The Ombudsman’s office became entangled in a high profile dispute over an abortion case involving a young woman. When it emerged that the person in question was 24 years old, questions arose about whether old, misleading entries were still available in the office’s records.
Recently the media reported that a 14-year-old with an intellectual disability was sexually assaulted by her uncle and became pregnant. The case was reported to law enforcement, and prosecutors discussed the legal criteria for possible termination of pregnancy. The teenager and her aunt sought an abortion at hospitals near their home but were told the doctors invoked their conscience clause to refuse care.
There was extensive media coverage, yet the National Prosecutor’s Office told the press agency on a Friday that a public prosecutor’s office in the Białystok region was investigating the case.
The procedure described involved bringing a patient, who could be perceived as vulnerable due to her condition, to a sexual act at the age of 24 rather than 14, according to Prosecutor Łukasz Łapczyński.
She is repeatedly referred to as a “14-year-old” on the Ombudsman’s site
Following the initial media reports, the Ombudsman for Civil Rights contacted health authorities and the national health fund. The office publicly discussed the coverage and later, after information from prosecutors, did not publish any further clarifications. Critics argue the Ombudsman’s office did not take additional public steps beyond issuing statements.
Critics, including Piotr Pałka, have shared screenshots showing that information from the Human Rights Commissioner’s Office remained publicly accessible on social channels and the website, despite clarifications that the case involved an adult who had already progressed through the system.
Disputed translations of the foundation’s statements
The president of the Foundation for Women and Family Planning, known as Feder a, Krystyna Kacpura, acknowledged that age verification of the pregnant person was not fully confirmed by her organization at the time. She explained that in conversations with family members, activists learned of a teenager, though authorities indicated the person might have presented as younger than her actual age. The comments raised concerns about verification processes and the speed of public commentary from NGOs during media crises.
Some observers note that a more cautious approach from NGOs and official bodies would help prevent sensational reporting from causing lasting harm to individuals who are already vulnerable. The broader issue is how institutions respond to allegations and how quickly media campaigns can shape public perception before all facts are confirmed.
Additional reporting on the matter described questions raised by public health officials and the health ministry about how the case was represented in public communications and what steps were taken to verify the information before it was disseminated.
The coverage continues to spark debate about accountability, the role of the ombudsman, and how to handle sensitive cases responsibly when misinformation can spread rapidly through media networks.
Source material continues to surface from various outlets, with ongoing analysis of the case’s timeline and the statements issued by the involved authorities. The dialogue emphasizes the need for precise facts, careful verification, and a commitment to protecting the rights and privacy of those affected.