Again, still multiple parts to this argument that don't make sense.
First, Ohio law specifically allows for abortions of pregnancies that are due to rape, incest, or threatening the life of the mother. If we assume the child exists, the child was very likely raped by definition, which makes the abortion legal. Alternatively, in many sad situations like this, the parents could potentially be the attackers, which crosses the incest line. Being that the mother is 10, it's almost guaranteed to endanger the life of the mother.
Now, the Ohio Revised Code has a specific section which prohibits minors from getting abortions without very specific circumstances. One of those involves the notification of the parent. If the parent is the child's rapist, their consent no longer matters as the child needs a legal guardian. If the parent isn't the child's rapist, than you can absolutely assume that the child's parents will likely consent to, and accept an abortion, especially given the likelihood that the child would otherwise bear the child of her rapist, or the child may die from the pregnancy.
This claim comes from a doctor in Indiana, not Ohio, who claimed someone she knew called her to see if an Indiana abortion clinic could potentially preform the abortion. Allegedly, the woman on the phone claimed that the hospital spent "hours" trying to figure out the legal situation. In reality, anyone with a pulse could have figured it out, since nothing changed.
AKSCHULLY
... there is one thing that people might miss. Ohio had a trigger law that went into effect that banned abortion past 6 weeks after Roe ended. Which is why the Indiana doctor mentioned that the alleged Ohio doctor claimed that the child was 6 weeks and 2 days pregnant.
That's important because there was a pretty big legal fight in Ohio by abortionists in order to get an injunction to prevent the law from going into effect, which was happening at that exact time.
Here's the thing. One of the primary, unspoken, reasons for Jussie Smollette's hoax wasn't just because he wanted money and attention. It was because the Democrats were pushing this crazy "federal anti-lynching law". Jussie's hoax fed directly into Kamalla Harris' efforts to push this law, and they wanted to use the hoax as a mechanism to pass the law.
The federal anti-lynching law passed because... well no one cares, lynching is already illegal in literally every state, so the whole thing was a giant stunt. But the law got passed over by the scandal of Jussie's hoax.
As for this bitch, it's clear to me that this hoax was to try and put political pressure on getting an injunction to stop Ohio's trigger law. Thing is, it failed. The injunction was eventually overturned and the trigger law took effect.
Again, still multiple parts to this argument that don't make sense.
First, Ohio law specifically allows for abortions of pregnancies that are due to rape, incest, or threatening the life of the mother. If we assume the child exists, the child was very likely raped by definition, which makes the abortion legal. Alternatively, in many sad situations like this, the parents could potentially be the attackers, which crosses the incest line. Being that the mother is 10, it's almost guaranteed to endanger the life of the mother.
Now, the Ohio Revised Code has a specific section which prohibits minors from getting abortions without very specific circumstances. One of those involves the notification of the parent. If the parent is the child's rapist, their consent no longer matters as the child needs a legal guardian. If the parent isn't the child's rapist, than you can absolutely assume that the child's parents will likely consent to, and accept an abortion, especially given the likelihood that the child would otherwise bear the child of her rapist, or the child may die from the pregnancy.
This claim comes from a doctor in Indiana, not Ohio, who claimed someone she knew called her to see if an Indiana abortion clinic could potentially preform the abortion. Allegedly, the woman on the phone claimed that the hospital spent "hours" trying to figure out the legal situation. In reality, anyone with a pulse could have figured it out, since nothing changed.
AKSCHULLY
... there is one thing that people might miss. Ohio had a trigger law that went into effect that banned abortion past 6 weeks after Roe ended. Which is why the Indiana doctor mentioned that the alleged Ohio doctor claimed that the child was 6 weeks and 2 days pregnant.
That's important because there was a pretty big legal fight in Ohio by abortionists in order to get an injunction to prevent the law from going into effect, which was happening at that exact time.
Here's the thing. One of the primary, unspoken, reasons for Jussie Smollette's hoax wasn't just because he wanted money and attention. It was because the Democrats were pushing this crazy "federal anti-lynching law". Jussie's hoax fed directly into Kamalla Harris' efforts to push this law, and they wanted to use the hoax as a mechanism to pass the law.
The federal anti-lynching law passed because... well no one cares, lynching is already illegal in literally every state, so the whole thing was a giant stunt. But the law got passed over by the scandal of Jussie's hoax.
As for this bitch, it's clear to me that this hoax was to try and put political pressure on getting an injunction to stop Ohio's trigger law. Thing is, it failed. The injunction was eventually overturned and the trigger law took effect.
All of their prominent cases are 1% issues that don’t represent 99% of abortions and are already legal.