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.
Good. One thing I hope is that whenever these clowns attempt to stop an abortion in a situation like this and smear a doctor's reputation that they learn there is a price to be paid for doing so. Maybe that price will be money. Maybe it will simply be angering segments of the public. However, people respond to cost and over time this sort of thing will have an effect.
They were investigating to ensure she filed a report with Child protection due to the rape. Why are you not getting that?
Good. One thing I hope is that whenever these clowns attempt to stop an abortion in a situation like this and smear a doctor's reputation that they learn there is a price to be paid for doing so. Maybe that price will be money. Maybe it will simply be angering segments of the public. However, people respond to cost and over time this sort of thing will have an effect.
But if she sues the Indiana AG for defamation, do you really think she would ultimately win such a lawsuit? I mean, I'm as outraged as you are by the Indiana AG's smear of the doctor, but it's pretty well known that defamation lawsuits can be an uphill climb. And since he is a government official, isn't he entitled to some sort of immunity for the things he says?
Dr Bernard went to the media first. We would have never even heard about this story if she had not taken it to the media.
It doesn't appear the doctor did anything wrong. The state attorney general has provided no evidence that the doctor ever did anything inappropriate or illegal. She has never broken any laws and she is a licensed Indiana physician with no evidence of disciplinary action against her. Both her lawyer and her employer have defended her conduct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
They were investigating to ensure she filed a report with Child protection due to the rape. Why are you not getting that?
But the Indianapolis prosecutor says that under Indiana law, it is county prosecutors, not the state attorney general's office, that has sole jurisdiction over such cases. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the state AG to conduct an investigation into whether the doctor properly filed a report, as it should actually be handled by the prosecutor of Indianapolis, since only he has jurisdiction under Indiana law and only he, not the state AG, can bring charges against the doctor for such a violation.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,051 posts, read 12,191,427 times
Reputation: 10262
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
What legal bills would she need to incur? All she had to do was show that she reported. Besides, she’s already raised a ton of money via crowdfunding.
Looks like she is suing him anyway.
She will likely lose. It's very hard to win a defamation case and it's very expensive to file a defamation suit, she'll probably need every bit of the crowdfunding money. Perhaps the sjw's will continue to fund her 'money pit' suit, or maybe they'll just move on to the next shiny object?
She will likely lose. It's very hard to win a defamation case and it's very expensive to file a defamation suit, she'll probably need every bit of the crowdfunding money. Perhaps the sjw's will continue to fund her 'money pit' suit, or maybe they'll just move on to the next shiny object?
Oh, but it will send a message to the anti-abortion folks who run many state governments that their actions can cost them. Most people do not like to participate in a lawsuit because of the inconvenience involved. It's a few more dollars out of the state budget that will have to be made from some source. The trick is there has to be some basis for the suit and there is whether the plaintiff ultimately wins or not.
BTW, language like SWJs means nothing. It's just right wing garbage I try to tune out.
Oh, but it will send a message to the anti-abortion folks who run many state governments that their actions can cost them. It's a few more dollars out of the state budget that will have to be made from some source. BTW, language like SWJs means nothing. It's just right wing garbage.
This is about an allegation involving failure to report child abuse. You continue to ignore that. You even said something about how it should not need to be reported which was a pretty shocking statement.
If she reported it as a mandated reported through the proper channels she has absolutely nothing at all to worry about.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,051 posts, read 12,191,427 times
Reputation: 10262
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT
?? Did you read the title of the OP
Indiana Doctor Who Provided 10 Year Old Ohio Girl Abortion Could Face Prosecution
Is she still possibly facing prosecution, or had the authorities decided against it?
If her possibly facing prosecution is no longer a thing, which means this thread is no longer a thing, then why are you posting in this thread?
Quote:
In all cases I am referring to the Indiana doctor not the Ohio MD that is not who the Indiana's AG wants to persecute.
The Ohio doctor is a part of the whole story since that it's presumed the Ohio doctor had sent the child to that Indiana doctor.
Quote:
To me this tells the opposite of what you think regarding illegal immigration, this is why you cant have local authorities involved in immigration, if the mom thought by reporting the rapist, her whole family can get deported and if she thinks when they go back to whatever they are from , they will face gangs and possibly more rape then you can see why she would be hesitant to report him. Having said that I dont have a full resolution picture of why she did or didnt report it but unless proven otherwise I would tend to judge the mom harshly and think she should face punishment.
If she is also here illegally then she should be sent back to her real home.
It's possible that she thought of deportation. But it seems more likely that she wasn't wanting to point the finger at the guy who'd raped her child, more than once, and had also impregnated both her and the child. She thinks the guy is innocent and everyone is lying about him. She's protecting her daughter's rapist and the father of her own unborn child. So, save the 'if she's sent home then she'll face gangs and rapists' feelz.
There's a video that's been posted in these threads, and maybe this one too, where Telemundo had interviewed the mother, perhaps you should look for it and watch it.
It doesn't appear the doctor did anything wrong. The state attorney general has provided no evidence that the doctor ever did anything inappropriate or illegal. She has never broken any laws and she is a licensed Indiana physician with no evidence of disciplinary action against her. Both her lawyer and her employer have defended her conduct.
But the Indianapolis prosecutor says that under Indiana law, it is county prosecutors, not the state attorney general's office, that has sole jurisdiction over such cases. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the state AG to conduct an investigation into whether the doctor properly filed a report, as it should actually be handled by the prosecutor of Indianapolis, since only he has jurisdiction under Indiana law and only he, not the state AG, can bring charges against the doctor for such a violation.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,051 posts, read 12,191,427 times
Reputation: 10262
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
This has nothing to do with science. The law, apparently, states pretty much a woman must be in imminent danger. Because a female that young is at risk is not imminent danger to her life. There are many women in circumstances where there is serious risk for future health, and they are having to wait until the danger is imminent. Whether it is the letter of the law or fear that is prohibiting these doctors from taking logical action, IDK, I will assume fear.
That I do not agree with you does not mean I am misinformed. There is too much "serious risk for future health" room open for interpretation and I do not agree that being under a certain age should be a default exemption from the abortion laws of these states. So, yes I will point out they hypocrisy. A pregnant 10 year old can successfully give birth and is no more at risk that any other high risk pregnancy situation.
I am not in a rage. I want the republican lawmakers and the anti-choice meddlers to own their convictions.
Then either you're not reading the full statute, or you hadn't read it at all and you're just going on what the media is [wrongfully] telling you. There is the part that does say an abortion should be done 'if delaying it would cause a risk to the mother's health/life'[paraphrase]. Pregnancy in a young girl IS a great risk, it is the leading cause of death around the world for young girls.
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.
