10-Year-Old Rape Victim’s Mom Is in Domestic Relationship With Child’s Illegal Alien Rapist.

I would be curious whether the point of the abortion was to try to cover up the sexual abuse.

Maybe it was even HIM who drove her. At this point we don't know the details.

 

We do need a thorough investigation to ensure that Planned Parenthood and the Abortion Industry aren't quietly enabling child sex trafficking.

This this 9 year old girl was returned to her rapist's home, and he was allowed to remain in the home with five other minor children after the rapes were reported is unconscionable.

THEY’RE NOT SENDING THEIR BEST: Grand jury indicts “undocumented” man in rape of 9-year-old girl.

"The indictment revealed that the alleged rape victim was just 9 years old when she was assaulted — contrary to previous reports saying she was 10 at the time she had her pregnancy terminated."

​

"The Ohio girl’s mother defended Fuentes, despite his confession. “Everything that they’re saying against him is a lie,” the woman said of her daughter’s accused rapist.

 

Something those on the Pro-Choice side don't seem to give a d(*)(*)(*) about.

 

And the police.

 

why would they do that? Dear Gods but they see enough horrors as it is. You know - you put this out there but do not mention the existing child trafficking that is happening legally in the USA

I am talking child marriages

https://www.indy100.com/news/child-marriage-legal-states-where-us-age-limit-gap-9301731

And yet if he married her it would be legal

This is a failure of child services if true, which I doubt given where you normally source material from the likelihood of a full story and good reporting is poor.

But then the AG of the state WAS busily trying to deny the existence of the girl

 

\
The minimum age to marry in Ohio isn't 9, it's 17, and it requires a judges permission and the husband can't be over 21.

 

I am talking of the USA in total

But as far as I am concerned this is further victimising the child by splashing and naming her rapist. A family member, across the internet

If I remember you were one of those denupying her existence until you discovered an immigrant was involved

 

Well I agree, 100%, with your closing paragraph. On the other hand-- who wouldn't? What I am wondering, is what is the main argument, of your OP? That there is no problem with Ohio's law, because whenever this circumstance arises, it is usually the parents' fault? What about the impregnated child?

There also seems to be some unnecessary murkiness, in your (or your source's) relating of the timeline. Now I am, in no way, whatsoever, defending this woman, if she had even the slightest reason to suspect that this man might pose any risk of this sort, to her daughter; but your article says that the contact which resulted in conception, occurred on May 12. It also says that, "Over a month passed before police were even assigned the case on June 22 via mandated reporting." To me, that means, over a month, since it had been reported. If this is true, then it means that the rape had been reported, at least, in very short order. This was, as the article states, the second rape, but we don't know when the mother became aware of the situation. In fact, your article says that "the initial report came from the mother, who indicated that her daughter was pregnant." If we do the math, of subtracting "over a month," from June 22nd, that gives the mother less than ten days, after the May 12th incident, to realize that her daughter is pregnant, at which point it seems unlikely that this would be detected by an OTC test, or could really have been known. But I have no problem, ascribing it to mother's intuition, or just to her expecting the worst. None of this, really impacts at all, on the main issue of this story-- which is why I ask if you are trying to look at it, from some other perspective.

What stands out, then, in the reporting you cite, is an unforgivable laxity on the part of police. Is this your true focus: all the levels of the system, which failed this young lady? If so, I would note that it was Ohio's Attorney General, I think, who denied even the veracity of the story. Let's get a link, to keep our facts straight:
https://www.dispatch.com/story/opin...o-got-abortion-ignorant-abortion/10066520002/

[Edit]
Ohio attorney general's further victimized 10-year-old girl
Dr. Marcela Azevedo,Dr. Lauren Beene, Dr. Stephanie Pope and the Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights

We are appalled that the Ohio Attorney General Yost questioned the rape of a 10-year-old Ohio child and then claimed the Ohio “Heartbeat law” allows abortion in case of rape and incest.

His statements are either disingenuous or ignorant of the law he supported, which has no such exceptions.
[End Snip]

In fact, the unmistakable animosity toward all legal abortion, in Ohio, from lawmakers, is not something that could have escaped the notice of any, "doctor (or) professional involved," who, "was required by law to immediately report the rape," if any, in fact, were aware, prior to the mother's reporting it. Since we, first, don't know that any of those people were aware and, second, there seems a legitimate possibility that, if there was any hesitancy to report, it was out of fear of the consequences to this young girl (not being permitted to get an abortion), it would seem premature, for this to be where to direct your outrage.

While I am supposing you will, somehow, see it differently, it is clear to me that (outside of the good possibility, at least, of the mother's culpability in all this) your quoted material most clearly is an indictment of the Republican lawmakers, who pushed through this bill, and Republican governor who signed it into law, leaving the definition of who was exempt, not clearly defined, as well as the attitude of the Republican Attorney General, all of which had apparently "trickled down," through Ohio's Justice Department and law enforcement agencies; the official line, the legal system would seem to suggest, was that this sort of thing does not occur. Nonetheless, I have a feeling that this faulting of the Ohio Republican administration, was not your intended goal.
I'm gonna guess, it was illegal immigration, you had wished to target.

Here are some posts of your fellow Republicans, giving this story the same "serious" consideration, as did Ohio officials:

These are indicative of the initial reaction, in an earlier thread: 1) a doubting that the story is even true, because ten year olds, supposedly, don't get pregnant; 2) a presumption of a medical exception, in case they did get pregnant, which is not, in fact, specifically stated in the law; 3) and a willingness to turn a blind eye, when a 10 year old is impregnated by a rapist, and the obscurity of the law, creates a problem-- since this is only a tiny percentage of the cases (coincidentally, the same 0.01%, claimed by Bluesguy for the portion of abortion cases, as was asserted by Louisiana75, for the percentage of 10 year olds who are even capable of becoming pregnant; the coincidence is rendered no less interesting, by the fact that both posters are just inventing their "statistics.")

The following poster, well treats the idea that just because someone is 10 years old, not only doesn't mean that she almost certainly can't get pregnant, but not does it mean that this would, automatically, be considered to pose a threat to the life of the 10 year old. The law would require that we wait, to be sure that the little girl's life was in danger, before anything was done, to that innocent fetus.

Even though the following poster demonstrates the increased capacity, to actually check the facts before offering his opinion, and the honesty to at least quote the opposing argument, he still seems to find that this story, lacked credibility.

Lastly, here is a more creative way, to deny the story. This poster notes that the doctor in Indiana, who was contacted by the Ohio professional, trying to help the girl, is a high profile, abortion supporter. This fact leads the Republican, Pro-Life mind, apparently, to see this as proof of a hoax, rather than as a logical explanation, as to how Dr. Caitlin Bernard, would have come to the attention of the girl's advocate, in Ohio, in search of someone she could trust to reach out to.

The following argument, is not a new one, but worth repeating (as Bluesguy certainly did), because it shows the limited number of options, that Republicans opposing choice, can seemingly grasp: two. Either abortion is ultra-strictly regulated and outlawed, beyond the ridiculously early, 6 week mark-- which might even require that a few ten year olds have to carry their rapist's child until it threatens it their life, or possibly even to term-- or else the only other possible alternative, is that abortion is completely unrestricted, through the third trimester, into the ninth month, even while labor is taking place. I mean, hey, is there really any space in-between those two options, that anyone can see?

Apparently, you don't; but at this point, I guess it would hopeless to expect that you ever will.

 

We can add to her crimes. Girls menstruating at age 10 is a result of very poor lifestyle choices .. high fat and protein diet, and lack of exercise. The fact this poor kid was flooded with estrogen at such a young age is the so-called mother's doing.

 

That's just a red herring. Most child marriages that happen in the U.S. these days are not child trafficking. A judge has to sign off on it, and they often send a social worker to make an assessment if the child is under 16, and the judge is not going to sign off on it if he thinks the girl doesn't want it or is being coerced.

This may go beyond your head, Bowerbird, but a few of those girls want to keep their baby and start a family. It's usually the young man who doesn't want to get trapped in a marriage with her, with all the commitment and responsibility that entails, even though he wanted to have sex with her.

By the way,

" In Mexico, 1 in 5 girls marry before they're 18 - some as young as 11. "​

In Mexico 1 In 5 Girls Marries Before Age 18 : Goats and Soda : NPR

 

An amazing diagnosis, assuming that you haven't examined the girl, especially as you are certainly not (I hope) a medical doctor.

While girls physically mature at different ages, naturally, unrelated to diet, I am sure that hormones in our meat supply-- aside from the pesticides, antibiotics, and whatnot-- can and do, also affect Americans' health, especially that of the young. So why does our government allow it? You are saying, that no mother can trust that U.S.D.A. certified meat, is safe to feed to their children. Why no criticism of this, or of the meat producers, for using these unhealthful shortcuts?

To expect the mother to be able to first, know, what is in all the different foods her children eat, but which is not required to be (nor is it) printed on the labels of any of these foods, is absurdly unrealistic. But to then expect her to track their overall intakes of these substances, when this is apparently beyond our federal health agencies' ability, to promote clear & simple guidelines for citizens to follow, is once more, a poorly cast indictment, indeed. One would get the impression that that you make your attributions of blame, prior to consideration of any facts, which are then only scavenged, for anything that might back up the narrative, you are pushing.

 

And that is without AFDC, WIC, free housing,etc.

 

Yes. I've been concerned since the Huffington Post reported on a study that shows that 85% of the Central American females that illegally cross our border, are raped en route. Now with this story I'm concerned that this culture of rape continues.

We could not have known what was happening within that house until the mother notified the authorities, but, at that point we were notified and I feel like we had a duty to protect her, yet we allowed her to remain in that terrible position for several more weeks. Hopefully she was not raped any more during that period of time.

 

It should be noted that is an unsupported assumption, the problem with most of the takes on this situation from all sides, medical, legal and socio-political.

The media will create stories based on very limited information and typically present that speculation as fact. All they will actually know is the dates specific events are reported to have happened and they fill the gaps based on common sense, experience and, more often than they should, what spins up the most dramatic headlines. They will typically be about right but it is easy to miss something significant that way or build speculation on top of speculation and end up way off track. Also, when the media do get the speculation wrong, they more often spin it up as some kind of cover-up rather than admit to a mistake.

We don't know what actually happened between the 22 June and July 6, which could have included all sorts of informal interviews or discussions and all sorts of movements or arrangements. Most things that might have happened wouldn't be made public. July 6 was when she reportedly named the suspect formally but it seems perfectly possibly she was initially reluctant to do so it could have taken multiple sessions with police and/or specialists for her to open up. Significantly, we do know the girl (probably with her mother) was in Indiana around June 29/30 since that is when she had the abortion, so she clearly wasn't at home for the entire period.

So, while it is possible the girl was left in a dangerous environment longer than she should have, for various possible reasons, we can't say we know that either way.

 

Who are they raped by?



This unfortunately is not uncommon

 

Cut off this pos "privates". Their no longer considered private when he used them to victimize an innocent child.

We need much, much stricter laws to deter this f***in s**t.

Either way anyone looks at this that innocent girl is scared for life.

F**k all politicians for not making it a priority to deter these crimes!!

And f**k all the people for not forcing their politicians to stop this s**t from happening!!

 

And do you have any theories, as to the reason for the authorities' dragging their feet? Do you you think it could, in any way, relate to the just passed, restrictive laws on abortion, or the attitude of State A.G., whose general disposition towards various types of crime, could not have been totally unknown to those in his state's Justice system and, through these prosecutors, to those in law enforcement, as well, even before he came out with his comments, diminishing the seriousness of this story?

 

What I am claiming is the mother had plenty of time to have the abortion in Ohio. The article tried to make it look like she had to run to Indiana because of the Roe decision, which is false on several levels but they wanted to make up a story like this is the impact of the Roe decision.

1. The mother knew the girl was pregnant on June 22 because Child services knew.
2. According to all the leftist media, the girl was 6 weeks and 3 days pregnant when the abortion was done in Indiana on June 30.
The terminated pregnancy report, obtained by FOX59’s Angela Ganote, shows that Caitlin Bernard, an Indiana obstetrician-gynecologist, reported the abortion on July 2, two days after the abortion was performed
3. The Ohio heartbeat law was implemented in June of 2019. Not implemented when the SCOUTS overturned Roe
4. They ran to Indiana for the abortion because they knew if done in Ohio, her boyfriend would be arrested
5. Even though the boyfriend was caught and charged, he confessed to raping the girl twice
6. But in an interview with the mother, she claimed he never raped her daughter

So the entire story was a scam designed to gin up those willing to buy into it without doing any research.

 

In my experience what improves a team performance is Leadership, Passion, a Sense of Urgency, Clear Communication of Expectations,Public Recognition and Praise when those performance standards are met.

 

On the way over the border, by the Cartel Coyotes that they paid to bring them through the Northern badlands of Mexico. No one should be making that trek. They should apply for asylum in Southern Mexico where the government has control, rather than the Cartels, and if accepted, take a flight or a bus.

 

My question had been posed to Zorro, but I am happy to engage with you on this story, as well. The first problem I see with your argument, is your misbelief that the "heartbeat law," sets 6 weeks, as the hard and fast line. As I understand it, and as the name of the law would suggest, this law draws the line for abortions, from the point that any fetal heartbeat can be detected. That this is generally by six weeks gestation, is not the same as saying that it cannot also be before 6 weeks. I believe I've read-- but will look up the quote, if you doubt my memory-- that the fetal heartbeat begins sometime between the fifth and sixth week. So, in the four or five days during which you contend the mother had plenty of time, to attend to this situation, w/out need of leaving the state, there is no guarantee that the heartbeat had not yet started. Hence, this trip to the clinic for an abortion, in that probable case, would have been for nought, other than to further traumatize her young daughter. Of course, it is also not unreasonable to believe that the mother, if it had turned out that the clinic refused to perform the abortion, because a fetal heartbeat had already commenced, might fear this leading to action, which would then make it impossible for her to get her daughter to an out of state provider, in a timely manner. So, I think your logic fails, on that sharp point.

I do not wish to try to adjudicate the mother's case with you, in the absence of so many facts, about which we could only speculate. Yet the point of the story had not to do, specifically, with the mother, but with the law, which would allow situations of this sort, to develop. We can stipulate that this particular mother chose to go out of state, as a way to better protect her "boyfriend," without disregarding that the law may have actually required the girl to leave the state, had a fetal heartbeat been detectable (which was very possible, at that point). We can also have the foresight to understand, that similar situations will not all play out, according to the exact same timeline. That this was even so close, as within days of being prohibited, at the very least, should tell any intelligent person that there will be other cases that will fall on the other side of that line, whether by just hours, days, or weeks.

Finally, your argument that this has nothing to do with the SCOTUS decision is either disingenuous, or surprisingly dysfunctional thinking, on your part. The state law was in opposition to federal abortion law. Therefore, had the SCOTUS not overturned that law, in hearing the Texas case, first, they would have, ultimately needed to hear this case, on Ohio's law.

 

So you agree, that the way this played out, reflects very poorly on the state's leadship?

 

Please do not confuse my words with others or conflate what I say with something totally different and out of context. And please fill free to post you estimate of what percentage of abortions occur with ten year olds. We know that rape is 1% at best the reason for all abortions. What percent of those are 10 year olds? And is that justification for completely unrestricted abortion by ADULT women up to and including the moment of birth? THAT has been my point.

1) Because no one could confirm the rape or abortion had occurred, not local news, not national news not the AG of either state and the paper which ran with one unconfirmed source refused to issue any further statement and the Dr. those first few days when into seculsion. OF COURSE it was doubted until it was confirmed due to the nature of the timing and the sketchy reporting.

2) By all accounts there was a medical exception to which she would have be subjected.

3) No one turned a blind eye. What was being pointed out was the desperate use of a horrible situation to try and justify unrestricted abortion for ALL women during ALL stages of that human life.

 

I don't know the operational structure, and I don't know where the complaint was called into, but, I would think that the investigation would start with whoever received that call that this 9 year old girl was raped.

 

It was an example of why ALL women have to treated as individual cases, and not just as some statistic where a blanket ban on
abortions is appropriate.

There are about 16 million women in the US with various stages of mental illness. Some of those conditions cause increased libido with a decrease
in clear decision making abilities. Do you think it a good idea to FORCE these women to carry a fetus to term when it means they will have to go
off their meds to do so? Is it really a good idea to treat these women as if they just happened to be attached to a womb, therefor they should be treated the same?

There are millions of women with diabetes. For them, carrying to term can be VERY problematic. Do you think those women should be treated the
same medically as a healthy woman in regards to pregnancy?

Women with fibroids can face VERY difficult pregnancies. Do you think the medical profession treats their pregnancies the same as a healthier woman?
So why would you force them into the same parameters regarding abortion?

That's the problem. Anti-abortionists do not treat American Citizens who are women as individuals. They try to shove them into this little box where
every uterus is perfect and every pregnancy is the same. It's a moronic way to approach pregnancy. It's why women are far more likely to
support the right to choose - and why mostly old men are against the idea. ****ing back seat drivers.