The 10-year-old Rape Victim’s Abortion Leaves a Number of Glaring Questions

Below is my column on the case of the ten-year-old rape victim who allegedly was taken to Indiana because an abortion was barred in Ohio. (A shorter, edited version of this column ran in the New York Post). There is a Fox News report that it was able to confirm an abortion involving a ten-year-old girl in Indiana but could not confirm the other claims. Fox is also reporting that a HIPAA complaint has been filed against Dr. Caitlin Bernard. There remain, however, questions as to why the child had to leave Ohio, which has exceptions that would apply to the case. This may reflect confusion among these doctors, but the law seems clear on the available exceptions. There is also the question of what happened to this child and whether a police report was filed. There may have been such a report. It should not violate HIPPA or other laws to confirm that a report was filed and the victim has been protected by authorities.

Here is the original column:

“Not a whisper.” Those three words from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost left many of us perplexed on Monday night when he said that his search for a notorious child rape case in his state had turned up nothing. The case of a ten-year-old girl raped and impregnated in Ohio was the focus of not just exhaustive coverage and outrage in the media, but the condemnation of the President of the United States. However, the Yost comments added to some unanswered questions about underlying facts in the controversy, including the need to transport the child to Indiana to have the pregnancy terminated.

The story of the child rape united the nation in revulsion, but also became the rallying point for the condemnation of the Supreme Court, including in comments by President Biden. In his White House address, Biden decried that this child “was forced to have to travel out of the state to Indiana to seek to terminate the pregnancy and maybe save her life. Ten years old — 10 years old! — raped, six weeks pregnant, already traumatized, was forced to travel to another state.” The President used the story to attack the Supreme Court and ask “What century are they in?”

The media also exhaustively covered the story. On MSNBC, Joy Reid declared “It is hard to imagine anything more cruel, more disturbing than forcing a child, a 10-year-old still playing with fidget toys and tablets to carry her father or her brother’s child to term or forcing her to travel across state lines for an abortion. And yet, here we are.”

Indeed, when the story broke, it was hard for most of us to imagine such a horrific situation. However, it was also hard to imagine why these doctors took this action when the treatment could have occurred in Ohio, which not only has an exception to protect the life of the mother but also “to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.” Moreover, it was not clear if case was raised after a heartbeat was detected (around six weeks) in such a case.

The story remains based entirely on an account from Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Indianapolis.  Indianapolis Star reporter Shari Rudavsky reported that “On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.”

Bernard told her that immediately after “the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks [she] had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.” She then explained how Bernard performed the abortion.

When the story ran, some of us noted that the Ohio law actually does not prohibit abortions after six weeks but after “fetal heartbeat has been detected.” Being three days over the six-week line is not a bar on abortion. More importantly, it also has the exceptions for cases like this one.

Even Yost (who is pro-life) said that this abortion clearly fit within the exceptions and could be legally performed in Ohio.

Yost, however, was equally curious about the absence of a criminal case. Under Ohio law,  any such case must be reported to police and Yost’s office would likely be involved in any DNA testing that is common in such cases. He said that his staff could not find a single police report or a lab case.  Indiana law also requires medical professionals like Dr. Bernard to report such cases. So both the “child abuse doctor” and Dr. Bernard were presumably under an obligation to report the rape.

Various news organizations have tried to get Dr. Bernard to confirm a few of these basic facts, which can be addressed without revealing the name or specifics of the patient. After all, it was Dr. Barnard who went public with the story and later went on television with MSNBC to discuss the controversy and “what does it feel like on your end of that phone call?”

Even liberal newspapers like Washington Post could not get any new information from Dr. Bernard. The Post’s “fact checker” Glenn Kessler noted in his column in the Washington Post that the Indianapolis Star story did not seem to meet basic journalistic standards and that the lead reporter Shari Rudavsky also refused to answer basic questions. Kessler noted “the only source cited for the anecdote was Bernard. She’s on the record, but there is no indication that the newspaper made other attempts to confirm her account.”

None of this means that this did not occur. However, if it is true, there is a child rapist who is still at large. Alternatively, if this was a family member, a child may be living in the same house as her rapist.

Moreover, this story indicates that two physicians who are involved with abortion services required a child to be carted off to another state when she was legally allowed to have this procedure in Ohio.

The apparent lack of interest in a follow up (or even a substantive response) by the Indianapolis Star is equally baffling. The Star should be able to confirm the basic facts of the story without compromising any source. Not only did Bernard not request anonymity, but Indiana has a strong media “shield law” to protect their sources.

There have been a number of false or inaccurate claims made about abortion law and the Dobbs decision, including false claims that women can be prevented from traveling for medical care or that ectopic pregnancy treatments are now barred as abortion in some states.

These false accounts can be a dangerous form of disinformation if women believe that they cannot receive treatment for legal procedures as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy or a ten-year-old rape victim.

Moreover, given the possible risk to this and other children from this rapist, the President and these media outlets should be calling for confirmation and an intervention in this story. The only thing that is “harder to imagine” than such a denial of medical services for this child would be the decision to let her fend for herself or just return to the same dangerous conditions. Her victimization should not become exploitation where her story rather than her current wellbeing is the primary concern of coverage.

124 thoughts on “The 10-year-old Rape Victim’s Abortion Leaves a Number of Glaring Questions”

  1. “This may reflect confusion among these doctors, but the law seems clear on the available exceptions.”

    No that’s just about priceless. The law “seems clear.” If that isn’t a sophist non-statement I don’t know what is. Have you considered running for Congress?

    Along those lines, politicians did their work in a thoughtful thorough manner. It’s just those silly Doctors with real jobs who are confused.

  2. Even if any of this is true. Isn’t the pro abortion groups real beef with Ohio? If you don’t like the Ohio law, than make your arguments and get it changed. Imagine that, democracy.

  3. If this is a true story, then the president is a disgusting political opportunist for using a child to push an agenda, with clearly no concern for the child. Not calling for the capture of the rapist, but only using the child to score political points for their abortion agenda is so …. well, Democratic.

    1. If this is a true story, then the president is a disgusting political opportunist for using a child to push an agenda, with clearly no concern for the child.

      It is a potential HIPPA violation. Lets see the DOJ, FBI and CMS attorneys go after the OB/GYN physician and Joe Biden. Oh wait.

      Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule

      What Information is Protected

      Protected Health Information. The Privacy Rule protects all “individually identifiable health information” held or transmitted by a covered entity or its business associate, in any form or media, whether electronic, paper, or oral. The Privacy Rule calls this information “protected health information (PHI).”12

      “Individually identifiable health information” is information, including demographic data, that relates to:

      the individual’s past, present or future physical or mental health or condition,
      the provision of health care to the individual, or
      the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual

      https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html

      1. Under Ohio law, doctors must report any incident of child abuse, including any sexual assault, to law enforcement. That’s where this whole business breaks down. That, and, the Indiana Star reporter’s and the doctors’ ignorance of Ohio law.

        1. It didn’t break down. The doctor reported it to the police, and the alleged rapist was arrested. He was arraigned today.

      2. The bigger question here is does law enforcement have privileged access to HIPPA protected information?

        If not, then the parent of the child would have to consent to sharing medical information with the police.

        If so, then why didn’t a warrant get issued to preserve DNA from the abortion for use by Ohio law enforcement?

  4. The Indianapolis Star, once an excellent newspaper. Now owned by Gannet (USA Today) Not very good any more on in depth Journalism and very liberal. Have practiced in Indiana and they are very demanding about reporting of abuse or rape. You can legally be in trouble for failure to do so. I suspect Ohio is the same but cannot say for sure. Biggest problem has been getting women to shelters especially in the rural areas. Rape of a 10 year old should definitely have been reported, especially if not reported by the referring doctor even if out of state. This Ob Gyn doctor also known as a very visible abortion activist. May have impacted her reporting. She did violate patient confidentiality with her release of information and this could cause her licensing board sanctions. With the lack of information we know almost nothing about this case and very early to make any definitive determinations. Highly unlikely any Ob Gyn in either state would have not intervened with an abortion in this age group unless there were circumstances of which we are not aware. Lot of steam from both sides above but too little information to make any rational judgement.

  5. It is not about the technical law. It is about hospital management that is overly cautious to avoid prosecution. Same for doctors. And not every rape victim can safely report it to the police. The truth is that children not getting abortions is exactly what Republicans want.

    1. Of course, it’s about the “technical law.” What don’t you understand about mandatory reporting? Do you seriously think law enforcement would brush off a report of child rape?

      1. Well, did Ohio law enforcement get a warrant to obtain the abortion tissue DNA sample as evidence? If not, then they are not serious about their due diligence in this case. That is, unless HIPPA privacy rights can stand in the way of a criminal investigation. If the mother knows who impregnanted her daughter, and has decided to shield him from prosecution, HIPPA may inadvertantly be thwarting law enforcement.

        1. They did.

          “The child’s mother reported the girl’s pregnancy to Franklin County Children Services on June 22, which informed Columbus police, Detective Jeffrey Huhn said Wednesday at Fuentes’ arraignment. … Huhn testified that DNA from the clinic in Indianapolis is being tested against samples from [Gershon] Fuentes, [the alleged rapist].”

  6. Turley,

    This was poorly written. If your point focused on journalistic ethics, then fine. But by trying to make this seem like a slam dunk obvious exception to the Ohio law in the event that the story is true, you failed to offer any analysis.

    A few initial edits need to be made. First, it is HIPAA not HIPPA. You need to proofread better. Second, you assume that we don’t know whether the facts verify that a rape occurred. That is incorrect. She was 10 years old and she engaged in sexual intercourse. That is statutory rape. A child cannot consent to sex. So please revise the conditional language above. Third, you acknowledge the difference between six weeks and a fetal heartbeat but fail to acknowledge that if the heartbeat had been detected even before six weeks, the procedure would not be legally permitted. That is dishonest, esp. without facts to verify the status of a heartbeat.

    Now, you also presume that the procedure would be permitted due to the following exception:

    (B) Division (A) of this section does not apply to a physician who performs a medical procedure that, in the physician’s reasonable medical judgment, is designed or intended to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.

    How is that abundantly clear? First, a 10 year old is not a “woman.” She is a child. This does not apply to procedures on children absent some court case that interprets “woman” liberally. Second, without facts, how can we presume, a priori, that the procedure was needed to prevent the 10 year old’s life or to prevent a serious risk of bodily impairment? Perhaps that is the case, but you fail to present any details to justify your conclusion. 10 year olds can survive childbirth (unfortunately it happens with more regularity in other parts of the world).

    Where is the law professor’s legal analysis?

    1. Aninny:

      “Where is the law professor’s legal analysis?”
      **************************************************

      Here let me guide you by the hand to the salient legal points discussed supra:

      “When the story ran, some of us noted that the Ohio law actually does not prohibit abortions after six weeks but after “fetal heartbeat has been detected.” Being three days over the six-week line is not a bar on abortion. More importantly, it also has the exceptions for cases like this one.

      Even Yost (who is pro-life) said that this abortion clearly fit within the exceptions and could be legally performed in Ohio.

      Yost, however, was equally curious about the absence of a criminal case.”

      I’ll pass on yours until I see some credentials above the coward level of aninny.

      1. Mespo,

        Turley is an idiot. What he’s arguing is that on paper an abortion on this ten year old under the circumstances is SUPPOSED to be legal. Problem is doctors don’t trust prosecutors or the state to be reasonable. We already know that abortion opponents are all about strict interpretation of the law.

        The ten year old was three days past the limit. According to the law it was not legal. Anonymous made a good point. This was not a woman. It was a child. The law says NOTHING about a child. Doctors will NOT take any chances with conservatives in control knowing full well they will still prosecute. It’s safer to send the patient to where there is no legal risk.

        Turley talks about what’s on paper, but not what actually happens when they have to determine legality. Those are two very different things.

        This guy explains it much better,

        “ Once again I’m torn as to whether Turley is a destructive attention-seeking grifter or a complete moron. Honestly, this question keeps me up at night.

        Because he writes “it is not explained how…” meaning his addled brain at least considered the disconnect between something being technically legal and yet doctors still not doing it.”

        https://abovethelaw.com/2022/07/jonathan-turley-is-now-just-lying-about-abortion-laws-and-hes-going-to-get-someone-killed/

        1. Svelaz: Turley is an idiot. I go on his blog every day and spam post banal comments. That makes me, um, not an idiot.

        2. “IDIOT – A PERSON AFFECTED WITH EXTREME INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY”

          “Turley is an idiot.”

          – Svelaz
          _______

          “This was not a woman. It was a child.”

          – Svelaz
          _______

          Is it physically possible for a child to be pregnant?

          Is it logically possible for a person to make this statement?

          Idiot-cum-biologist.
          _______________

          “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?”

          – Sen. Marsha Blackburn
          ____________________

          “I’m not a biologist.”

          – Ketanji Brown Jackson
          ___________________

          Merriam-Webster

          idiot noun

          id·​i·​ot | \ ˈi-dē-ət
          \
          plural idiots
          Definition of idiot

          1 : a foolish or stupid person “… Idiot that I am to wear my heart on my sleeve! …”— George Bernard Shaw

          2 dated, now offensive, see usage paragraph below : a person affected with extreme intellectual disability

        3. The above link is to Joe Patrice’s excellent piece in “Above the Law”, criticizing Turley which I reference infra. You are correct about the palpable fear out there by aggressive prosecutors. The mere threat of potential criminal liability is enough to get most doctors to back off. Even if they might eventually win, which is not a given, how much would it cost them financially and for things like posting bond and attorney fees, and would there be a backlash by these radical right-to-lifers even if there was acquittal? Republcans are running scared because of Roe and the revelations about their standardbearer, and they feel compelled to go overboard to pander to the Evangelicals who believe they are “saving unborn babies”. How noble. How gullible.

        4. No intelligent person today trusts prosecutors on the left. They are about politics not the truth.

      2. Did I get this right, sequentially?

        What just happened here?

        NUTCHACHACHA went “infra” on us, 4 hrs. after Mespo correctly employed “supra?”

        Can somebody please ‘splain that to me?

        Is that a soft variant of plagiarism?
        ___________________________
        ___________________________

        mespo727272 says:
        July 13, 2022 at 8:34 AM

        Aninny:

        “Where is the law professor’s legal analysis?”
        **************************************************

        Here let me guide you by the hand to the salient legal points discussed supra:
        _____________________________________________________________
        _____________________________________________________________

        Natacha says:
        July 13, 2022 at 2:08 PM

        The above link is to Joe Patrice’s excellent piece in “Above the Law”, criticizing Turley which I reference infra.

        1. Svelaz posted first, so his post is first in time. I posted second (actually before I was aware of his post), so, sequentially, my post is “infra” to his time-wise, but not in the manner in which posts are displayed, which is reverse chronological order. In a legal brief, if you refer to a statute or case and provide a full citation, and then refer to it later, you put an abbreviated reference to it under the term “supra”. The reverse is true, so if, for example, in an opening summary in a brief, you might describe your argument, and then say “as detailed infra”, under the heading of the subject. Anything to criticize.

    2. We know that pregnancy presents a serious risk of bodily impairment for a 10 y.o.

      That some 10 year olds survive pregnancy and childbirth does not imply that there were no longterm health impairments for them, nor does it mean that there was no serious risk. That kind of reasoning is analogous to saying that pregnancy never endangers a woman’s life because lots of women give birth — yes, lots of women give birth, but some die from pregnancy-related complications. Same for kids, but the risk is even higher: globally, adolescents under 15 y.o. are five times more likely to die during pregnancy or childbirth than women over 20. Risk of death is not the only increased risk. Girls are at increased risk of a variety of complications.

      1. How do we know this is sufficient to meet the serious risk of bodily impairment standard? Ohio has an informed consent requirement for minors seeking abortions. See the law below, which also has an exception for serious bodily harm to the minor. Therefore, the fact that the patient is a minor is not sufficient evidence, to qualify for this exception.

        https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.121

        By the way, this is another possible reason why a 10 year old may not be able to get the procedure. Do we know whether a parent or guardian approved of it?

        1. Presumably her parent or guardian is the one who took her to Indiana to get an abortion there. I expect that a doctor would not perform an abortion on a 10 y.o. without either the parent’s/guardian’s consent or a court order.

  7. This is a painfully obvious hoax, and just like Blasey-Ford, Jan 6, the border agents, the CDC, Fauci, inflation is ‘Republican’s fault even though we have a monopoly on Government’, et. al., no further confirmation or corroboration will occur, no one will even mention it again unless it’s politically convenient, and this doctor will likely more or less vanish into thin air.

    Would also love to know who these scads of people are that believed the story in the first place, as that has certainly not been my experience in real life.

    Democrats that think swapping out Biden will change anything do not understand or will not bring them selves to acknowledge what is actually going on. It’s beyond mendacious, and I really don’t know what to say anymore other than we better hope we can vote them out. We aren’t talking about a few bad apples in a barrel anymore, but a thoroughly sick tree.

  8. A good rule of thumb: when any liberal journalist “breaks” a provocative story against any societal norm or conservative position just assume it’s a lie and go about your day confident that crying wolf is absolutely unworthy of your attention much less your scrutiny. We all have better things to do than act on the lies of folks dedicated to lying. We shoulda learned all liberals lie as a matter of strategy after Duke lacrosse, UVA Rolling Stone and on and on.

    1. Mespo has some good advice:

      “We all have better things to do than act on the lies of folks dedicated to lying.”

      Think the “carnival snake charmer.”

        1. Mespo,

          I’m not putting anything in your mouth. I’m taking your advice- Never trust a lying Trumpist!

          1. Jeffies mouth is tired of putting it around other things, so he is taking a break and lying.

  9. How can any reasonable American trust or believe ANYTHING this corrupt democrat administration and their press offer.

    I’m sure you all listened to Berkeley law professor yesterday say men can have babies, well maybe Norman Bates and the Clown Crew who infect the blog can?

    1. Margot:
      “How can any reasonable American trust or believe ANYTHING this corrupt democrat administration and their press offer.“
      ******************
      They don’t. I wasn’t “united in revulsion.” I was just waiting for the truth to come out knowing full well it was just another liberal lie. Fool me once, shame on you. Accepting being fooled a thousand more times by known liars; shame on me.

      1. Margot, Mespo,
        Yeah, when I first read about this “case,” I thought,, wait a few days, see if this pans out as real, or is it a sensational hoax.
        Appears to be the latter.
        Still awaiting further evidence, and the story behind the original reporting seems questionable. That alone is a gross display of failing journalism in America.
        If it is found to be a hoax, I do not expect a “so, sorry!” from the press, or any action taken against those who promoted the hoax. It will just go quietly away.

    2. Oh in that Berkeley “professor”: ever seen a sister with more ‘tude than she? She really helped her cause by snapping at a US Senator like that. And what’s with the construction grade makeup? Another liberal moron masquerading as an academic.

    3. Our august Senate just confirmed – with bi-partisan support – a black Supreme Court nominee with a vagina who swore under oath SHE – a woman herself – could not define what a woman is. She muttered something about not being a biologist as the reason why she lied to the Senate and the American people. Madness. Madness.

      Our “elites” are living in a far left bubble. Truckers, carpenters, plumbers, convenience store workers and most voters whose mind has not been corrupted by academia and media nonsense understands what a woman is and who can get pregnant. With some luck, Democrats will FINALLY get ground into dust in November and force them to join the rest of us in reality.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAoBW3yjlvA

  10. any day now they will blame whites, prolly QAnon, for raping this mythic 10 year old, who will be painted as a black trans to prove men can get pregnant as long as they are black

    Meanwhile, in the real world

    Black teens are killing Americans across the nation. This is Biden’s America: enabling blacks to kill blacks, whites, hispanics and asians. Those Leftist Soros District Attorneys are encouraging blacks to kill us with no consequences. These 7/11 clerks should have been carrying a pistol to shoot back and neutralize these black vermin

    “7-Eleven Urges its LA-Area Stores to Close Overnight After Series of Deadly Shootings”
    https://timesofsandiego.com/crime/2022/07/12/7-eleven-urges-its-la-area-stores-to-close-overnight-after-series-of-deadly-shootings/

  11. OT: In other news which Turley refuses to inform the readers of his blog:

    “Bill Barr subpoenaed in lawsuit against Fox News over false election claims- Barr refused to have the Department of Justice investigate Trump’s claims of election fraud”

    https://www.salon.com/2022/07/11/bill-barr-subpoenaed-in-against-fox-news-over-false-claims/

    “Former Attorney General Bill Barr has been subpoenaed as part of Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit against Fox News, which claimed in the aftermath of the 2020 election that the company’s software has been compromised by voter fraud.”

    “I told them it was crazy stuff and they were wasting their time on it, and they were doing a great disservice to the country,” Barr said of Trump’s conspiracy theories about Dominion’s voting machines, which were trumpeted in 2020 and 2021 by multiple anchors on Fox News. “I saw absolutely zero basis for the allegations, but they were made in such a sensational way that they obviously were influencing a lot of people.”

    “In its $1.3 billion lawsuit, Dominion has argued that Fox News knowingly broadcasts that bogus allegation in a bid to win back viewers after calling Georgia for Biden on Election Day.”
    ——————-

    Turley has NEVER doubted the integrity of Bill Barr despite Trumpists now vilifying him. To this day, Turley pretends that Trump and his lawyers were acting in *good faith* notwithstanding that Barr and Cipollone stated that there was absolutely ZERO evidence of massive fraud!

    If Dominion subpoenaed Barr, one can’t help but wonder whether Turley too may have been subpoenaed by Dominion to discover what he believed and what he counseled his bosses at Fox News….

    1. I’m also wondering if Turley will report on Twitter’s counter-suit against Elon Musk.

      1. He ought to. It’s brilliant strategy by Musk to engage in discovery and get all their trade secrets to prove Twitter is a liar’s paradise. Musk is playing three dimensional chess with monkeys. When it all sifts out. Twitter’s stockholders and advertisers will have a field day and Musk will own the joint for pennies on the share.

        1. Musk made a business decision, and I bet he will eventually prevail either by paying a small percentage of the price or buying Twitter, like you say, for pennies on the dollar.

          Did Twitter act illegally? Did the board act illegally? Can the board be liable personally?

          Musk will be fighting for himself. Those fighting for Twitter are interested parties who might not want disclosure and recognize they can close the whole thing down while protecting themselves.

          Wouldn’t you like to be one of Musk’s lawyers, not just for the money but for fun?

          1. S. Meyer,

            LATE RESPONSE

            Read above: The Constitution is not a dictionary.

            The Law of Nations, 1758, was, as the legal text and reference of the era.

            The Founders used multitudes of words which are defined elsewhere, not merely “natural born citizen,” which you see Jay/Washington use above.

            You denigrate disingenuously, nay, fraudulently out of fear of the truth.

            That you don’t solicit the truth, does not negate the truth.

            1. George, maybe you missed it or maybe you haven’t yet read it, but elsewhere I said I would prefer the law written in that fashion but such a law is not inside the 4 corners of the Constitution. Moreover, we have accepted an alternative method.

              It is up to you to prove your case before the Supreme Court or push for a Constitutional Amendment

              1. ONE MIGHT LEAD A HORSE TO WATER, BUT ONE CANNOT MAKE HIM DRINK

                “OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS”

                The requirement that the president be a “natural born citizen” is most certainly in the Constitution.

                The formal definition of “natural born citizen” was published in the legal text and reference of the era, the Law of Nations, 1758.

                The Law of Nations “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…,” Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations.

                Reference to the law of nations in the Constitution:

                Article 1, Section 8

                “To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;…”

                1. Yes, George, the Constitution is a lake of knowledge but up stream you have found a watering hole among many. It’s good water, but it isn’t the Constitution.

                  There is no disagreement over the statement: “The requirement that the president be a “natural born citizen” is most certainly in the Constitution.”

                  Vattel’s formal definition of “natural born citizen” might be something you and I desire, but still Vattel is upstream, one of many. Our founders noted it and may have even liked the definition, but that doesn’t move the watering hole into the Constitution.

                  I will repeat myself. Take the question to court or pass an amendment. That would be fine by me.

                  1. INSIDE THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE CONSTITUTION
                    ____________________________________________

                    “…I said I would prefer the law written in that fashion but such a law is not inside the 4 corners of the Constitution.”

                    – S. Meyer
                    _________

                    The Constitution is not a dictionary; the Framers used large numbers of words which they did not take the occasion of the Constitution to define.

                    You are beyond preposterous.

                    Let me help you connect the dots, which you’re feigning having so much trouble with.

                    Please find the definition of the phrase “natural born citizen” in the Law of Nations, Book 1, Chpt 19, Section 212, Citizens and Natives, which is referenced regarding “Offences against the Law of Nations;…” in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10, one of the “four corners of the Constitution.”

                    “Whoomp! There it is!”

                    You’re not about law, you’re about supporting a particular candidate, no matter how demonstrably ineligible he is.

                    Lest we forget, the proof is in the pudding: Every president before Barry Soetoro had two parents who were citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth, with the sole possible exception of Chester Arthur (or those who were “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”), who lied and covered-up his ineligible status knowing his father was not a U.S. citizen.
                    _________

                    The Annenberg Guide to the United States Constitution

                    United States Constitution

                    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10

                    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

                    1. “You are beyond preposterous.”

                      George, look further than skin deep.

                      Is a child born in America able to be President if:

                      The mother and father are both American citizens?
                      The father dies before the child is born?
                      The mother drops the child off at the hospital and disappears?

                      How do you know who the father is?

                      In Obama’s case, there are questions of paternity.

                      What happens if the mother and father are American citizens, but the mother has relationships with non-citizen men? How would you know who the father is? How do you enforce the law?

                    2. Inside the four corners of the Constitution is what you required.

                      Inside the four corners of the Constitution is what you got.

                      I’m not going to look at anyone’s skin.

                      I’m looking at the law.

                      The Founders/Framers knew exactly and precisely what they were doing and what they were writing.

                      The “natural born citizen” requirement protected the office of the commander-in-chief from foreign allegiances and foreign influences.

                      You ignore the law and pursue a deep-seated, hidden bias.

                      You have no credibility.

                    3. “I’m looking at the law.”

                      You are not. You are looking at your interpretation of the law. I don’t object to your interpretation, though I did suggest some problems you needed to deal with, especially since one cannot be sure the father of anyone was an American citizen (barring DNA testing).

                      “The Founders/Framers knew exactly and precisely what they were doing and what they were writing.”

                      George, are you telling us that the founders agreed with one another and the Constitution wasn’t a compromise? If that is what you are saying, you are wrong.

                      “The “natural born citizen” requirement protected the office of the commander-in-chief from foreign allegiances and foreign influences.”

                      I don’t disagree.

                      “You ignore the law and pursue a deep-seated, hidden bias.”

                      How am I ignoring the law?

                      What is my bias? Is it my agreement with what you would like to see and the same rationals? Strangely, you call such agreement bias.

                      “You have no credibility.”

                      What have I said that isn’t true?

      2. He won’t. He’s only going to report it if he thinks Twitter is going to keep censoring content….because they can.

        Turley only writes things that can feed the rage of his readers.

      3. Are you that stupid you can’t find out for yourself.

        I’m pretty sure when the suit is ripe, Turley will report on it. In the meantime you will have to learn how to read other reports.

    2. Turley sometimes writes 2 or 3 stories a day and all obsessed Jeff writes about is the dog that didn’t bark. Jeff, go away, we all dislike you, we are all bored with you, we all try to just ignore you and we all see you for what you are, a demented little weirdo who will not or cannot stop talking about Trump or Fox News. Oy vay, just go avay.

      1. Hullbobby,

        Turley’s blog is not a conservative safe zone. Turley will NEVER censor me as long as I am civil. You Trumpists will NOT cancel me. You’re ONLY option to combat my speech is with speech of your own.

        I suggest you read Turley’s, “HARM AND HEGEMONY: THE DECLINE OF FREE SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES”

        1. We are not trying to cancel you, we are just saying that you are off topic, moronic, obsessed and just the worst thing possible…boring. Get a life.

          1. This is my life, buddy. Cut me some slack. You fellas are all I got. You’re family!

      2. hullbobby:

        “Jeff, go away, we all dislike you, we are all bored with you, we all try to just ignore you and we all see you for what you are, a demented little weirdo who will not or cannot stop talking about Trump or Fox News. Oy vay, just go avay.”
        *************************
        Oh come on. We like Jeff. Sort of like Lou Leakey liked the fossilized bones he found in Olduvai Gorge. He’s anthropologically interesting in a one-track mind sorta way. We ought to enjoy the past while it’s still around. So what he’s a globalist “man of one book”? The lying, the obsession, the missed jokes. We can all learn:D

      3. We don’t all dislike him.

        You and some others dislike him, and others of us don’t.

        I dislike your comments, but you don’t see me calling for you to go away.

        1. Aninny:

          I don’t dislike Jeff at all. He’s a remarkably persistent if sometimes inconsistent adversary. We lawyers like a good row (in the British sense)! Jeff’s not stupid. He just buying into the current liberal ethos. He’ll come around. Everyone does. But like Churchill said ” ‘Never give in—never, never, never, never, except to convictions of honour and good sense.” Jeff seems to have both so a “Road to Damascus” moment is likely.

    3. You are a sick person that you’re calling for someone else to kill himself.

      You badly need psychiatric help. I hope you seek it, though I doubt you will.

    4. Jeff

      “This is your final warning ”

      I bet that Darren is quaking in his boots.

      I know that I would be terrified if a girlieman like you gave me a “final warning”.

      You are really impressive when you are angry.

  12. I addition to Joe being in cognitive decline, he has surrounded himself with idiots. The Border Patrol agents whipping story was immediately debunked by the photographer. Yet Joe’s handlers” allowed him to go on national T.V. and say that there will be retribution.
    The 10 year old rape victim story was dicey from the start.
    The timing of this story being in close proximity to Dobbs was the first clue.
    No mention of the rapist or any investigation was the second clue. My first question upon hearing this story was, who is this monster who had sex with a 10 year old and has he been caught? The fact that this was never mentioned let me to believe this story was total BULL**IT
    Joe’s ” handlers” should have vetted both stories and if no conclusive evidence was known at the time, they should at least told Joe to use “if true” in his statements.
    This is common sense. But when the story fits the preferred narrative, willful ignorance is applied.

    1. Paul says:

      “when the story fits the preferred narrative, willful ignorance is applied.”

      Not unlike Trump willfully ignoring the assurances of Barr, Cipollone, etc., and preferring the Q-Anon election conspiracy narratives.

      Good point, Paul!

      1. My God are you Trump obsessed or what?? YOU need extreme help immediately. Don’t you have any family members that can help you??

      2. Trump could double his money by charging rent for the space he takes up in your head. You must really be afraid of 2024.

  13. This is simple. Arrest the abortion doctor, seize her electronics. Determine if this is real or a hoax. If real, the doctor is in violation of her reporting requirements, or even an accessory to rape. We must protect this young child. Note, this will not happen, because it is a hoax, but an approved hoax, “false for a greater truth.” Just another Wednesday in the empire of lies.

    1. Turley: “There is a Fox News report that it was able to confirm an abortion involving a ten-year-old girl in Indiana”

      What “hoax”?

      1. That would have been a good place to insert a link so we could review that Fox report ourselves. Be that as it may, if true, all the more reason to arrest the doctor. We must find this child, right?

          1. Aishah Hasnie says “A source familiar to this situation” confirms… A source (one). Are you kidding me? That source could be a member of Caitlan’s book club, or a fellow abortion activist. Nonsense. People need to stop listening to this anonymous crap.

            And to answer your question, Both. Both had reporting requirements. A 10-year old does not get pregnant absent statutory rape. They failed to report the crime and helped conceal a child rapist.

              1. A reasonable question is, who is Gershon Fuentes, 27? He raped her twice which creates even more questions. It has been reported that he is an illegal alien. If true we should take note since this would not be the first rape. If So like the Parkland shooter the rape like the killings came from decisions made by the White House. The killings, by Obama, the rape by Biden.

                This also demonstrates that a person can have an abortion in another state in such a circumstance. Whether or not it could have been done in the home location is unknown, but if there is a question law can be changed. It also demonstrates how the left’s actions are counterproductive to a peaceful and appropriate society.

            1. They didn’t fail to report it. The alleged rapist, Gershon Fuentes, was arraigned today:
              “The child’s mother reported the girl’s pregnancy to Franklin County Children Services on June 22, which informed Columbus police, Detective Jeffrey Huhn said Wednesday at Fuentes’ arraignment. … Huhn testified that DNA from the clinic in Indianapolis is being tested against samples from Fuentes.”
              https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/07/13/man-arrested-rape-ohio-girl-pregnant-indiana-abortion/10049383002/

  14. Who raped her?
    Hang him from a cross and nail his wrists to the road. Before he bleeds to death cut off his sex organs and stuff them into his mouth. When he croaks send the dead body to the Supreme Court building and lay it on the steps.

    1. Liberty,
      I totally agree with your punishment. Only one problem. The person you wish to punish, doesn’t exist.

  15. Lefties really like both lying and being lied to.

    Now it appears that they like lying to themselves.

  16. There are many things about this story that do not have the ring of truth. I can’t believe that any pediatric physician would not report such an incident to the proper authorities.

    Someone needs to tell exactly what happened here. If it is true, then someone needs to go to jail. If false, then the perpetrators of this fraud should be exposed to public opprobrium

  17. And just another hoax that the lying propagandists in the media ran with WITHOUT doing their job, and double checking if it was true or false.

  18. Just one more in a LONNNNNGGGGG list of Democrat hoaxes to make Republicans look bad. It’s all they have, because they have NOTHING to run on other than killing babies.

    1. Turley: “There is a Fox News report that it was able to confirm an abortion involving a ten-year-old girl in Indiana”

      What “hoax” are you talking about?

Leave a Reply