should the baby suffer for the sins of the father, right? That's Bopp's reasoning of his opinion of why rape *shouldn't* be an exemption.

Because we live in the real world. You are asking hypotheticals, which some extremely religious people follow to the letter, but they are by far the exception, not the rule. Which is why Bopp’s statements were wishes but not changes.