Posted on July 4,
2022
No Minor Omission
What the Ohio abortion story left out
by
Daniel
Clark
Almost immediately after the enactment of the Ohio abortion
law prohibiting the procedure after six weeks, a story broke about a
ten-year-old girl who was barely over six weeks pregnant, whose supposedly
necessary abortion had been denied. The only reason we know about this is
because, according to The Cincinnati Enquirer, "Dr. Caitlin
Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a
colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio." The story did not identify Dr.
Bernard as an abortionist, but that's not the half of the pertinent information
that was left out of the story.
It
turns out that in 2018, Bernard was among nine Indiana abortionists who were
reported to that state's Department of Health for failing to report child
sexual abuse cases, relating to abortions she had done on children as young as
twelve. Not that this is anything unusual. It's standard operating procedure
for abortionists to hush up instances of statutory rape, the rapists being
among their best customers. What's shocking is that somebody described as a
"child abuse doctor" would look to such a person for help.
The prevailing semantics of the abortion issue
describe the procedure as something "for women," as if it were some
sort of a 
prize.
This allows pro-abortion journalists to use this young girl's situation as a
cudgel against anti-abortion politicians, for who would deprive a pre-teen rape
victim of some vaguely positive thing?
On CNN's State of the Union, host Dana Bash illogically
asked South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, "Will the state of South Dakota,
going forward, force a ten-year-old in that very same situation to have a
baby?" as if prohibiting the destruction of the baby were the same as
having created it. Rejecting this
premise, Noem responded, "What's incredible is that nobody is talking
about the pervert, the horrible, deranged individual that raped a ten-year-old,
and what are we doing about that?" Bash dismissed this concern by saying,
"That is an important discussion to have," and moved on. Even after
Noem answered her insulting question by saying, "I don't believe a tragic
situation should be perpetuated by another tragedy," Bash persevered with
her assumption that any outcome other than abortion was some sort of a
deprivation.
The "important discussion" about the rapist
should not be a whole separate conversation from the question of whether to
kill his child for him, as Bash and the rest of the media would have it. The
discussion should have taken place among news editors before this story was
even reported. Who raped this ten-year-old girl? Did the "child abuse
doctor" bother to find anything out about him and report him to the
police? Why would this doctor then refer the girl to an abortionist with a
history of enabling child-rapists? Why must the doctor's identity be concealed?
Do the doctor and the girl really exist, or is this entire story based on the
unchallenged word of an abortionist?
Why
is it automatically assumed that a rape victim must have an abortion, as if
that could somehow undo the act? How would it help the situation to take one of
the worst things that could possibly be done to a girl, and stack on top of it
one of the worst things she could possibly do to herself? Knowing that rape
victims are often tormented by irrational feelings of guilt, how cruel is it to
give them something about which to feel genuinely guilty? Who really benefits
from this abortion, and why must the rest of society conspire to assist that
person? We're waiting, Dana. Discuss away.
As for Bash's own accusatory question, which she
continued to press in order to give her viewers the impression that Noem was
dodging it, she can repeat it all day long and she'll never receive a more
correct answer than the governor had already given her. The fact that a
horrific act has been committed does not justify the commission of a second
horrific act that can do nothing to mitigate the first.
Compare that to the liberal media-approved,
pro-abortion answer to this same scenario. A young, innocent girl, already
traumatized by rape, has been coerced into an abortion by others who will not
have to live with it. Her far younger and equally innocent son or daughter is
now dead. Her assailant is free to walk the streets, and likely to victimize
others, with the complicity of those ever-compassionate "women's health
care providers."
Please keep that in mind, the next time you hear a
pro-abortion liberal speak of justice.
The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press