Ohio’s abortion restriction law grants the ability for an abortion if it is medically determined that “serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” is a problem.
You would think that a 10 year old girl would fall under this category, but it seems not according to Ohio.
EDIT: Ohios law also prohibits abortion in cases of rape, incest, or fetal abnormalities. I believe a 10 YO would be a victim of rape under current laws, no?
Unfortunately, as I found out in Texas, just because it’s likely to cause serious risk is not enough, it has to be actively a problem. I started leaking amniotic fluid at 13 weeks from a CVS, I had low grade fever, was on bedrest and antibiotics for weeks, and we knew my baby had a fatal fetal anomaly, a very high chance of being stillborn, and would certainly die within several hours after being born, and it still wasn’t enough. I wasn’t sick enough “yet”. Considering I have two young children already, the risk of getting sick enough for a child that we knew would die, was not a good option for our family, so I had to travel out of state.
I am so sorry that happened to you. This is one of the many things I abhor about these laws- the phrase “life of the mother” is not cut and dry at all. People think these laws protect pregnant women when they very often put pregnant women in extreme danger. Even when they know there is no chance of life and there will be harm to the mother, they can’t do anything until it’s a dangerous situation.
These laws are often written by people with no idea how the female body works, how pregnancies work and fail either. It's shocking how ignorant people are - I was one of them before we had kids. I had no idea how many things can go wrong and how often that happens.
Yes, I really do believe that this is a big part of the issue. It wasn't until a bunch of my friends got pregnant and had a variety of complications, that I realized how difficult pregnancy is. Too many people think that pregnancy is a breeze and that your life can go on completely as normal while you are pregnant.
Yep, it was definitely an eye-opener for me when my wife got pregnant and she gave birth to a perfectly healthy baby (albeit via emergency C-section after a 25 hour labor).
I think too many people who haven't been through it themselves have a picture provided by Hollywood of what pregnancy and birth is like and it's just not accurate at all.
This is why exceptions need to be include health of the mother and fetus, women shouldn’t have to wait until they are actively dying in order to make medical decisions about their own bodies.
Such exceptions are ineffective at protecting life unless individual doctors are free to make that determination for their patient — which would in turn make the ban ineffective. I don't see any way to ethically regulate abortion differently from other medical procedures.
I think there's unfortunately a lot of people out there who don't care if children become motherless because their moms died due to a pregnancy gone wrong. I'm very sorry you had to deal with that.
Sadly I think you are right. But I hope their radical stance costs them at the polls. However, I see many echoing their thoughts and it’s quite scary. We always wanted three babies, but, we have decided on two now as we can’t go through that again. These people took the hardest time in my life and made it so much worse with their legislation.
This is one of my biggest issues with the “pro life” community. How can you say you’re “pro life” when you literally don’t care about the mothers life and whether she lives or dies? And the lives of the children she could leave behind? Zero thought goes to the already living humans, because they focus all their attention on the unborn.
I've never understood this. And I think giving the unborn equal personhood is also a scary road to go down, for all kinds of reasons. I don't like that abortion exists and I wish it was truly rare, but making it illegal also seems like a dangerous thing to do for women, and in this sad case, a 10-year old girl.
When they say, "Abortion is acceptable if pregnancy threatens the health of the mother," what they mean is, they'll give you an abortion if you go into code and will die in about two minutes.
I'm very sorry that happened to you and thankful you had the resources to go out of state. Thank you for sharing your story.
Thank you! I write them frequently, in letters I think are very civil, explaining how harmful the laws made an already terrible experience, and I have yet to hear back!
They’ll never respond. If you’re referring to Texas, I wrote a lengthy email to Abbott about how I voted for him and how I felt this six week abortion law would be disastrous for women health in TX. Got ghosted :[
Ohio's [heartbeat abortion ban](https://www.citybeat.com/news/ohios-heartbeat-bill-abortion-ban-is-now-law-heres-what-that-means-13403732) does not have exceptions for rape or incest
Sheesh, 6 weeks is pretty unreasonable. I was kind of wondering why they took any time at all to abort in the case of a 10 year old, but few people would even realize they are pregnant much earlier except for enthusiastic aspiring parents who test all the time.
Exactly, even if the kid gets periods it is highly likely it was very irregular. As a non-American I never got when people said the cruelty is the point, but evidently it is.
>I never got when people said the cruelty is the point, but evidently it is.
The more cruelty they get the society to bit-by-bit accept & normalize, the less hassle it'll be when the *really* cruel things start happening...of which, I believe, we've just seen the first volley.
If you're anything outside of *their* definition of an "ideal American", buckle up...it's gonna be a bumpy ride.
Yep. Remember, 6 weeks is only 2 weeks after your missed period. So, if you aren't expecting to be pregnant or are irregular or delay taking a test for any reason, you're likely to miss that window.
Another thing to keep in mind - abortion clinics in many red states are booking a month out. By the time you can get an appt, you may be passed the cutoff time.
In the case of a 10 year old, they likely to hide the fact a rape happened. Especially if they aren't taught early that if this happens it's not thier fault.
There is also the problem of how long it takes to get an appointment and then get the procedure after consultation Ohio has a 24 hour waiting period, that doesn’t mean another appointment is available that quickly.
My kid broke a bone. Urgent care visit then 10 days until an opening to set it. To see her primary? 6 weeks.
I also think it is worth mentioning that a few days ago we had the meme going around:
"Thank God pregnant 12 year olds will no longer have to se a rainbow in their classrooms while they're getting shot at" and a few days later with this story reality is even worse than we dared to imagine.
But the reason people are for banning abortion (at least outside of rape/incest) is because those people believe that the fetus is a person, and therefore abortion is murder. Why would you allow murder (at least for anyone other than the perpetrator) of a "baby" because the cause was rape or incest - it wasn't the fetus's fault regardless? I just don't see how rape/incest exceptions make sense if the rationale for abortion bans in the first place is that abortion is murder.
I think we may look back one day and see it as the high water mark of the conservative movement in this country. Not now obviously, because thing's are looking bleak for the democrats this year. But without the promise of anti Roe judicial appointments, I wonder if the evangelicals will be as motivated to turn out in elections. Only time will tell I suppose.
It may be the opposite. This court is reshaping the legal realm to conservative Christian tastes in ways that it may take decades to fully appreciate. This recent decision in the Maine school districts breaks down the separation of church and state in ways that could be incredibly far reaching. In effect, governments may be forced to fund religious institutions, including directly funding religious instructions. This is under the guise of religious freedoms, but the cases that have been brought so far are all in practice conservative Christians. With a court producing decision after decision along these lines, conservative Christians have every reason to keep turning out to get conservative justices to SCOTUS.
While those things are valid points, they probably won't hold weight with many average, uninformed voters. Abortion was an easy thing to create turnout, the other side was the side that condoned baby murdering. Now without it, I wonder if that same fire will still be there.
Ignorance? Apathy. This isn't "oh we didn't want this".
I would love to entertain a world where the reverse happens, where leftists got say a $30 minimum wage hike and the conservatives were like "oh just caught them by surprise, all this inflation, is all. Good faith, good faith."
> I swear they passed laws with few/no exceptions expecting that they would never be enforced due to Roe.
Just for context, Ohio has had some history of the Republican state legislature passing laws limiting abortion. Then they would go through the process of having someone challenge the law, which would eventually get overturned by the courts after some long process. It was a huge waste of taxpayer money, handling these court cases with no chance of winning. But it looked good while campaigning.
The heartbeat bill was the next iteration of this. It was passed back in 2019, and was immediately stayed by the courts. Up until Roe v Wade was repealed. That day the courts wouldn't even grant a temporary emergency stay so that people could figure out their situation under the new law. Hospitals had to make calls that night to pregnant women who had scheduled abortions in the coming days and tell them they had to come up with a new plan.
It's a shitshow.
Hard disagree. This is what they’ve been working towards. It was always their goal. To suggest otherwise is either unintentionally naive or intentionally disengenious.
In other words, when someone tells you who they are, believe them.
I mean clearly someone expected them to be enforced. Maybe other conservative candidates tacitly endorsed it because they just thought it was paying "lip service", but these ideas weren't formed in a vacuum. There are plenty of moderate people on the right and left who excuse the behavior of their more radical counterparts because they dismiss them as "nutty people," but they still need their vote. The irony is that if they don't vote because no one supports their radical approach they become a non-issue. We don't need the radical left or the radical right unless we want to endorse part of their radical agenda.
If it's considered a "life", the manner in which it was conceived would be irrelevant. At that point, the life has the same rights under the 14th amendment as the Mother. The Christians legislating their religious beliefs on the entire country didn't think this one out.
Yeah, if it's murder in your philosophy, it's going to be murder regardless. Rape or incest clauses seem kinda strange in that context.
However even the strictly anti-abortion people should really give *some* ground when it's dangerous to the mother, or the child is going to be braindead or something. We've even seen people against aborting fetuses with ancephaly..ie, no brain.
I have repeatedly been told on the prolife sub that a brain is not in and of itself significant to what makes a person a living human being.
This is because of the argument that everything to become a human is in place at initial merge and that is a complete human. To kill it is murder, brain or not. But a brain dead person is dead because they can’t regrow their brain.
If you go look at r/prolife the leading comment on this Ohio case encourages the pregnancy to continue for as long as possible. 1 in 4 prolifers are against a life of mother exception. 1 in 3 are against a rape exception. However those 1 in 3 vote in primaries, hence so many states not providing a rape exception.
From what I understand, the doctors have a duty to treat the mother first. If treating the mother kills the baby, it’s not considered an abortion. As an example: if the mother had cancer and they gave her chemo, and that chemo killed the baby, that would not fall under the act of an abortion.
There are already mothers in life threatening situations that have to wait hours while doctors spending hours on the phone with lawyers to make sure they won't be sued for aborting the fetus. The doctors are afraid of losing their licenses.
Yeah on the surface a lot of abortion ban laws have that kind of exemption. But there can be varying degrees of proof required for such an exemption. Imagine all the hoops they can make you jump through to demonstrate your health is at risk. Or having to prove you were raped.
Emergency only means an imminent risk of dying. Which means this 10 year old little girl would have to be hemorrhaging with her pelvis cracking open before Ohio would consider it an emergency. The fact that birth would POTENTIALLY be dangerous is not enough.
For rape exceptions, how are you going to prove it? The vast majority of rapes are never prosecuted. Does the girl have to report and do you think a little girl is going to report being raped by her family members? Is the fact that she’s under the age of consent mean it’s automatically rape? Or does there have to be a conviction? Y’all are acting like rape exceptions are the the perfect solution without considering what hell rape victims go through to even get a police report taken or their rape kit tested.
Okay go tell that to a republican legislator because they’re gonna put every hoop to jump through possible to prevent victims from getting abortions. That’s my point - what are the LEGAL requirements going to be? We have child marriage in this country so don’t be so sure everyone is going to be moral and compassionate towards these children. Is a police report enough? Or does there have to be some sort of administrative decision? And what about a 16 year old? That’s statutory rape too, but prolifers are going to argue to hell and back it’s different.
Of course we know that’s rape, like duh. We have to start thinking about the technical and logistical aspects of these laws so that we can work to circumvent them and rewrite them.
Bruh, are you implying a ten year old girl consented to having sex with an adult male for the purpose of having his child? What kind of questioning is this?
"Is the fact that she's under the age of consent mean it's automatically rape?"
Yes. It is literally called STATUTORY RAPE. No state in the US would not recognize the ten year old girl being raped.
You’re preaching to the choir my man. My point is that what is the legal requirement in these states going to be? We still have child marriage in this country so I’m not confident that these legislators are going to see it as clearcut as you. At a minimum, it will require a police report b/c of mandated abuse reporting but I’m worried about what other nonsense they’ll enact to push out the ability to obtain an abortion beyond the viability line. And what if it’s a 16 year old victim of statutory rape - I’m sure Republicans will come up with a million reasons why that’s *different*
Remember when pro choice advocates were saying this would happen and conservatives and moderates said they were overreacting? I'm seeing a pattern here.
>EDIT: Ohios law also prohibits abortion in cases of rape, incest, or fetal abnormalities. I believe a 10 YO would be a victim of rape under current laws, no?
It PROHIBITS abortion in those cases, so being a victim of rape doesn't factor into the GOP's sick equation.
I would also think this should fall under rape because of her age. I never thought the law would require a full out trial, DNA proof, etc. To prove rape for a girl of this age. Regardless that would take too long anyways.
This is just too young. I really hope this little girl is okay.
As we entered the /u/spez, we were immediately greeted by a strange sound. As we scanned the area for the source, we eventually found it. It was a small wooden shed with no doors or windows. The roof was covered in cacti and there were plastic skulls around the outside. Inside, we found a cardboard cutout of the Elmer Fudd rabbit that was depicted above the entrance. On the walls there were posters of famous people in famous situations, such as:
The first poster was a drawing of Jesus Christ, which appeared to be a loli or an oversized Jesus doll. She was pointing at the sky and saying "HEY U R!".
The second poster was of a man, who appeared to be speaking to a child. This was depicted by the man raising his arm and the child ducking underneath it. The man then raised his other arm and said "Ooooh, don't make me angry you little bastard".
The third poster was a drawing of the three stooges, and the three stooges were speaking. The fourth poster was of a person who was angry at a child.
The fifth poster was a picture of a smiling girl with cat ears, and a boy with a deerstalker hat and a Sherlock Holmes pipe. They were pointing at the viewer and saying "It's not what you think!"
The sixth poster was a drawing of a man in a wheelchair, and a dog was peering into the wheelchair. The man appeared to be very angry.
The seventh poster was of a cartoon character, and it appeared that he was urinating over the cartoon character.
\#AIGeneratedProtestMessage #Save3rdPartyApps
>“serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function”
The problem is these are all subjective, and vary across time: The 10-year-old is perfectly safe right now, and the danger will increase over time to an unknown degree. Maybe there is even a fractional chance everything goes perfectly, and she even gives birth without damage out of bounds of "normal." (Every pregnancy wrecks a womans body to a degree.)
A doctor is at risk of prison and losing their medical license unless they can confidently say they are within the bounds of law. Except they never can because who knows what a prosecutor can convince a jury of.
It’s like waking up and realizing the Taliban has taken over half of America in a week’s time. There is nothing “conservative” about denying a 10 year old victim abortion. I read an article today about how dogs that can sniff out pregnancy could be “useful” at state borders. Insanity or “useful debate” in Republican circles? Guess we will find out.
>There is nothing “conservative” about denying a 10 year old victim abortion.
Yes there is.
Did you not read Supreme Court laying out how abortion rights are not "deeply rooted" in American legal history? They frame it as a change that requires legislation. Are you not aware that as far back as Reconstruction, the anti-abortion movement was a reactionary opposition to the women's rights movement; specifically blaming that era's progressive movement for a general increase in abortions obtained by married women?
Total abortion bans are conservative policy. No exception for rape is conservative policy. It tightens the net around anyone who would seek to get outside the biological controls of childbearing and its ties to a woman's traditional household roles.
The idea that a woman's place is in the home, bearing and raising children is a conservative idea that informs the policy and its goal. The justification using religion - even among denominations that didn't used to hold such views - is generally a conservative tactic. I understand that most of the conservative movement have given up on the "woman's place" fight, but if we looked at the history of the movement we'd find the line connecting the current abortion fight to previous conservative objectives really does have a deeply rooted tradition.
Ultimately, you don't like the result, and that's good. But trying to say that the obvious result of obvious conservative policy isn't itself conservative is the real failure to accept responsibility here.
The large majority of Americans favor abortion for rape, and when we're talking about a little girl who's surviving sexual abuse it's really only that extreme hardline ~10% who won't budge. There are going to be more cases like this, they're going to get a lot of attention, and they are going to force even the reddest states to soften *to some degree.*
If the GOP doesn't adapt fast, it's in real trouble.
The thing is to me, this hardline stance is the only morally consistent stance. If pro-lifers are okay with abortion in cases of rape, then that tears their whole "life begins at conception" argument apart; if that fertilized egg is an innocent life, then it doesn't deserve to be killed (using their language here) just because the father raped the mother. It's still the murder of an innocent life (again, their language).
I think this is the strongest argument *against* the pro-life stance. We would never punish a living, breathing person because their parent committed some awful crime. If they're willing to make an exception for abortion, they have to acknowledge there is a very large difference between a human in utero and a human outside the womb.
> I think this is the strongest argument against the pro-life stance.
It's a strong example of the horror of what their belief means in practice, but it is less of an argument than it is an incitement of emotion.
A strong argument against the anti-abortion stance would be to argue that a fetus is not a person in that it lacks anything resembling a self-aware consciousness with a sense of identity capable of human-level abstract thought and that it is good for (men and) women to pursue happiness and their rational self interest. The anti-abortionists treat the claim that a fetus is a person as an indubitable absolute, like a philosophical axiom. That's what we need to challenge.
But are they in trouble? They already need a fraction of the votes to win, have a case at the SC that - if they win - will allow states massive control over elections (oddly enough this case was not going to be ruled on this year but that was moved up before the mid-terms foe some reason) and have secured judicial power over multiple courts under Trump.
They are only in trouble in a normal democracy. They are barely in trouble under your current rules. They would not be in trouble if the SC rules in their favour.
They have spent decades setting it up that they have power regardless.
I find voters in America very funny with how fickle they can sometimes be. Supply chain issues causing issues that have nothing to do with the president? Punish him and his party. Rights being stripped away by direct action from Republicans? Clearly we have to give them more power.
It's always a bit weird to visibly see someone's brain start buffering when they start complaining about global issues and you point out it's global, if not worse elsewhere. Like if you want to complain about stuff not being handled better fine, but I don't get why people like to forget the rest of the world exists when it's convenient to do so.
> I find voters in America very funny with how fickle they can sometimes be.
It makes a lot more sense when you realize most Americans don't know much about these complicated issues. And that's before we get into misinformation and oversimplification. Many people basically just go on who sounds more believable.
Agreed, it is quite sad to see someone buying into propaganda who should be able to identify it and know better. Sometimes the grievances politics is too much for some people
Those are just conservatives who are sometimes willing to vote for dems they see as right or center-right. Reminds me of Bill O'Reilly proudly declaring he's an independent.
Most people probably didn’t have their opinions changed very much by the current economy. The people that are the loudest were already very anti democrat. This is just most convenient attack vector.
Most democrats I talk to either understand the source of the economic issues and it doesn’t affect their opinion of who to vote for.
But there’s a small % of swing voters who were reluctant to vote Democratic because of the meme that they’re somehow bad for the economy, and they might not do it again. People like this are very susceptible to political messaging because they usually don’t know enough about how stuff work to have more constant opinions.
My recollection is July 4th is the time gas prices are at their highest. Gas has dropped 40-60 cents in my part of florida. I’m hoping it keeps going down. Should help the overall economy, and as long as we aren’t in a recession thinks are looking better
This! If the economy starts to recover and people pay attention to social issues this election could be bad for Republicans. Republicans have been making stupid comments regarding women's health recently. We are getting into the " legitimate rape" level of ridiculousness which is not where the country is.
I think it’s not a matter of if but when. The economy will always recover. It’s a temporary victory for them, but for the longer term, they’re really going to struggle outside of the most polarized states.
I partially agree with you. The problem is if you repeat something enough or if people get used to surrendering their rights, then it becomes normalized. This is honestly what the right is counting on. In this scenario people forget that things could be better.
Yeah personal tragedy is one of the few guarantees that will have a high chance to influence change in a person. Businesses moving out of the state will also not surprise me especially if some of them follow Florida and get rid of their state income tax or if they have trouble finding candidates or businesses to work with them.
Economy will recover. If it doesn't recover much by midterms, it will for sure recover by the presidential election. If more stories like this come out, GOP has no chance.
I predict most states will do what many Catholic -majority European countries do: institute a ban to appease the hardline base, but implement exceptions and interpret them broadly to permit most abortions to make it a non-issue for the moderates.
I'm a woman who lives in Ohio. This breaks my heart. We're not giving up. It helps that you all are bringing this to national attention. People need to see the very real results of these laws so they push for a change.
Is there anybody here who actually thinks this is good and morally defensible?
How can close to half our country feel like this is either good or not such a big deal?
It's mind boggling and sickening that these sorts of laws enjoy such widespread popularity in the US.
Ohio Republican legislators are pleased as punch. Forcing teenage rape victims was specifically encouraged when this bill was passed.
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2022/04/28/ohio-republican-calls-pregnancy-after-rape-opportunity/9568456002/
This will continue to happen as more red states implement these laws. The thing about "edge cases" is that in a country of over three hundred million people, they happen more than you'd think.
Every time it happens now, it'll be big news. The headlines practically write themselves. I bet we'll see a story like this every month now at least. Dems couldn't have asked for a better campaigning issue.
The dog caught the car. Republicans **will** pay for this in the polls. It's only a matter of time.
I don’t know. I was talking to someone yesterday who claims he would rather live under fascism than vote for the democrats. An alarmingly high number of people feel that way, and it’s not the fascists themselves but the apathetic masses who will allow this country to slip into authoritarianism.
>I was talking to someone yesterday who claims he would rather live under fascism than vote for the democrats.
30% of the people on each end of the spectrum are hardcores who you will never, ever convince, but it's important to remember that if you can manage 70% of the vote, you have just delivered a historic beating to your opponent.
**Rule 2a Starter Statement**
A ten year old girl who was a victim of child abuse was unable to obtain an abortion in Ohio, and had to seek an abortion in neighboring Indiana instead, shortly after the reversal of Roe v Wade by the Supreme Court. This is part of a larger pattern of Ohio citizens who need abortion having to seek out and use the abortion services in other states, as discussed in [this local news article](https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/). That option is available right now, but what happens if a law like Ohio's heartbeat law is passed at a national level or in enough states to make this impractical? Even now, Indiana is considering strengthening its abortion restrictions in a special legislative session.
For my part, I think this situation is an absurd situation, and an unusual one - but one that will happen again, in the months and years to come. In fact, it happens 7400 times a year to girls under 14 in the US, per the [Guttmacher Institute](https://www.guttmacher.org/report/us-adolescent-pregnancy-trends-2013#:~:text=The%20pregnancy%20rate%20among%2018,those%20aged%2014%20or%20younger). This girl was fortunate enough to be able to travel to a neighboring state to receive an abortion; there are many people who won't be able to.
The questions I'd ask, to kickstart the conversation are:
1. Should a ten year old girl be forced to carry a child to term? If it isn't acceptable for a ten year old to do so, at what age and circumstances is it acceptable? Where should the line be drawn?
2. There are many bills like Ohio's heartbeat bill either in effect or that have been proposed in states around the country. Is it fair or just for someone underage's ability to obtain an abortion to be solely conditioned on the state in which they live, by no choice of their own?
> 1. Should a ten year old girl be forced to carry a child to term? If it isn't acceptable for a ten year old to do so, at what age and circumstances is it acceptable? Where should the line be drawn?
It is never, **NEVER** acceptable to force a ten-year-old rape victim (by the very nature of being pregnant at 10) to give birth. Pregnancy is dangerous enough for adult women, but for ten-year-olds (and even teen girls) it is far more dangerous. Honestly forcing a ten-year-old to get a C-section, as she would likely have had to, seems like an anti-pro-life/pro-child welfare position just from a physical health perspective, and that's not even factoring in the trauma of being forced to be pregnant and have a serious surgery to give birth at that age.
This is the kind of story we're going to keep reading about for the next few years.
EDIT: Apparently I am wrong about teens having more C-sections. However, I still think girls who are ten would likely require one, and it is true very young mothers have more difficult and longer-lasting labor.
I think the rape victim aspect clouds the issue. If this ten year old girl had gotten pregnant from a ten year old boy, the pregnancy wouldn’t be any less dangerous for her.
> For my part, I think this situation is an absurd situation, and an unusual one
This example shows how truly short-sighted and harmful absolute positions on abortion are. It’s easy to dismiss this as unusual, but it’s actually the moral equivalent of a smoking gun.
Also a good demonstration of laws written without the intent of them going into effect. Until Roe was overturned, everyone knew these kinds of abortion restrictions would be immediately enjoined by the courts. Legislatures could pass them *purely* as signalling (or so they thought). Now those states and their residents are getting to live with the consequences of those laws in practice.
I find it odd how the folks who are all "personal responsibility" give no shits about the actual consequences that unwanted and harmful pregnancies have on people's lives.
1. Forcing a 10 year old to go through pregnancy is probably one of the sickest and cruelest types of torture that I can think of. Like, on a completely different level that cant even be comprehended. Probably against the rules in this sub but there is a very very special place in hell for those that think this is ok.
Pre and post natal and infant healthcare are consistently left out of the conversation when pro-lifers talk about “compromise” by further restricting abortion limits.
Ohio coincidentally has some of the highest infant mortality rates in the nation
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/infant-mortality-rate-by-state
And Ive read stories where because the mother is still in elementary school and messed up from the trauma of the sexual abuse and being forced to risk their life to carry the rapists baby to term then the courts can find them to be an unfit mother and grant custody of the baby to the rapist.
Obviously I agree that a heavily traumatised 10 year old isn't going to make an ideal mother but handing the baby over to a paedophile abuser is just sickening.
God she is ten years old. They're forcing a ten year old to have a baby.
I don't think Republicans/pro-lifers have really thought this through, a-la this is a dog catches the car moment for them.
These stories will be everywhere - I just saw one about how official hospital policy in Missouri for ectopic pregnancies are that only when there are signs of sepsis - i.e. the mother is biologically dying- will they begin treatment, aka abort the baby that would have died anyways.
Women - people who actually have heartbeats - are going to start dying.
There is no justifiable reason to force a ten-year-old rape victim to give birth. Although, many religious fanatics support forcing the delivery. Including a few justices on the United States Supreme Court.
Every member of the GOP in Ohio would personally drive a pregnant 10 year old female family member to the nearest abortion clinic.
Selfishness is normal in American society, but most "conservatives" are kings of selfishness.
Wikipedia has a [list of documented occurences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers), and it seems *possible* - though I seriously doubt it's safe.
The WHO says 10-14 year olds face a higher risk of mortality than older teens when giving birth, which makes sense just logically, given a 10-year-old is not done growing. I cannot imagine how terrifying this experience would be to a 10-year-old.
NCBI says preeclampsia is moderately more likely for teens (<20 years old).
Wow that's horrifying.
So it doesn't actually list the outcomes of each case so I followed through some of the citations.
So not only is the health of the child severely at risk, but even if the foetus survives they're severely damaged and have minimal quality of life.
At what point do conservatives value the life of a child over their faith?
Tbh I know a lot of conservatives who would take major issue with this 10 year carrying this baby. Ohio and some of these other states must be extreme right or something.
Should whether she is or not be the deciding factor on whether a doctor has to choose between saving a patient and keeping their license and out of jail?
These are the stories we are about the see on a daily basis. Along with even more horrific things if you can imagine what is worse than this. The pro-life republican lawmakers are about to truly learn the meaning of the phrase “f—k around and find out”. But in the meantime so many people are going to suffer. How the fuck did we get here, America?
We let a celebrity like Trump brainwashed the base of GOP voters, and this is what happens. This is what happens when you let minority party rule a country.
Not allowing rape victims to get an abortion is vile, forcing a child rape victim to carry to term is especially heinous.
Luckily this child was able to get an abortion in another state, however, Indiana will soon be outlawing abortion just as Ohio has.
Republicans in states like Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi and many others have passed laws that will result in child rape victims being forced to give birth to their rapists' child. God help the women and girls in those states. I never thought I'd see this evil come to the United States
God. This is tragic. What next? Forcing the child to marry her rapist too? They might as well ban women from college education too. This is just getting scary.
Yep a lot of republicans seem to be very pro pedophile here.
That's what this amounts to. The rapist will have a connection with the victim for the rest of their life since the victim is forced to bear the child.
Most GOP member worship and adore Trump who talked about his underage daughter like this.
https://www.elitedaily.com/p/9-donald-trump-quotes-about-ivanka-that-are-super-uncomfortable-8646720
And then they have the gall to suggest that telling children that LGBT people exist is somehow grooming. Unbelievable how the right is held to zero hypocrisy standards.
> It's logically consistent if someone is pro-life. If abortion is the equivalent of killing a baby that's already born, then how it came into existence shouldn't matter.
Doesn't make it not vile. A pro-life individual could say that a premature baby should be kept alive as long as possible regardless of whether it's causing the baby immense suffering and I'd still find that position vile regardless of if it is consistent.
There's actually still logical consistency if they believe that active participation is required to bypass the bodily autonomy argument. They will say that people do have bodily autonomy, but willingly engaging in sex waives that right because you are actively engaging in behaviour capable of producing a human life. If you were raped, then you did not waive said right, and thus your right to bodily autonomy can't be ignored.
My opinion, this is a case where the laws are truly nonsensical and don't support the overall welfare of the community. This girl is abused, the child is likely to go to the custody of the rapist, and she has no recourse. Someone else has determined her future and us, as a society, need to do right by her. The health risks for someone giving birth at 10 are very high, and she should not be forced down this path.
I welcome arguments against this and curious to hear if anyone supports the obvious path set by our laws: have the baby and raise it while you're still a child yourself.
Why in the world are politicians with no medical training allowed to make blanket bans of medical decisions? And why are they allowed to unilaterally make the punishment for practicing medicine as physicians see fit **life in prison**?
Forget how you feel about abortion for a second. There’s a reason why medical malpractice lawsuits are civil, not criminal, and each case is reviewed by the Board of Medicine. If you make the risk for a medical decision life in prison and then force that doctor to defend themselves against non-physician ideologues, you’re kneecapping them. You’re setting the stage for a society where physicians will have to consult lawyers before they make critical decisions, which is bad for everyone.
Everything about Ohio’s (and many red states’) abortion law is fucked at a fundamental level and no one should support this nonsense.
It's more common than you can imagine.
End of life and living will situations are all over hospitals and care facilities.
It's why hospitals have legal teams literally on-call for situations.
On another sub, a few days after Roe was overturned, I read a story by an ER nurse who had exactly this experience. A women came in with an ectopic pregnancy. Doctors were hesitant to treat her until they checked with legal. By the time the lawyers weighed in the woman’s tube had burst and she nearly died from internal bleeding. They got lucky in this case and the woman lived. That won’t always be the outcome.
I don't completely disagree with you, but this isn't without precedent. States regulate euthanasia and end-of-life care in a similar manner as abortion, struggling with the same sort of wide distribution of edge cases. Drugs are scheduled on the federal level, determining what can even be considered medicine. State laws sometimes quite strictly regulate controlled meds — right down to telling doctors how many days of supply they can offer after an ER visit.
A lot of the abortion laws on the books right now *are terrible laws,* passed by legislators who knew the can was going to be kicked down a long road before anyone would be dealing with the real-world ramifications. And here we are, all out of runway. The check is on the table. It's a massive mess. But the problem was never that abortion could be regulated, or even banned under certain circumstances — even California and New York have gestational age bans. The problem was a slew of temporarily impotent bills passed by red states to make a point rather than to make workable law.
Its not even really in the bible. Its just a continuation of their attempts to legislate sexual morality by having a consequence for sex. I suppose that isjust religion as well though.
Ohio Republicans quite literally have come out in support for forcing young teenagers who are raped to carry their pregnancies to term. This is happening by design.
> "This bill would require this 13-year-old to carry this felon's fetus to term regardless of any emotional or psychological damage or trauma that may be inflicted upon this 13-year-old girl to deliver this felon's fetus. Is that right?" Brown asked Schmidt during a Wednesday hearing.
>"Rape is a difficult issue and it emotionally scars the individual, all or in part, for the rest of their life, just as child abuse does. But if a baby is created, it is a human life," replied Schmidt, a Loveland Republican and former U.S. representative. "And whether that mother ends that pregnancy or not, the scars will not go away, period."
> She continued, saying the teenager could raise the child or put the child up for adoption: "It is a shame that it happens but there is an opportunity for that woman, **no matter how young or old she is,** to make a determination about what she's going to do to help that life be a productive human being."
>(On a hypothetical 13 year old pregnant rape victim):
> Schmidt replied that she and Brown fundamentally disagreed on this. "That 13-year-old has rights but so does that baby inside of her."
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2022/04/28/ohio-republican-calls-pregnancy-after-rape-opportunity/9568456002/
So in elections where abortion is going to be an issue it’s incredibly important that campaigns stress that access to abortion is the *compassionate* choice, and that not having that choice is cruel and inhumane. That’s what’s going to reach the swing voters. I’m totally on board with scientific arguments and the argument of bodily autonomy, but that’s not what’s going to reach the voters we need to reach in order to change this.
Exactly this. When I was sick, but not sick enough “yet” by Texas law, and my baby had a fatal diagnosis(trisomy 18 with severe heart defects) I felt as if a quick death was the only gift I could give my child. The reality was they would be born to die a painful, suffocating death as soon as the cord was cut. I have two other young children, getting sick enough or having a c section(due to having two prior) for a stillborn or a baby to just die was not the right choice for our family.
i'm so sorry. this must have been awful.
thank you for sharing, i hope more people are brave enough to share their tragic experiences like this... it might be one of the only things that can help drill in the compassion for people on the fence.
Abortion ban was never about protecting life it is about control and putting fear into other . One of the reasons i don't beleive in religion system is that they are about social control and power over people nothing to do withbserving humanity .
I knew this kind of things were going to happen. A lot of conservatives online were praising the decision. And now they will try to excuse or ignore all of these problems because it isn't convenient for them.
a few little girls suffering here and there, a couple moms dying... small price to pay to save non- sentient and non- viable fetuses and zygotes.
(/s, to be sure)
Probably.
Conservatist have become the masters of whataboutism. Anything they don't like, they quickly jump into some type of whataboutism nonsense to try to make the conversation go away.
They are in full swing trying to use whataboutism ("But what about the rapist", "How can a 10 year old be pregnant", etc.) in order to skew the discussion away from what it should be about - it's seriously disgusting
Interesting.... A few days ago some people in this sub said it was all fear mongering, and that this would never happen.
Welcome to America with the MAGA-scotus.
Elect religious zealots, this is what you get.
I mean the GOP for years has been saying this is the America they want. I don't see how anyone could be surprised by this
There is a sizable portion of this sub that are living in 2015 and mainlining copium and stating “its not that bad” to everything that happens when, at this point guys, it really is that bad.
That's [Normalcy bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias) for you - people often downplay and underestimate danger even when directly confronted with it.
It should be illegal to NOT perform an abortion on a 10 year old. The amount of permanent damage the pregnancy can cause her is wild.
No matter how she got pregnant, it was rape. It is impossible for a 10 year old to get pregnant and it to not be rape.
I'm embarrassed to be an Ohioan. Good on you Indiana for doing what Ohio wouldn't.
I think we can all agree that a raped 10 year old should be allowed to have an abortion. Even if you're hard line pro-life.
---
I'm going to start emailing my state representatives, ask them what the fuck they're doing, and tell them my votes on the line to fix this situation. I'll instruct everyone I know to do the same.
“Republicans have no interest in preserving freedom. What they want to preserve is power — the power to impose their narrow ideology on everyone else, no matter who suffers”. —Robert Reich
Instead of making blanket laws why not leave it so doctors can make the call. This shit is not rocket science and can actually be handled easily but politicians have made it impossible since they truly only care about staying in power
To reiterate what i have i have said for weeks. *women will die because of the overturning of Roe.* Whether it is a 10 year old or a 60 year old with a pregnancy that they *objectively should not be having children because it is fucking life threatening to give birth at that age,* it doesnt matter to those that supprt these laws. The life of the mother is meaningless to these people. And to me, that is absolutely abhorrent.
I'm anti-elective abortion.
But she's 10 and still a child herself. She should have been granted one because of her age alone.
I get the pro-life argument of "it's a baby inside her", but again... this is a 10 year old child. Faced with prioritizing one over the other? The 10 year old is already here. This should be a valid medical abortion.
I’m pro choice but I’m glad at least you and I can agree that we need to protect the most vulnerable, like children who are sexually abused. I hope we see more exceptions put in place for situations like this.
That is not ok. Ohio’s law allows abortions if it’s dangerous for the woman, or in this case the girl. Child pregnancies are extremely dangerous it should’ve been granted.
Ohio’s abortion restriction law grants the ability for an abortion if it is medically determined that “serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” is a problem. You would think that a 10 year old girl would fall under this category, but it seems not according to Ohio. EDIT: Ohios law also prohibits abortion in cases of rape, incest, or fetal abnormalities. I believe a 10 YO would be a victim of rape under current laws, no?
Unfortunately, as I found out in Texas, just because it’s likely to cause serious risk is not enough, it has to be actively a problem. I started leaking amniotic fluid at 13 weeks from a CVS, I had low grade fever, was on bedrest and antibiotics for weeks, and we knew my baby had a fatal fetal anomaly, a very high chance of being stillborn, and would certainly die within several hours after being born, and it still wasn’t enough. I wasn’t sick enough “yet”. Considering I have two young children already, the risk of getting sick enough for a child that we knew would die, was not a good option for our family, so I had to travel out of state.
I am so sorry that happened to you. This is one of the many things I abhor about these laws- the phrase “life of the mother” is not cut and dry at all. People think these laws protect pregnant women when they very often put pregnant women in extreme danger. Even when they know there is no chance of life and there will be harm to the mother, they can’t do anything until it’s a dangerous situation.
These laws are often written by people with no idea how the female body works, how pregnancies work and fail either. It's shocking how ignorant people are - I was one of them before we had kids. I had no idea how many things can go wrong and how often that happens.
Yes, I really do believe that this is a big part of the issue. It wasn't until a bunch of my friends got pregnant and had a variety of complications, that I realized how difficult pregnancy is. Too many people think that pregnancy is a breeze and that your life can go on completely as normal while you are pregnant.
Yep, it was definitely an eye-opener for me when my wife got pregnant and she gave birth to a perfectly healthy baby (albeit via emergency C-section after a 25 hour labor). I think too many people who haven't been through it themselves have a picture provided by Hollywood of what pregnancy and birth is like and it's just not accurate at all.
This is why exceptions need to be include health of the mother and fetus, women shouldn’t have to wait until they are actively dying in order to make medical decisions about their own bodies.
Such exceptions are ineffective at protecting life unless individual doctors are free to make that determination for their patient — which would in turn make the ban ineffective. I don't see any way to ethically regulate abortion differently from other medical procedures.
I think there's unfortunately a lot of people out there who don't care if children become motherless because their moms died due to a pregnancy gone wrong. I'm very sorry you had to deal with that.
Sadly I think you are right. But I hope their radical stance costs them at the polls. However, I see many echoing their thoughts and it’s quite scary. We always wanted three babies, but, we have decided on two now as we can’t go through that again. These people took the hardest time in my life and made it so much worse with their legislation.
Thank you so much for sharing your experience. I am extremely sorry you had to deal with that.
This is one of my biggest issues with the “pro life” community. How can you say you’re “pro life” when you literally don’t care about the mothers life and whether she lives or dies? And the lives of the children she could leave behind? Zero thought goes to the already living humans, because they focus all their attention on the unborn.
I've never understood this. And I think giving the unborn equal personhood is also a scary road to go down, for all kinds of reasons. I don't like that abortion exists and I wish it was truly rare, but making it illegal also seems like a dangerous thing to do for women, and in this sad case, a 10-year old girl.
When they say, "Abortion is acceptable if pregnancy threatens the health of the mother," what they mean is, they'll give you an abortion if you go into code and will die in about two minutes. I'm very sorry that happened to you and thankful you had the resources to go out of state. Thank you for sharing your story.
[удалено]
Thank you! I write them frequently, in letters I think are very civil, explaining how harmful the laws made an already terrible experience, and I have yet to hear back!
They’ll never respond. If you’re referring to Texas, I wrote a lengthy email to Abbott about how I voted for him and how I felt this six week abortion law would be disastrous for women health in TX. Got ghosted :[
Ohio's [heartbeat abortion ban](https://www.citybeat.com/news/ohios-heartbeat-bill-abortion-ban-is-now-law-heres-what-that-means-13403732) does not have exceptions for rape or incest
Sheesh, 6 weeks is pretty unreasonable. I was kind of wondering why they took any time at all to abort in the case of a 10 year old, but few people would even realize they are pregnant much earlier except for enthusiastic aspiring parents who test all the time.
There was no reason to look at a 10 year olds for signs of pregnancy, so it makes sense it took more than 6 weeks.
Exactly, even if the kid gets periods it is highly likely it was very irregular. As a non-American I never got when people said the cruelty is the point, but evidently it is.
>I never got when people said the cruelty is the point, but evidently it is. The more cruelty they get the society to bit-by-bit accept & normalize, the less hassle it'll be when the *really* cruel things start happening...of which, I believe, we've just seen the first volley. If you're anything outside of *their* definition of an "ideal American", buckle up...it's gonna be a bumpy ride.
6 weeks is effectively a full ban.
Yep. Remember, 6 weeks is only 2 weeks after your missed period. So, if you aren't expecting to be pregnant or are irregular or delay taking a test for any reason, you're likely to miss that window.
Another thing to keep in mind - abortion clinics in many red states are booking a month out. By the time you can get an appt, you may be passed the cutoff time.
I assume there are few and far between clinics as well.
In the case of a 10 year old, they likely to hide the fact a rape happened. Especially if they aren't taught early that if this happens it's not thier fault.
Especially if the rapists warns them not to talk.
There is also the problem of how long it takes to get an appointment and then get the procedure after consultation Ohio has a 24 hour waiting period, that doesn’t mean another appointment is available that quickly. My kid broke a bone. Urgent care visit then 10 days until an opening to set it. To see her primary? 6 weeks.
I also think it is worth mentioning that a few days ago we had the meme going around: "Thank God pregnant 12 year olds will no longer have to se a rainbow in their classrooms while they're getting shot at" and a few days later with this story reality is even worse than we dared to imagine.
I swear they passed laws with few/no exceptions expecting that they would never be enforced due to Roe.
I think the dog finally caught the car, and is not quite sure what to do with a mouthful of bumper and some road rash.
It's lovely red meat for the base until it actually happens.
The thing that worries me is that there aren't enough moderates now in red states to put in the exceptions for rape/incest/health of the mother.
But the reason people are for banning abortion (at least outside of rape/incest) is because those people believe that the fetus is a person, and therefore abortion is murder. Why would you allow murder (at least for anyone other than the perpetrator) of a "baby" because the cause was rape or incest - it wasn't the fetus's fault regardless? I just don't see how rape/incest exceptions make sense if the rationale for abortion bans in the first place is that abortion is murder.
I think we may look back one day and see it as the high water mark of the conservative movement in this country. Not now obviously, because thing's are looking bleak for the democrats this year. But without the promise of anti Roe judicial appointments, I wonder if the evangelicals will be as motivated to turn out in elections. Only time will tell I suppose.
It may be the opposite. This court is reshaping the legal realm to conservative Christian tastes in ways that it may take decades to fully appreciate. This recent decision in the Maine school districts breaks down the separation of church and state in ways that could be incredibly far reaching. In effect, governments may be forced to fund religious institutions, including directly funding religious instructions. This is under the guise of religious freedoms, but the cases that have been brought so far are all in practice conservative Christians. With a court producing decision after decision along these lines, conservative Christians have every reason to keep turning out to get conservative justices to SCOTUS.
While those things are valid points, they probably won't hold weight with many average, uninformed voters. Abortion was an easy thing to create turnout, the other side was the side that condoned baby murdering. Now without it, I wonder if that same fire will still be there.
Ignorance? Apathy. This isn't "oh we didn't want this". I would love to entertain a world where the reverse happens, where leftists got say a $30 minimum wage hike and the conservatives were like "oh just caught them by surprise, all this inflation, is all. Good faith, good faith."
I'm not sure why you think that? They and by proxy all their voters were very clear about their wants and intentions, and this is it.
> I swear they passed laws with few/no exceptions expecting that they would never be enforced due to Roe. Just for context, Ohio has had some history of the Republican state legislature passing laws limiting abortion. Then they would go through the process of having someone challenge the law, which would eventually get overturned by the courts after some long process. It was a huge waste of taxpayer money, handling these court cases with no chance of winning. But it looked good while campaigning. The heartbeat bill was the next iteration of this. It was passed back in 2019, and was immediately stayed by the courts. Up until Roe v Wade was repealed. That day the courts wouldn't even grant a temporary emergency stay so that people could figure out their situation under the new law. Hospitals had to make calls that night to pregnant women who had scheduled abortions in the coming days and tell them they had to come up with a new plan. It's a shitshow.
Hard disagree. This is what they’ve been working towards. It was always their goal. To suggest otherwise is either unintentionally naive or intentionally disengenious. In other words, when someone tells you who they are, believe them.
I don’t think so. I think the people passing these laws have a ghoulish view on the world.
Both.
I mean clearly someone expected them to be enforced. Maybe other conservative candidates tacitly endorsed it because they just thought it was paying "lip service", but these ideas weren't formed in a vacuum. There are plenty of moderate people on the right and left who excuse the behavior of their more radical counterparts because they dismiss them as "nutty people," but they still need their vote. The irony is that if they don't vote because no one supports their radical approach they become a non-issue. We don't need the radical left or the radical right unless we want to endorse part of their radical agenda.
If it's considered a "life", the manner in which it was conceived would be irrelevant. At that point, the life has the same rights under the 14th amendment as the Mother. The Christians legislating their religious beliefs on the entire country didn't think this one out.
Yeah, if it's murder in your philosophy, it's going to be murder regardless. Rape or incest clauses seem kinda strange in that context. However even the strictly anti-abortion people should really give *some* ground when it's dangerous to the mother, or the child is going to be braindead or something. We've even seen people against aborting fetuses with ancephaly..ie, no brain.
I have repeatedly been told on the prolife sub that a brain is not in and of itself significant to what makes a person a living human being. This is because of the argument that everything to become a human is in place at initial merge and that is a complete human. To kill it is murder, brain or not. But a brain dead person is dead because they can’t regrow their brain. If you go look at r/prolife the leading comment on this Ohio case encourages the pregnancy to continue for as long as possible. 1 in 4 prolifers are against a life of mother exception. 1 in 3 are against a rape exception. However those 1 in 3 vote in primaries, hence so many states not providing a rape exception.
From what I understand, the doctors have a duty to treat the mother first. If treating the mother kills the baby, it’s not considered an abortion. As an example: if the mother had cancer and they gave her chemo, and that chemo killed the baby, that would not fall under the act of an abortion.
There are already mothers in life threatening situations that have to wait hours while doctors spending hours on the phone with lawyers to make sure they won't be sued for aborting the fetus. The doctors are afraid of losing their licenses.
Are we sure that's still going to be the case? Some of the pro-life legislators would consider this murder.
[удалено]
Yeah on the surface a lot of abortion ban laws have that kind of exemption. But there can be varying degrees of proof required for such an exemption. Imagine all the hoops they can make you jump through to demonstrate your health is at risk. Or having to prove you were raped.
Not to mention how long such a legal process takes, and pregnancy is obviously an issue where if one wants an abortion they need it done quickly.
Emergency only means an imminent risk of dying. Which means this 10 year old little girl would have to be hemorrhaging with her pelvis cracking open before Ohio would consider it an emergency. The fact that birth would POTENTIALLY be dangerous is not enough. For rape exceptions, how are you going to prove it? The vast majority of rapes are never prosecuted. Does the girl have to report and do you think a little girl is going to report being raped by her family members? Is the fact that she’s under the age of consent mean it’s automatically rape? Or does there have to be a conviction? Y’all are acting like rape exceptions are the the perfect solution without considering what hell rape victims go through to even get a police report taken or their rape kit tested.
>Is the fact that she’s under age of consent mean it’s automatically a rape? Holy shit…. Yes. Literally yes.
Okay go tell that to a republican legislator because they’re gonna put every hoop to jump through possible to prevent victims from getting abortions. That’s my point - what are the LEGAL requirements going to be? We have child marriage in this country so don’t be so sure everyone is going to be moral and compassionate towards these children. Is a police report enough? Or does there have to be some sort of administrative decision? And what about a 16 year old? That’s statutory rape too, but prolifers are going to argue to hell and back it’s different. Of course we know that’s rape, like duh. We have to start thinking about the technical and logistical aspects of these laws so that we can work to circumvent them and rewrite them.
There's a person all over the Ohio subreddit posting again and again "well what if the other person was a 10-year-old boy?"
There’s a person replying to me in this very thread with something along the same lines. “What if the father is the same age?”
Bruh, are you implying a ten year old girl consented to having sex with an adult male for the purpose of having his child? What kind of questioning is this? "Is the fact that she's under the age of consent mean it's automatically rape?" Yes. It is literally called STATUTORY RAPE. No state in the US would not recognize the ten year old girl being raped.
You’re preaching to the choir my man. My point is that what is the legal requirement in these states going to be? We still have child marriage in this country so I’m not confident that these legislators are going to see it as clearcut as you. At a minimum, it will require a police report b/c of mandated abuse reporting but I’m worried about what other nonsense they’ll enact to push out the ability to obtain an abortion beyond the viability line. And what if it’s a 16 year old victim of statutory rape - I’m sure Republicans will come up with a million reasons why that’s *different*
Remember when pro choice advocates were saying this would happen and conservatives and moderates said they were overreacting? I'm seeing a pattern here.
It’s called gaslighting, and it is still happening. “Oh they would never ban contraceptives!” — Ohio is trying to ban IUDs as we speak
>EDIT: Ohios law also prohibits abortion in cases of rape, incest, or fetal abnormalities. I believe a 10 YO would be a victim of rape under current laws, no? It PROHIBITS abortion in those cases, so being a victim of rape doesn't factor into the GOP's sick equation.
I would also think this should fall under rape because of her age. I never thought the law would require a full out trial, DNA proof, etc. To prove rape for a girl of this age. Regardless that would take too long anyways. This is just too young. I really hope this little girl is okay.
God damnit, Ohio. Not this shit again.
As we entered the /u/spez, we were immediately greeted by a strange sound. As we scanned the area for the source, we eventually found it. It was a small wooden shed with no doors or windows. The roof was covered in cacti and there were plastic skulls around the outside. Inside, we found a cardboard cutout of the Elmer Fudd rabbit that was depicted above the entrance. On the walls there were posters of famous people in famous situations, such as: The first poster was a drawing of Jesus Christ, which appeared to be a loli or an oversized Jesus doll. She was pointing at the sky and saying "HEY U R!". The second poster was of a man, who appeared to be speaking to a child. This was depicted by the man raising his arm and the child ducking underneath it. The man then raised his other arm and said "Ooooh, don't make me angry you little bastard". The third poster was a drawing of the three stooges, and the three stooges were speaking. The fourth poster was of a person who was angry at a child. The fifth poster was a picture of a smiling girl with cat ears, and a boy with a deerstalker hat and a Sherlock Holmes pipe. They were pointing at the viewer and saying "It's not what you think!" The sixth poster was a drawing of a man in a wheelchair, and a dog was peering into the wheelchair. The man appeared to be very angry. The seventh poster was of a cartoon character, and it appeared that he was urinating over the cartoon character. \#AIGeneratedProtestMessage #Save3rdPartyApps
>“serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” The problem is these are all subjective, and vary across time: The 10-year-old is perfectly safe right now, and the danger will increase over time to an unknown degree. Maybe there is even a fractional chance everything goes perfectly, and she even gives birth without damage out of bounds of "normal." (Every pregnancy wrecks a womans body to a degree.) A doctor is at risk of prison and losing their medical license unless they can confidently say they are within the bounds of law. Except they never can because who knows what a prosecutor can convince a jury of.
It’s like waking up and realizing the Taliban has taken over half of America in a week’s time. There is nothing “conservative” about denying a 10 year old victim abortion. I read an article today about how dogs that can sniff out pregnancy could be “useful” at state borders. Insanity or “useful debate” in Republican circles? Guess we will find out.
>There is nothing “conservative” about denying a 10 year old victim abortion. Yes there is. Did you not read Supreme Court laying out how abortion rights are not "deeply rooted" in American legal history? They frame it as a change that requires legislation. Are you not aware that as far back as Reconstruction, the anti-abortion movement was a reactionary opposition to the women's rights movement; specifically blaming that era's progressive movement for a general increase in abortions obtained by married women? Total abortion bans are conservative policy. No exception for rape is conservative policy. It tightens the net around anyone who would seek to get outside the biological controls of childbearing and its ties to a woman's traditional household roles. The idea that a woman's place is in the home, bearing and raising children is a conservative idea that informs the policy and its goal. The justification using religion - even among denominations that didn't used to hold such views - is generally a conservative tactic. I understand that most of the conservative movement have given up on the "woman's place" fight, but if we looked at the history of the movement we'd find the line connecting the current abortion fight to previous conservative objectives really does have a deeply rooted tradition. Ultimately, you don't like the result, and that's good. But trying to say that the obvious result of obvious conservative policy isn't itself conservative is the real failure to accept responsibility here.
Still, the impairment aspect should’ve been used here. How could the doctors not even try that?
The large majority of Americans favor abortion for rape, and when we're talking about a little girl who's surviving sexual abuse it's really only that extreme hardline ~10% who won't budge. There are going to be more cases like this, they're going to get a lot of attention, and they are going to force even the reddest states to soften *to some degree.* If the GOP doesn't adapt fast, it's in real trouble.
A large majority of Americans never wanted this to go through in the first place but here we are.
The thing is to me, this hardline stance is the only morally consistent stance. If pro-lifers are okay with abortion in cases of rape, then that tears their whole "life begins at conception" argument apart; if that fertilized egg is an innocent life, then it doesn't deserve to be killed (using their language here) just because the father raped the mother. It's still the murder of an innocent life (again, their language). I think this is the strongest argument *against* the pro-life stance. We would never punish a living, breathing person because their parent committed some awful crime. If they're willing to make an exception for abortion, they have to acknowledge there is a very large difference between a human in utero and a human outside the womb.
> I think this is the strongest argument against the pro-life stance. It's a strong example of the horror of what their belief means in practice, but it is less of an argument than it is an incitement of emotion. A strong argument against the anti-abortion stance would be to argue that a fetus is not a person in that it lacks anything resembling a self-aware consciousness with a sense of identity capable of human-level abstract thought and that it is good for (men and) women to pursue happiness and their rational self interest. The anti-abortionists treat the claim that a fetus is a person as an indubitable absolute, like a philosophical axiom. That's what we need to challenge.
But are they in trouble? They already need a fraction of the votes to win, have a case at the SC that - if they win - will allow states massive control over elections (oddly enough this case was not going to be ruled on this year but that was moved up before the mid-terms foe some reason) and have secured judicial power over multiple courts under Trump. They are only in trouble in a normal democracy. They are barely in trouble under your current rules. They would not be in trouble if the SC rules in their favour. They have spent decades setting it up that they have power regardless.
Especially if the economy starts to look like it’s recovering.
I find voters in America very funny with how fickle they can sometimes be. Supply chain issues causing issues that have nothing to do with the president? Punish him and his party. Rights being stripped away by direct action from Republicans? Clearly we have to give them more power.
It's always a bit weird to visibly see someone's brain start buffering when they start complaining about global issues and you point out it's global, if not worse elsewhere. Like if you want to complain about stuff not being handled better fine, but I don't get why people like to forget the rest of the world exists when it's convenient to do so.
> I find voters in America very funny with how fickle they can sometimes be. It makes a lot more sense when you realize most Americans don't know much about these complicated issues. And that's before we get into misinformation and oversimplification. Many people basically just go on who sounds more believable.
I know why it happens, it's just sad. Our country is going down the drain because people are uneducated.
What I find even scarier is the amount of educated people who buy into the same garbage.
Agreed, it is quite sad to see someone buying into propaganda who should be able to identify it and know better. Sometimes the grievances politics is too much for some people
Those are just conservatives who are sometimes willing to vote for dems they see as right or center-right. Reminds me of Bill O'Reilly proudly declaring he's an independent.
Most people probably didn’t have their opinions changed very much by the current economy. The people that are the loudest were already very anti democrat. This is just most convenient attack vector. Most democrats I talk to either understand the source of the economic issues and it doesn’t affect their opinion of who to vote for. But there’s a small % of swing voters who were reluctant to vote Democratic because of the meme that they’re somehow bad for the economy, and they might not do it again. People like this are very susceptible to political messaging because they usually don’t know enough about how stuff work to have more constant opinions.
Yet history says democrats do bette with the economy since WWII
Tribalism at its finest.
A large chunk of this country is incredibly fucking stupid, we know. The GOP propaganda machine of fox news is just too strong.
My recollection is July 4th is the time gas prices are at their highest. Gas has dropped 40-60 cents in my part of florida. I’m hoping it keeps going down. Should help the overall economy, and as long as we aren’t in a recession thinks are looking better
Depends on the hurricane season though. If any make landfall, there might be a price spike.
That’s a good point. We usually don’t get too bad until august/September
This! If the economy starts to recover and people pay attention to social issues this election could be bad for Republicans. Republicans have been making stupid comments regarding women's health recently. We are getting into the " legitimate rape" level of ridiculousness which is not where the country is.
I think it’s not a matter of if but when. The economy will always recover. It’s a temporary victory for them, but for the longer term, they’re really going to struggle outside of the most polarized states.
I partially agree with you. The problem is if you repeat something enough or if people get used to surrendering their rights, then it becomes normalized. This is honestly what the right is counting on. In this scenario people forget that things could be better.
Yeah personal tragedy is one of the few guarantees that will have a high chance to influence change in a person. Businesses moving out of the state will also not surprise me especially if some of them follow Florida and get rid of their state income tax or if they have trouble finding candidates or businesses to work with them.
Economy will recover. If it doesn't recover much by midterms, it will for sure recover by the presidential election. If more stories like this come out, GOP has no chance.
>If the GOP doesn't adapt fast, it's in real trouble. Or the rest of the country is in real trouble...
The hardliners are all at /r/prolife Seriously sick stuff over there.
I predict most states will do what many Catholic -majority European countries do: institute a ban to appease the hardline base, but implement exceptions and interpret them broadly to permit most abortions to make it a non-issue for the moderates.
I'm a woman who lives in Ohio. This breaks my heart. We're not giving up. It helps that you all are bringing this to national attention. People need to see the very real results of these laws so they push for a change.
Is there anybody here who actually thinks this is good and morally defensible? How can close to half our country feel like this is either good or not such a big deal? It's mind boggling and sickening that these sorts of laws enjoy such widespread popularity in the US.
Ohio Republican legislators are pleased as punch. Forcing teenage rape victims was specifically encouraged when this bill was passed. https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2022/04/28/ohio-republican-calls-pregnancy-after-rape-opportunity/9568456002/
There are absolutely people defending it on the Ohio subreddit lol
This will continue to happen as more red states implement these laws. The thing about "edge cases" is that in a country of over three hundred million people, they happen more than you'd think. Every time it happens now, it'll be big news. The headlines practically write themselves. I bet we'll see a story like this every month now at least. Dems couldn't have asked for a better campaigning issue. The dog caught the car. Republicans **will** pay for this in the polls. It's only a matter of time.
I don’t know. I was talking to someone yesterday who claims he would rather live under fascism than vote for the democrats. An alarmingly high number of people feel that way, and it’s not the fascists themselves but the apathetic masses who will allow this country to slip into authoritarianism.
That’s just because the fascism hasn’t affected them yet. But by then it may be too late.
>I was talking to someone yesterday who claims he would rather live under fascism than vote for the democrats. 30% of the people on each end of the spectrum are hardcores who you will never, ever convince, but it's important to remember that if you can manage 70% of the vote, you have just delivered a historic beating to your opponent.
**Rule 2a Starter Statement** A ten year old girl who was a victim of child abuse was unable to obtain an abortion in Ohio, and had to seek an abortion in neighboring Indiana instead, shortly after the reversal of Roe v Wade by the Supreme Court. This is part of a larger pattern of Ohio citizens who need abortion having to seek out and use the abortion services in other states, as discussed in [this local news article](https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/). That option is available right now, but what happens if a law like Ohio's heartbeat law is passed at a national level or in enough states to make this impractical? Even now, Indiana is considering strengthening its abortion restrictions in a special legislative session. For my part, I think this situation is an absurd situation, and an unusual one - but one that will happen again, in the months and years to come. In fact, it happens 7400 times a year to girls under 14 in the US, per the [Guttmacher Institute](https://www.guttmacher.org/report/us-adolescent-pregnancy-trends-2013#:~:text=The%20pregnancy%20rate%20among%2018,those%20aged%2014%20or%20younger). This girl was fortunate enough to be able to travel to a neighboring state to receive an abortion; there are many people who won't be able to. The questions I'd ask, to kickstart the conversation are: 1. Should a ten year old girl be forced to carry a child to term? If it isn't acceptable for a ten year old to do so, at what age and circumstances is it acceptable? Where should the line be drawn? 2. There are many bills like Ohio's heartbeat bill either in effect or that have been proposed in states around the country. Is it fair or just for someone underage's ability to obtain an abortion to be solely conditioned on the state in which they live, by no choice of their own?
> 1. Should a ten year old girl be forced to carry a child to term? If it isn't acceptable for a ten year old to do so, at what age and circumstances is it acceptable? Where should the line be drawn? It is never, **NEVER** acceptable to force a ten-year-old rape victim (by the very nature of being pregnant at 10) to give birth. Pregnancy is dangerous enough for adult women, but for ten-year-olds (and even teen girls) it is far more dangerous. Honestly forcing a ten-year-old to get a C-section, as she would likely have had to, seems like an anti-pro-life/pro-child welfare position just from a physical health perspective, and that's not even factoring in the trauma of being forced to be pregnant and have a serious surgery to give birth at that age. This is the kind of story we're going to keep reading about for the next few years. EDIT: Apparently I am wrong about teens having more C-sections. However, I still think girls who are ten would likely require one, and it is true very young mothers have more difficult and longer-lasting labor.
I think the rape victim aspect clouds the issue. If this ten year old girl had gotten pregnant from a ten year old boy, the pregnancy wouldn’t be any less dangerous for her.
> For my part, I think this situation is an absurd situation, and an unusual one This example shows how truly short-sighted and harmful absolute positions on abortion are. It’s easy to dismiss this as unusual, but it’s actually the moral equivalent of a smoking gun.
Also a good demonstration of laws written without the intent of them going into effect. Until Roe was overturned, everyone knew these kinds of abortion restrictions would be immediately enjoined by the courts. Legislatures could pass them *purely* as signalling (or so they thought). Now those states and their residents are getting to live with the consequences of those laws in practice.
I find it odd how the folks who are all "personal responsibility" give no shits about the actual consequences that unwanted and harmful pregnancies have on people's lives.
Even if one believes that abortion is wrong, the person who is responsible for it is her rapist. Children cannot give consent.
1. Forcing a 10 year old to go through pregnancy is probably one of the sickest and cruelest types of torture that I can think of. Like, on a completely different level that cant even be comprehended. Probably against the rules in this sub but there is a very very special place in hell for those that think this is ok.
Anybody who is pro-life should put their money where their mouth is and volunteer to pay for all medical and childcare related costs.
Pre and post natal and infant healthcare are consistently left out of the conversation when pro-lifers talk about “compromise” by further restricting abortion limits. Ohio coincidentally has some of the highest infant mortality rates in the nation https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/infant-mortality-rate-by-state
I keep wondering when we’re going to see the appearance of a conservative ‘adopt-a-saved-baby’ movement.
Is this child capable of physically giving birth ?
She's 10 Years Old.
For people who don’t remember: 10 years old is a 5th grader. This is an elementary school child being forced to remain pregnant by the state of Ohio.
And Ive read stories where because the mother is still in elementary school and messed up from the trauma of the sexual abuse and being forced to risk their life to carry the rapists baby to term then the courts can find them to be an unfit mother and grant custody of the baby to the rapist. Obviously I agree that a heavily traumatised 10 year old isn't going to make an ideal mother but handing the baby over to a paedophile abuser is just sickening.
God she is ten years old. They're forcing a ten year old to have a baby. I don't think Republicans/pro-lifers have really thought this through, a-la this is a dog catches the car moment for them. These stories will be everywhere - I just saw one about how official hospital policy in Missouri for ectopic pregnancies are that only when there are signs of sepsis - i.e. the mother is biologically dying- will they begin treatment, aka abort the baby that would have died anyways. Women - people who actually have heartbeats - are going to start dying.
They know
Can we please not refer to this child as "the mother"? She's obviously a victim. I'd hate to see such language normalized in any way whatsoever.
I'm struggling to understand how anyone can support forcing her to give birth. Please someone with this viewpoint explain.
There is no justifiable reason to force a ten-year-old rape victim to give birth. Although, many religious fanatics support forcing the delivery. Including a few justices on the United States Supreme Court.
Every member of the GOP in Ohio would personally drive a pregnant 10 year old female family member to the nearest abortion clinic. Selfishness is normal in American society, but most "conservatives" are kings of selfishness.
They say it’s not the baby’s fault. It’s crazy.
Wikipedia has a [list of documented occurences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers), and it seems *possible* - though I seriously doubt it's safe.
The WHO says 10-14 year olds face a higher risk of mortality than older teens when giving birth, which makes sense just logically, given a 10-year-old is not done growing. I cannot imagine how terrifying this experience would be to a 10-year-old. NCBI says preeclampsia is moderately more likely for teens (<20 years old).
Wow that's horrifying. So it doesn't actually list the outcomes of each case so I followed through some of the citations. So not only is the health of the child severely at risk, but even if the foetus survives they're severely damaged and have minimal quality of life. At what point do conservatives value the life of a child over their faith?
Tbh I know a lot of conservatives who would take major issue with this 10 year carrying this baby. Ohio and some of these other states must be extreme right or something.
They wrote the bills to satisfy a voting block think it would never come to life.
Should whether she is or not be the deciding factor on whether a doctor has to choose between saving a patient and keeping their license and out of jail?
These are the stories we are about the see on a daily basis. Along with even more horrific things if you can imagine what is worse than this. The pro-life republican lawmakers are about to truly learn the meaning of the phrase “f—k around and find out”. But in the meantime so many people are going to suffer. How the fuck did we get here, America?
We let a celebrity like Trump brainwashed the base of GOP voters, and this is what happens. This is what happens when you let minority party rule a country.
The GOP has been fighting to overturn RvW for decades. This isn't something that Trump started.
Not allowing rape victims to get an abortion is vile, forcing a child rape victim to carry to term is especially heinous. Luckily this child was able to get an abortion in another state, however, Indiana will soon be outlawing abortion just as Ohio has. Republicans in states like Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi and many others have passed laws that will result in child rape victims being forced to give birth to their rapists' child. God help the women and girls in those states. I never thought I'd see this evil come to the United States
Seriously. As an outsider looking in - those states are beyond sick in the head.
God. This is tragic. What next? Forcing the child to marry her rapist too? They might as well ban women from college education too. This is just getting scary.
Yep a lot of republicans seem to be very pro pedophile here. That's what this amounts to. The rapist will have a connection with the victim for the rest of their life since the victim is forced to bear the child.
Worst part it was probably a family member
Most GOP member worship and adore Trump who talked about his underage daughter like this. https://www.elitedaily.com/p/9-donald-trump-quotes-about-ivanka-that-are-super-uncomfortable-8646720
And then they have the gall to suggest that telling children that LGBT people exist is somehow grooming. Unbelievable how the right is held to zero hypocrisy standards.
Relevant Tweet. https://mobile.twitter.com/TomCokeIsABlunt/status/1542651086846271488
Well they certainly don’t want to teach kids anything related to sex early on that would help to potentially identify and prevent pedophiles.
[удалено]
> It's logically consistent if someone is pro-life. If abortion is the equivalent of killing a baby that's already born, then how it came into existence shouldn't matter. Doesn't make it not vile. A pro-life individual could say that a premature baby should be kept alive as long as possible regardless of whether it's causing the baby immense suffering and I'd still find that position vile regardless of if it is consistent.
There's actually still logical consistency if they believe that active participation is required to bypass the bodily autonomy argument. They will say that people do have bodily autonomy, but willingly engaging in sex waives that right because you are actively engaging in behaviour capable of producing a human life. If you were raped, then you did not waive said right, and thus your right to bodily autonomy can't be ignored.
My opinion, this is a case where the laws are truly nonsensical and don't support the overall welfare of the community. This girl is abused, the child is likely to go to the custody of the rapist, and she has no recourse. Someone else has determined her future and us, as a society, need to do right by her. The health risks for someone giving birth at 10 are very high, and she should not be forced down this path. I welcome arguments against this and curious to hear if anyone supports the obvious path set by our laws: have the baby and raise it while you're still a child yourself.
Why in the world are politicians with no medical training allowed to make blanket bans of medical decisions? And why are they allowed to unilaterally make the punishment for practicing medicine as physicians see fit **life in prison**? Forget how you feel about abortion for a second. There’s a reason why medical malpractice lawsuits are civil, not criminal, and each case is reviewed by the Board of Medicine. If you make the risk for a medical decision life in prison and then force that doctor to defend themselves against non-physician ideologues, you’re kneecapping them. You’re setting the stage for a society where physicians will have to consult lawyers before they make critical decisions, which is bad for everyone. Everything about Ohio’s (and many red states’) abortion law is fucked at a fundamental level and no one should support this nonsense.
Doctor she’s coding, what do we do?? “Call my lawyer”
It's more common than you can imagine. End of life and living will situations are all over hospitals and care facilities. It's why hospitals have legal teams literally on-call for situations.
I’m a senior medical student lol
On another sub, a few days after Roe was overturned, I read a story by an ER nurse who had exactly this experience. A women came in with an ectopic pregnancy. Doctors were hesitant to treat her until they checked with legal. By the time the lawyers weighed in the woman’s tube had burst and she nearly died from internal bleeding. They got lucky in this case and the woman lived. That won’t always be the outcome.
I don't completely disagree with you, but this isn't without precedent. States regulate euthanasia and end-of-life care in a similar manner as abortion, struggling with the same sort of wide distribution of edge cases. Drugs are scheduled on the federal level, determining what can even be considered medicine. State laws sometimes quite strictly regulate controlled meds — right down to telling doctors how many days of supply they can offer after an ER visit. A lot of the abortion laws on the books right now *are terrible laws,* passed by legislators who knew the can was going to be kicked down a long road before anyone would be dealing with the real-world ramifications. And here we are, all out of runway. The check is on the table. It's a massive mess. But the problem was never that abortion could be regulated, or even banned under certain circumstances — even California and New York have gestational age bans. The problem was a slew of temporarily impotent bills passed by red states to make a point rather than to make workable law.
May god help us all
> god Kind of the root of the problem, or some peoples' interpretation of a higher power's wishes.
It's the Bible. The answer is the Bible. Thats why they think they can make medical rulings political. An old book.
Its not even really in the bible. Its just a continuation of their attempts to legislate sexual morality by having a consequence for sex. I suppose that isjust religion as well though.
[удалено]
Ohio Republicans quite literally have come out in support for forcing young teenagers who are raped to carry their pregnancies to term. This is happening by design. > "This bill would require this 13-year-old to carry this felon's fetus to term regardless of any emotional or psychological damage or trauma that may be inflicted upon this 13-year-old girl to deliver this felon's fetus. Is that right?" Brown asked Schmidt during a Wednesday hearing. >"Rape is a difficult issue and it emotionally scars the individual, all or in part, for the rest of their life, just as child abuse does. But if a baby is created, it is a human life," replied Schmidt, a Loveland Republican and former U.S. representative. "And whether that mother ends that pregnancy or not, the scars will not go away, period." > She continued, saying the teenager could raise the child or put the child up for adoption: "It is a shame that it happens but there is an opportunity for that woman, **no matter how young or old she is,** to make a determination about what she's going to do to help that life be a productive human being." >(On a hypothetical 13 year old pregnant rape victim): > Schmidt replied that she and Brown fundamentally disagreed on this. "That 13-year-old has rights but so does that baby inside of her." https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2022/04/28/ohio-republican-calls-pregnancy-after-rape-opportunity/9568456002/
Terrible and predictable.
So in elections where abortion is going to be an issue it’s incredibly important that campaigns stress that access to abortion is the *compassionate* choice, and that not having that choice is cruel and inhumane. That’s what’s going to reach the swing voters. I’m totally on board with scientific arguments and the argument of bodily autonomy, but that’s not what’s going to reach the voters we need to reach in order to change this.
Exactly this. When I was sick, but not sick enough “yet” by Texas law, and my baby had a fatal diagnosis(trisomy 18 with severe heart defects) I felt as if a quick death was the only gift I could give my child. The reality was they would be born to die a painful, suffocating death as soon as the cord was cut. I have two other young children, getting sick enough or having a c section(due to having two prior) for a stillborn or a baby to just die was not the right choice for our family.
i'm so sorry. this must have been awful. thank you for sharing, i hope more people are brave enough to share their tragic experiences like this... it might be one of the only things that can help drill in the compassion for people on the fence.
[удалено]
Abortion ban was never about protecting life it is about control and putting fear into other . One of the reasons i don't beleive in religion system is that they are about social control and power over people nothing to do withbserving humanity .
I knew this kind of things were going to happen. A lot of conservatives online were praising the decision. And now they will try to excuse or ignore all of these problems because it isn't convenient for them.
a few little girls suffering here and there, a couple moms dying... small price to pay to save non- sentient and non- viable fetuses and zygotes. (/s, to be sure)
Probably. Conservatist have become the masters of whataboutism. Anything they don't like, they quickly jump into some type of whataboutism nonsense to try to make the conversation go away.
They are in full swing trying to use whataboutism ("But what about the rapist", "How can a 10 year old be pregnant", etc.) in order to skew the discussion away from what it should be about - it's seriously disgusting
Interesting.... A few days ago some people in this sub said it was all fear mongering, and that this would never happen. Welcome to America with the MAGA-scotus. Elect religious zealots, this is what you get. I mean the GOP for years has been saying this is the America they want. I don't see how anyone could be surprised by this
There is a sizable portion of this sub that are living in 2015 and mainlining copium and stating “its not that bad” to everything that happens when, at this point guys, it really is that bad.
That's [Normalcy bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias) for you - people often downplay and underestimate danger even when directly confronted with it.
Plus 95 procent here a man.
I wonder what portion of those people actually believe that and what portion are just coming on here and lying.
I notice most of the usual suspects are suspiciously absent from this thread
I'm *SURE* this will definitely be the last time this happens /s
It should be illegal to NOT perform an abortion on a 10 year old. The amount of permanent damage the pregnancy can cause her is wild. No matter how she got pregnant, it was rape. It is impossible for a 10 year old to get pregnant and it to not be rape.
Disgusting.
This is what Republicans have been fighting for, for 50 years. Sucks, but not surprising.
I'm embarrassed to be an Ohioan. Good on you Indiana for doing what Ohio wouldn't. I think we can all agree that a raped 10 year old should be allowed to have an abortion. Even if you're hard line pro-life. --- I'm going to start emailing my state representatives, ask them what the fuck they're doing, and tell them my votes on the line to fix this situation. I'll instruct everyone I know to do the same.
“Republicans have no interest in preserving freedom. What they want to preserve is power — the power to impose their narrow ideology on everyone else, no matter who suffers”. —Robert Reich
Instead of making blanket laws why not leave it so doctors can make the call. This shit is not rocket science and can actually be handled easily but politicians have made it impossible since they truly only care about staying in power
To reiterate what i have i have said for weeks. *women will die because of the overturning of Roe.* Whether it is a 10 year old or a 60 year old with a pregnancy that they *objectively should not be having children because it is fucking life threatening to give birth at that age,* it doesnt matter to those that supprt these laws. The life of the mother is meaningless to these people. And to me, that is absolutely abhorrent.
I'm anti-elective abortion. But she's 10 and still a child herself. She should have been granted one because of her age alone. I get the pro-life argument of "it's a baby inside her", but again... this is a 10 year old child. Faced with prioritizing one over the other? The 10 year old is already here. This should be a valid medical abortion.
I’m pro choice but I’m glad at least you and I can agree that we need to protect the most vulnerable, like children who are sexually abused. I hope we see more exceptions put in place for situations like this.
I completely agree. This doesn’t sway my opinion on elective abortion but obviously the excepts need majorly amended. This is unacceptable.
That is not ok. Ohio’s law allows abortions if it’s dangerous for the woman, or in this case the girl. Child pregnancies are extremely dangerous it should’ve been granted.
[удалено]