 So last week on the show, we talked about a plethora of stories that demonstrate how harmful the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade has already been for women and girls in the United States. And one of those stories is this story about a 10-year-old child in Ohio who was denied an abortion and forced to travel to Indiana in order to terminate her pregnancy. Now after that story broke, for whatever reason, mainstream media pundits and fact-checkers decided to try to poke holes in the story when there was nothing particularly doubtful about the story. I mean, this is a relatively common story. I think the only surprise was how quickly this type of story came out following the reversal of Roe v. Wade. But these things are in inevitability in a post-Roe world. But regardless, fact-checkers were incredibly, incredibly disingenuous about this story. So let's look at some headlines shared by journalist Ken Clippenstein. Quote, not a whisper of evidence to show 10-year-old Ohio rape victim got abortion in Indiana. Another one, an abortion story too good to confirm. This was published by the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal. Fox News writes, Biden cited story of 10-year-old Ohio rape victim needing abortion still not verified by fact-checkers, Snopes, Washington Post unable to verify viral story. Governor Kristi Noem writes, a week ago Dana Bash on CNN tried to trap me with a story about a 10-year-old girl who got an abortion. I pointed out that nobody was asking about the pervert who raped that child. Now it looks like the story was fake to begin with. Literal fake news from the liberal media. Now there's more, but let's just pause for a moment. I'm not a journalist, but since when was being unable to verify a story or confirm every single detail, tantamount to that story just being completely bogus? In what way does it mean that if you can't verify details of the story as a fact-checker, it's just that proves it's fake? I don't know how they came to this conclusion, but odds are there were a lot of pundits and media figures that wanted to come to this conclusion because they wanted to make it seem as if liberals were being too hysterical over the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Now let's look at a little short compilation from Fox News about the way that they covered this. So Primetime decided to investigate this alleged child rape. But we quickly found out that authorities in Ohio haven't even begun a criminal investigation into the rape. This doesn't make any sense. To the point of the Indianapolis Star, Washington Post, there's no indication that the newspaper made other attempts to confirm her account. The story's lead reporter, you made this point during break. Sheri Rudewski did not respond to a query asking whether additional sourcing was obtained. And the single source said to the Washington Post, thank you for reaching out. I'm sorry, but I don't have any information to share. So just dark. Yeah. And that's against the backdrop of their code of ethics, which also includes we use confidential sources, sole sources as the sole basis for published information only as a last resort and under specific procedures that best serve the public's right to know. Well that goes to what you were saying, where they have deemed that the public's right to know is folded in with their agenda. Take it from me because my wheelhouse was criminal law as an attorney. There's no shortage of 10-year-old rape victims. There's victims from infants through the elderly, both genders. There is more than you can count. There are so many monsters out there. So for me, what I find so deeply offensive is that they had to make up a fake one. There's actually so many, they're countless real ones that I would love for them to use as advocacy for law and order, for actually commitment to prosecutions, to finding the perpetrator. But the fact that this alleged situation was created, and that was to serve the public's right to know, to further their position on abortion by a sort of sensationalist physician now that has now gone dark with the zero acknowledgment of the perp and the victim and so much more components of this that real people have dedicated their careers and their dramatic efforts to on a daily basis that they think were that simple, that they've reduced us, oh, you're going to eat this up, you're not going to ask any questions and it's going to be really good for your talking point and then it gets amplified, it's horrifying. Americans know better than that, we're smarter than that and we are more honorable than that. So what does it tell us that politicians are lying about this? Can you imagine? And why did the by-demonstration speaking of lying just repeat a story about a 10-year-old child who got pregnant and they got an abortion or was not allowed to get an abortion when it turns out the story was not true? And by the way, when a 10-year-old gets pregnant, the first question is not, how do we get rid of the kid? The first question is where's the rapist? Where's the rapist? Yeah. So as it turns out, the story was proven to be completely true. Yeah. It's true. So as the Columbia Dispatch reports, a rest made in rape of Ohio girl that led to Indiana abortion-drung international attention. Gershon Fuentes, 27, whose last known address was an apartment on Columbus's northwest side, was arrested Tuesday after police say he confessed to raping the child on at least two occasions. He's since been charged with rape, a felony of the first degree in Ohio. Columbus police were made aware of the girl's pregnancy through a referral by Franklin County Children's Services that was made by her mother on June 22nd. Detective Jeffrey Hoon testified Wednesday morning at Fuentes' arraignment. On June 30th, the girl underwent a medical abortion in Indianapolis. Hoon said. Hoon also testified that DNA from the clinic in Indianapolis is being tested against samples from Fuentes as well as the child's siblings to confirm contribution to the aborted fetus. Now, again, I understand that fact checkers like Snopes and Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post, who I think is a stretch to even call him a fact checker at this point, I understand if you're not able to verify details of this story. And that's because there's a child victim involved. So these details are sensitive. They're going to try to restrict these details from the public to protect that child. But I'm no journalist, right? But again, I've got to ask the question, since when has being unable to independently verify details of a story implied that the story itself is completely bogus? How did we reach this conclusion collectively as a media establishment? I don't know. Part of it is, you know, I think that pundits trying to both sides the situation and try to be fair to Republicans and make it seem as if what they just did or what they wanted isn't as bad as liberals and lefties are making it seem. Maybe that's part of it. But another part of it, I fear, is that this is an indication that the most horrific abortion stories that will inevitably come out in a post-Roe America are going to be viewed as false flags. Now, why? Because these stories are going to come out. Women will be harmed. Women will die because Roe versus Wade has been overturned. But why? We know what's going to happen. Well, they know that this hurts the cause for forced birthers. In Ireland, the country had a collective change of heart because of one story where a woman died because she was denied access to an abortion. So in the United States, if these stories begin to be published one after another of a woman with an egg-topic pregnancy, dying or a 10-year-old rape victim getting denied an abortion, that is going to collectively change the public consciousness even more. Conservatives know that they're already on thin ice. They know that a majority of Americans supported Roe v. Wade. So they know that what they did was incredibly extremist and unpopular. So if more and more stories begin to come up, then that will keep this on the public's collective consciousness and this will facilitate more protests, people getting outraged and lashing out at government for failing to protect women. So that's what I think maybe it is. But I mean, when it comes to conservatives and conservative media, everything that's inconvenient to their narrative is deemed a false flag or conspiracy theory. But I think that this is an indication that we have to be on the lookout for these fact-checkers and anyone who wants to help conservatives, they're going to be crying false flag at any abortion story. Now, of course, we should remain skeptical and be cautious and do our due diligence, but with regard to this particular story, there was nothing about it that raised any red flags in my head. And again, not a journalist, so I'm not an expert. These are supposed to be the experts, but there's nothing about this story that's particularly unbelievable. But yet, that didn't stop fact-checkers from poking holes in it. As the Wall Street Journal smugly put it, oh, it's an abortion story. That's just too good to be true. As if this sort of a story is so out of the norm in countries where abortions are denied. Jesus Christ. If we're this early into a post-Role America and media is already fucking up this bad, it goes to show you it's going to be a really bumpy road ahead if the media won't even do the bare minimum and just report facts and stop trying to poke holes in particular stories for purposes of serving the right wing's narrative. What is the point of this?