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

If that has been your point, please explain whatever has caused you to have such a profoundly misguided idea that, prior to Ohio's "heartbeat law," adult women had been allowed, "completely unrestricted abortion...up to and including the moment of birth?"

There is an enormous gulf, between the onset of a fetal heartbeat, and the moment of birth. That had been my point to you, as incredulous as I had been, that you seemed not to recognize this. Or was that just your technique, for making an argument? Let me try: is the Second Amendment, a justification for allowing totally unrestricted, uninterrupted gunplay, on every single street of our country?-- sort of like that?

But, so you don't lose it, one main point is that a law does not have to bar abortions, after fetal heartbeat, in order to stop late term abortions. The other main point, for this particular story, is that even barring abortions, generally, at about six weeks, does not preclude the legislature from clearly spelling out cases, which would be excepted from the law.

Or do you think that adult women would be able to use any loopholes, by masquerading as 10 year old, rape victims?

 

So your thread's whole intent, had been to focus blame on whomever had first received the report of this crime, but whom you cannot identify?

 

RvW allowed for unrestricted abortion up to the time of birth. That is what the radical pro-abortion side wants reinstated NOW. There is an enormous gulf between a new born baby and a 80 year old person. The 2nd says nothing about gunplay and crime on the streets stop being absurd. The point of the story is it is also absurd to base ALL abortion law on the extremely rare 10 year old who might be raped and become pregnant and the Dr. tried to sensationalize the issue by her disclosure.

 

And there is no contradiction between the two ideas of:

1) Carving out unambiguously defined, exceptional cases, to which the general law, would not apply; and

2) Whatever is used as the basis of a law, applying in cases which are not exceptional.

Why do you have such difficulty either seeing, or acknowledging, this patently obvious fact?

 

The only law in opposition of the federal abortion law was making abortions illegal.
As evidenced by other states who also had term limits on abortions prior to Roe being overturned.
I have no idea how anyone got it in their head that because of Roe, every state could abort any baby, at any time.

The SCOTUS made abortions a constitutional right in the 1973 Roe v. Wade. Guns are also a constitutional right but have different state restrictions. The only thing they can't do is take away you right to own a gun without due process.

Since 2010, the U.S. abortion landscape has grown increasingly restrictive as more states adopt laws hostile to abortion rights. Between January 1, 2011 and July 1, 2019, states enacted 483 new abortion restrictions, and these account for nearly 40% of all abortion restrictions enacted by states in the decades since Roe. Some of the most common state-level abortion restrictions are parental notification or consent requirements for minors, limitations on public funding, mandated counseling designed to dissuade individuals from obtaining an abortion, mandated waiting periods before an abortion, and regulations on abortion facilities.

So this idea that the SCOTUS somehow changes all the laws in every state is just out of left field. All this ruling did was put the right to abortion back in the hands of the state to be voted on by the people as it never was a constitutional right in the first place. An Ohio state law went into effect in July 2019 which makes abortion illegal after the fetal heartbeat can be detected, which usually develops between five or six weeks after conception. No exceptions are made for hard cases such as rape, incest, or a fetus determined to possibly have Down syndrome. The only hard case exception, according to ORC 2919.193(B), is a medical emergency, defined in 2919.16(F) & (K): serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. This does not include potential bodily damage to the woman's mental health.

And since that law was instituted, no abortions were legal in Ohio that was in conflict with that law are were prosecutable.

In July 2019 a federal judge temporarily enjoined the state's officials, and the County Prosecutors of Cuyahoga, Hamilton, Franklin, Richland, Mahoning, Montgomery, and Lucas Counties, from enforcing this prohibition against the state's abortion providers. This injunction did not prevent County Prosecutors outside Cuyahoga, Hamilton, Franklin, Richland, Mahoning, Montgomery, and Lucas Counties from enforcing the criminal prohibition on post-heartbeat abortions, nor did it prevent them from prosecuting individuals or organizations that aid or abet abortions after a fetal heartbeat, which remains a criminal offense under Ohio law.

The ruling from the SCOTUS to overturn Roe has nothing to do with Ohio abortion laws in the past or now.

 

No. The purpose of my thread was to discuss a political issue and hear from other folks what they thought about it.

 

You have already lost me. From my understanding, Roe ruled that a woman had a right to abort up until the point of "fetal viability." Perhaps it is this term, which causes your confusion? This means that, if the fetus were removed from the womb, and all extraordinary measures of modern medicine were employed, there would be at least a small chance, that the fetus might survive. Back then, this was considered to be at about the 24 week mark, give or take a little (human gestation lasts 40 weeks). Since then, we have had premature children survive, at as early as 22 weeks. That is not to say that most, at that point, will live; nor that nearly all those who do make it, won't have severe developmental disabilities. But most states had set their limits at either 24 weeks; at "viability," which is open to a several week span of varying interpretations, by different hospitals, or other abortion providers, but is nearly equivalent to 24 weeks; or at 20 weeks, which is still a little below fetal viability, but not enough that it had led any challenge to reach the Supreme Court.

So, your depiction of the Roe ruling, seems completely out of synch with the facts. What some radical abortion rights advocates want, is as irrelevant as what some extremist Pro-Lifers advocate. I can only imagine that you are alluding to the handful of states, which have placed no cutoff point, on abortion. A couple of points, here. Merely because the state has not set a limit, does not mean that doctors in those states, must offer abortion on demand, up until birth. Canada, for example, has no law against abortion, yet it it is all but impossible to get one, beyond 23 weeks and 6 days, because that is the point at which the Canadian medical establishment's appropriate authority, has ruled should be the cutoff point-- except in extraordinary circumstances. You might be interested to learn that, even so, 90% of Canada's abortions occur within the first trimester, by 12 or 13 weeks. I have no reason to believe that is much different, from the U.S. numbers. Therefore, your and Bluesguy's depictions of late term abortions as commonplace, or even the norm, is a concept that's totally divorced from reality.

Now, back to those states with no legal limit. There are six, plus D.C. These are not, you may be surprised to hear, the 6 bluest states, on the map. They are: Alaska, Colorado, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont. I would note that all of these have remote areas, where healthcare resources may be lacking, and from which, travel may, for some, present difficult hurdles (at least at certain times of year); even NJ has its Pine Barrens. Though, truth be known, regardless of what the law may allow, access to services is a very real problem, for women across the country.

[Snip]

When patients typically get abortions

About 93% of reported abortions in 2019 were performed at or before 13 weeks of pregnancy, 6% were conducted between 14 and 20 weeks and 1% were performed at or after 21 weeks, according to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

People who tend to have abortions later in a pregnancy do so because of "medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion," per the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Laws vs. access
Abortion at any stage is still difficult to access for many people.

In 2017, Guttmacher reported that there are no abortion clinics in around 89% of counties across the U.S. There are even fewer clinics that provide abortions past the 24th week of pregnancy.
Plus, several states have requirements for patients and providers that Planned Parenthood calls “unreasonable” and “medically unnecessary.”
Providers who perform abortions near a state's time limit face additional hurdles. They must be "really good at ultrasound" to determine the exact gestational age of the pregnancy to avoid violating the law, Hanna Peterson, an abortion provider in Kentucky, told Axios.

States to watch
Arizona, Florida and Louisiana have enacted laws that ban abortions at 15 weeks that have yet to take effect. Mississippi and Kentucky attempted to enact similar laws, but were temporarily blocked by the courts.

Kentucky, Georgia, South Carolina and Idaho's six-week bans have been temporarily blocked by federal judges. Missouri's eight-week ban has also been blocked.

13 states have "trigger" laws in place that prohibit abortion shortly after Roe being overturned.
Meanwhile, 16 states have codified abortion protections into their laws.
[End]

https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/abortion-state-laws-bans-roe-supreme-court

 

It doesn't matter what you or I think of Roe vs Wade
What does matter is it doesn't represent what you think it does as

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decided two important things:

• The United States Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a person's right to choose whether to have an abortion.
• But the abortion right is not absolute. It must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting health and prenatal life.

Between January 1, 2011 and July 1, 2019, states enacted 483 new abortion restrictions which account for 40% of all abortion restrictions enacted by states in the decades since Roe.

Ohio already had an abortion regulation with their heartbeat bill from July of 2019.
It was in effect since 2019
And nothing in the Ohio state law changed with the decision to overturn Roe.

 

I feel that I've seen these same trees before, but I'll ask, again: and what political issue, is that? Common sense, combined with your own answer, had implied that this issue was that the failings of Ohio to promptly & appropriately respond to this girl's situation, as you have specifically laid out, were signs of poor (Republican) leadership, from the Attorney General, to the governor & legislature:

Zorro said: ↑
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


But when I asked if that was the case, you gave the rather nebulous answer:

Zorro said: ↑
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.

(So, I tentatively asked)
DEFinning said: ↑
So your thread's whole intent, had been to focus blame on whomever had first received the report of this crime, but whom you cannot identify?


And that has brought us to this reply of yours, quoted, at top.

 

Well I mean ..

But back to your response - yes, early menstruation is very much associated with poor lifestyle choices. It's about too much calorie dense food, and not enough exercise. And the exercise part is crucial to the equation, as it regulates the endocrine (hormones) process.

Girls who eat a healthy diet and do plenty of sport or other regular physical activities, and who spend a lot of time outdoors running around etc, are far more likely to be 13 or 14 before they begin menstruating. All parents should be striving to delay menstruation til that human standard. When I was growing up, no one under 12 ever started, and many of us were 15. My own daugher was 14/15, as were quite a few of her friends. The HEALTHY ones.

It has much less to do with hormones in meat, than it does the efficient regulation of the endocrine system.

 

You have brought us back to the same place. That there have been so many regulations against abortion, does not make any given one of them, immune from federal review, or from consideration by the Supreme Court.

What is damnable, here, is the Ohio heartbeat law-- only you are making this, about the SCOTUS decision. I never said anything about that, except that, had the SCOTUS not changed the Roe standard, this heartbeat law would have found its way to the Court, because it did go against that federal standard. It seems you believe that if a state passes a law, it must be in accord with federal law? Then what would be the point of any Supreme Court review of a state law? That is how those laws get shut down, as being unconstitutional. And had our current Supreme Court stuck to the half-century precedent, upheld multiple times by the Court, which the newer members, in their confirmation hearings (and private meetings with Senators), dishonestly affirmed that they accepted, then Ohio's heartbeat law would have come up to the Court, and would have been struck down. IOW, your entire reply-- completely about how the current Supreme Court decision relates to the former Roe standard, and does not affect the Ohio heartbeat law-- symmetrically, has no affect upon our debate. I am saying that the heartbeat law sets its bar too early, and that it makes insufficiently clear, what situations are exempted from the law. Look at how many of you assumed that "being 10 years old," automatically qualified this young girl for the exemption of "threat to the life of the mother." But this is not so, as numerous legal sources have been quoted as saying, including by one of those on your original team of those claiming that this was not a real story, but only a "political B.S." one.

So, will you go that far, even, to admit that this law's not being clear about that, was a defect in the law, and that it should, at the very least, have its language amended to state, in no uncertain terms, that children, under some given age, are automatically exempt from the law?

 

Never claimed they did

What is damnable, here, is the Ohio heartbeat law-- only you are making this, about the SCOTUS decision. [/QUOTE]
Nope, I stated the media was falsely using the Roe decisions to blame the reason why a 10 year old had to run to Indiana for an abortion.

 

Well that is a slightly different argument, from the one I have been making, but it is really not a false claim, by the Press. As I just explained, while it is Ohio's heartbeat law, obviously, which is at fault, this law was in clear contradiction of the Roe standard, and so, had the SCOTUS preserved this precedent (as new members of the Court had disingenuously represented that they would), this would have automatically stopped the enforcement of other laws, likewise in violation of what was stated, in their decision.

Therefore, their overturning Roe, in their recent decision-- just to make sure you don't get lost, along the last part of the way-- is what allowed this law to stand. So it is accurate to point to the SCOTUS decision, as enabling the heartbeat law to continue, thereby providing the basis of the legal antagonism, in this 10 year old girl's saga.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/man-pleads-not-guilty-rape-171003966.html

Can someone explain why a man who confessed to raping the 10 yr old child would plead not guilty?

 

IMO an attempt to get a better deal. State doesn't want to have a 10 yr old and her family testify. Defendant probably didnt like initial deal. By pleading not guilty and threatening a trial, they might up the deal a bit.

 

The only deal the guy should be offered is life in prison (without parole) over the death penalty.

 

RvW allowed unrestricted abortion to 13 weeks. Read the decision. Dobbs at 15 weeks is more permissive. The radical extremist abortion cult pretended it allowed unrestricted abortion to the first breath, but, that was disinformation.

 

Biden and some of the "Left victimizing the child yet again by spreading her circumstances all over the internet. Way to go! Why not just strap her into some medieval stocks and throw mud at her for being in this situation?" Some on the Left theatrically ask.

Grand jury indicts illegal immigrant on felony rape charges in case of 10 year old girl in Ohio

"Abortion activists exploited a pregnant 10-year-old girl to make a case that abortion is a national issue, not a state’s rights issue. As it turns out, the girl’s rapist is an illegal immigrant and he has been indicted by a grand jury in Ohio on two counts of felony rape."

"Gerson Fuentes, who is 27 years old, was indicted Thursday by a grand jury in Franklin County, Ohio, on two counts of felony rape. Though the girl was 10 years old when she was given a medical abortion, she was 9 years old when he raped and impregnated her. Fuentes has confessed to raping her at least twice. Franklin County Municipal Court Judge Cynthia Ebner set Fuentes’ bail at $2 million. Fuentes is considered a possible flight risk and a danger to the child."

"Joe Biden spread the story in a speech he delivered at the White House to trash the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health case. Fuentes was arrested, and the child’s mother is trying to cover for him. It is unclear if she, too, is an illegal immigrant. Fuentes lives in the same house. The girl identified Fuentes as her assaulter six days before he was arrested."

"The case received international attention. That was the point of originally publicizing it. Abortion activists wanted to paint lawmakers in Ohio as monsters for legislation restricting abortions in the state. The story is that the girl had to travel to the neighboring state of Indiana for an abortion. This is not the truth, however. The child could have received the abortion in Ohio all along. Abortion activists wanted to make the point that women now have to travel to get abortions if their state doesn’t provide them. This child was put through the unnecessary stress of travel to make a point and that is exploitive."

 

It can be other things like prison location, level of lock up, etc...

 

The guy confessed. Why cut a deal unless there's some doubt about his confession being true? The perp has nothing to offer.

 

to avoid having the ten y/o testifying and/or having to go through a trial. Not saying its gonna happen just a possibility

 

That's a good point. If true you can bet it was the defense attorney's suggestion to his client to plead not guilty because he knew the prosecution would want to avoid that. I'm not sure what the Ohio law is regarding minors testifying in court. It might be avoidable.

 

I 100% think the attorney suggested it. Scummy profession but someones gotta do it.