Indiana AG seeks punishment for doctor who provided abortion to 10-year-old rape survivor

The doctor is a mandatory reporter.

'Dr. Caitlin Bernard violated state law by not reporting the girl’s child abuse to Indiana authorities.'



After the abortion the child returned to the home her mother shared with her rapist and the child's other minor sisters.

And this Dr Bernard did not obtain 'permission from the girl’s family to discuss her care in public, exposing the child to national attention.'

Discipline on both counts is certainly in order, with of course the dr having an opportunity to present evidence of her compliance if she has it.

 

l

No it isn't. That belief is just religious fanaticism, not even most religious people agree with it.

And I don't care what your beliefs are. HOW can you justify placing the life of an innocent child and victim of about the most heinous crime imaginable at risk to save the unwanted growth resulting from such a horrible violation of her body?

 

And I was friends wiht a woman who was raped as a child and had an abortion. Everyone fussed around her as if she should care about the foetus. She was jsut glad to have the result of the rape gone.

....back to the case at hand....

A 10 year old was spared an experience that would not only have left her physically scarred and possibly dead, but would likley have increase the trauma of the abuse. All you care about is the age of the foetus. Different day, same attitude to women. There are no words I could use on this forum to describe such attitudes or what I think should happen to those who hold them.

 

And just who bloody CARES anyway?

A TEN YEAR OLD girl was RAPED and IMPREGNATED and then had to leave the State to get an abortion. You have COMPLETELY evinced NO concern for the innocent VICTIM of this horrible crime throughout this entire thread. Do you think a 10 year old used her "feminine wiles" to seduce her rapist. Is that it? Oh wait, I know, the little girl should have "shut down" her birthing processes as all women know how to do according to one or another Republican in our Congress..

Some Christians are more beyond belief than their religion, if that's possible.

 

Her rapist was so kind to go drive her to get the abortion.
I bet he sat down with her and they talked about it, and she said she wanted to choose abortion, so he warm-heartedly agreed to go drive her there.
[Extreme sarcasm]

 

She wasn’t forced to conceive a new life. SHE WAS RAPED. And stop making making assumptions and statements about things you know nothing about. And stop labelling little girls as “damaged goods”.

 

I was talking about a little girl who had grown up and was now a young woman in her mid-30s. She is damaged goods. She has PTSD, has a severe overweight problem, no doubt caused by her past experiences, and despite trying really hard and being religious, is bitter and resentful against the people who hurt her during her childhood.

She is Catholic and resentful that she was forced to get an abortion... and feels even more guilt from that, even though she shouldn't, because she was just a child and didn't really have a choice.

She is so overweight and sexually traumatized, she has never dated, despite now being in her mid-30s.

You don't call that "damaged goods"?

 

Provide a link that states he drove her to the abortion, I can’t find any article that states that he did. You also claimed he drove her out of state to hide his crime. According to the news, the mother reported the pregnancy to CPS on June 22nd and the police were contacted. Why don’t you start actually reading things instead of adding your malformed opinions.

Don’t refer to women as “damaged goods”. It’s a totally derogatory term. Unsurprising coming from you.

 

My point was it's scarcely possible to traumatize this girl more than she's already been traumatized.

And I don't think sending her in for an abortion will reduce her trauma all that much.

There are a few subtle pros and cons either way, some similarities, and some things that an abortion will not change.

There's no indication this girl was even asked whether she wanted an abortion, so how is this about choice?

 

There is no indication she wasn’t asked either. It’s actually none of your business. You are obsessed with abortion and rape and have no empathy for the actual victims.

 

.

Now you're attacking the little girl because she "let" her rapist drive her to get the abortion.

Damn, some Christians are real pieces of work

 

All women who are raped were actually seducing their rapists, they're all just vessels of sin and creatures of the devil, they're lucky we don't burn them at the stake for tempting innocent men who might lose their immortal souls, besides women can just shut their bodies birthing functions off if they really want to, so they must want to bear their rapist's child (one Republican in Congress actually said that, how ANY woman could even CONSIDER voting Republican truly baffles me but that applies to men too)

 

You are posting lies. The rapist did not drive the girl to get the abortion, her mother did and if you actually read information, you would have known this.

The girl's mother reported the alleged incident on June 22 before taking her daughter to Indianapolis for the procedure eight days later

 

pro-lifers say some crazy things

 

The party that pushes more government interference in our lives is objecting to government interference in our lives. The best view is one of our own choosing; not one forced by government.

This is a taste of your (Party's) own medicine.

 

You are not qualified to speak for what I see. Tell me what you think I dont see:

 

Seriously ?

You think your "party" is any different than the other ?

 

That's a meaningless statement.

Debate specific policy.

Otherwise, give your ideologic crap to someone who cares.

 

Which party is that?

 

No need to get unfriendly. Your party does the same thing. It is refreshing to see those pushing for vax mandates, gun control, and excessive taxes take a sudden interest in ones right to bodily autonomy.

 

Well, when you repeat the same bogus argument for months, even after I indicate the severe flaw in your reasoning, it gets frustrating.

Pandemic mandates are necessary to preserve the health of a nation under threat of a pandemic virus. That has NOTHING to do with 'liberty' and EVERYTHING to do with preservation of the nation.

Why? If there is no nation (becomes so infected it becomes ripe for foreign invasion or the population is practically wiped out like the plagues of European History), liberty becomes a moot point.

Gun control is a good thing, if it is fair and reasonable. Most people support it.

Dems favor taxes on the rich, not the working or poor classes.

Seven red states ban abortions without exceptions for rape and incest. No blue state does. Here, bodily autonomy is consistent with the health of the nation. Only when it is in conflict with the health the nation, are certain vaccines mandated, and even then, it was NEVER illegal refuse them.

Biden has not supported making it illegal to refuse vaccines.


Next argument?

Please stick to specific policies and not vacuous rant/sentiment.

 

the right to control ones uterus is not the same as ones right to own a machine gun at 18

 

Facts can be very frustrating for those trying to defend a party.

The risk for Covid comes nowhere close to justifying the mandates. People were absolutely deprived of liberty and livelihood.

Gun control is out of control where Dems control. Your party did recently lose a ruling, so CCWs are being issued again. That doesn't mean your party gives a crap about ones right to bodily autonomy.

Since taxes represent a portion of ones labor, as much as you would like to believe that excessive taxation only affects the rich, the poor and middle are affected the most. Factor in inflation and fewer will live to see retirement.

You just used the same arguments pro-lifers use.

 

It was the second ****ing paragraph YOU quoted in the article ffs.

"The complaint alleges Dr. Caitlin Bernard violated state law by not reporting the girl’s child abuse to Indiana authorities and violated patient privacy laws by telling a newspaper reporter about the girl’s treatment"

Reading 101

It's likely this ****ing dr was using the victim to sling outrage and virtue...

 

Either