Roe vs Wade Overturned

#3,101
#3,101
BowlBrother85 said:
Dr. Caitlin Bernard covered that too. The mother of the 10 year old signed a waiver of HIPAA authorization. Dr. Bernard knew the scrutiny that she would be under for this story, and she appears to have covered herself very well for the ensuing Republican onslaught.
Click to expand...
Fairly gross generalization you are throwing around there Mr. Communist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and marcusluvsvols
#3,102
#3,102
SpaceCoastVol said:
So let's review. You are butthurt because this girl had to be taken across state lines to get an abortion. Given the fact that it is looking like the rapist had repeatedly done that, AND was the mother's live in boyfriend is just a side story that has no bearing on any of it. Is that about right?

Or would it be OK if we hanged that ****ing bastard in the town square, and stopped allowing more of his kind to enter the country?
Click to expand...
Now you are killing off their voters so no, that is not acceptable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#3,105
#3,105
BowlBrother85 said:
Whenever I see someone in a politics forum screeching that "this shouldn't be politicized," what I think they're saying is :

"This is damaging to my side of the political aisle, so I would rather not hear about it."
Click to expand...
Usually preceded by someone gleefully pointing out it is going to hurt their side.
 
#3,108
#3,108
NCFisher said:
Bottom line is the mother and child did not have to go out of state.
Click to expand...
That is being heavily disputed by doctors in Ohio right now.

Docs dispute AG's claim that Ohio law allows 10-year-olds to get abortions - Ohio Capital Journal

Ohio Attorney General, Dave Yost, has made a complete a$$ of himself this week. His interview with Jesse Watters of Fox News was a disaster.

Yost didn't get anything right.

During his interview with Jesse Watters, Ohio AG Dave Yost, also incorrectly stated that because the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigations hadn't processed a rape kit in the case, that should cast doubt on whether or not the rape had occurred. However, Ohio's own Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse Protocol specifically lays out many circumstances under which a child victim wouldn't have a rape exam. As the state's Attorney General, Dave Yost should be familiar with that protocol. Yost is a lazy shmuck.
 
#3,109
#3,109
BowlBrother85 said:
That is being heavily disputed by doctors in Ohio right now.

Docs dispute AG's claim that Ohio law allows 10-year-olds to get abortions - Ohio Capital Journal

Ohio Attorney General, Dave Yost, has made a complete a$$ of himself this week. His interview with Jesse Watters of Fox News was a disaster.

Yost didn't get anything right.

During his interview with Jesse Watters, Ohio AG Dave Yost, also incorrectly stated that because the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigations hadn't processed a rape kit in the case, that should cast doubt on whether or not the rape had occurred. However, Ohio's own Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse Protocol specifically lays out many circumstances under which a child victim wouldn't have a rape exam.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure any lawyer would have to say “maybe,” at best, if asked whether this abortion were legal.

In my view it would be more of a “probably not,” just based on a quick read through of some of the abortion statutes.

Then, it’s a matter of a doctor’s aversion to risk and willingness to serve as a test case. The same way any other law deters conduct.

The law has been in effect for all of 15 minutes. I’d be shocked if any guidance has been given by courts as to what the fringes are.
 
#3,110
#3,110
RockyTop85 said:
Pretty sure any lawyer would have to say “maybe,” at best, if asked whether this abortion were legal.

In my view it would be more of a “probably not.”

Then, it’s a matter of a doctor’s aversion to risk and willingness to serve as a test case. The same way any other law deters conduct.

The law has been in effect for all of 15 minutes. I’d be shocked if any guidance has been given by courts as to what the fringes are.
Click to expand...
It was Dave Yost's contention that they didn't have to leave Ohio for the 10 year old girl to have an abortion, but it's not easy to find any lawyers or doctors in the state of Ohio who agree with him on that. I don't think I've ever run across an Attorney General as ignorant as Yost. His office is 6 blocks away from the Columbus Police Department, but he said that he hadn't heard a whisper about this case? Didn't he ever ask the Sheriff of Columbus about the case, before doing the interview on Fox News? The guy seems like an idiot.
 
#3,112
#3,112
BowlBrother85 said:
It was Dave Yost's contention that they didn't have to leave Ohio for the 10 year old girl to have an abortion, but it's not easy to find any lawyers or doctors in the state of Ohio who agree with him on that. I don't think I've ever run across an Attorney General as ignorant as Yost. His office is 6 blocks away from the Columbus Police Department, but he said that he hadn't heard a whisper about this case? Didn't he ever ask the Sheriff of Columbus about the case, before doing the interview on Fox News? The guy seems like an idiot.
Click to expand...
I mean, there are a couple of arguments, but they’d have to be made with criminal charges pending unless the statute gets amended. That’s a hard pass for me, if I’m a doctor.

The AG can issue a formal opinion on the matter, but it’s not binding on anybody.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#3,115
#3,115
BowlBrother85 said:
This has never been about "returning it to the states" for Republicans. They will settle for nothing less than a federal abortion ban, with no exceptions ever made for child rape or incest.
Click to expand...
You sound like a little butt hurt teenager that didn’t get their way. You’re in serious contention with Luther and bnhunt for the most overly emotional and irrational poster in the PF
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, SpaceCoastVol, marcusluvsvols and 2 others
#3,118
#3,118
BowlBrother85 said:
That is being heavily disputed by doctors in Ohio right now.

Docs dispute AG's claim that Ohio law allows 10-year-olds to get abortions - Ohio Capital Journal

Ohio Attorney General, Dave Yost, has made a complete a$$ of himself this week. His interview with Jesse Watters of Fox News was a disaster.

Yost didn't get anything right.

During his interview with Jesse Watters, Ohio AG Dave Yost, also incorrectly stated that because the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigations hadn't processed a rape kit in the case, that should cast doubt on whether or not the rape had occurred. However, Ohio's own Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse Protocol specifically lays out many circumstances under which a child victim wouldn't have a rape exam. As the state's Attorney General, Dave Yost should be familiar with that protocol. Yost is a lazy shmuck.
Click to expand...

Again, Yost - a lawyer - is the AG and enforcement official for the state. That the law has no prior test case or that doctors are uncertain on the legality doesn't change what Yost asserts, that the law provides exception for such cases:

(A) Except as provided in division (B) of this section, no person shall knowingly and purposefully perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying and whose fetal heartbeat has been detected in accordance with division (A) of section 2919.192 of the Revised Code.

Whoever violates this division is guilty of performing or inducing an abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, a felony of the fifth degree.

(B) Division (A) of this section does not apply to a physician who performs a medical procedure that, in the physician's reasonable medical judgment, is designed or intended to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.

A physician who performs a medical procedure as described in this division shall declare, in a written document, that the medical procedure is necessary, to the best of the physician's reasonable medical judgment, to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. In the document, the physician shall specify the pregnant woman's medical condition that the medical procedure is asserted to address and the medical rationale for the physician's conclusion that the medical procedure is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.

- and permits a 10 year old rape victim to have an abortion. So, whether of ignorance,, uncertainty, or expediency, the girl did not have to leave the state because he's plainly stating the AG's office views the law as permitting such abortions.

A "physician's reasonable judgment" is pretty damned broad, and still predicated upon a detected heartbeat, usually around 6 weeks. I can understand a doctor's hesitancy to be the first case, but that's not a determinant of legality. Who's to say the next Ohio clinic contacted wouldn't have performed it? Why did no one contact the AG's office for clarification? Probably because Mom - whatever her relationship to the accused rapist designated a minor by the attendant abortionist's report - appears to be protecting him. Again, I want to know what happened here - why this guy had repeated access to the girl and why abortive measure wasn't sought earlier - but I suspect Mom has as much culpability as anyone in how this transpired.

This is the nature of laws, especially new laws and is an opportunity for clarification via the legislature or court if necessary. For now, the AG has provided guidance.

It's shameful that decades of a barbarous practice haven't afflicted the nation's conscience to the degree that it is not "rare" in addition to "safe and legal". Then we might not be having the conversation. Instead we have a Democrat congressional consensus of advancing abortion with no limits. Putting it to the states is an imperfect but best - and constitutional - approach.

I trust this hasn't deflated the boner you have for AG Yost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and marcusluvsvols
#3,119
#3,119
Prominent Pro-Abortion Group Appears To Be Front For Radical Revolutionary Communists

GettyImages-1241391230-1-scaled-e1657832528244.jpg


A prominent pro-abortion activist group downplaying its association with the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) shares significant infrastructure and leadership with the radical outfit’s other offshoot groups, a Daily Caller analysis has found.

Although RiseUp4AbortionRights seems like most other pro-abortion groups at first glance, other pro-abortion activists released a statement in late June asserting that RiseUp is a front for a “pyramid scheme” and cult of personality. The Daily Caller’s examination of the organization’s leaders, online presence, and fundraising platforms lend credence to the claim that RiseUp is an offshoot front group for the RCP.

“Support for communism in the U.S. is incredibly low, so one way for these individuals to jump-start is to ride the coattails of something that has much more acceptability” in mainstream discussion of current political events, Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, told the Daily Caller.

RiseUp shares leadership with the RCP and several of its related organizations. Sunsara Taylor is a prominent RCP spokeswoman and a co-founder of RiseUp. Taylor founded RiseUp in January 2022 to protest for “abortion on demand and without apology.” An earlier pro-abortion group Taylor founded, Stop Patriarchy, used the same slogan and also attracted scrutiny from other pro-abortion activist organizations, the Austin Chronicle reported in 2014. Stop Patriarchy has not posted any new tweets to its Twitter feed since 2020, but the organization’s website features more recent footage of an interview in which Taylor discusses the consequences of the Dobbs decision.

Prominent Pro-Abortion Group Appears To Be Front For Radical Revolutionary Communists
 
#3,121
#3,121
NCFisher said:
Again, Yost - a lawyer - is the AG and enforcement official for the state. That the law has no prior test case or that doctors are uncertain on the legality doesn't change what Yost asserts, that the law provides exception for such cases:

(A) Except as provided in division (B) of this section, no person shall knowingly and purposefully perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying and whose fetal heartbeat has been detected in accordance with division (A) of section 2919.192 of the Revised Code.

Whoever violates this division is guilty of performing or inducing an abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, a felony of the fifth degree.

(B) Division (A) of this section does not apply to a physician who performs a medical procedure that, in the physician's reasonable medical judgment, is designed or intended to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.

A physician who performs a medical procedure as described in this division shall declare, in a written document, that the medical procedure is necessary, to the best of the physician's reasonable medical judgment, to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. In the document, the physician shall specify the pregnant woman's medical condition that the medical procedure is asserted to address and the medical rationale for the physician's conclusion that the medical procedure is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.

- and permits a 10 year old rape victim to have an abortion. So, whether of ignorance,, uncertainty, or expediency, the girl did not have to leave the state because he's plainly stating the AG's office views the law as permitting such abortions.

A "physician's reasonable judgment" is pretty damned broad, and still predicated upon a detected heartbeat, usually around 6 weeks. I can understand a doctor's hesitancy to be the first case, but that's not a determinant of legality. Who's to say the next Ohio clinic contacted wouldn't have performed it? Why did no one contact the AG's office for clarification? Probably because Mom - whatever her relationship to the accused rapist designated a minor by the attendant abortionist's report - appears to be protecting him. Again, I want to know what happened here - why this guy had repeated access to the girl and why abortive measure wasn't sought earlier - but I suspect Mom has as much culpability as anyone in how this transpired.

This is the nature of laws, especially new laws and is an opportunity for clarification via the legislature or court if necessary. For now, the AG has provided guidance.

It's shameful that decades of a barbarous practice haven't afflicted the nation's conscience to the degree that it is not "rare" in addition to "safe and legal". Then we might not be having the conversation. Instead we have a Democrat congressional consensus of advancing abortion with no limits. Putting it to the states is an imperfect but best - and constitutional - approach.

I trust this hasn't deflated the boner you have for AG Yost.
Click to expand...

The Attorney General can issue guidance, but it's not binding. No doctor in Ohio is going to take a chance like that right now. What is gained by placing themselves at risk of prosecution? If they examine the patient, and determine that the pregnancy doesn't represent a risk to the life of the mother, regardless of her age, they aren't going to perform the abortion. No doctor is ever going to be prosecuted in Ohio for refusing to perform an abortion.

It is "shameful" that the Ohio Attorney General, Dave Yost, claimed on Fox News on Monday night, in an interview with Jesse Watters, that he hadn't heard a whisper about an investigation into this case. Dave Yost also claimed that he had a close working relationship with local sheriffs in the state.

However, Dave Yost's office is only six blocks away from the Columbus Police Department Headquarters who had, in fact, been investigating the case since June 22nd. They made an arrest in the case less than 48 hours after Dave Yost had publicly doubted that there was a pregnant 10 year old rape victim in the state of Ohio. All Yost ever had to do was check the logs in the Columbus Police Department... or he could have called the Sheriff. Even Sean Hannity (who is normally very reluctant to criticize anybody with an 'R' next to their name) called Yost's competency into question last night ... but you keep on defending Yost. It makes perfect sense.

And it's not just doctors who are questioning Yost's interpretation of the law, it is Republican attorneys in Ohio as well.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top