SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Edge-]

These folks just aren't human. No 10 year old is going to forcefully go through pregnancy and understand why she was forced to go through that, let alone see any benefits to it.

Honestly, I imagine he along with the others pushing this shit are mostly doing so to ensure that they have a steady flow of children to sexually abuse.

[Paranoid Android]

I just hope enough people get the truth that these people do not give a bleep about a woman. They just want them as brood mares to carry children. This example shows they don't care about age or if that person was raped.

Just today Eric Swalwell asked this lady about the 10 year old.. The lady agreed that 10 year likely shouldn't carry a child, then she spun it as it wasn't abortion if a 10 year old gets it. The next lady said that "Yes, an abortion is a procedure". You don't just get to name it when its convenience.

Most of us know that these laws do not exempt rape or incest. They just want them as baby producers.

[Edge-]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...rce=reddit.com

Texas attorney general Ken Paxton (R) sued the Biden administration over federal rules that require abortions be provided in medical emergencies in order to save the life of the mother, even in states with near-total bans.

“The Biden Administration seeks to transform every emergency room in the country into a walk-in abortion clinic,” Paxton said in a statement announcing the lawsuit on Thursday.

TX Republican AG argues that he'd rather women die than receive life-saving medical care. Reminder: Republicans don't care about women's lives.

[s_bushido]

So his supposition is that women are going to injure themselves seriously enough to require an abortion because they have no other option? Hmm...it's almost like these laws are horseshit, or something. Who would have guessed?

[Edge-]

So his supposition is that women are going to injure themselves seriously enough to require an abortion because they have no other option? Hmm...it's almost like these laws are horseshit, or something. Who would have guessed?

"Well that's what I'd do!" - Republicans, when arguing why others will totally do something awful.

[Milchshake]

We hear a lot about how terrible Democratic messaging is on every issue, so I feel like, "In abortion fight, Republicans first deny 10-year-old was raped; Now insist 10-year-old give birth" deserves a bit of rhetorical analysis.

How well will it play with ~swing voters~?

1. Democrats get dinged on messaging b/c their substance is relatively decent. What matters is that they apparently stink at selling it.
2. Republicans' substance is tacitly accepted as horrific so all their "messaging" coverage boils down to "wow they really sell this evil thing well".

WaPo "fact checker" Glenn Kessler, can't decide abortions performed on child rape victims in Ohio as "rare" or "hysterical Dems".

[Xyonai]

Time for another wrinkle because this story just, somehow, can't stop just getting worse the more comes out involving the political circus:

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita urges the governor to help him investigate the doctor who provided an abortion to a 10-year-old rape victim so he can bring criminal charges and revoke her medical license

The Indiana AG wants to investigate and bring criminal charges to someone who preformed an entirely legal operation to save the life of a sexually abused ten year old.

[Edge-]

Time for another wrinkle because this story just, somehow, can't stop just getting worse the more comes out involving the political circus:

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita urges the governor to help him investigate the doctor who provided an abortion to a 10-year-old rape victim so he can bring criminal charges and revoke her medical license

The Indiana AG wants to investigate and bring criminal charges to someone who preformed an entirely legal operation to save the life of a sexually abused ten year old.

His argument is that she violated the law in failing to report the victim of a crime. Which...sounds a bit off, since the crime took place in another state so Indiana wouldn't have any jurisdiction even if it was reported to them.

Plus, given everything going on right now I'm not remotely surprised that medical care providers are fairly skeptical of many of these Republican governments.

[Rasulis]

A UCSF Doctor is proposing a floating abortion clinic in the Gulf of Mexico as a way to maintain access for people in southern states where abortion bans have been enacted.

The idea is to provide a clinic aboard a ship in federal waters, and out of reach of state laws, that would offer first trimester surgical abortions, contraception and other care, said Dr. Meg Autry, an obstetrician and gynecologist and a professor at the University of California San Francisco.

“There’s been an assault on reproductive rights in our country and I’m a lifelong advocate for reproductive health and choice. We have to create options and be thoughtful and creative to help people in restrictive states get the health care they deserve,” she told The Associated Press.

Autry said the idea is only in the fundraising stage through the non-profit, “PRROWESS” — short for “Protecting Reproductive Rights Of Women Endangered by State Statutes.”

The proposal comes as abortion access in the southern United States has been swiftly curtailed after the U.S. Supreme Court turned the issue of abortion back to the states.

Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas have had abortion bans take effect. A Florida law, which is in effect after a legal back-and-forth, prohibits abortions after 15 weeks, with exceptions if the procedure is necessary to save a life, prevent serious injury or if the fetus has a fatal abnormality.

Autry said their legal team believes there is a swath of federal water where licensed providers could safely and legally provide abortions out of reach of state laws. For women in southern states with abortion bans, going to the coast and boarding a boat may be closer and easier than trying to travel to a state where abortion remains legal, she said.

“This is closer and faster access for some people, particularly for working people that live in the southernmost part of these states,” she said.

Autry said they are still trying to work out many of the details such as where the boat will launch and how women would get to the ship.

[s_bushido]

A UCSF Doctor is proposing a floating abortion clinic in the Gulf of Mexico as a way to maintain access for people in southern states where abortion bans have been enacted.

Doesn't seem practical at all. I don't see what would stop those states from simply shutting down access to whatever method is used to actually transport people to/from it.

[Fugus]

Doesn't seem practical at all. I don't see what would stop those states from simply shutting down access to whatever method is used to actually transport people to/from it.

They could try but I don’t see them being able to ban boats capable of leaving their waters. I have known people who used to use such boats to go gambling in coastal states that banned it.

[DarkTZeratul]

His argument is that she violated the law in failing to report the victim of a crime. Which...sounds a bit off, since the crime took place in another state so Indiana wouldn't have any jurisdiction even if it was reported to them.

Generally, they would have a duty to report regardless of where the crime took place. The more relevant fact is that said duty only applies to unreported crimes... And the rape had already been reported in Ohio, which she was told.

[Rasulis]

Generally, they would have a duty to report regardless of where the crime took place. The more relevant fact is that said duty only applies to unreported crimes... And the rape had already been reported in Ohio, which she was told.

The question that they should ask themselves is "How many OB/Gyn will leave these states?"

[cubby]

Time for another wrinkle because this story just, somehow, can't stop just getting worse the more comes out involving the political circus:

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita urges the governor to help him investigate the doctor who provided an abortion to a 10-year-old rape victim so he can bring criminal charges and revoke her medical license

The Indiana AG wants to investigate and bring criminal charges to someone who preformed an entirely legal operation to save the life of a sexually abused ten year old.

His argument is that she violated the law in failing to report the victim of a crime. Which...sounds a bit off, since the crime took place in another state so Indiana wouldn't have any jurisdiction even if it was reported to them.

Plus, given everything going on right now I'm not remotely surprised that medical care providers are fairly skeptical of many of these Republican governments.

And this is where the GQP is moving in on the "law and order" fascism. That doctor in Indiana probably did violate the law in not reporting the crime, and might actually lose their license (Mandatory Reporting Laws). Mandatory Reporting Laws exist for VERY good reasons.

I'm not even remotely suggesting that the doctor here did anything wrong, and was actually a hero for their actions. But the GQP doesn't give a shit about anything but their power, so down goes another hero.

[Edge-]

https://fox59.com/indiana-news/abort...investigation/

After Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita threatened to go after the license of an Indiana physician who provided an abortion to a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio, documents obtained by FOX59 through a public record request proved the physician not only filed a terminated pregnancy report but filed the report within the required timeframe.

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 and within the three days required for terminations to be reported to the Department of Child Service and the Indiana Department of Health.

Yeah, attempts to demonize and attack the doctor for doing her job are based off of literally nothing.

Because why would an AG bother checking to see if a rape was reported by the doctor?

[Mihalik]

When I read the news about this... I thought I'll have a stroke.

I'm not saying Todd Rokita needs to be milkshaked, but Todd Rokita needs to be milkshaked with a bucketload of cum.

What the fuck is wrong with these fucking psychopaths?

- - - Updated - - -

https://fox59.com/indiana-news/abort...investigation/

Yeah, attempts to demonize and attack the doctor for doing her job are based off of literally nothing.

Because why would an AG bother checking to see if a rape was reported by the doctor?

Not to mention the fucking animals posted her name and photo all over the news, to make sure their Christian Taliban know exactly who to target, harass and possibly murder.

I feel like I'm having a stroke again.

[Xyonai]

This also really flies in the face 'rape exception' clauses for most of their draconian abortion laws. Because either they flat out to refuse to believe the testimony of rape survivors (which is a known issue with these fucking people) or they'll seek to punish doctors anyway. I mean, we all knew they were full of shit but it's nice of them to be so candid about how little of a fuck they actually give.

[Fugus]

And this is where the GQP is moving in on the "law and order" fascism. That doctor in Indiana probably did violate the law in not reporting the crime, and might actually lose their license (Mandatory Reporting Laws). Mandatory Reporting Laws exist for VERY good reasons.

I'm not even remotely suggesting that the doctor here did anything wrong, and was actually a hero for their actions. But the GQP doesn't give a shit about anything but their power, so down goes another hero.

Not sure on this one, is it really illegal to not report and already reported crime?
Not like the news would have found out about it before the local law enforcement of the doctor who sent her there in the first place.

[cubby]

https://fox59.com/indiana-news/abort...investigation/



Yeah, attempts to demonize and attack the doctor for doing her job are based off of literally nothing.

Because why would an AG bother checking to see if a rape was reported by the doctor?

This is all we'll have going forward in Gilead. AND, that means malpractice insurance will go up, making it more expensive to be a doctor. AND, I'm betting some malpractice insurances won't cover doctors who perform abortions.

Good game, United States of Gilead. Viva la Canada!

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure on this one, is it really illegal to not report and already reported crime?
Not like the news would have found out about it before the local law enforcement of the doctor who sent her there in the first place.

Even if it's not, it's more harassments for the doctor, more forms, more legal suits, more court time, etc.

We're now seeing our second tier of victims in the GQP's assault on women.

To your specific question: I would expect it is illegal, because the issue isn't whether it's already been reported, but whether this Mandatory Reporter followed the law. With diving into the case law, it would seem prudent that society would rather than a crime like this over reported rather than under reported, if that makes sense. We don't want a doctor to say, oh, well, this was probably already reported, I don't need to. Again, if that makes sense.

[Ghost of Cow]

Bonus points for the, "That's not an abortion" lines out of the House today in reference to the 10-year old child case.

I guess when you don't want to commit to going after a child in front of Congress but you also don't want to actually say "Yeah, I guess exceptions make sense", you just redefine what an abortion is altogether!