I'm sympathetic to the burden of proof argument that extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence*.

This was not that, though. This was just some random people echoing a right wing media talking point meant to deliberately muddy the waters.

* For example. as we have no known recorded, convincingly documented instances of extra-terrestrial intelligent life visiting earth and as we have very good reasons to believe such visits may be nearing impossible, it would take more than some "eyewitness" testimony to take a claim of this seriously.

The problem with "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" is that it is yet another thing that can be broken by one side just up and intentionally becoming wronger and wronger as a deliberate tactic to we get to the point we are now were we are expected to stop the discussion every time an already declared dishonest agent in the discourse demands we stop and reset to zero to prove water is wet.

There's no standards for a minimum base level of "Not intentionally wrong about things which have been discussed to death and back" we're allowed to expect people to be to join into an adult discussion anymore.

Indeed, I expect no reappearance in this thread.

I always said bans on abortion would be a nightmare to enforce. It already happening.
And it just going to get worse.In the end, what might doom this is simply people decideing to ignore the law. Think Prohibition on steroids.

You think underground aborteasies will spring up everywhere and sophisticated women will go there and have their weekly abortions? These establishments will occasionally get raided, of course. Eventually, organized crime will get into the picture & cops will just look the other way (some cops will even frequent these establishments —after all, why should wearing a badge stop one from frequently aborting at the aborteasies?).

Abortion near bans (such as situations where Roe v. Wade exists on paper but in reality abortion availability is all but non-existent —the situation in a bunch of states for quite a while), have not been a nightmare to enforce.

When you're wrong, you're wrong, and apparently I was wrong.

Not on my BINGO card, darn!

I have that one, let's see.

Not on my card but good for you.

I did have 'total sidetrack', so I get to cross that spot off.

GOP Rep. Jim Jordan deletes tweet calling the story of a 10-year-old girl being raped 'another lie' after Ohio authorities charged a man in the case

Whoops!

More whoops!

Not 'apparently; you were wrong. But at least you showed up instead of just disappearing like some others when they're proved wrong. :thumbsup:

Not a chance. The misogynists, Republicans and forced-birth advocates (but I repeat myself) don't actually care, about women or "children".

Since this is the first time I have ever been wrong about anything in my entire life, I wasn't sure what I was supposed to do.

OMFG I was wrong!? That's the first time that's ever happened! I shall now return to being perfect!

Don’t be too hard on yourself.

The right wing propaganda ecosystem depends on uneducated and gullible shills to uncritically spread their lies.

Obviously, the base venality of conservative politics and media is no excuse for anyone to make a profoundly stupid claim on their behalf, and then double and triple down on that profoundly stupid claim.

But I suppose one could make the argument that the morons and goons who repeated this spoon-fed lie they weren’t bright enough to see through are just victims in all of this. Mindless cogs in a machine their feeble brains can’t comprehend.

While I appreciate the acknowledgment, I wonder if you will back off your demands for:

While the update to the story hits many of these points, I certainly do not think that if covers every single one of them,

Then again, this was never "I heard from my third cousin a story from her friend's step uncle that an acquaintance told them about...". The original complaint about how unbelievable this was was regarding a story by an experienced reporter citing a named primary source (the actual physician who got the referral to perform the abortion). This is probably not the standard that Dumb All Over generally applies. It was likely his standard for only this particular story. He's just repeating things that right wing media told him.

Dr. Bernard now under investigation by Indiana Repub. AG:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/todd-...b0c0bdba666332

Not only that, but there are reports that Dr. Bernard is being disciplined by her employer for violating HIPAA laws. True? Untrue? Who knows?
Story

The AG is openly admitting he's going after her for providing an abortion. We don't need to guess as his motivation.

The Right will not rest until that 10 year old rape victims suffers even more and anyone who tries to help her suffers as well.

I assume her rapists will run for a Republican elected position and win.

It looks like the trumped up charge would be failing to report. This would be frivolous charging as the reporting was already done in Ohio. I imagine it's grandstanding & that he'll quietly never even file charges. However, a message is being sent even with just the threat.

They weren't demands. They were questions I had to help substantiate the veracity of the story, some of which have now been answered. But with answers come new questions.

I did think at the time that it was very convenient for the report to pinpoint the exact number of days the girl had been pregnant and how that exact number inconveniently coincided with the Supreme Court decision. I did not know it was medically possible to determine the number of days with such precision. So, with all sincerity, I ask you and everyone whether it is possible to know at such an early stage of a pregnancy the exact number of days a person has been pregnant. How did the doctor know it was precisely six weeks and three days? Or could she have been fudging the numbers a bit to better fit a narrative?

Yes, because the Daily Caller News Foundations is clearly a reliable source.

For me to consider whether the story is true or not, I would need answers to the following questions: What is the name of the people in management at her employer who would be initiating this disciplinary action? On what date was any communication about this disciplinary action initiated? What the exact nature of the HIPAA violation alleged to be (do note that merely mentioning that the case exists, that the patient is 10 years old & pregnant is not enough for a violation —otherwise every case history in academic publications would also be a HIPAA violation). How did the Daily Caller News Foundations come upon this story? Was an investigation conducted to determine whether this story about disciplinary measures for HIPAA violations is true or did the Daily Caller News Foundations "run with it" without proper vetting?

One question: legally, Constitutionally, was the decision to overturn Roe correct?

Frankly, I see no right to privacy involving medical decisions in the Constitution, intended or otherwise. I think it should be there, should have been done long ago, but its not there.

Any modern country would have such a right clearly spelled out and codified. But the USA sadly does not. So its left to the states.

Days of pregnancy are assigned as the days from the last menstrual period.

It's more about getting her name and image out in the public and telling the cult members "This is her. Jeez I hope nothing bad happens to her WINK WINK"

Like Bill O'Reilly did to get Dr. Tiller murdered.

No.

I read the story and came to my own errant conclusion long before it was ever reported that others had doubts too. Were any news stories questioning the original story published before I raised a red flag here in this thread? Perhaps, I don't know, but I hadn't read any. I read the original story and wrote what I wrote. I wasn't repeating anyone and no media outlet told me anything. Maybe they were repeating me.

I'm so ******* sick of "Well I'm not saying it's right (wink, wink) but can you explain to me the technical structure of how its wrong?"

I think the decision was immoral and cruel. But legally correct.

Its not SCOTUS' fault that Congress has failed to codify abortion rights for more than 50 years. Even when Democrats had a supermajority in the Senate, they didn't do it. Lazy pricks.

So, the child could have been pregnant for more than six weeks and three days or less than six weeks and three days in all practicality.

I love how quickly it goes from "We don't believe you because there aren't any details" to "we're punishing you for saying anything about it" in about ten seconds.

I'm afraid that's a feature, not a bug.

Yep technically people are pregnant before they even conceive.

Yes, but to clarify for DAO: how many week/days a woman...or little girl, in this case...is pregnant depends on what method was used to determine it: the traditional method of counting the days from the last period or using an ultrasound.

The traditional method counts days of pregnancy when she is not even pregnant as conception takes places around two weeks after a menstrual cycle. So, using the traditional method, a 6 week old fetus is, in reality, only 4 weeks along in development.

Ultrasounds allow the doctor to measure from the "crown to rump" to more accurately determine how far along the pregnancy actually is with a 1 to 2 day leeway.

In the case of the Ohio little girl, she was NOT actually 6 weeks along, but 4, because Ohio uses the traditional method, not ultrasound:

"As used in sections 2919.16 to 2919.18 of the [Ohio] Revised Code:

(B) "Gestational age" or "gestation" means the age of an unborn child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of a pregnant woman."

It's a 10 year old rape victim. I don't think narrowing down exactly how long she was pregnant is anything but a rape apology red herring.

Fox News asks: "what was the 10 year old wearing when she was raped?"

I'm just glad it's 10 and not 14 so we don't have to hear about how other countries are more advanced than us for having sex with them.

I'm all for castrating anyone who rapes a child. And not just chemically.

Well of course nobody should be raping children. But we can't have people disobeying abortion law based solely on their individual morality, either. Where do you draw the line on that?

I'm pretty sure that line extends pretty far when it comes to liberals. After all, in some states it is legal to abort pretty much up to right before birth, even without medical cause (like VT). How can that be explained?