I was among the many people who was appalled by the report of a 10-year old Ohio girl who had to travel to Indiana to obtain an abortion because of the Buckeye state's six week abortion ban in the wake of the reversal of Roe v. Wade:
Anti-abortion activists and politicians call themselves pro-life, but they could care less about the life of this 10-year old girl. She is no position to consent to sex on a legal and emotional level much less give birth and raise a child. Yet, despite these circumstances, the state of Ohio by virtue of the so-called heartbeat law would compel her to give birth or otherwise treat her as a criminal thus drawing no distinction between this 10-year old child and the man who raped and impregnated her.
However, Glen Kessler of the Washington Post has cast doubt on the story as it is only has a single source Dr. Caitlin Bernard who presumably performed the procedure:
Under Ohio law, a physician, as a mandated reporter under Ohio Revised Code 2151.421, would be required to report any case of known or suspected physical, sexual or emotional abuse or neglect of a child to their local child welfare or law enforcement agency. So Bernard’s colleague would have had to make such a report to law enforcement at the same time he or she contacted Bernard. Presumably then a criminal case would have been opened.
Bernard declined to identify to the Fact Checker her colleague or the city where the child was located. “Thank you for reaching out. I’m sorry, but I don’t have any information to share,” she said in an email.
Dan Tierney, press secretary for Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R), said the governor’s office was unaware of any specific case but he said under the state’s decentralized system, records would be held at a local level. Thus, he said, it would be hard to confirm a report without knowing the local jurisdiction to narrow the search. He added: “The rape of a ten-year-old certainly would be newsworthy.”
As a spot check, we contacted child services agencies in some of Ohio’s most populous cities, including Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton and Toledo. None of the officials we reached were aware of such a case in their areas.
Based on this information, Cathy Young of The Bulwark concludes the event "probably didn't happen." Yet it is worth noting that Kessler himself does not draw this conclusion writing, "This is a very difficult story to check. Bernard is on the record, but obtaining documents or other confirmation is all but impossible without details that would identify the locality where the rape occurred."
Just because one is faced with "a very difficult story to check" does not make it false. At such, I am going to need more evidence than what Kessler has presented to demonstrate this story is false.
One of Kessler's concerns is that the doctor who contacted Dr. Bernard did not file a police report. Kessler writes, "So Bernard’s colleague would have had to make such a report to law enforcement at the same time he or she contacted Bernard. Presumably then a criminal case would have been opened." But as Kessler acknowledges in the previous sentence mandated reporters can contact either law enforcement or local child welfare office. So perhaps the doctor contacted the local child welfare office through the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. On that front, Kessler makes a point of saying that his paper contacted child welfare offices "in Ohio's most populous cities" and came up with nothing. That tells me that this child is probably from a rural county and that the WaPo did not see fit to contact them. Why?
While I can understand why people would be skeptical about Dr. Bernard not willing to provide further information. However, her motivation just might be to protect a 10-year old girl and possibly the physician in question from being identified and being subject to harassment or worse. Let's say we get the corroboration Kessler (and for that matter Young) seek. Perhaps the girl and/or members of her family will come forward or the child will be outed. There's a good chance it will have the effect of revictimizing this 10-year old girl all over again for having cast doubt in the first place.
When Young states the story "probably didn't happen" she is saying that Dr. Bernard is probably lying. Why would she lie? To do so would put her medical career at risk. But let us suppose for the sake of argument that there is no 10-year old girl and that Dr. Bernard fabricated the whole story. Aside from probably ending her medical career, there is something else to consider. Because of Dobbs v. Jackson and the effective outlawing of abortion in several states it is only a matter of time when an underaged pregnant girl would need to seek abortion services in another state or be compelled by law to give birth. Unfortunately, if Dr. Bernard cried wolf and this story turns out to be a fabrication then the public will be less likely to offer goodwill and sympathy when the specter of an underaged girl having to travel out of state to obtain an abortion does inevitably come to pass.
If this story proves false then we will never hear the end of it from Republicans and conservative media which are already doing it now. Considering how many Republicans and much of the conservative media are happy to go along with Donald Trump's claims that he won the election while minimizing the events of January 6th they are in no position to lecture anyone about facts and fidelity to the truth.
Nevertheless a "fake news" story would also have ramifications for the Indianapolis Star which broke the story and will only further deepen distrust many Americans have towards the mainstream media. So I have nothing against Glen Kessler raising doubts as a course of due diligence. However, Kessler's doubts (and Young jumping to conclusions) raise doubts of my own.
No comments:
Post a Comment