The Rape Of An Ohio Girl Is A Horrific Tragedy. It Doesn’t Change Reality

Pro-abortion pundits spent Wednesday gleefully dunking on conservatives who had been skeptical of a story Joe Biden repeated about the rape of a 10-year-old Ohio girl, who had allegedly trekked to nearby Indiana to obtain an abortion. After years of media misinformation, the initial skepticism was warranted. Not only because it is prudent to be doubtful until you see real corroboration, but because the story came from a piece in the Indianapolis Star that relied on the word of a single abortionist, Caitlin Bernard.

Wednesday, we learned that “a Columbus man”—as most news accounts described him—had been arrested for the crime. Gerson Fuentes, who is “undocumented” (an inconvenient tidbit that will surely be inadmissible in public debate), reportedly confessed to raping the child on at least two occasions. It is a gruesome and unfathomable tragedy.

Why was it difficult to believe? It’s worth recalling that the president, who brazenly lies and invents stories about himself and the world virtually every day, had absolutely no proof that a rape had occurred, or that an abortion had been procured, when he decided to share the story with the world.

It is also worth remembering that pro-abortion advocates have long concocted stories and statistics to emotionally manipulate the public. Perhaps the most infamous of these was Walter Cronkite’s 1965 documentary on the issue, which greatly exaggerated the number of back-alley abortions and deaths from botched abortions, numbers that were incessantly repeated thereafter by the media to shape public opinion. The documentary claimed, under the veneer of scientific expertise, that a million illegal abortions were performed every year (more than are legally procured today) and 5,000-10,000 women died from botched procedures – numbers repeatedly discredited.

Besides, there are still reasons to be curious about certain aspects of this story. Did the victim really have to go to Indiana to be treated by a nationally known abortion activist? Ohio’s heartbeat abortion law has exemptions to save the life of the mother and stop “irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.” These decisions are dictated by “the physician’s reasonable medical judgment.” When a 10-year-old Colombian girl gave birth (via cesarean section) in 2012, there was a string of stories quoting doctors detailing how pregnancy at that age threatened the pre-teen girl’s life. When relaying the story, Biden alleged that the girl “was forced” to travel out of the state to Indiana to “maybe save her life.” By those standards, the girl could likely have had a medical abortion in Ohio. So why was she in Indiana?  

No matter what the answer to that question is, the frivolous way in which Democrats have exploited this tragedy is despicable. Not because they’re critical of Ohio’s lack of a rape exemption. That’s fair game. It’s a fraught issue, both morally and politically. If one believes an unborn child is a life, then one believes it deserves protection from violence, no matter how tragic its origin. This is a difficult position to defend politically. But that’s not the position Democrats want you to justify. No, it’s exploitation because pro-abortion advocates are using the rape of a child as a cudgel to make a case for all abortions. It’s not like Democrats support abortion restrictions with rape exemptions.

Biden and others have engaged in a grossly cynical effort to use child rape to distract from their position. No pro-lifer is pro-rape. No pro-lifer wants to put the life of a 10-year-old in danger. Yet, Democrats support, sometimes celebrate, policy that allows for the termination of unborn life for any reason, including sex selection or eugenic manipulation, until birth. They are unperturbed by the fact that 10,000-plus viable or near-viable unborn babies are killed every year—tens of thousands of tragedies—or that the vast majority of them are disposed of for the convenience of the would-be mothers and fathers. Dems not only believe this barbaric practice should be legal, but that it should be paid for by taxpayers. They not only believe in zero restrictions, they want to shut down pregnancy centers that work to convince mothers to have those children and support them after they do. That’s the reality of this debate.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases