Republicans' bill would make PREGNANT 10-YEAR-OLDS have to prove they were raped.

[Swede]

Link to tweet

[ratchiweenie]

1. These people are just plain EVIL.

[Lovie777]

2. I do not like Republicans .....

they have no souls.

[Akacia]

3. So what part of them being a child do they not understand? Disgusting.

I guess we better let these very young mothers vote and sign contracts etc.

[Victor_c3]

4. They're all either a bunch of pedophiles or, at the very least, pedophilia apologists

Bills like this just put it all into writing.

[newdayneeded]

9. pedophiles.....that is all!

[yardwork]

17. Among Republicans, every accusation is a confession.

They've been accusing Democrats of being pedophiles and groomers. I assume that it's projection on their part.

[Hekate]

66. That hysteria they've ginned up over Dems being pedophiles? Pure projection.

[usajumpedtheshark]

5. I thought any sex with a minor was rape because minors cannot give consent

[dembotoz]

8. yep

but look for that to be changed too i guess

[Hugh_Lebowski]

11. First, the age of consent is 16 or 17 in 38 of the 50 states, whereas 'minor' means under 18

Second, minor boys get minor girls pregnant pretty damn regularly. It's not called rape when two 16 year old's have consensual sex.

So, bottom-line, it's 'sometimes', not 'any(time)'.

[Hekate]

67. Back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and I was in high school, girls of 15 were called jail-bait...

… by young men no longer in high school who had any sense of self-preservation.

[yardwork]

19. That's the law, but apparently Republicans want to change that.

[FBaggins]

6. Bad reporting (what you expect from Twitter threads)

This doesn’t force a ten year old to prove that she was raped. It forces the doctor to prove that they reported the crime (as is likely required in all 50 states).

[mzmolly]

18. That's not how I read the requirement.

There appears to be a demand that the child victim have a prior record of reporting her rape. A record - "prior to the abortion."

[FBaggins]

26. That's ok... you read it wrong

The requirement is on doctors… not the victim.

I’m not aware of anti-abortion laws that criminalize the woman’s decision (yet anyway). They target the doctors.

Every state requires doctors to report sexual abuse of minors. Quite a few of the Republican laws forbidding abortion but creating exceptions such as this still go after the doctor if they didn’t report the crime

They probably think it’s a way to avoid “all she has to do is claim that she was raped” - but for a ten year old there’s little question

[mzmolly]

29. I think you read it wrong.

The requirement is that the doctor have access to a prior report of rape, from an authorized source.

As Howard Dean pointed out many years ago, a victim of sexual assault (especially a child) can be further endangered with a requirement she make a claim of rape. She will either have to name her abuser, or lie and say she wasn't "raped."

Pretty shitty legislation you appear to be defending.

See page 2 here:

Link to tweet

/photo/1

[FBaggins]

32. I'm not defending it. I'm correcting your misreading of it.

Doctors are required to report… they obviously “have access” to that report. That says nothing about what the minor must do.

Howard Dean’s point is valid - but it isn’t the law.

[mzmolly]

33. The legislation requires a prior report of incest or rape to an authorized governmental agency.

It does not indicate that the doctor providing an abortion - reporting a rape at the time of the procedure, is sufficient. Thus the rationale for the law. The victim must prove she is a victim.

Max Kennerly is an Attorney. He reads 'it' the same way I do.

Among the many bad things in the proposed nationwide abortion ban: the rape exception for minors only applies if the doctor gets documentation from law enforcement reporting a rape.

Republicans want to make it the law that 10-year-olds are presumed to have consented to sex.

[OneGrassRoot]

39. This interaction gets into the weeds unnecessarily, imo

Because the entire point, regardless of legal verbiage or who has responsibility, is that ANY IMPREGNATION OF A 10-YEAR-OLD IS RAPE.

The fact that the child is pregnant is proof of rape in and of itself.

Period.

[mzmolly]

43. I agree. But the legislation noted,

appears to differ.

[OneGrassRoot]

44. Right, and that's the HUGE problem with the legislation. n/t

[FBaggins]

42. Not really

Existing law requires such a report. This law requires the doctor to keep the documentation.

Max Kennerly is an Attorney. He reads 'it' the same way I do.

Max Kennerly is an attorney who also read it incorrectly.

This isn't complicated reading. The language does NOT say that the doctor needs to get documentation from a law enforcement agency. It says that the crime must have been reported. It's his speculation that this requires them to "get it from law enforcement", but that's nonsense because the doctor was required already to make such a report. They don't need to go to law enforcement and request a copy.

[mzmolly]

45. I agree, it's not complicated. In fact, I was a mandated reporter.

Your assertion that others (who are legal experts) are misinterpreting the language of the legislation is noted, and dismissed.

The legislation requires a prior report of rape or incest to a "governmental agency." Typically, that would mean law enforcement.

[FBaggins]

52. It requires a report PRIOR to the procedure

That isn't an issue since the doctor is required to report right away and isn't going to perform a procedure as a walk-in. So the doctor's own report will necessarily precede the procedure.

Your appeal to (speculated) authority fallacy is also noted/dismissed.

This clearly is due to the story of the young girl in Ohio who made the news a few months ago. There was a nonsensical claim by a state AG that the doctor performing the procedure might be prosecuted for failure to report. It largely went away when the doctor showed that she did report as required... but there was some CT noise claiming that she reported after the fact and only because she had been caught. So Graham puts in his proposed legislation (that isn't going anywhere) that the doctor has to prove that she reported before performing the procedure?

The legislation is objectionable on its face to most Americans... but not because a doctor needs to keep paperwork proving that she obeyed an existing law. There is nothing here justifying the spin that the law means that a pregnant child is no longer presumptively the victim of a rape.

[mzmolly]

53. No - it requires DOCUMENTATION from an official governmental authority

of a report, prior.

It seems you haven't read the legislation you're defending.

[FBaggins]

54. So lets see if I've got this right

Existing law in every state requires the doctor to report...

Your objection is that this law requires them to keep the receipt to prove that they did so?

[mzmolly]

60. My objection is

that there may or may not be access to an 'official document' from a 'governmental authority' as required, in spite of a physician's obligation to report.

Doctors notes are not official government records.

That said, I have several objections to the proposed law in question. We're discussing one of them.

[FBaggins]

69. Can we at least agree that we've digressed a LOOONG way from "minor has to prove she was raped!" ?

Every state reporting requirement I've seen includes a copy for the mandated reporter (including the required language that the reporter's name will not be revealed except to law enforcement or as ordered by a court) - just like all other police reports.

I'm not aware of a school or hospital that would not require such records to be maintained (for their own protection), nor can I imagine being in a mandated reporting role without maintaining proof that I had done what the law requires. You said that you were a mandated reporter. I'm hoping that you never ran into a need to report - because if you had and didn't keep documentation, you placed yourself at risk.

As you say - there are plenty of things to object to about this (DOA) proposed law. But I can't see how this is one of them. Frankly, I think it's counterproductive to draw attention to such minutia (at best) because it indirectly implies that a 15-week ban could be acceptable if they just closed some minor gaps.

[mzmolly]

70. We'll agree

to disagree.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

7. Even if it wasn't technically rape

Such as, the father is the rare 10-11 year boy who's producing sperm already, WHO THE FUCK CARES, SHE'S 10!!!

At minimum there MUST be a clear cut-out for people 14 and under if you ask me. No questions asked, under 15 you're way too young to be forced into having a child.

I mean I don't support the whole fucking, of course, but this clause, assuming it's being properly interpreted in this tweet, is REALLY over the top cruel.

[FBaggins]

10. That would still be rape

Technically and legally.

[mzmolly]

16. Can you cite the law

you are noting?

[Hugh_Lebowski]

23. If you're sure that's actually the law in every state, I'll defer to your judgement

I suspect there are states that don't have such a law, but ... if you say so.

But I doubt prosecutions of 10 year old's who engage in sexual explorations with their peers happen with any regularity. I mean, they'd be raping each other. Very, very few people would like to see them both punished legally for this, sent to juvenile hall, etc.

AFA 'technically' goes, that's a somewhat nebulous term. When I used it just now, I really meant 'that's my opinion'. If yours is different, fine.

In either case, if this interpretation of the clause were accurate, it'd be unconscionable. There needs to be some minimum age before which it's no questions asked to be even slightly acceptable, just by virtue of the pregnant persons age.

[FBaggins]

25. Prosecutorial decisions are different

A pregnant ten year old has clearly been raped and every state has reporting requirements for doctors who have reason to suspect sexual abuse of a minor.

A prosecutor might decide not to press charges against the “father” in a case like what you mention - but that’s its own question. The doctor doesn’t get to make the decision

[Hugh_Lebowski]

28. Likewise, there being reporting requirements is not the same as 'legality'.

I would bet there are states that don't criminalize (i.e. define it as legal rape) it if a couple 10 year olds are screwing around with each other.

I could be wrong, but anyways like I said in the beginning ... WHO CARES SHE'S FRIGGIN 10 YEARS OLD!

The exact circumstances shouldn't even friggin matter, she should be allowed to terminate, period, simply by virtue of being 10.

And so should everyone else, for that matter, of course.

[FBaggins]

31. Again... this isn't a question of whether or not she can terminate

It’s a question of whether the doctor can perform the procedure.

This law says that a doctor can’t unless they have reported the crime.

[mzmolly]

34. A doctor can't perform the procedure

without a prior record of a report to a governmental agency. NOT to a physician.

[FBaggins]

37. Correct

The doctor can't perform the procedure without documenting the report.

However - all 50 states already require the doctor to make such a report (whether they perform an abortion or not).

There is no requirement placed on the minor here (other than the existing burden that any minor to goes to a doctor should be aware of the doctor's duty to report if for some reason she doesn't want it reported)

[mzmolly]

46. You're reading it wrong.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

36. Okay, so if my guess is correct and there are some states that don't call it the crime of child sex

abuse, due to 'exceptions when the minors are within 1 year of each other' or something to that effect ... what does the doctor need to do then in order to legally perform the procedure?

The doctor shouldn't HAVE to make that report if s/he has good reason to suspect the pregnancy resulted from a couple like-age kids playing doctor or the like. It shouldn't MATTER when she's 10, it MUST automatically be a legal option with someone of that age.

And it is imho a de facto question of whether she can terminate, because you need a professional to perform the procedure. You're making a distinction w/o much, if any, practical difference.

I mean, unless the parents have the means to take her out of the country, I suppose.

[FBaggins]

38. Not entirely unreasonable...

... but not an issue with this law. It's the existing legal requirement that physicians report any reason to suspect sexual abuse of a minor. The doctor already has to make the report. This law just takes advantage of that to close what they mistakenly consider a loophole.

[mzmolly]

47. The proposed law reads in part:

DOCUMENTATION PERTAINING TO MINORS.

2 —A physician who performs or
3 attempts to perform an abortion under an
4 exception provided by subparagraph
5 (B)(iii) shall, prior to the abortion, place in
6 the patient medical file—
7 ‘‘(I) documentation from a gov
8 ernment agency legally authorized to
9 act on reports of child abuse that the
10 rape or incest was reported prior to
11 the abortion; or
12 ‘‘(II) as an alternative, docu
13 mentation from a law enforcement
14 agency that the rape or incest was re
15 ported prior to the abortion.

https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3065785d-86b8-4d36-986a-72aa1c8f100c/protecting-pain-capable-unborn-children-from-late-term-abortions-act-.pdf

[Bayard]

12. Its still statutory rape, right?

So, would meet the qualifier for states excluding rape to get an abortion?

[In It to Win It]

13. Being 10 and also pregnant isn't proof enough?

[Hekate]

68. Apparently our home-grown Taliban does not think so

[mzmolly]

14. Sick f*ckers

[Emile]

15. Republicans hate little girls!

[TheBlackAdder]

21. No, they LOVE ♥️ little girls, that's the problem!

[mzmolly]

24. The implication appears to be, that little girls in question 'wanted it.'

Or, that they had the maturity and support required, to report their rape prior to a need for an abortion.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

41. It shouldn't even be a requirement that there was literal rape when the girl is 10 ... or 11 or 12

I mean, I know these things are very rare, but a person could get pregnant from a toilet seat. One could get pregnant because they fished around in a trash bin that had a used condom in it and they didn't notice, then used the toilet and wiped after, for example.

When you're talking someone THAT young, there should be NO QUESTION an abortion is legal.

Pretty sure nobody here disagrees with that idea.

[vanlassie]

56. (Not Lindsey)

[hvn_nbr_2]

20. Where is this? What is this?

Is this Lindsay Graham's bill? Is it some state legislature? What are we talking about?

[mzmolly]

48. Yes

https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3065785d-86b8-4d36-986a-72aa1c8f100c/protecting-pain-capable-unborn-children-from-late-term-abortions-act-.pdf

[Mystery sage]

22. If this is real I need to know the Architect of this crap.

The man and the Republican bastards should be destroyed with impunity.

[lpbk2713]

27. Show their birth certificate.

If they are ten years old, yes they were raped.

[maxrandb]

30. Fucking Groomers NT

[eShirl]

35. statutory rape by definition

[no_hypocrisy]

50. +1

I was going to say that.

[onenote]

40. As pointed out in post #6, the bill doesn't require a minor to "prove" they were raped.

It requires "a physician who performs or attempts to perform an abortion under an exception provided by subparagraph (B)(iii) shall, prior to the abortion, place in the patient medical file—
‘‘(I) documentation from a government agency legally authorized to act on reports of child abuse that the rape or incest was reported prior to the abortion; or
‘‘(II) as an alternative, documentation from a law enforcement agency that the rape or incest was reported prior to the abortion."

That report can be filed at any time prior to the procedure and doesn't have to be provided by the child -- rather, it is the doctor that would provide it in order to ensure they were in compliance with the above requirement.

However, there is another provision in the bill that is particularly nonsensical -- it requires the doctor to obtain the "informed consent" to the abortion. It does not exempt children, who legally are not capable of giving such informed consent.

[mzmolly]

51. The law requires that the documentation of a prior report to law enforcement or a gov agency

be placed in the patient medical records, prior to the procedure. It does not state that a physician can file a report on the day of the procedure and whip up a note for the medical files.

Not to mention, reporting laws can vary by state.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/manda.pdf

[onenote]

55. The statute says the report can be filed with the authorities "at any time" prior to the procedure

So, yes, a doctor can file a report and get confirmation for the patient's records the day of the procedure.

The exception for an abortion of a pregnancy resulting from the rape of a minor or incest against a minor applies where the rape or incest has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to either— ‘‘(I) a government agency legally authorized to act on reports of child abuse; or ‘(II) a law enforcement agency."

And while reporting law vary by state, the link you provided indicates that medical professional are required to report child abuse in every state.

[mzmolly]

61. It says official government documentation of a report

must be placed in the medical file, prior.

This is what people are missing, apparently:

DOCUMENTATION PERTAINING TO MINORS.

2 —A physician who performs or
3 attempts to perform an abortion under an
4 exception provided by subparagraph
5 (B)(iii) shall, prior to the abortion, place in
6 the patient medical file—
7 ‘‘(I) documentation from a gov
8 ernment agency legally authorized to
9 act on reports of child abuse that the
10 rape or incest was reported prior to
11 the abortion; or
12 ‘‘(II) as an alternative, docu
13 mentation from a law enforcement
14 agency that the rape or incest was re
15 ported prior to the abortion.

[onenote]

63. so, a doctor submits a report and gets written confirmation back that it was submitted

and that written confirmation is placed in the medical file. Where does it say any more than that is required?

[mzmolly]

64. That's a pretty

efficient interpretation of how it works.

However, reporting is often done by phone and the options vary from state to state, county to county.

[onenote]

71. It may place an additional burden on the doctor

to get the written confirmation back from the entity receiving the report, but I think what needs to be understood is that, notwithstanding what the tweet in the OP asserts (and dozens of posts here accept), the law would not require anyone to "prove" a minor has been the victim of a rape or incest.

What it would do, however, at least as literally written, is require a doctor to obtain an written "informed consent" form from a minor who legally, and practically, cannot be deemed to understand what that informed consent contains.

[mzmolly]

72. I disagree

with the first portion of your statement.

[alphafemale]

49. Repugs will swear a child seduced them

Not kidding.

That is what pedos do.

This bill proves it.

They see children as initiating sex.

[purr-rat beauty]

57. They don't accept the rule of consent

If they can overpower a victim and pregnancy occurs, it's the child's fault.

This is to protect their pedophilac asses

Where's MTG to speak out against this?

[Joinfortmill]

58. GOP are disgusting, immoral pigs. Anyone still in the party will wear this stain.

[calimary]

59. Legislating cruelty.

They want dominance THAT badly.

[ZonkerHarris]

62. GOP: we want the age of consent to be 10 years old. MAKE THE TV AD NOW!!!!!!!

[Hekate]

65. Whatever happened to the terms "statutory rape" and "child abuse"? Insanity, just insanity

Someone born with a vagina is deemed worthy of NO protection under the law? At any age?

Back in the day, DU used to mockingly refer to Talibornagains and Talibaptists. Now they are here for real — on the SCOTUS, in federal courts, and in State legislatures. They are as crazy and fanatical as the men in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.