Dr. Caitlin Bernard Did the Right Thing in Providing Abortion Care to a 10-year-old Girl

By David Starr

Members of the right have been more or less agreeable on women and girls giving birth regardless of the circumstances; including a ten-year-old kid having a kid.

In a Politico report, a National Right to Life official was quoted as saying that the girl should have had the baby: “She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having a child.” The problem with this reasoning is that we are not talking about women here. We are talking about a ten-year-old girl.

As it turned out, though, the girl had to go from Ohio to Indiana because of Ohio’s abortion ban to receive medical care from an obstetrician. Dr. Caitlin Bernard performed an abortion on the girl using an abortion pill. The girl was six weeks pregnant. But Bernard was negatively criticized for performing the procedure. Todd Rokita, Indiana’s attorney general (a Republican), said on Fox “news” that Bernard should be investigated. Rokita made the claim that Bernard has a history of not reporting abortions and thus may have violated federal law. Rokita, however, presented no evidence to back this up, or that Bernard did not comply with state reporting requirements.

Despite Rokita’s claims, Indiana University Health concluded that Bernard followed proper procedures. National Public Radio published an article (07/15/2022) by Sarah McCammon in which McCammon quoted Indiana University Health: “Pursuant to its policy, IU Health conducted an investigation with the full cooperation of Dr. Bernard and other IU Health team members. IU Health’s investigation found that Dr. Bernard in compliance with privacy laws.” So, Rokita seeking an investigation would be a waste of time.

“Pro-lifers” are so concerned about the “unborn” yet when it comes to lives of children out of the womb, they don’t protest as much. This is particularly in regards to children who are nonwhite foreigners. For some “pro-lifers,” these children’s lives are secondary to the lives of white “American” children. There is a deafening silence to the position “pro-lifers” take when it comes to children of the “Third World.” There are those who would rather support the USA’s war provocations and ignore the consequences that come with actual imperial war. It’s pretty much a perverse position to take.

At first, there were “pro-lifers” who called the rape of the girl a fabrication. Then, the rapist of the girl, Gerson Fuentes, was arrested and they had no choice but to acknowledge it. According to the Indianapolis Star (07/14/2022), reporter Tony Cook wrote that Fuentes was held on a $2 million bail. Prosecutor Dan Myer wanted to deprive Fuentes of bail. But Fuentes’ lawyer Clark Torbett asserted that that was unconstitutional. Myer claimed that Fuentes is supposedly not in the country legally. It wouldn’t be surprising if the right pounced on this claim. If Fuentes is an undocumented immigrant, that has no bearing on the case. But the right may use the derogatory term, “illegal alien,” to imply that immigrants are generally rapists and they have to be kicked out of the country. This falls in line with Donald Trump’s accusation that Mexicans are “criminals and rapists.” The racism is self-evident. But this is not to excuse Fuentes of committing the act of rape.

The National Right to Life official did say that there may be exceptions for rape and incest in regards to abortion. But he added, “It’s not our ideal position. We don’t think, as heart-wrenching as the circumstances are, we don’t think we should devalue the life of the baby because of the sins of the father.” It’s so easy for “pro-lifers” to say this. For example, Republican state legislatures wanting to use laws to ban abortion are in no position to judge. To force a ten-year-old to give birth ignores the trauma the victim goes through. Having a child at that age isn’t justified or fair.

The Indiana state legislature is planning on passing laws that would ban abortion, perhaps with exceptions. Perhaps not. Because the long-term goal for the right is to ban it entirely if they can get away with it.