Guest post: It’s been quite a week
Originally a comment by Screechy Monkey on Split the girl.
Local Ohio news outlets: Pregnant 10-year-old is forced to go to Indiana for an abortion because it can’t be done in Ohio
Conservatives: This can’t be true! This story is false!
Glenn Kessler, WaPo “fact checker”: Hmm, yes, this story seems very dubious, where is the criminal charge against the rapist? (Because we all know that all rapes result in criminal prosecutions) And this doctor is an activist, because she performs abortions, unlike GOP state officials, who are objective and trustworthy.
Local Ohio news outlets: Uh, yes, it’s true, we attended the rapist’s arraignment today, where were you guys?
Kessler: Hm. Well. Nevertheless. It’s all about ethical practices in journalism.
Liberals: Excuse me, can we get back to talking about how this is exactly what forced birth assholes have spent 50 years trying to bring about? It happened, and it’s going to happen again and again and again!
Jon Turley: Oh, don’t be silly. States aren’t going to go after doctors for terminating the pregnancy of a 10-year-old
State AGs: We’re totally going after this doctor and any others.
Forced birth advocates: We’re totally banning abortions for 10-year-olds
NY Times: Today’s hot topic in the abortion debates — did Ohio journalists err in trusting the word of a doctor?
It’s been quite a week. Can’t wait for happy hour, I need a drink.
I’m trying to figure out who they claim to be the liar here? Is the doctor claiming that an 18 year old was 10? Are they claiming that the girl was lying about being raped?
My ambivalence about carve-outs for rape and incest are that no one believes vicitms of rape, and tend to think that incest (which is not any different from rape, of course) is just girls tempting daddy, so such abortions will be given extra scrutiny and an AG or DA looking for higher office will vigorously prosecute doctors and patients just to get attention for being tough on abortion.
Also, such carve-outs imply that abortions have to be justified, of course.
Mike, no doubt the exact conspiracy theories vary, but the general tone from conservatives was that the doctor was just making up the entire story — that there was no pregnant 10-year-old, it was just a hoax designed to tug at the heartstrings of voters and outrage them at the cruelty of anti-abortion laws. That it was “conveniently timed” to make headlines shortly after the Dobbs decision.
But while it’s healthy to question politically explosive stories, there was really no reason for such extreme skepticism here. 10-year-olds do get pregnant, and they are going to need abortions. Before Dobbs, even the most restrictive states couldn’t really get away with barring such a procedure; post-Dobbs, they can.. Those laws are cruel, and their consequences will outrage many voters. Refusing to believe this story is a little like refusing to believe that COVID vaccines exist, because isn’t it awfully convenient that the vaccines showed up months after COVID became widespread, hmmm?
The sad thing is that, in the minds of many of the people we need to persuade, abortions DO have to be justified. There’s a big chunk of voters whose position on abortion is “it depends” — on whether the woman has a “good enough” reason for an abortion.
The one bit of good news is that, having achieved their big victory, anti-choicers now have to fight on our turf. They spent decades cherry-picking the most politically advantageous fights — “partial birth” abortions, using tax dollars to pay for abortions, abortions of fetuses with genetic conditions, and of course the largely mythical “fickle woman who changes her mind in the third trimester for no reason.” Now that they’ve been given the green light by SCOTUS to go after all abortions, they’re going to find themselves having to defend some things (like forcing 10-year-olds to give birth) that most of the public finds indefensible.
My limited understanding of the claim that this was a lie is that they say it never happened, it was a total fabrication, not that some other story was altered.
Mike, I agree with your ambivalence about the carve-outs for rape and incest. If there are carve-outs: “Oh, so you’re OK with killing an innocent fetus if you don’t like the circumstances of its creation”; if there are no carve-outs: “Oh, so you condemn a woman to bear a child produced in a sexual assault”. If there must be a rape or incest charge in order to allow an abortion, then there will be pressure to accuse consensual sexual partners of rape or incest, when those partners wouldn’t otherwise even need to be involved in the decision-making process or even mentioned.
I don’t agree that incest is not different from rape. Adult brother and sister having consensual sex is incest but not rape. Laws vary by state in regard to what constitutes incest, or whether incest is legal (even if the parties are forbidden from marrying).
And, of course, if the woman is a “good” woman – pristine, virginal, pure, white, Christian…etc
Mike, Sackbut, another issue I’ve been seeing noised around for many years is the requirement that fathers must be involved in the decision; they must sign off on the abortion. From what I’ve seen, most of these also have no rape or incest exemptions, so you could be facing the reality of a woman who has to carry a baby because the man who brutally assaulted her is pleased to have fathered a child, or an incest victim who has to get the scary parent or big brother or whatever to sign something saying she can do it. Parental consent is also a problem; I know from my own life, though I was fortunate that I was no longer a minor when I needed my abortion, so they never had to know. If I had been, I would not have been able to go to my parents for it.
Iknklast, I agree, those consent requirements, where they get put in place, are awful.
I almost wish they’d go in the other direction, at least for minors. Abortion is mandatory, but the minor mother can go through with the pregnancy if she wants to and has parental permission. Turn the issue around. Almost works.