The Indy Star Star Got Something Very Wrong in 10-Year-Old Rape Victim Story, Report Shows

Today, the Columbus Dispatch put out a report on the 10-year-old pregnant rape victim in Ohio whose story went viral after the Indianapolis Star framed it as a post-Roe nightmare. The Indy Star’s reporting raised questions about the veracity of the story because it cited only one biased source and had no corroborating police documentation. After intense media scrutiny spurred by questions about the veracity of the claims, it was revealed that Gerson Fuentes, an illegal alien from Guatemala, is alleged to be the rapist and wasn’t taken into custody until July 12, despite Columbus police having a report about the crime on June 22.

But that wasn’t the only information missing from the Indy Star’s reporting. The paper, owned by Gannett, didn’t do any homework before reporting that the girl had to travel to Indiana for an abortion due to what they claimed were restrictive laws in Ohio.

Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.

Could Bernard help? The initial reporting never included any analysis from Ohio legislators. If it had, they would have discovered two things: Ohio does not have a 6-week ban on abortions, and Ohio law has several exceptions for abortions in these types of extreme cases that would have covered the abused child.

Its simple. The story was fake from the beginning. Yes, there was a rape. The girl may be ten, who knows. She is a young girl thats for sure. But she was born in another country, so her age is not guaranteed. Neither is her name or any other identity other than her finger prints.

We could know the father of the aborted fetus if they saved some DNA. We don’t know if the mother is the mother. We don’t know she is pregnant. We don’t know whose child it is, fatherwise. Its likely that the abortion was done across state lines to protect the father, not to protect the child. Its seems the long drive from Ohio to Indian about, 2.5 hours, is the hardship that is too much for democrats to bare. The sex with a ten year old is not a problem. The mother and child services hiding the facts and the father pedophile walking free are not a problem. Certainly children illegally being transported to America is not a problem. And notice that the children are not safe once they get here.

Is this kid being sold for sex? We don’t know. Is this kid being groomed for the sex trade? We don’t know. We just know there is a women and a man who have no problem with a young child who is having sex with a 27 year old man. That we know. And nobody on the left has a problem.

I doubt we know the whole truth yet. At some level, the mother was complicit in the rape or the cover up. At a minimum, she didn’t want to risk losing the gravy train should the rapist (who was the only employed person living in the house) be arrested. Worst case, she was trafficking her daughter, if the girl is even hers. I have a strong suspicion that if pro-life people hadn’t challenged this story, the illegal alien rapist never would have been arrested. And they would have been OK with that. Literally NOBODY on the pro-abort side asked the question “Has the rapist been caught?” or worried that there might be a child rapist on the loose.

Abortion providers regularly cover up rapes, including children, and abortion is the easiest way to destroy the “evidence”.

Both sides in Ohio have been calling each other out in the media for lying. Dems saying the 10-year old would not have qualified for an exemption, and the AG stating that she would have.

from current article:

”The initial reporting never included any analysis from Ohio legislators. If it had, they would have discovered two things: Ohio does not have a 6-week ban on abortions, and Ohio law has several exceptions for abortions in these types of extreme cases that would have covered the abused child.

True, there is no “6-week ban” on abortions. Ohio bans abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is approximately six weeks into pregnancy.

As published by AG Yost’s office, the three exemptions are:

- Ectopic pregnancies
- Cases that would cause the death of the mother
- Cases that cause a serious risk of substantial, irreversible impairment to a major bodily function of the mother

It doesn’t look like the 10-year old would have qualified, based on the exceptions stated above. There are no exemptions for cases of sexual assault of a minor. AG Yost states in the article, “Ohio has a medical emergency section, broader than just the life of the mother.” OK - where is it?

The initial reporting never included any analysis from Ohio legislators.

Correct. Instead, the person who’s running against Yost for AG in the fall, sent a letter to the Ohio Legislative Service Commission - the agency that helped write the bill that became law, asking ”whether minor victims of sexual assault are able to receive abortions within Ohio after six weeks gestation." The answer was, "No, Ohio’s abortion prohibition applies regardless of the circumstances of conception or the age of the mother."

Full text of LSC response here:

Hello, Lilly,

Representative Crossman asked LSC if minor victims of sexual assault are able to receive abortions within Ohio after six weeks gestation. No, Ohio’s abortion prohibition applies regardless of the circumstances of conception or the age of the mother.

Ohio law prohibits a person from knowingly and purposely performing or inducing an abortion after a fetal heartbeat has been detected (typically around six weeks), unless either (1) the physician performs a medical procedure designed to or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant woman or prevent a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman or (2) a person has performed an examination for the presence of a fetal heartbeat and the method used does not reveal a fetal heartbeat. (R.C. 2919.195.)

I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Amy L. Archer

Research Analyst
Office of Research and Drafting
Legislative Service Commission

For decades the pro-choice movement has made specious, misleading and dishonest arguments to justify abortion on demand.

Now the state of Ohio, along with the pro-life side, is claiming things that don’t appear to be accurate. They say the 10-year old would have been exempted, but there is no actual proof of that in the law itself.

When these articles get posted everybody’s ready to jump on the bandwagon. But the laws themselves need to be looked at. Just because it’s an article favoring the pro-life side doesn’t automatically give it a pass in the area of accuracy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.