Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why? Better they see the iron have now than later. This child is too young to see or understand how horrible the republicans are portraying her dilema.
What are “the republicans” doing in terms of portraying her dilemma. The doctor made this public. The president made it international news. The Washington Post questioned it’s validity. What exactly are “the republicans doing” tot his poor girl that is so awful?
She was raped by her mother's boyfriend, who'd also impregnated the mother and who lived in the same house as the mother?
That the mother seems to be good with the rape, since she's siding with the rapist?
That the child had to have an abortion because of the rape?
That the child didn't have to go to Indiana for an abortion, when she could have stayed in Ohio and had one done there?
That the Indiana doctor ran to the media to use this child as political fodder?
That those on the left had been using this child as political fodder too, by pretty much ignoring all of the facts listed above and seeming to concentrate only on that the girl traveled for the abortion (when she didn't need to)?
All of this is the republicans fault. Don’t you know?
She was raped by her mother's boyfriend, who'd also impregnated the mother and who lived in the same house as the mother?
That the mother seems to be good with the rape, since she's siding with the rapist?
That the child had to have an abortion because of the rape?
That the child didn't have to go to Indiana for an abortion, when she could have stayed in Ohio and had one done there?
That the Indiana doctor ran to the media to use this child as political fodder?
That those on the left had been using this child as political fodder too, by pretty much ignoring all of the facts listed above and seeming to concentrate only on that the girl traveled for the abortion (when she didn't need to)?
Do we even know that the mother actually went to a doctor nearby, or did she go to a different state thinking she could hide the rape from being reported to the police?
What are “the republicans” doing in terms of portraying her dilemma. The doctor made this public. The president made it international news. The Washington Post questioned it’s validity. What exactly are “the republicans doing” tot his poor girl that is so awful?
Many denying it happened and the AG going after those who helped her. Can you not see ?
Do we even know that the mother actually went to a doctor nearby, or did she go to a different state thinking she could hide the rape from being reported to the police?
DCF took her to another state after deemed child abuse n rape of a minor. How much the agency n mom agreed on is not public that I know of.
The media source obscures this, but it is legal to get an abortion for a 10 year old rape victim in Indiana. The AG is investigating the trouble with the forms' inaccuracies, which is a big deal.
Good points.
That is not a very good point to say that the government should overlook a potential crime within a rape case, because local journalists say the forms were okay.
Even more so that is a bad point as there was a significant error on the form that concealed the crime of rape. Who did that and why? If he lived in the home, it likely wasn't an honest mistake. Who concealed it? The girl's family or the doctor?
Why do we think the Dr put the wrong age in purpose, the doctor is just filling out what the patient tells them.
one to prevent the death of the mother, the second, due to a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant mother, and the third in cases of an ectopic pregnancy.
A ten year old forced to give birth would prob kill her and cause serious harm to her. If a law says it's illegal to cause physical injury to another person, would you claim it doesn't cover being hit with a baseball bat, just because the DA did not specifically say "hitting someone with a baseball bat?" Apparently so.
We know that 10 year olds have given birth. No doctor can assume this girl would die or suffer serious physical harm from remaining pregnant. Therefore, the 'immediancy' standard in the law doesn't exist. A prosecutor could file criminal charges.
If you're suggesting the patient being 10 years old in and of itself is legal justification for an abortion, we simply disagree. The AG wrote: "Whether these exceptions apply to a particular case depends on the facts of that case." He could easily have written that 10 year olds automatically fall within the exemptions, but didn't.
I've seen embryos compared to peas, clumps of cells, acorns, parasites, never before to baseball bats.
If it's the leading cause of death, globally, for girls age 15-19 then it's the same, or maybe worse, for a 9-10yo.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
