Posted on July 4, 2022



No Minor Omission

What the Ohio abortion story left out


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.



Return to Shinbone

 The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press 

 Mailbag . Issue Index . Politimals . College Football Czar