Yes.
The same AG who went on Fox News and said he intended to investigate the doctor for failing to report the rape, when the doctor actually had done so.
The same AG who failed to explain how, under Ohio's very vague law, this girl, (whom his office never had performed a medical examination on, so it's unclear how he is certain she would meet the medical necessity required to be exempt) would not have any who helped her avoid prosecution.
And the same AG who is currently lying about how Trump had the election stolen from him.
Can you see how someone would be skeptical, and not willing to risk significant jail time by helping the poor girl? Can you not be skeptical when the AG only came out with his guarantee of it being legal, after the story broke and it was no longer and issue and his office was facing a public backlash for such a terrible law in the first place?
It boggles the mind that anyone would recommend the doctor just go for it, and trust the liars in charge, while simultaneously failing to actually quote the clear exception they think exists.
Either admit it's a poorly drafted law, or point to us the language you think guarantees a non-prosecution. Because as a former ADA, I can tell you that vagueness exists. It isn't clear that a 10-year old, just by virtue of being so young, would clearly fall within the medical necessity exception. Here is the relevant portion of the law, and one that the doctor would have to argue around to avoid going to jail:
"Medical necessity" means a medical condition of a pregnant woman that, in the reasonable judgment of the physician who is attending the woman, so complicates the pregnancy that it necessitates the immediate performance or inducement of an abortion.
As a former prosecutor, I could see one easily arguing both the "so complicates," and "immediate," language of that law. And all I would have to do, is put a different doctor on the stand to argue otherwise. Any doctor that was willing to say that the girl, despite being 10, may have been able to carry the fetus to term. Or, even if there was doubt, that the risk was not "immediate." And if a prosecutor was so inclined, then a doctor who went ahead with the procedure has her fate left in the hands of the jury.
You cannot reasonably expect all the people involved to take such a risk, especially given how dishonest said AG has been throughout this process. So instead of asking the citizens of Ohio to just trust him, how about concede that the law needs to be re-written, and maybe include more clear language. It need be no more complicated than a line like, "A medical necessity shall be presumed to exist if the mother is less than X-years of age."
