Kansas Man Charged With First-Degree Murder for Inducing Girlfriend’s Miscarriage


A Kansas man will stand trial on first-degree murder charges after he allegedly laced his pregnant girlfriend’s pancakes with an abortion pill that caused her to miscarry.

Bollig reportedly confessed to crushing up the abortion-inducing medication mifepristone and mixing it into pancakes he served to Naomi Abbott, who was eight weeks pregnant at the time. According to reports, Bollig told investigators he purchased five pills online but used only one to induce Abbott’s miscarriage. Prosecutors charged Bollig with aggravated assault for lacing Abbot’s food and with first-degree murder in the death of the eight- to ten-week fetus Abbott was carrying.

In a preliminary hearing on the charges against Bolling, WaKeeney, Kansas, police chief Terry Eberle testified that an investigation into the miscarriage began almost immediately because an officer had informed him that Abbott, a jailer in Trego Couty, had expressed concerns to another officer that Bollig might be putting something into his girlfriend’s food to end the pregnancy. Dr. Lyle Noordhoek, a pathologist who performed an autopsy on the fetus and analyzed a blood sample from Abbott, testified that Abbott tested positive for mifepristone.

Bollig’s attorney questioned the admissibility of Bollig’s statements, including why no audio or video recordings were made of the interview that concluded in his alleged confession and his arrest, and claimed his client’s statements were made before he was properly advised of his rights. Trego County District Judge Glenn Braun will schedule a hearing at a later date to hear arguments by Bollig’s attorney that those statements should be suppressed.

Bollig is expected to enter a plea to the charges on September 9.

While unusual, Bollig’s case in not the only one of its kind. Earlier this year, a Florida man who admitted to tricking his pregnant girlfriend into taking abortion-inducting medication was sentenced to more than 13 years in a federal prison and ordered to pay his former girlfriend approximately $28,000 in restitution, on charges of tampering with a consumer product resulting in bodily injury and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. In response, the Florida legislature passed the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” which makes it a crime in the state to kill or injure a fetus at any stage of development during an attack on a pregnant woman. Such laws are part of a broader push for fetal “personhood” in a number of states around the country.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Jessica Mason Pieklo on Twitter: @hegemommy

To schedule an interview with Jessica Mason Pieklo please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • Moderately_Disgusted

    I guess it’s hard for self-proclaimed pro-lifers to see the distinction between a woman’s right to choose to take an abortion pill herself and a boyfriend taking away her choice by sneaking that pill into her food, and why he can be prosecuted for it but she wouldn’t be (knock on wood). I guess because women’s rights to bodily sovereignty are much less an issue to them than the terrible evil of interfering with God’s Plan for them? Just theorizing, but this does seem one of those messy cases that will cause trouble one way or another. Yikes.

    • fiona64

      I’m surprised that the “embryos are little people and this is proof” brigade have not shown up already, to be honest. They never seem to understand that the *primary* crime is the one against the pregnant woman, and the rest are attached special circumstances.

    • kitler

      An asshat pro-lifer just let me know that pregnant women have no right to medical privacy because ‘someone else is involved’ and then compared it to someone purposely infecting people with HIV while having sex, or ‘kidnapping the violinist’

      wtf

      • lady_black

        Well they are wrong. You do not lose any rights upon becoming pregnant.

        • JamieHaman

          Don’t move to Texas. This crazy state will put a brain dead woman on life support to prevent the death of a 14 week fetus, who was also brain dead. They are crazy here.

          If these people thought Dr. Pepper caused abortions, it would be gone from the shelves of stores.

          • lady_black

            What was done to Ms. Munoz was eventually ruled to be unlawful. Just because people attempt to do ridiculous things like that doesn’t make it the law, or constitutional. I’m deeply sorry for the suffering experienced by that family. They were victims of an unlawful power grab, and Texas should be deeply ashamed for it.

          • JamieHaman

            Sadly enough, over 30 states have this type of law on the books.

            Constitutional or not, this law is still on the books here.

            My understanding is that the judge ruled in favor of his lawsuit, because Munoz’s family claimed the law did not apply to brain dead women. Not because the law is/was unconstitutional. Not because the law overrides end of life directives of patients either. Both of which I think are true.

            I do know the law is still on the books, and while there is a petition to have it removed, I found no evidence that it is something the Texas State Legislature is going to act on either the petition, or common sense.

          • lady_black

            You’ll notice I said “unlawful.” The judge agreed. The law doesn’t apply to a corpse. It needs to be challenged as unconstitutional.

          • Christine svensson

            They should be ashamed, but they are not. They are happy that they tried, and deeply regret that they failed just one more step into making women state property. Pro lifers are sick people.

          • JamieHaman

            They are sick, sick people with control issues. I don’t call them pro life any more, nowadays, just forced birthers.

          • Chelsea Tornade-Hoe

            mmmmmm aborto-pepper

          • L’Anne

            Wouldn’t you like to be a pepper too?

      • http://www.vanillarosetangents.blogspot.com/ MsVanillaRose

        The violinist from Judith Jarvis Thomson’s thought experiment “A Defense of Abortion” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Jarvis_Thomson).

        • JamieHaman

          Thanks for sharing this. I had no idea this was out there.

        • fiona64

          It’s especially bizarre that an anti-choicer would use the violinist stoy to defend their position …

    • Christine svensson

      The most typical pro lifer would say that she is a murderer but he is not. After all, the normal (how can I use that word and refer to “pro life”?) position is that men are to make the decisions for women.

  • lady_black

    As abominable as this act was, this is not “first degree murder.” Aggravated assault.

    • BelligerentBruncher

      Maybe they can charge the woman with theft for stealing his sperm. He wanted it back and she wouldn’t give it.

      • lady_black

        Ah, but when you give someone something, you have no right to take it back, and it isn’t “theft” either.

        • BelligerentBruncher

          Like when a person gives consent?

          • lady_black

            Is “consent” a gift? No it is not.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            “Is “consent” a gift?”

            I don’t know. But it is given. And you claimed “when you give someone something, you have no right to take it back.”

            So there it is. Once consent is given, according to you, it cannot be taken back

          • lady_black

            Giving consent is not “giving something.” Consent is intangible. A gift is tangible and under most circumstances cannot be taken back. There are a few gifts that are conditional, but they are given with the foreknowledge that the gift is conditional. Some examples are scholarships and grants, and gifts in contemplation of marriage. If you buy your girlfriend a diamond ring for her birthday, she doesn’t have to give it back. If you buy an engagement ring and propose, that would have to be returned if the marriage doesn’t take place in most states. Consent is NOT a gift. Legally, it can be withdrawn at any time. You can be on the operating table, and withdraw consent for the operation. Legally they must honor that. You wouldn’t want consent to be final once given, trust me on that.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            I pointed out the failure of your comment “but when you give someone something, you have no right to take it back.”

            You were wrong. And now you’re backpedaling.

          • P. McCoy

            Consent to sex is NOT a consent to pregnancy. Rape is a complete invasion of a woman’s body-ovulation of an egg is involuntary, invasion by male genitalia and n subsequent sperm is due to a man’s free will act of assault. Hense if you believe that life begins at contraception (personhood as pro lifers believe, ) then the ‘baby’ is guity of invasion and a woman has every right to execute it in self defense just as anyone can execute an intruder. No human has a right t use another human’s body in a parasitical relationship in order to exist. But since personhood is accrued at birth abortion is not murder and should be done as and when as well as for reasons whatsoever why a woman seems fit.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            “Consent to sex is NOT a consent to pregnancy.”

            Never said it was.

          • P. McCoy

            Your remarks say other wise and as.a human being I have no right to doctor your food, drink or otherwise give you a harmful substance. I can’t even sneak a peanut on you since you might have a deadly allergic reaction to them. But you’re a twisty cuss eh ? Are you so eager for forced pregnancies that doctoring a woman’s food unbeknownst to her should be all right since miraculously it did not put her at death’s door?

          • BelligerentBruncher

            Really? Which remark were you reading that you thought that was writing that consent to sex was consent to pregnancy?

            Or could it be that your reading comprehension isn’t too gooder and stuff and things?

            Look, I get it. English isn’t your first language, but that’s OK Being multilingual is cool with me. Just keep practicing and it will get easier.

          • P. McCoy

            When one can’t defeat their opponent one can always resort to calling names. I am not the one who got into a euphemistic diatribe about gift giving as a veiled allegory to depositing sperm as a gift as well as issues of consent – eu compreendo o verbo violar, homem. Portuguese is NOT my first language, btw.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            So, in other words…..I never wrote that consent to sex was consent to pregnancy.

            And your poor reading comprehension allowed you to come up with that little gem all on your own.

          • P. McCoy

            You implied it. Keep insulting me, your male insecurities are showing and utterly boring as well.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            I implied no such thing. Again, your reading comprehension has failed you.

          • P. McCoy

            Your need to ofusticate when caught has failed YOU- see comment below and go your own way.

          • expect_resistance

            You’ve implied this many many many times. Got it.

          • lady_black

            No I was not wrong. We were discussing the “theft” of sperm, a tangible object. Unless she robbed a sperm bank and stole his specimen, there was no theft involved. He willingly ejaculated into her. He cannot demand that back. YOU are wrong, and shifting goalposts doesn’t fool anyone.

          • Arekushieru

            Nope. Something is tangible, consent is not. She was right, as usual, you were wrong, AS USUAL.

      • fiona64

        Maybe you can stop being stupid.

        Oops, I guess not.

        • expect_resistance

          I’m not sure it’s possible.

          • http://hapiland.net/c/free-career-test-online/999-hair-theory-and-practice-question-tests/cosmetology-practice-test-questions/ Karen Brown

            I also think so!

      • Arekushieru

        Uh, if the woman wasn’t pregnant, she would likely be facing less serious injury. And you PRESUME to speak on pregnancy and childbirth even though you’re MALE and CLEARLY lack comprehension?

        And, again, if someone gives SOMETHING that person has no right to take it back. Therefore, if the man wants his sperm back, the WOMAN has to be WILLING to give it back. Oops.

    • flame821

      Agree it’s not first degree murder but it goes beyond assault. If he got the prescription by lying he could be charged with a Federal offence. Or with a hate crime as he specifically targeted her because she was pregnant, or with practicing medicine without a license (inducing an abortion) and without consent. I can see him spending upwards of a decade in jail for this. He can be glad it wasn’t Texas or he might face several decades.

      • BelligerentBruncher

        Should Jennie Lynn McCormack be charged with practicing medicine without a license?

        • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

          You tell me.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know. I’m just throwing that out there since flame821 brought it up that and the other issue of hate crimes.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Okay.

        • Trollface McGee

          That usually requires someone to hold themselves out as a doctor and practise medicine. There might be some charges related to unlawful uses of prescription medicine depending what laws the state on the books but this wouldn’t be one likely.

        • flame821

          I don’t think you can be charged for practicing medicine without a license on yourself. If you do it to yourself, then it is simply your prerogative/decision as we cannot (legally) force an adult to undergo medical treatment without a court order. If she had given the pills to someone else that ‘may’ have opened the door to other charges. I’m not saying a jury would convict but DAs tend to pad the charges in hopes of a plea deal.

    • Philip Attisano

      According to the abortion law I would think this is “Destruction of Property”.

      • lady_black

        No. Aggravated assault. Women are not “property.”

        • Philip Attisano

          Forgive me I should elaborate. Of course one charge of assault against the woman. However, since the law doesn’t consider a fetus to be alive until the end of 24 weeks. The man didn’t kill him. The fetus was the property of the woman (she could kill the fetus if she chose via abortion). So why charge the man with murder? he should be charged with destroying the woman’s property. No different then throwing a baseball through her window. So 2 charges.
          1) Assault on the woman
          2) Destruction of property

          • lady_black

            The only charge ought to be aggravated assault. PERIOD.

    • Philip Attisano

      To appropriately draw a distinction between the charges. He should have 2 charges filed.
      1) Assault (against the woman)
      2) Destruction of property (against the fetus less then 24 weeks old)

      It is inappropriate to call destruction of a fetus “murder” only when committed by a man.

      • lady_black

        It’s inappropriate to call this murder at all.

      • lady_black

        What makes you think it matters that she was drugged by a man? If she had been drugged by a woman would that be any different?

        • Philip Attisano

          I agreed. Poor choice of words on my part. The point I wish to convey is that charging a third party with murder for an act that the mother can do legally is a gross case of inequality.

          • lady_black

            The crime is not murder. The woman didn’t die. Furthermore, if he’s actually telling the truth about how much drug was administered, I don’t believe one pill does the trick. In any case, I believe murder is an inappropriate charge. Not because a fetus is “property.” But because causing a miscarriage (by any means, by any person) is not “murder.”

          • fiona64

            Let me try to break this down for you. I am sorry that I cannot use small words in this case.

            Murder is the unlawful (illegal) taking of a person’s life with malice aforethought.

            Abortion is a legal medical procedure. That which is legal cannot also be unlawful.

            An embryo is not a person. All persons are *born.* This is covered in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

            The crime is not murder, and never has been. The crime is aggravated assault. That an enthusiastic prosecutor is attaching special circumstances of fetal homicide (there is a difference between that and murder, and the article grossly mis-speaks the matter) is not the point here.

          • Philip Attisano

            Without sounding as though I am pushing my agenda either pro life or choice. I do agree, if it isn’t murder when the mother does it, it isn’t murder ever. I do understand the ramifications if the law were to permit a third party to force a miscarriage via assault. What prevents all the teenage boys from punching the girlfriend in the stomach if they know they will only be charge with assault. Making an exclusion to the law only for the mother and charging all others with murder is women’s rights turned on it’s head.

          • Arekushieru

            Wrong. It doesn’t matter if it would have been murder if the woman did it or not. A woman has a right to control over her own body. Anyone other than a pregnant woman does not. The only reasons it isn’t murder is because it’s not killing, not unlawful and not done with malice aforethought.

      • fiona64

        It’s inappropriate to call abortion murder it is neither illegal nor kills a person.

        This is an aggravated assault case, period.

  • JamieHaman

    What charges are there for Bolling for harming Abbott? Are the only charges going to be against him for “murdering” this fetus?
    That’s fucked up. He should be facing at minimum, assault charges for Naomi Abbott.

    • lady_black

      He IS facing charges for what he did to her. Aggravated assault. And that should be the only charge.

      • JamieHaman

        Aggravated assault. Hope she sues the hell out of him in civil court too, for mental distress, or something. (Not a lawyer here) And dumps his ass too.

        • lady_black

          He is almost guaranteed to be held civilly liable, even if not criminally liable. The reason is the lower standard of proof, a preponderance of evidence. That is to say, more likely than not.

      • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

        I agree. I am very uncomfortable with first degree murder here.

        • Julie Watkins

          Since my answer to “when does ‘life’ begin?” is “When the mother accepts the pregnancy” then If she wanted the pregnancy, then I think it’s some kink of “murder”, though not necessarily the legal definition of “first degree”. I would consider it “murder” socially.

          I can’t tell from the story above that Abbott had definitely wanted to try to bring the pregnancy to term rather than was still deciding.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            I like your definition. Very sensible.
            You speak for me. In a legal system that allows a hospital to plead a fetus is not a legal person to escape liability, this cannot be allowed to fly at 1st degree murder, although it is a form of homicide IMO.

  • lady_black

    Lindsey Leigh Phillips lady_black • 2 hours ago

    More like “when sperm is deposited, it can’t be retrieved”.
    But be contrary for the sake of it. It’s cute.
    Oh, and before you get all hot and bothered about proving your “point”: those assault charges pertain to the woman who was assaulted.

    I KNOW you didn’t address this comment to me. I think it was meant for Belligerent Bullshitter, wasn’t it? Because I ALREADY SAID that the aggravated assault charges were for what he did to the woman, so if this was meant for me, you are not correcting me.

    • BelligerentBruncher

      So what bodily harm did she undergo that would justify “aggravated assault” charge?

      I mean, I could see an aggravated assault for the fetus, if that were allowed, but how did the mother undergo “bodily harm?”

      • Unicorn Farm

        I would love to force you to experience a painful medical condition against your will and then watch you whine and cry, and then ask you if I’ve assaulted you.

        • BelligerentBruncher

          Taking mifepristone is a “painful medical condition?”

          • Unicorn Farm

            …. Yes. Unequivocally, a miscarriage is a painful medical condition. Further, and more importantly, I think, is that when a miscarriage is induced and occurs without the benefit of medical supervision, this poses a severe risk of harm to the woman.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            Wow, it’s that’s sounds like a dangerous drug. I wonder it they’ll make it OTC.

            Oh wait, weren’t you all congratulating the lady who bought and used RU-486 over the internet and used it without medical supervision?

          • Unicorn Farm

            You moron. It isn’t the drug at issue, it’s the effect. Do you really think it is not aggravated assault to give people drugs against their will?
            If yes, will you please remove yourself from society, if you insist on being such a danger to it?

          • Unicorn Farm

            Not to mention the fact that mifepristone as used for abortions is not available over the counter, but knowing actual *facts* appears to be the least of your problems.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            That’s funny, I didn’t write that RU-486 was available as OTC. Your reading comprehension isn’t too great.

          • Unicorn Farm

            ……………………………………………………………………………
            Its the same thing, you imbecile.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            ” I wonder it they’ll make it OTC.”

            Read that sentence. Then read is again. Try to understand the tense of verbs. Then read it again.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Your syntax is designed to convey that you believe it is already OTC.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            Nope.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Then what on earth DID you mean? Cause it’s not clear. It doesn’t help your point at all that this drug is not OTC.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            I think “aggravated assault” is depended on the intent of harm. Was it the boyfriend’s intent to hurt his girlfriend? or the fetus?

          • Unicorn Farm

            Both.

            Not that you know anything about the law, but what matters in aggravated assault is that you intentionally DO THE ACT, not who you intent to harm. Additionally, the standard (at least in my state) is “likely to harm”.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            I understand the harm to the fetus, but the fetus doesn’t have rights.

            How did he intend to harm his girlfriend?

          • Unicorn Farm

            By causing her to undergo a miscarriage against her will. Why is this concept challenging for you?

          • BelligerentBruncher

            Again, that causes harm to the fetus, of course.

            What harm did it cause her? And more importantly, what was the intended harm?

          • Unicorn Farm

            You ignorant little shit. You cannot force other people to undergo medical conditions. You do not have the right to cause changes to other people’s bodies. Miscarriages are painful. That man caused a chemical reaction in her body to which she did not consent. That man caused a physiological process in her body to which she did not consent, which was not only painful but which changed the state of her body (pregnant to not pregnant) without her consent. That, in and of itself, is assault. The fact that the miscarriage, unexpected, uncontrolled and outside the purview of medical supervision, could have seriously harmed her physically, makes it aggravated. He is not a doctor, he does not have the skillset to determine if this medication was administered in a way so as not to KILL HER of seriously and permanently injure her.

            Further, as I explained, for aggravated assault, you do not need to show intended harm. You need only show that he INTENTIONALLY put the pills in her food. That satisfies the intent element.

            The intended harm is to control her body and make it undergo a miscarriage. You are so f*cking stupid. Actually, I know you know this, you just haven’t been banned in this iteration of 5X5 and are looking to get a rise out of people.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            You don’t quite understand the use of intent in the law, but that’s OK. I’m sure some lawyer will come along and explain it to you.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Show me how I’m wrong then.

          • kitler

            Predictable troll is boring

          • Unicorn Farm

            I wonder, what is so wrong with a person’s life that they feel the need to consistently troll and derail random internet threads? It’s not even misguided but good faith debate… simply trolling. What is missing from this sad person’s life that THIS is a good use of time?

          • fiona64

            He’s a pissy little boy who couldn’t get laid in a women’s prison if he had a fist-full of pardons. He’s just like Elliot Rodger, only without the money.

          • Unicorn Farm

            This is probably the only attention he ever gets. Certainly only the attention from women….

          • cjvg

            If you intend to shoot your neighbor but instead kill the mail man you will still be charged with murder, even if you did not “intend” to shoot the mail man. It is you who is completely (and inexplicably proud to be so) ignorant of the use of intent in the law!

            You use the same arguing strategy as a two year old toddler, and it is extremely unbecoming and quite frankly embarrassing to witness.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            Manslaughter vs murder.

            What is that?

          • cjvg

            NO, manslaughter is an accidental killing, if you deliberately aim a gun to kill there is an intent to commit murder, even if you hit the wrong victim.

            See the shooting of congress woman Gabrielle Giffords, he intended to shoot her but killed others in the process, he is charged with murder in those deaths

          • BelligerentBruncher

            Manslaughter vs murder. Intent matters.

          • cjvg

            Not to you, you have been very obvious about that. The only thing that matters to you is attention however you can get it, just like a little child

          • StudentHealer

            This man’s ignorance of how painful and harmful a miscarriage is does not change his intent to cause a miscarriage. The pain and harm is inherent in a miscarriage, so the intent to cause pain and harm is part and parcel of causing miscarriage. And before you go off on doctors being willing to cause that kind of pain – they are trained to do it and handle what comes… plus, there’s that whole “informed consent of the patient” thing that doctors obtain and Bollig did not.

            So, if a man does not know how painful a miscarriage is, there are two reasons why: 1, he doesn’t care enough to learn or 2, he really does understand, but he’s trying to beat an assault charge by pleading ignorance and therefore lack of intent to cause harm.

          • lady_black

            The fetus didn’t suffer a miscarriage. SHE DID.

          • fiona64

            Because he’s an idiot.

          • cjvg

            The girlfriend has a right to retain the pregnancy for however long she wants as it is a products of her body, he interfered with her right to sovereign possession of her body and the fruits thereof!

            And to answer your next question, a pregnancy only affects the woman’s body and health therefore she is the sole possessor of the rights to terminate or not!

            And here is the answer to your inevitable follow up question. after birth the child has become its own person with its own rights and as such the child has a right to also receive support from its father

          • lady_black

            He intended harm. He intended to cause her to suffer a miscarriage. The fetus didn’t feel a thing. It was his intent to hurt her, and he didn’t care how much harm he did. There’s your intent.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Oh cute, you edited your post after I replied to make it make at least a modicum of grammatical sense.

            That was her CHOICE. You fail to understand the concept of consent. If I choose to take a risky drug, that’s ok. If someone else makes that choice for me, its assault.

            Like this- If you choose to put a broom handle up your own rectum, that’s your choice. If I choose to put a broom handle up your rectum without your consent, BB/5X5, it’s assault. Right?

          • BelligerentBruncher

            Please quote my original post.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Quote your own damned post.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            I’ll take that as an apology. Thanks. :)

          • Unicorn Farm

            Nope.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            Still waiting for you to quote my original comment and show the rest of the RHRC readership how I edited it…..

          • Unicorn Farm

            Still waiting for you to rebut a single one of my substantive points.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            Still no quote?

            I would have thought a lawyer would have been able to back up her (it’s a “her” right?) claims. I guess not.

          • Unicorn Farm

            I am minimally concerned about your inability to write clearly. I simply don’t feel like arguing with you about it, especially when you still haven’t managed to respond to a single one of my substantive posts.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            Still waiting for that quote….

            Unless you lied, then of course you wouldn’t be able to provide a quote.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Still waiting for you to show how forcing a woman to have a miscarriage against her will is not harming her….

            Listen to yourself. You’re demanding that I copy paste something that literally no one but you cares about.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            You brought it up, so obviously you care.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Yeah, sure, 19 posts ago. Now, why don’t you invest time in responding to my substantive posts.

          • Unicorn Farm

            He DID harm her. How can you POSSIBLY say that what he did to her wasn’t harm? I’ve explained to you how it IS harm. Now, its YOUR TURN to try and argue that causing someone’s body to miscarry ISNT harm. Do it, if you’re so sure.

            Finally, asswipe, I am a lawyer. I know what I’m talking about. You understand that every state has a different definition of aggravated assault, and I stated what the intent element in MINE was. You are WELCOME to explain to me how I’m wrong on either of my points, that the intent element was met OR that causing someone to have a miscarriage isn’t “harm.” You have yet to even try to rebut what I’ve said.

          • kitler

            He knows that you are a lawyer. Has all along. Hence the joke of pretending that you are ignorant.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Yah, I know. I should quit responding, but I’m bored at my law job. Is it Friday yet?

          • BelligerentBruncher

            Yes, you’ve shown harm to the fetus – a “non-person.”

            Now, show harm to the girlfriend. I mean, did she bleed a lot? Did she get septic? Did she die? What was the harm done? Please be as specific as you can. I’m asking because nowhere in the article did it specify the harm done to HER.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “You ignorant little shit. You cannot force other people to undergo medical conditions. You do not have the right to cause changes to other people’s bodies. Miscarriages are painful. That man caused a chemical reaction in her body to which she did not consent. That man caused a physiological process in her body to which she did not consent, which was not only painful but which changed the state of her body (pregnant to not pregnant) without her consent. That, in and of itself, is assault. The fact that the miscarriage, unexpected, uncontrolled and outside the purview of medical supervision, could have seriously harmed her physically, makes it aggravated. He is not a doctor, he does not have the skillset to determine if this medication was administered in a way so as not to KILL HER of seriously and permanently injure her.”
            Just like I wrote a half an hour ago.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            So you’re going with the “Miscarriages are painful” offense.

            Was hers painful? I didn’t see that mentioned in the article.

            Good luck in court counselor.

          • Unicorn Farm

            No. It is harm to her to cause her body to miscarry without her consent. You chose ONE line out of an entire paragraph. Even if it was just pain, it would count.

            Reading comprehension problems, again.

          • lady_black

            He caused her to need medical attention. That is painful enough to qualify as aggravated assault. You don’t get to quantify someone else’s pain.

          • fiona64

            All miscarriages are painful, you stupid piece of shit.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            flagged for violating TOS

          • fiona64

            Fuck off. Your very *existence* violates TOS, since we all know you’re only here to troll. Your next banning is coming down the pike, little boy.

          • kitler

            You’re a stupid piece of shit who just comes here to act like an ass and even admitted as much on Plums blog.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            I actually enjoyed that conversation. Seems like an intelligent person albeit rude and crude. 5×5 left and never came back just when it was getting interesting. And did indeed say that s/he delights acting the ass and cheers its rejections. And that is what makes me think this person is a teen.

          • kitler

            yep. I actually liked Five when shit was on your blog. Not unintelligent, and even funny.

            Shit just gets boring sometime when shit uses the same old tricks over and over and over.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Agree.

          • A. T.

            Have you taken even ten minutes to read about the process of medical abortion? Or are you randomly guessing how women’s bodies might work? This information is available through a magical source called ‘Google’.

            Lawyers have access to it too.

          • kitler

            The miscarriage itself was harm to her. Uterine contractions etc. And ending her pregnancy without her consent

          • BelligerentBruncher

            Yes, that’s harm to the fetus. Show us the harm to her.

          • Unicorn Farm

            It is harm to her to force her uterus to contract without her consent, and end her pregnancy without her consent.

          • kitler

            Just did.

            If I cause an organ of yours to contract painfully and without your consent I have harmed you.

          • lady_black

            The fetus wasn’t harmed. The fetus is a mindless organism. I assure you that all the pain was suffered by her. And in this state, aggravated assault is a deliberate attack resulting in the need for medical attention. And how you can even argue that there wasn’t intent? You must be crazy.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            He killed her fetus. You are asserting that women do not experience pain and suffering when they lose a wanted pregnancy both physical and emotional?

          • BelligerentBruncher

            How do you kill something that isn’t alive? You’re not one of those fetal personhood types are you?

            Actually, the emotionally harm aspect is probably the only thing that they will have a valid claim for when this eventually goes to civil trial.

          • Unicorn Farm

            A) pro-choicers believe a fetus is alive, but not a person. Sort of like how mice are alive but not people.
            B) You have yet to show WHY they do not have a claim for aggravated assault, or at the very least battery. Keep trying.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            Lack of intent to harm.

            It really is that simple.

            Whether he harmed her or not is irrelevant without intent.

          • Unicorn Farm

            He intended to cause her to miscarry, therefore he INTENDED to harm her.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            Inducing a miscarriage is intent to harm?

            Do you really want to go down that road? So then every person (like Jennie Lynn McCormick) who induces her own miscarriage is intending to harm herself? Every doctor that induces a miscarriage is intending to harm his or her patients?

            Yeah.

          • Unicorn Farm

            YES inducing a miscarriage without someone’s consent is intent to harm. 100%. Every time. Absolutely.

            You are possibly one of the stupidest people I have ever witnessed.
            The difference is that McCormick and a doctor’s patients CONSENT TO THE MISCARRIAGE.

            Consent is the difference. Just like in the example of the broom handle up your a**. Consent = OK. No consent = rape.

            Is there actually a broom handle lodged so far up your anus that it’s hindering your ability to think?

          • BelligerentBruncher

            Lack of consent does not automatically equate to harm.

            Have you studied malpractice law? This is quite clear.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Lack of consent does not automatically equate to harm.

            Have you studied malpractice law? This is quite clear.”
            What does this even mean?
            There is no such thing as “malpractice law.” There are types of malpractice, but no “malpractice law”.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            You’re right. There aren’t any laws regarding malpractice. What was I thinking?

            BTW, lack of consent still does not automatically equate to harm.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “You’re right. There aren’t any laws regarding malpractice. What was I thinking?”
            Is that what I said? Did I write “there’s no laws regarding malpractice,” you stinking idiot? No, I said “there’s no malpractice law.”
            BTW- I never wrote “lack of consent always equates to harm.” I wrote that the difference between what was done to this woman in Kansas and what is done by a doctor is consent. Consent to the miscarraige is why this case is assault while the other cases are not. You have yet to refute this point.

          • A. T.

            I’m going to save that last quote next time you bring up men’s rights. We don’t need men’s consent and I’m sure you’ll support that in future discussions. Thanks!

          • lady_black

            Malpractice falls into the category of personal injury/torts. Consent is everything, 5×5. I don’t see why you struggle with that concept. Is someone possibly slipping something into your pancakes that makes you stupid? If I take a sleeping pill, that’s not assault. If someone puts a sleeping pill into my drink that’s assault. Do you honestly not see the difference?

          • fiona64

            If someone puts a sleeping pill into my drink that’s assault.

            Heh. This nutcase probably thinks that’s a great way to meet a woman.

          • lady_black

            Actually, yes it does. Lack of consent is harm in and of itself.

          • lady_black

            Are you saying it’s possible to drug yourself without consent? ROFLMFAO! You really do get more ridiculous the more you dig yourself in. Tell us about all the times you drugged *yourself* without your consent, 5×5. This should be entertaining.

          • lady_black

            Intentionally drugging someone without their consent is de facto intention to harm, whether or not harm actually occurs. So there, we’ve taken care of that pesky “intention” thingy.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            You buy a miscarriage drug and drop into someone’s food by accident on a regular basis, TurdBreath?

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            A fetus is alive, it is human, it may be wanted or unwanted.

          • lady_black

            You do not understand the terms being used. Battery is unwanted touching. Shoving someone in the chest is a battery. If you cause harm to someone, serious harm (like a miscarriage) that’s aggravated. Emotional harm is not a necessary element of aggravated assault. Physical harm, to the point of requiring someone to see a doctor for treatment is aggravated assault. If and when it goes to civil court, it will fall under the laws of torts (which it most certainly is a tort, as well as a crime). Right now it’s in the criminal system, so let’s stick to crimes for right now.

          • fiona64

            Please be as specific as you can.

            Why, so you can fap over it?

          • BelligerentBruncher

            disgusting and flagged

          • fiona64

            As Plum says, truth is an absolute defense against defamation. There’s no reason for you to want such details unless you are some kind of creeper.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Fap fap fap fap …

          • kitler
          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            I sang him a song with a WTF chorus. I hope I do not get banned.

          • A. T.

            It might be better for you to take a class or read and understand what ‘miscarriage’ means, since you seem to think it is an enjoyable and not harmful experience. It’s disturbing, honestly.

            Of all the battles to pick, this is the one you go for? ‘He didn’t hurt her much, so it’s totally cool.’

          • lady_black

            You do harm to someone merely by the act of drugging them without consent. Just like if I gave you a plate of brownies laced with laxative. I have harmed you. Even if you don’t die from shitting your brains out, I have still harmed you. That’s a crime. The specific effect is only relevant to the degree of civil liability I would bear if you sued me. The crime is the same crime.

          • lady_black

            Yes, he harmed her. Is there something wrong with you? Do you think a miscarriage is painless?

          • fiona64

            Yes, you dumbfuck, he *harmed her.* He gave her medication without her consent and caused a miscarriage.

            Stop being such a stupid piece of shit for five minutes and *think.*

          • BelligerentBruncher

            flagged for personal attacks and violation of TOS

          • fiona64

            Drop dead.

          • kitler

            They can ban by IP btw.it is possible. Ban the whole range.

          • fiona64

            I don’t think it’s possible on Disqus … but I hope they at least try.

          • kitler

            Brady banned him by IP. But you need to ban the whole range if th IP is dynamic.

            I’d suggest a chat with a mod…

          • A. T.

            You really think drugging people without consent is okay and not a form of harm, whatever term you want to use?

          • A. T.

            I’m really disturbed that this is his idea of ‘not harming women’. o_o What is harm? I’m afraid to ask.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            “If I choose to put a broom handle up your rectum without your consent, BB/5X5, it’s assault”

            That’s battery. Not assault.

            You’re a lawyer? I’m pretty sure they teach most 1L’s the difference between battery and assault.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Idiot. If you don’t see it, it’s battery. If you see it coming, and I do it, it’s assault. Further, in my state, it would be aggravated assault.

            Answer the substantive portion of the post.

          • flame821

            You mean the woman who was well aware of what she was taking? What to expect and what to do/where to go if something went wrong?

            As opposed to the woman who had her food poisoned with a drug that she may have had an allergic reaction to. That caused her to go into severe uterine spasms, bleed profusely, and risk infection? Pain so bad that she went to a medical facility for fear of what was happening to her? The fact that it may have necessitated further surgical/medical intervention to scrape out any retained product of pregnancy to prevent sepsis?

          • BelligerentBruncher

            Well she MAY have brought her arrowhead collection with her and had it stolen. I don’t think she did, but she might
            have.

            I think I’ll save time by being concerned about things that actually happened.

      • lady_black

        You cannot drug someone without their consent, you idiot. And you know it. She suffered a miscarriage. That’s aggravated assault.

        • BelligerentBruncher

          Well, it’s most certainly battery – which is probably what this will be reduced to when they realize that the “aggravated assault” charges won’t stick.

          • lady_black

            You really think it makes any difference. Don’t you, bonehead? People are charged with aggravated assault all the time, and if they actually do harm to another person, of course it’s a battery. Often just shortened to “aggravated assault.” So you see, it makes no difference. The charge will stick. He confessed. You’re done here. Go haunt another house.

          • fiona64

            So, now in addition to being a dumbassed teen who wants to “play doctor,” you want to “play lawyer”?

            What an idiot.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Citation needed. Bluebook form. Thx.

  • goatini

    I’m astonished that anyone would vociferously and repeatedly insist that the assault &/or battery in this case is NOT against the WOMAN. The WOMAN IS the only person, citizen, and legal entity with rights in the equation. And the WOMAN IS the entity against which an assault &/or battery was made.

    But as it is quite clear that this case is yet another state-sponsored attempt to establish a legal precedent for spurious so-called “‘personhood’ at conception”, it’s also quite clear that the strident insistence that “no harm” was done to the woman clearly and unambiguously confirms the FACT that fetus fetishists see females solely as breeding containers whose own ACTUAL personhood is erased by a fertilized egg.

    This negation of the WOMAN’S own sovereign personhood is the same faulty “logic” used in so-called “fetal homicide” laws, enacted on the state level, for the exact same reason – to establish a legal precedent for spurious so-called “‘personhood’ at conception”. ANY assault/battery/crime committed against the WOMAN most definitely CAN be more than adequately prosecuted, with appropriate punishment levied at conviction against the perpetrator. There is absolutely NO need, from a prosecution and penalty point of view, for so-called “fetal homicide” laws – ALL of these laws were specifically engineered by the theocratic, misogynistic fetus fetish movement as part of their attacks on the civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to privacy, bodily autonomy, and reproductive justice. And ALL of these laws relegate the only legal entity in the equation to the status of breeding container, whose OWN personhood is erased by pregnancy.

    This slippery slope, should it not be arrested and rectified to re-establish the sovereign rights and personhood of female US citizens, can, and will, then be exploited, so that equal rights and personhood for female US citizens will be suspended at menarche, not to be restored until menopause – to ensure that even the 70+% of putative Diploid-Americans that never attach to the uterine lining and that are shed as bodily waste are “protected”, and their containers duly prosecuted and punished.

    “The Handmaid’s Tale” is a work of dystopian fiction – NOT a policy manual, as the fetus fetishists seem to believe.

  • Jay DeGraaf

    Boyfriend kills fetus = 1st degree murder?
    Mother kills fetus = Constitutional right?

    • kitler

      Because he infringed on her right to carry the pregnancy to term, dipshit.

      • Jay DeGraaf

        Thank you for kind response. I would think if the fetus is 50% his, he would have some say in the matter.

        • kitler

          Nope. The woman donates all the resources, everything, to bring a fetus to term. All the man does is donate a microscopic sperm.

          • Jay DeGraaf

            If all he does is donate the sperm, she clearly does not put in all the resources.

          • kitler

            Sperm is not a resource you ignorant nitwit.

            She literally builds the fetus out of her blood and sweat.

          • Jay DeGraaf

            Oh, so a woman can have a fetus without sperm?

          • kitler

            Does the man gestate the pregnancy for 9 months in his body/

            yes or no?

          • Jay DeGraaf

            Answer my question and I’ll answer yours ;-)

          • kitler

            I will take that as a ‘no’ and proof that Jay DeGraaf is talking out of his ass.

          • Jay DeGraaf

            It’s so fun coming in here and getting the lefties stirred up! :D Thanks for the fun, everyone!

          • fiona64

            You’re a funny little boy, I’ll give you that. It is very entertaining to us to see how stupid the anti-choice are; thanks for your contribution.

          • kitler

            You haven’t stirred anyone up. We’ve heard this bullshit about a 100 times before.

            It’s boring. But, I still like to take time out to insult dumbfucks such as yourself.

          • Unicorn Farm

            What is a leftie? If your version of “so much fun” is coming onto a message board and yelling about sperm, well. You may want to seek help with that.

          • cjvg

            So sad, came to play and could not last! Facts and reality are just so darn inconvenient to “people” like you

          • Ella Warnock
          • lady_black

            Stirred up? That would be like getting stirred up by a two year old, stamping his feet. I didn’t even break a sweat dispensing with your nonsense.

          • fiona64

            Were you homeschooled?

          • Unicorn Farm

            I’m not sure there was any schooling involved. Home or otherwise.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Yes. See, in vitro fertilization. No sperm “given” to her. No sperm ever in her body.

          • lady_black

            Your sperm gets you exactly this: ZERO PERCENT say in what happens within someone else’s body. You do not own a woman simply because you ejaculated.

          • cjvg

            Can a man die from pregnancy or childbirth. Can a man’s health be (irrevocably) negatively impacted by pregnancy and child birth? Does a man have to seek out medical care and restrict his food choices because of pregnancy?

            The answer to all of the above is NO (unless you are transgender) Therefore a man does not have a say on terminating a pregnancy or carrying it to term! If you are undergoing a health event that can kill or maim you, it is you who has the full and sole right to decline to undergo that event!

          • Ella Warnock

            Can a baby be built out of nine month’s worth of a dude’s sperm?

          • fiona64

            Jay is clearly another believer in the homunculus theory of human development.

          • fiona64

            Um, sweetie? You clearly need to learn how gestation works.

          • lady_black

            Yes she does. He contributes one haploid cell. Gestation (which either happens after conception or nothing at all happens) takes place 100% in her body. He contributes nothing to gestation. You’ll get “some say” when you carry “some pregnancy.” And not one minute before that.

        • fiona64

          I would think if the fetus is 50% his, he would have some say in the matter.

          Is he gestating 50 percent of the pregnancy?

          • lady_black

            HEY. GMTA!

        • Unicorn Farm

          The right to abortion does not arise out of an ownership interest in the embryo.
          Try again.

        • goatini

          Let me explain this as simply as I can:

          It’s like breakfast. The chicken is a participant, but the pig is committed.

          Hope this helps clear things up for you.

          • StudentHealer

            If I quote you as my source, can I use this in my next discussion (likely a face-to-face one, unfortunately) with a man who thinks he has a say in his significant other’s abortion?

            I’m really gonna be laughing all day about The Chicken and the Pig. :D

          • A. T.

            I actually laughed out loud too.

          • goatini

            I don’t even remember where I heard it, but it’s an analogy that has been used for other situations, too. Not mine at all, just quite apt for the “Ejaculation Confers Ownership” crowd.

        • lady_black

          When he’s 50% pregnant, he gets 50% say. _^..^/_

        • StealthGaytheist

          When a man’s involvement is more than an orgasm he can have some say.

      • BelligerentBruncher

        The correct answer is that it is not murder because the fetus (or ZEF or whatever) doesn’t have rights. Only born humans have rights….at least right now. In Kansas.

        • kitler

          Agreed.

          *huggles*

        • kitler

          I even gave you a thumbs up for that one!

        • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

          Yes, that was the Catholic Church’s defense in a negligence case = the fetus is not a legal person.

          • kitler

            Actualy, I Love how dishonest catholics defended the church by saying ‘but it’s the law, they did the right thing’

            ok so…the law is WRONG when it comes to abortion, but RIGHT when it comes to the RCC defending it’s bank account

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Some Catholics are sickening in their slavish and fetishistic devotion to Catholic doctrine. The church came out and said it was wrong of the Catholic hospital chain to do that. But of course they did not follow it up by compensation to the widowed bereft Father.

          • kitler

            Yep. They just paid lip service.

            Well ya know, it’s morally wrong but eh, fuck the dad, let’s leave him with 100k+ in medical and legal bills muhahahaahaha

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            It was really evil. But it is the Catholic Church. I expect nothing but evil. So when I get any good at all, it is a pleasant surprise.

          • A. T.

            ……….. *stares. Bangs heads against wall.*

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            That feeling, that is how you know you are in the presence of evil.

          • A. T.

            If you don’t even believe your own shit, you don’t get to use it to hurt women. @#$W%#E

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            And children. And gays.

        • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

          Bingo.

        • fiona64

          Did you learn something today?

          • BelligerentBruncher

            Not really :(

          • kitler
          • BelligerentBruncher
          • fiona64

            Drat, and here I was hoping.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            Well, ok. I learned this.

            Without “intent to harm,” this case is going to be very hard to show “aggravated assault” in court. Now, we can (and we did) debate all day back and forth about the boyfriend’s intent to harm his girlfriend. I was trying to find precedent for this case by looking up the other cited case in Florida.

            But, that case did not really go into intent to harm or aggravated assault. John Andrew Welden was sentenced to 13 years for some other bullshit “consumer product tampering” and “mail fraud” charges. What?

            Here’s my prediction:

            Criminal trial:
            1. Murder charge. Dropped.
            2. Aggravated Assault charge. Reduced to misdemeanor battery.
            3. Other charges? – I have no fucking clue.

            Civil trial:
            1. She wins multi-million settlement against him AND goes after the company that sold him the mifepristone. She’ll win.

          • A. T.

            Did you learn about miscarriages via Google?

          • BelligerentBruncher

            What’s google?

          • A. T.

            This explains so much. So much.

          • A. T.

            Women have something called a uterus. When things come out of it, it hurts. It be a little or a very painful. It hurts the woman. – There you go.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            Some men have a uterus, too. I found that out on google.

          • A. T.

            Them too! Same as above.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            There was a guy my brother knew who had a miscarriage and the guy claimed that he didn’t feel anything. He just noticed it in the toilet. Strange, huh?

          • A. T.

            Mhm.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Just FYI, f your anus is so stretched out from your broom handle antics that you don’t feel any pain when one is inserted without your consent, you’ve still been assaulted. Just so we’re clear, “pain” isn’t the trigger for what constitutes assault, mmk?

          • BelligerentBruncher

            “”pain” isn’t the trigger for what constitutes assault”

            Good thing I didn’t claim it was. Phew, dodged that bullet.

          • Unicorn Farm

            You have been implying that all over this thread, regarding the physical symptoms this lady experienced when she miscarried. You know it, I know it, everyone who can read knows it.

          • fiona64

            Then why did you keep asking whether or not the woman was in pain, again?

            Oh, yeah. We already established that. So you could fap over the details.

          • A. T.

            Very valid point, just got tired of the idiocy of guy who has never experienced a miscarriage deciding it is a walk in the park. With his repeat miscarriage experience.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Yup. We went through this this morning. At length. I don’t think he’s possibly stupid enough (maybe cruel?) to be arguing with a straight face that forcing someone to miscarry isn’t actually assault.

          • lady_black

            Also a fucking lie.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “Without “intent to harm,” this case is going to be very hard to show “aggravated assault” in court”

            He intended to harm her by intending to make her miscarry.

            Criminal law is a state law question. Florida cases have no bearing on this case.

          • fiona64

            The prosecution is going to have to show “intent to harm,”

            What part of “he drugged her without her knowledge in order to cause a miscarriage” continues to escape you? He clearly intended to cause harm.

            I do concur that it is not murder, for reasons I have previously outlined. It is, however, aggravated assault. Malice aforethought can be demonstrated by a reasonably intelligent 5-year-old in this case.

          • A. T.

            Maybe he drugs people often, so the concept that it is a bad thing is very confusing for him? I’m starting to wonder about his hobbies and/or past criminal behavior that this concept is so difficult for him. ._.

          • BelligerentBruncher

            We’ll have to agree to disagree then….and wait for the outcome to see who was correct.

    • goatini

      //Boyfriend kills fetus = 1st degree murder?Mother kills fetus = Constitutional right?//

      Actually, that’s a load of crap. Let me fix it for you:

      Criminal drugs victim = assault/battery upon the victim.
      Woman obtains safe, legal pregnancy termination = civil, human AND Constitutional right.

      Hope this helps clear things up for you.

      • Jay DeGraaf

        Actually, shouldn’t it be more like this…

        Father kills fetus = Crime
        Mother kills fetus = Constitutional right

        • fiona64

          Yep, you are too stupid to understand the difference.

          You’re clearly okay with a woman being assaulted to end her *wanted* pregnancy but heaven forfend that the same woman decide to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

          I thought you anti-choicers were all about women having babies? So, why is it okay with you that this man took away this woman’s choice to do so?

        • Dez

          Wow you’re defending a sick position. You are okay with someone giving another person a drug without their knowledge. How would you feel if someone put a drug in your morning coffee without your knowledge?

        • goatini
    • fiona64

      No, sweetie. I’ll try to break it down for you, since you seem to be a trifle neanderthal.

      Boyfriend drugs woman: assault upon victim. Crime.

      Woman obtains abortion: legal medical procedure. No crime.

  • cjvg

    I would agree to attempted first degree murder with the intended victim being the girlfriend. After all he knew or could reasonably be assumed to know that drugging someone without their knowledge and deliberately causing a miscarriage without a doctors guidance could have potentially cause her death.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      Yes. I would go with attempted 1st degree homocide for the drugging.

      • cjvg

        It seems we are of like mind (again) on this, since (like you) I also strongly believe that it is a completely inappropriate charge if they are applying it to the fetus.

        However I think that some anti-choicer in the DA’s office saw his/her chance and that is why it is applied to the fetus. This strategy has been tried before but has never stuck (yet)

        • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

          Right on. It is antichoice shenanigans.

    • lady_black

      Absolutely. He didn’t know what was in those pills.

  • BelligerentBruncher

    I understand that you don’t like my opinion..or even me as a person. But to insinuate that I am administering rape drugs? Is that the way that you’d like to proceed?

    Moving on…..
    And you are correct, drugging someone without their consent, with the intent to harm them equates to assault. Or battery. Or murder.

    However, without the intent to harm, then there is nothing. Well, not really “nothing” but rather “manslaughter” instead of “murder.” — or other other similar degradations in crime based on intent or lack thereof. I know, it sucks. But intent has always been and will always be part of the law.

  • Philip Attisano

    Shouldn’t this man be charged with “Destruction of Property”? The baby isn’t legally alive until the end of week 24.