That 10-Year-Old Abortion Story the President Ranted About Gets a Major Update
By Bonchie | Jul 11, 2022 9:00 PM ET

AP Photo/Evan Vucci

In the wake of Roe v. Wade being overturned, a viral story about a 10-year-old girl in Ohio being raped, impregnated, and unable to obtain an abortion spread like wildfire across the political sphere. Major news networks covered it as truth despite the fact that it was a single-sourced account from an abortion doctor who provided zero corroborating details.


The story was then used as proof of how harmful Republican abortion bans are to the point that even Joe Biden got in on the act. The president used the report to rail against pro-life laws, proclaiming “imagine being that little girl” while asserting that Ohio forces raped children to give birth.

Of course, not everyone was so gullible. Multiple RedState authors questioned the story, and it looks like their concerns were warranted. And while I didn’t write an article on it, I did have this to say on social media.

https://twitter.com/bonchieredstate...dent-ranted-about-gets-a-major-update-n593123

Sure enough, the tale of a 10-year-old denied an abortion in Ohio because of all the baby-loving Jesus-freaks appears to be completely false. That’s no longer supposition, either. Ohio’s attorney general revealed on Monday while speaking to Fox News’ Jesse Watters that there have been no reports of a 10-year-old being raped, including no crime lab results (a rape kit would have been performed).

AG Dave Yost also noted that Ohio’s heartbeat law does not prohibit a minor who was raped from obtaining an abortion. That’s a fact that Democrats, including those in the mainstream media, have steadfastly ignored to this point, instead choosing to speak in generalities about the situation.

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/st...dent-ranted-about-gets-a-major-update-n593123

Now, some on the left may try to assert that the abortion doctor in Ohio just didn’t report the incident to the authorities. That dog doesn’t hunt, though. Why? Because it is required by law that the rape of a minor be reported to law enforcement if they seek an abortion. So either this abortion doctor who sourced the story is lying or they broke the law. I’ll let the defenders of this tale choose which one.

For my money, I believe the doctor in question just outright made it up. It conformed to the left’s narrative far too perfectly in the midst of them desperately looking for an example to promote the supposed righteousness of abortion. Anyone with a semblance of brain power should have seen the red flags from the beginning. Biden lacks said brain power, but he also wanted the story to be true. He wanted to use it as a political cudgel to slam his opponents who are only trying to protect unborn life.

To recap, the President of the United States repeated a false story in order to push a false narrative while promoting the destruction of life in the womb. If that’s not morally depraved, I don’t know what is. So much for that “return of normalcy and decency to the White House,” right?

 

Nothing at all alike...

 

Smack it genius

 

Oh horsepuckey.

When asked by Senator Feinstein exactly what he meant in August 2018 when he said Roe was ‘settled law’, Kavanaugh said:

Emphasis mine.

He also said:

Emphasis again mine.

Now, just to help, stare decisis means:

So. He said Roe was entitled to stare decisis. Which means that the argument and the reasons for judgment are not simply persuasive one way or the other, but that they are settled. You know what settled means, don’t you?

He lied.

He deliberately misled the attendees at the confirmation hearing.

He fibbed.

He said his view was one way and would act upon that view, and at first opportunity acted entirely against his stated intention.

He lied.

Some buffoons might allow you to get away with that shit “he never said that”, but I won’t.

 

Kavanaugh didn't bring this issue up for the Justices to reform....elections have consequences...yeah, I think I might have heard that once before....from half cracker.

 

Ease up there Francis.
Here's the two posts that triggered you;​

Shooter has added emphasis for you on the key points of each post.
So. Kavanaugh did indeed talk at length about precedent and Stare decisis. He never said anything remotely like; it can't be overturned, it can't be changed, I will never support overturning settled law, did he?

After all, if we demanded that once a decision has been handed down by the court and affirmed and reaffirmed and even reaffirmed multiple times, it can never be examined again or challenged, then we'd still have prohibition, and slavery, and women would not have a vote.

You can twirl and stamp your feet all you want. No SCOTUS nominee has EVER said they would not overturn any law. To do so would all but guarantee that they would have to recuse themselves.

So stumbler spewed the despicable shouting point that abortion has been outlawed in America by lying deplorables, which is a lie on two points; first, no one ever said they wouldn't overturn any case and second, abortion is not outlawed in America. The court handed it back to the states to decide.

Now, we could split hairs all day about what Kavanaugh meant and the context he meant it in, but just for argument, lets say that he did indeed mean that he would not ever vote to make abortion illegal in America. That isn't even close, but just for argument's sake lets go there.

The decision Kavanaugh and the other judges voted for did not make abortion ILLEGAL in America. They did not. What they said was, this is not a constitutional guarantee, it is not a Federal issue, it is a states rights issue and the states must deal with it. The states must either allow or deny abortion, and the circumstances under which it might be permissable.

Got that? Understand it? The court said it is a states rights issue, not a federal one. And that is all they did.

Now, in another post around here somewhere Shooter made the point that the abortion issue has always been a divisive one in America, and it largely comes down to when one believes life begins. If one believes life does not begin until viability, then abortion is fine, since we're talking about a medical procedure.

If one believes life begins before viability, say at conception, then abortion is logically not fine, since it amounts to state sanctioned murder. And since before Roe V Wade the split has been pretty much 50/50. Half of Americans support abortion, perhaps with some restrictions, and half do not support abortion, perhaps with very narrow exceptions.

50 years ago the court gave us Roe V Wade and half of Americans were mad, and upset, and called it state sanctioned murder and felt that Roe was wrong and needed to be reversed.

The other half congratulated the court and the system for getting it right.

Now the court this time could have theoretically said abortion is not a right at all, in fact, it's murder and should not be legal anytime, anywhere. And half of America would be mad and upset and that it denied women control over their own bodies and they would work to overturn that decision.

So Shooter thinks this court did something brilliant; they pushed it back to the 50 states to deal with, and as it turns out, about half of the states have reaffirmed the right to abortion, and half have banned it.

The states are reflecting the beliefs of their citizens. They are or have passed state laws that reflect what the majority of their citizens believe. Over the next many years states will undoubtedly be refining those laws in response to public sentiment. Some will make it harder or impossible to get an abortion. About the same number will make it easier to get an abortion.

And isn't that the best part of our representative form of democracy? That we can have it our way, even if others strongly disagree, cause they can have it their way as well.​

 

Well, the good news is, you can go off convinced that Kavanaugh and the others lied, and even that its some huge conspiracy to enslave women again.
You'd be wrong, but you can believe that if you want.

Dobbs did NOT overturn any of the issues you raised; not the right to privacy and not the right of self determination. What Dobbs said was the court's logic and reasoning in Roe was incorrect; abortion is not a guarantee defined in the constitution, and therefore is a states issue, not a federal one.
That is all they said.

So yes, the constitution promises privacy, and liberty, and self determination. Abortion, according to Dobbs, is not an issue covered by any of those concepts or guarantees, in fact abortion is not even remotely touched on in the Constitution, so it becomes a states issue. You can argue all you want about what abortion is or is not, and what other topics are covered or not covered by the constitution and how the court interpretted it, but the bottom line is, this court said this issue belongs with the states, not the Feds.
Deal with that.

Shooter repeats; Neither Kavanaugh or any other SCOTUS nominee has ever said they would not reverse settled case law, stare decisis or not.
So no, Kavanaugh did not lie.
He pissed you off is what he did.

Argue with the polls about how many Americans support or oppose abortion. Shooter said "about half" and "pretty much half" of Americans ......... Now, Shooter has seen polls that say "MOST" Americans oppose abortion, and other polls that say "FEW Americans oppose abortion. It all depends on who you ask and what you ask. Even though the following is through VOX, it's a Gallup poll and covers a long time, so Shooter accepts it.
You are of course welcome to reject it and substitute your own poll if is supports your opinion.
What the polls say about Americans, abortion, and the Supreme Court - Vox


You have a nice rest of your day, up there in Canada.
Shooter has business to take care of.

 

Okey Doke.
You have a nice rest of your day, okay?

 

That goes a long way to proving your point.

Not!

 

Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.

Seems shooter doesn't know the meaning of the term.

 

Shooter knows very well the meaning of stare decisis. It means to apply what has been decided before. It does not mean it can never change or be challenged.

See, the beauty of our legal system is that even when something is decided once, or even twice or a dozen times, it can still be questioned, but no matter what you have to take into account the prior decisions. Which, if you actually read the court's decision(s) on abortion, you'd see that they did indeed take into account not only Roe V Wade but every decision that followed, and they explained why it is an issue today and why they ruled the way they did.

If a thing could never be changed once decided we'd still have prohibition, and we'd still have slaves, and women would not be able to vote and there would be no Social Security or VA benefits and the President could be president for life.

But as usual anon is either being obtuse or he really is that dumb and so we have to stop and explain this stuff to him or he pouts and shouts and spills stuff on the floor.

And anon, before you or anyone else can claim that Kavanaugh said he'd never reexamine settled law or consider changing it you better have the transcript ............ no fuck that, Shooter wants to hear the actual audio because you knuckleheads are not above changing something or spinning it or taking it out of context if it will make your point.

 

After claiming that RvW was settled precedent...

 

There are a number of lawyers that disagree with you.

But then again, name calling proves your case...

 

Women can't abort babies...

Gun owners can keep killing kids...

I can't decide if that's an oxymoron or some kind of universal balancing act.

Huge interest in the next election... let's see how America votes. If Trump gets back in, I'll shut the fuck up, cos obviously more Americans are in favour of the above, than against.

 

I am in favor of free abortion at any time in pregnancy. I do not care about "a woman's right to choose (to kill her unborn child). I like the eugenic effects of abortion. Most women who have abortions are biologically inferior. I am not pro life. My passion for abortion is only equaled by my enthusiasm for capital punishment.

 

Elections are dead in this country. The right has seen to that.

 

And you were saying?


Ohio girl's rapist arrested hours after conservatives questioned case as 'abortion story too good to be true'

Travis Gettys
July 13, 2022



Boy in handcuffs (Shutterstock)

An Ohio man was arrested in the rape and impregnation of a 10-year-old girl after the state's Republican attorney general cast doubt on a story that drew international attention.

Gerson Fuentes, 27, of Columbus, confessed to raping the child at least twice, according to police, and was charged with rape after police were alerted to the girl's pregnancy from Franklin County Children Services a little over a week before she traveled to Indianapolis for an abortion, reported The Columbus Dispatch.

The girl's mother reported her pregnancy to social workers on June 22, two days before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion rights, and she traveled out of state June 30 to obtain a medical abortion in a case cited by President Joe Biden and covered extensively by news organizations around the world.

A judge set bond at $2 million for Fuentes, who is believed to be undocumented and a flight risk, and his DNA is being tested against samples collected from the girl in Indiana, where abortions are still permitted after a fetal heartbeat is detected, unlike in Ohio.

IN OTHER NEWS: 'Fuming' Trump is badgering friends about how the Jan. 6 hearings are 'playing out' for him

The Wall Street Journal cast doubt on reports about the girl a day before Fuentes' arrest, calling the case "An Abortion Story Too Good To Be Confirmed," and Ohio attorney general Dave Yost questioned the story this week on Fox News and during an interview Tuesday with USA Today, saying "there is not a damn scintilla of evidence" the story was true.

He issued a one-sentence statement Wednesday, after news broke that Fuentes had been arraigned: "We rejoice anytime a child rapist is taken off the streets."

https://www.rawstory.com/gerson-fuentes-rape/

 

".........A judge set bond at $2 million for Fuentes, who is believed to be undocumented and a flight risk, and his DNA is being tested against samples collected from the girl in Indiana, where abortions are still permitted after a fetal heartbeat is detected, unlike in Ohio."
​

Wonder if Kamala is going to arrange his bail. She does that, we know. Also, this might Trigger Joe cause, you know, open borders.

 

Oh really??? Seems the man arrested was an illegal immigrant that should have not been in this country at all... So biden lets this creep into the US to rape 10 year old girls, then uses this poor victim of a heinous crime to promote his abortion agenda... Is this what you are bragging about stumbler????

Man arrested in rape of Ohio 10-year-old cited by Biden is illegal immigrant, ICE source says

 

How does that change all this?