Indiana Republicans propose abortion law with exceptions after firestorm over 10-year-old rape victim’s case
The law would include exceptions for rape, incest and if the mother’s life was at risk
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Republican lawmakers in Indiana have proposed an abortion ban with certain exceptions amid the ongoing furor over the case of a 10-year-old Ohio rape victim.
When lawmakers take up the proposal on Monday, Indiana will become one of the first states to debate tighter abortion laws since the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade last month.
The proposed Indiana law would allow exceptions in cases of rape, incest or to protect a mother’s life.
However, it is far from certain to pass as many hardline Republicans in the state want to ban all abortions.
It comes as political fallout over a 10-year-old girl from Ohio who travelled to Indiana to seek an abortion continues.
Ohio’s so-called fetal heartbeat law, which bans abortions after a fetus’ heartbeat can be detected (typically in around the sixth week of pregnancy), forced the young victim to go to Indiana to get a medication-induced abortion on 30 June.
After casting doubt about the veracity of the case after it made headlines, Republican officials and right-wing media pivoted to attacking the legitimacy of Dr Caitlin Bernard, the obstetrician-gynecologist who treated the young girl, and baselessly accused her of failing to notify law enforcement about the case.
On Tuesday, Dr Bernard threatened to sue Indiana attorney general Todd Rokita for defamation over his “false and misleading” statements.
“Dr Bernard recently came under attack by various media outlets and public figures after the Indianapolis Star reported that she provided medical and reproductive care for a 10-year-old child abuse victim days after the groundbreaking Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v Wade,” her attorney Kathleen Delaney wrote in a court filing on Tuesday.
“To the extent that these statements exceed the general scope of Mr. Rokita’s authority as Indiana’s Attorney General, the statement forms the basis of an actionable defamation claim against Mr Rokita individually.”
The defamation filing triggers a 90-day investigative period during which the state can settle the claim. Once the deadline is passed, Dr Bernard is free to pursue the lawsuit.
On 13 July, 27-year-old Gerson Fuentes was charged with raping the 10-year-old girl. Police in Columbus, Ohio, were alerted to a referral from Franklin County Children Services made by the girl’s mother on 22 June, according to testimony during Fuentes’ arraignment.
Abortion is currently legal in Indiana, but it is among the first in the rush to criminalise care after the Supreme Court ended half a century of constitutional protections for abortion rights and handed the decision back to individual states.
Associated Press contributed to this report
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments