10 year old rape victim that couldn't get an abortion in Ohio. FAKE STORY? Maybe?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,486]

I’ll say it again. When you say a ten year old was raped weeks ago and there is no mention of a suspect people have doubts. They held back that information for a reason. The AG should have gotten all the facts before he went out there too.  

[TimHauck 2,905]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I’ll say it again. When you say a ten year old was raped weeks ago and there is no mention of a suspect people have doubts. They held back that information for a reason. 

What reason?

[nobody 2,687]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

It’s cute that you think only the left was “using it for politics.”

Of course they were, but it turns out it was a true story.  It shows the extremism of some of the new laws post Roe being overturned.

Also cute that you think the right was purely “looking into it.”  Nothing wrong with doing that if that’s all it was, but after like 2 days of “research” the right didn’t hesitate to call it “more lies from the left!!” etc.  They were most certainly “using it for politics” as well

Well when the Governor and AG of the state say there is no indication of an investigation, you'd think those would be decent sources.

It's all moot anyway.  I mean since we are apparently supposed to set policy off of this incident, they got the abortion, and they don't give a fock that they had to drive out of state as evidenced by them wanting nothing to do with the conversation.  Not to mention we don't even know if they could've had the abortion down the street from their apartment.

This is classic Tim.  Let's get spun up on this BS, so we don't need to address the real issues.  The real issue is that people don't care about this girl.  People aren't fighting for RvW because of 10 year old rape victims.  They just want people to have the freedom to get an abortion and are using this girl as some sort of martyr... against the family's wishes because they obviously don't want to be involved.  By using this as the rallying cry all you guys are doing is convincing me, someone who supports you - that it really didn't matter if it was overturned.

I support the damn cause, but not like this. You guys make me want to switch sides.  Just be honest.  All these games.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,486]

18 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

What reason?

To keep the attention where they wanted it. Now why don’t you tell me why there was no mention of a suspect if you doubt that? 

[TimHauck 2,905]

23 minutes ago, nobody said:

Well when the Governor and AG of the state say there is no indication of an investigation, you'd think those would be decent sources.

It's all moot anyway.  I mean since we are apparently supposed to set policy off of this incident, they got the abortion, and they don't give a fock that they had to drive out of state as evidenced by them wanting nothing to do with the conversation.  Not to mention we don't even know if they could've had the abortion down the street from their apartment.

This is classic Tim.  Let's get spun up on this BS, so we don't need to address the real issues.  The real issue is that people don't care about this girl.  People aren't fighting for RvW because of 10 year old rape victims.  They just want people to have the freedom to get an abortion and are using this girl as some sort of martyr... against the family's wishes because they obviously don't want to be involved.  By using this as the rallying cry all you guys are doing is convincing me, someone who supports you - that it really didn't matter if it was overturned.

I support the damn cause, but not like this. You guys make me want to switch sides.  Just be honest.  All these games.

I think the left does care about the girl.   But yes they were also using her to make a point.  The point is some of these post-RvW laws are insane, like the one in Ohio.  The fact that "we don't know" if she could have had the abortion down the street is exactly the problem.  It shouldn't even be a question.   I think the mother "wanting nothing to do with the conversation" had more to do with being in the country illegally and the rapist likely being her boyfriend than "not giving a fock that they had to drive out of state."

As discussed in the other thread, I even said I could be OK with some restrictions on abortion.   But as others have said most in the country agree that abortion should be allowed up to a certain point.  That point is debatable, but it is certainly longer than 6 weeks/as soon as a heartbeat is detected, and there should always be exceptions for rape and incest (which Ohio's law does not have) in addition to the health of the mother.

[TimHauck 2,905]

8 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

To keep the attention where they wanted it. Now why don’t you tell me why there was no mention of a suspect if you doubt that? 

My understanding is he had been identified prior to the lying claims, but they still had to serve the warrant.

[TBayXXXVII 2,552]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I think the left does care about the girl.   But yes they were also using her to make a point.  The point is some of these post-RvW laws are insane, like the one in Ohio.  The fact that "we don't know" if she could have had the abortion down the street is exactly the problem.  It shouldn't even be a question.   I think the mother "wanting nothing to do with the conversation" had more to do with being in the country illegally and the rapist likely being her boyfriend than "not giving a fock that they had to drive out of state."

As discussed in the other thread, I even said I could be OK with some restrictions on abortion.   But as others have said most in the country agree that abortion should be allowed up to a certain point.  That point is debatable, but it is certainly longer than 6 weeks/as soon as a heartbeat is detected, and there should always be exceptions for rape and incest (which Ohio's law does not have) in addition to the health of the mother.

Who's closer to what "should" be done, by what sounds like the majority of polls (even with the fact they always skew left), Republican's who are ok with abortions, but want a cut-off date, or Democrats who think abortions should be a right and the time is determined by the mother?

[nobody 2,687]

4 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I think the left does care about the girl.   But yes they were also using her to make a point.  The point is some of these post-RvW laws are insane, like the one in Ohio.  The fact that "we don't know" if she could have had the abortion down the street is exactly the problem.  It shouldn't even be a question.   I think the mother "wanting nothing to do with the conversation" had more to do with being in the country illegally and the rapist likely being her boyfriend than "not giving a fock that they had to drive out of state."

As discussed in the other thread, I even said I could be OK with some restrictions on abortion.   But as others have said most in the country agree that abortion should be allowed up to a certain point.  That point is debatable, but it is certainly longer than 6 weeks/as soon as a heartbeat is detected, and there should always be exceptions for rape and incest (which Ohio's law does not have) in addition to the health of the mother.

So we all agree it's a non-story in regards to RvW accept that states need to clarify their laws in the matter.  Whhop-de-doo.

And no, the left doesn't care about that girl because no one even wanted to explore why no one was going to jail over it because it might weaken the already terrible position that RvW is a tragedy because of this girl.

[TimHauck 2,905]

7 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Who's closer to what "should" be done, by what sounds like the majority of polls (even with the fact they always skew left), Republican's who are ok with abortions, but want a cut-off date, or Democrats who think abortions should be a right and the time is determined by the mother?

By these choices, Republicans, assuming the “cutoff date” is longer than 6 weeks.

[TimHauck 2,905]

6 minutes ago, nobody said:

So we all agree it's a non-story in regards to RvW accept that states need to clarify their laws in the matter.  Whhop-de-doo.

And no, the left doesn't care about that girl because no one even wanted to explore why no one was going to jail over it because it might weaken the already terrible position that RvW is a tragedy because of this girl.

They don’t just need to “clarify” their laws. Some of them need to change them.  Like Ohio at the bare minimum including exceptions for rape and incest which they don’t currently.

Well it turns out the doctor who made the original comment did in fact report it, so seems like she was confident it was being investigated.  She just didn’t make any additional comments to the media initially after people started questioning her story.

[TBayXXXVII 2,552]

7 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

By these choices, Republicans, assuming the “cutoff date” is longer than 6 weeks.

Which are the choices at hand.  So, instead of people condemning the Republican's, don't you think the people who should be condemned are the Democrats?

[MDC 7,471]

Anybody ask Gov. DeWine why he signed a ban that didn’t include an exception for rape? Did he want this kid to have to bear her rapist’s baby?

Gross.

[TimHauck 2,905]

5 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Which are the choices at hand.  

They're not though, because several of the newly effective abortion laws make abortion illegal from fertilization.

[Baker Boy 1,702]

It appears board Liberals are more concerned with a rape victim not being able to get an abortion than they are about about the actual rape of the victim.

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I’ll say it again. When you say a ten year old was raped weeks ago and there is no mention of a suspect people have doubts. They held back that information for a reason. The AG should have gotten all the facts before he went out there too.  

Read the article I posted

2 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

It appears board Liberals are more concerned with a rape victim not being able to get an abortion than they are about about the actual rape of the victim.

Who?

[MDC 7,471]

8 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

It appears board Liberals are more concerned with a rape victim not being able to get an abortion than they are about about the actual rape of the victim.

It appears board Conservatives are more concerned with the media than the fact that their laws would make a 10 y/o girl carry her rapist’s baby to term. 

[TimHauck 2,905]

25 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

It appears board Liberals are more concerned with a rape victim not being able to get an abortion than they are about about the actual rape of the victim.

 

Well looking back at the first posts after when the story was confirmed to be true, it appears the board conservatives (including yourself) were more concerned with the fact that the rapist was illegal than being grateful that the guy was caught.

 

On 7/13/2022 at 3:19 PM, TimmySmith said:

It appears that if true, there's a good shot the dude was an illegal.  I'd guess we won't hear much more about it.

 

On 7/13/2022 at 3:24 PM, RLLD said:

In a normal situation yes, only if the per was white would we hear about it at all.  But in this instance it would appear that abortion is a higher factor than the leftist desire to hate white people, I think in this instance that would throw the Hispanic or black guy under the bus.

 

On 7/13/2022 at 3:25 PM, TBayXXXVII said:

That's probably why it was unclear if the story was true or not.  My guess is that the girl might be illegal too.  As we move further, the fact that he is an illegal will go unmentioned while the 10-year will be prostituted among leftists.  Kind of ironic, isn't it?

 

On 7/13/2022 at 3:41 PM, Reality said:

Yup, they didn't want that getting out.

 

On 7/13/2022 at 4:04 PM, Baker Boy said:

Ohio 10-year-old's alleged rapist is Guatemalan illegal immigrant: ICE source

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ohio-10-year-olds-alleged-rapist-guatemalan-illegal-immigrant-ice-source

 

it appears the Left is more concerned with abortion than they are with the raping of a 10 year old girl or that the attacker was an illegal.

 

 

On 7/13/2022 at 5:45 PM, Djgb13 said:

That’s what I’ve been saying to ppl. The abortion part I KNOW is false. That’s a fact. Don’t know how they’ll run with this since it was an illegal immigrant who was released back into society after being caught 

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,552]

57 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

 

Well looking back at the first posts after when the story was confirmed to be true, it appears the board conservatives (including yourself) were more concerned with the fact that the rapist was illegal than being grateful that the guy was caught.

That's only because you don't get it.. well, concerning my post.  I was coming from the standpoint that they media and left were slow to let this out because of the girl and the rapist being illegals.  I also believe that they knew the little girl was pregnant before "six weeks and 3 days", but they needed to make sure not to let anything out until after that 6 week date, so they can say, "see, Republican's want to force this girl to have a baby".  I think the doctor used this poor girl as a pawn, the media backed the doctor up, and the politicians are prostituting the little girl.  All that, so that everyone in the country could be guilt tripped into letting less than 1% of all abortions being the driving force as to why abortions should not only be legal, but be a right.  It's all done that way as to cover up the fact that the girl and the rapist were illegals.  On top of that, the mother was ok with it, as long as she didn't get deported.  That guy didn't get arrested until AFTER the story came out, which was 2 weeks AFTER the abortion.

[TBayXXXVII 2,552]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

They're not though, because several of the newly effective abortion laws make abortion illegal from fertilization.

So you're saying that those 5 states are less likely to allow abortions to a certain point than the other liberal run states are from allowing to run to when ever the mother wants?

[TimHauck 2,905]

10 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

That's only because you don't get it.. well, concerning my post.  I was coming from the standpoint that they media and left were slow to let this out because of the girl and the rapist being illegals.  I also believe that they knew the little girl was pregnant before "six weeks and 3 days", but they needed to make sure not to let anything out until after that 6 week date, so they can say, "see, Republican's want to force this girl to have a baby".  I think the doctor used this poor girl as a pawn, the media backed her up, and the politicians are prostituting her.  All that, so that less everyone in the country could be guilt tripped into letting less than 1% of all abortions being the driving force as to why abortions should not only be legal, but be a right.  It's all done that way as to cover up the fact that the girl and the rapist were illegals.  On top of that, the mother was ok with it, as long as she didn't get deported.  That guy didn't get arrested until AFTER the story came out, which was 2 weeks AFTER the abortion.

Honestly your post wasn't as bad as the others, I almost didn't include it.

I don't really see how this story can be used to argue for all abortions being legal with no time limit..it's simply showing that some of the current laws such as the one in Ohio need to be changed.

We don't know when "they" knew she was pregnant, you're just speculating.   Based on the timeline we have, the doctor in particular was not made aware of the girl until she was past 6 weeks, and of course she was the reason the story got out in the first place.   But keep in mind Ohio's law is not based on a specific timeline anyway but rather when a heartbeat is detected.

Here is the timeline.  Clearly the investigation was proceeding prior to the "story coming out," it's just that mostly the people that needed to know about it were aware.

5/12: rape occurred

6/22: Columbus PD notified via child services from a report by the mother (so right about 6 weeks) and investigation begins

6/27: Dr. Bernard contacted (so after 6 weeks)

6/30: abortion performed

7/2: Bernard files terminated pregnancy form with the state

7/6: Fuentes was identified as rapist by the victim

7/11: Jesse Waters video from the OP

7/12: Fuentes confesses and is arrested

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/13/us/ohio-10-year-old-girl-columbus-man-charged-indiana-abortion/index.html

https://news.yahoo.com/indiana-dr-caitlin-bernard-reported-215920403.html

[TimHauck 2,905]

23 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

So you're saying that those 5 states are less likely to allow abortions to a certain point than the other liberal run states are from allowing to run to when ever the mother wants?

Not sure.

But it's more than 5 states.  I see 7 states where it is banned entirely (TX, OK, AR, MS, AL, SD,  MO) and 3 more where it is banned before around 6 weeks (OH, TN, SC)

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,552]

4 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Honestly your post wasn't as bad as the others, I almost didn't include it.

I don't really see how this story can be used to argue for all abortions being legal with no time limit..it's simply showing that some of the current laws such as the one in Ohio need to be changed.

We don't know when "they" knew she was pregnant, you're just speculating.   Based on the timeline we have, the doctor in particular was not made aware of the girl until she was past 6 weeks, and of course she was the reason the story got out in the first place.   But keep in mind Ohio's law is not based on a specific timeline anyway but rather when a heartbeat is detected.

Here is the timeline.  Clearly the investigation was proceeding prior to the "story coming out," it's just that mostly the people that needed to know about it were aware.

5/12: rape occurred

6/22: Columbus PD notified via child services from a report by the mother (so right about 6 weeks) and investigation begins

6/27: Dr. Bernard contacted (so after 6 weeks)

6/30: abortion performed

7/2: Bernard files terminated pregnancy form with the state

7/6: Fuentes was identified as rapist by the victim

7/11: Jesse Waters video from the OP

7/12: Fuentes confesses and is arrested

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/13/us/ohio-10-year-old-girl-columbus-man-charged-indiana-abortion/index.html

https://news.yahoo.com/indiana-dr-caitlin-bernard-reported-215920403.html

Yes, I am speculating.  It's because I don't trust anything a liberal or activist says.  I assume they're always lying because they're pieces of garbage.

Now, that's the timeline they presented, based on what the doctor and mother say.  Is there an ultrasound with a date/time stamp on it confirming a date of conception, or are we just taking their word for it.  The doctor said, that on 6/22, when the mother reported that the rape, the girl was 6 weeks and 3 days pregnant.  I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the rape happened 2 weeks later than May 12th, and that the doctor just pushed the date back to fit in the time window she wanted.  Again, that's because I don't trust people who are known to lie.

[TimHauck 2,905]

4 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Yes, I am speculating.  It's because I don't trust anything a liberal or activist says.  I assume they're always lying because they're pieces of garbage.

Now, that's the timeline they presented, based on what the doctor and mother say.  Is there an ultrasound with a date/time stamp on it confirming a date of conception, or are we just taking their word for it.  The doctor said, that on 6/22, when the mother reported that the rape, the girl was 6 weeks and 3 days pregnant.  I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the rape happened 2 weeks later than May 12th, and that the doctor just pushed the date back to fit in the time window she wanted.  Again, that's because I don't trust people who are known to lie.

The article says 5/12 came from a police affidavit.

[TBayXXXVII 2,552]

4 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Not sure.

But it's more than 5 states.  I see 7 states where it is banned entirely (TX, OK, AR, MS, AL, SD,  MO) and 3 more where it is banned before around 6 weeks (OH, TN, SC)

 

Republican's have always been willing to meet in the middle, the Democrats have always been "my way or the highway".  That's why we have cancel culture, rampant racist accusations, rampant homophobic accusations, Summer of 2020, etc.

I saw this, and since they're leftists, I assumed they wouldn't short the number.

[TBayXXXVII 2,552]

5 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

The article says 5/12 came from a police affidavit.

No, the incident was reported to have happened on 5/12, according to the affidavit.  The case wasn't reported on 5/12, the Columbus Police didn't know about it until June 22nd.  Meaning, on June 22nd, the case was reported and the doctor claims the rape happened on 5/12.

[TimHauck 2,905]

3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

No, the incident was reported to have happened on 5/12, according to the affidavit. 

Yeah that's what I said. 

The 6/22 notification had nothing to do with the doctor, who did not know the girl existed until 6/27.

[TBayXXXVII 2,552]

9 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Yeah that's what I said. 

The 6/22 notification had nothing to do with the doctor, who did not know the girl existed until 6/27.

I know the abortion doctor didn't know about the girl until the 27th, I didn't say she knew before that.  I said, the article makes the claim that the incident happened on 5/12.  They got that date from who?  We know the report was filed on 6/22.  The doctor (I guess it could have been the girls mother too), had to be the one who told them that it happened on 5/12.  An article I read before said that the mother sought out a doctor who told her about her daughter being pregnant and that's when the mother filed the report on 6/22.

June 22nd is less than 6 weeks from May 12th.  The abortion could've been done in Ohio on that date.  Why wait until the 27th?

[nobody 2,687]

When cares?  Is the point of this to enact policy because of 1 exception?

An exception that wasn't even an exception since the abortion happened.

Fūcking retarded.  That's what I get for taking the lefty side of an issue I guess.  I have to be associated with this shìt 

[TimHauck 2,905]

14 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I know the abortion doctor didn't know about the girl until the 27th, I didn't say she knew before that.  I said, the article makes the claim that the incident happened on 5/12.  They got that date from who?  We know the report was filed on 6/22.  The doctor (I guess it could have been the girls mother too), had to be the one who told them that it happened on 5/12.  An article I read before said that the mother sought out a doctor who told her about her daughter being pregnant and that's when the mother filed the report on 6/22.

June 22nd is less than 6 weeks from May 12th.  The abortion could've been done in Ohio on that date.  Why wait until the 27th?

The abortion doctor said she was referred to by a "child abuse doctor," so the visit to that doctor is probably what prompted the initial report on the 22nd.  But I guess you think both docs were in on it together to "prostitute the girl"?

LOL 5/12 to 6/22 is exactly 1 day less than 6 weeks.  And once again, Ohio's law is not specific to 6 weeks but rather when a heartbeat is detected, so we don't know if she could have gotten the abortion then.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,486]

20 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

The abortion doctor said she was referred to by a "child abuse doctor," so the visit to that doctor is probably what prompted the initial report on the 22nd.  But I guess you think both docs were in on it together to "prostitute the girl"?

LOL 5/12 to 6/22 is exactly 1 day less than 6 weeks.  And once again, Ohio's law is not specific to 6 weeks but rather when a heartbeat is detected, so we don't know if she could have gotten the abortion then.

Did the “child abuse doctor” report it immediately? 

[TimHauck 2,905]

19 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Did the “child abuse doctor” report it immediately? 

Appears that way

[TBayXXXVII 2,552]

49 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

The abortion doctor said she was referred to by a "child abuse doctor," so the visit to that doctor is probably what prompted the initial report on the 22nd.  But I guess you think both docs were in on it together to "prostitute the girl"?

LOL 5/12 to 6/22 is exactly 1 day less than 6 weeks.  And once again, Ohio's law is not specific to 6 weeks but rather when a heartbeat is detected, so we don't know if she could have gotten the abortion then.

No, I think the politicians are doing that.  I think the doctor's are more of activists than anything else.  The girl and family were illegals and the doctor's knew about it.  They kept their mouth's shut instead of alerting authorities, that's why they had the mother do it.  Also, I don't trust the 5/12 date and just because she got raped on that day, she didn't have to get pregnant on that day.  Pregnancy can happen up to 5 days later. 

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

31 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Did the “child abuse doctor” report it immediately? 

Read the article I posted.

[TimHauck 2,905]

14 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

No, I think the politicians are doing that.  I think the doctor's are more of activists than anything else.  The girl and family were illegals and the doctor's knew about it.  They kept their mouth's shut instead of alerting authorities, that's why they had the mother do it.  Also, I don't trust the 5/12 date and just because she got raped on that day, she didn't have to get pregnant on that day.  Pregnancy can happen up to 5 days later. 

They didn’t keep their mouths shut though, authorities were alerted before the abortion doctor knew who the girl was, and based on the timeline, authorities were most likely alerted in the first place BECAUSE of the child abuse doctor.  Stop making things up.

[TBayXXXVII 2,552]

10 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

They didn’t keep their mouths shut though, authorities were alerted before the abortion doctor knew who the girl was, and based on the timeline, authorities were most likely alerted in the first place BECAUSE of the child abuse doctor.  Stop making things up.

LOL, ok.  
 

Says the useful idiot who swallows every load that the liberals shoot at him. 

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

6 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

LOL, ok.  
 

Says the useful idiot who swallows every load that the liberals shoot at him. 

I mean- the guy who swallows every load that the right shoot at him shouldn't be throwing stones. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,552]

2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

I mean- the guy who swallows every load that the right shoot at him shouldn't be throwing stones. 

Then why did you?

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

6 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Then why did you?

I didn't. I had no skin in the story until I read the timeline of events. It's all there. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,552]

9 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

I didn't. I had no skin in the story until I read the timeline of events. It's all there. 

Another spot on the wall.  

[TimHauck 2,905]

20 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

LOL, ok.  
 

Says the useful idiot who swallows every load that the liberals shoot at him. 

Nice deflection, just admit your made up story makes no sense.  How can you criticize the abortion doctor for “not alerting authorities” when the authorities had already been alerted by the time she even knew the girl existed??

And what do you mean “they” “had the mother do it”?  Once again the abortion doc didn’t have the mother do anything since she didn’t know she existed prior to the authorities being alerted.   I guess it’s possible the child abuse doctor “had the mother report it,” but that was most likely immediately after that doc saw the girl, so he/she wasn’t “keeping their mouth shut.”

Keep in mind the report was filed on 6/22, and Roe v Wade wasn’t even overturned until 6/24, so prior to that there wouldn’t really have even been any motivation to make this a story…