Man Charged With Murder for Slipping Abortion Drug to Girlfriend to Cause Miscarriages

Source: foxnews

APPLETON, Wis. — A married man has been charged with murder for slipping his girlfriend a drug that authorities say caused her to miscarry twice.

Manishkumar M. Patel, 34, of Appleton, was charged Thursday afternoon with first-degree murder of an unborn child, second-degree recklessly endangering safety, placing foreign objects in edibles, possession with intent to deliver prescriptions, stalking, burglary, possession of burglary tools, and two counts of violating a restraining order.

The woman already had a 3-year-old child with Patel, who was married to someone else, Outagamie County sheriff's Capt. Michael Jobe said at a news conference. She became pregnant two more times, but miscarried in December and September, he said.

Apparently suspecting she had been slipped mifespristone, the abortion pill also known as RU-486, the woman had a blood sample sent to a California lab for analysis, Jobe said. When it tested positive for the drug, she approached the sheriff's department Nov. 1. Patel was arrested Wednesday.





Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313882,00.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2371658&mesg_id=2371658

:popcorn:

slip slope

I support abortion only when the woman choses it, not when the man does. How's that for a slippery slope? :)

:hi:

how on earth is giving a fetus the legal status of a person (which is neccesary in order for a charge of murder or manslaughter) not a slippery slope?

if the law views a fetus as a person (pls note the distinction between human and person) then a fetus is entitled to the protection of the law - ie outlaw abortions.

it is perfectly possible to make a crime of (for example) unwanted termination/unlawful termination punishable by as many years in prison as one likes without conferring the fetus with the seriously dangerous precedent setting status of a person.

this is utterly ridiculous - why is there a need to make this sort of crime murder/manslaughter. It is nothing more than emotive language to further wedge the debate and gives anti-choice people a HUGE platform.

What on earth would be wrong with 'assault occasioning abortion' carrying a prison term of any number of years one would like?

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

How is this law a threat to abortion rights? It's obviously NOT a slippery slope because California is one of the most lenient states on abortion.

this is utterly ridiculous - why is there a need to make this sort of crime murder/manslaughter.

Don't you think that forcibly terminating a woman's pregnancy against her will is a heinous crime?

I do. I don't care what label you put on it. It's a major disruption in the woman's life regardless of whether you care about the supposed rights of the fetus. Malum in se.

California law does not distinguish between a fetus and a person and allows the death of BOTH to be treated as MURDER. They are NOT the same, it is an untenable situation which attempts to say the destruction of a fetus IS murder and ISN'T at the same time.

It's a rather simple concept.

Don't you think that forcibly terminating a woman's pregnancy against her will is a heinous crime?

I do. I don't care what label you put on it. It's a major disruption in the woman's life regardless of whether you care about the supposed rights of the fetus. Malum in se.

I'm tempted to simply respond "fuck off" to this but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't intend for that to sound offensive. What on earth made you think I don't view this as a serious crime? I said the solution is easy and adequately punishes such a crime WITHOUT opening the door to legal challenges of ALL abortions.

You make a SPECIFIC crime which covers the UNWANTED abortion of a fetus. See the BIG difference there - it's not a crime to kill a fetus but it is a crime to do so without consent. It is very similar to SEX being legal and SEXUAL ASSAULT isn't.

This crime (and if you really need an emotive tabloid name for it call it "worstestevercrimeimaginable" and make the punishment for that crime as long as you want - longer than murder if you want.

:hi:

Ultimately it is her body and her right. Period.

Which is undoubtedly the real point behind these charges: to establish that all abortion is illegal.

Many states have laws that make the unlawful killing of a fetus a high crime, yet they all still have legal abortion.

no one ever said it was instantaneous talk about knee jerk oversimplification :eyes:

what's that got to do with my post?

He is guilty of assault on the woman, not murder of an unborn child. We can't grant human rights to collections of cells whenever it suits our purposes and then protest when someone tries to curtail ours. He's a despicable human being, but that still doesn't make a fetus a person.

There are more than enough legitimate charges that can be thrown at him without concocting one more than will erode that woman's rights.

NT!

makes this not a man vs woman situation.

i have a right to tattoo my body. i dont have a right to drug my gf and tattoo her body

how stupid is this woman to keep getting pregnant by this asshole? She already has one kid by him and he stayed with his wife.

Just sayin'

Just sayin' you are right...

If she wants to have them she should.

However, she put herself in the predicament she is in. No one else forced her into the illicit relationship...she is responsible to a certain extent.

People get in dumb situations. It doesn't make it right for someone else to do a heineous act to them. This man could have just as well been her husband and he is still as wrong and she is still not at fault.

This is not a normal expectation of what could happen by any stretch of the words. It's not a normal risk.

them of all responsibility does it? He committed a crime against her that is a fact.

Sorry, unless she had reason to believe he would try to abort the child, she should not be held partly responsible for him aborting the kids.

I doubt that giving her part of the blame since she was in an illicit relationship will hold up in court.

on her, not murdering potential offspring.

I don't think she is accountable for his crime, but I do wonder why she would continue a relationship with someone like him - AND not use birth control.

Sounds to me like they are both pretty screwed up. I agree that he is the one who is abusive/criminal in this case.

But what he did is criminal.

Lottery.......

Quite frankly they picked each other, they deserve each other.
I wonder if this whole mess would have been avoided if people took some care about the kind of relationships they form. Like, this act from this idiotic man was the FIRST immoral, cruel thing he's done? Doubt it. But she was dense enough to want this guy. Not very bright, honey.

Yes, he should be charged, but for trying to poison and/or harm her. That said, I don't give a damn about these people, but will just think about the child they do have and hope it has a decent chance in life. :(

Being foolish is never justification for a crime. Ever.

I don't see how she's responsible in any way for his criminal assault.

I can't keep up.

So he is the adulterer.

she's no prize.

and that's something to be thankful for.

I disagree with the application of the law in this case, but it is exactly that, and not the person, we should address.

is of the female variety it seems imopssible for some not to apportion at least some blame to her for any criminal acts committed against them.

It's the same moralistic impulse that led to the persecution of the Salem witches.

:(

Women are still the scape-goat of choice. Somehow, women are still often blamed for making men do evil things.
x(

I will add---the jerk did her a huge favor. Hopefully she'll pick her next baby daddy more thoughtfully.

Was the baby a fetus or before the abortion cut off. If before, I don't think he should be charged with murder, although he should have the book thrown at him for everything else that can be conceived regarding harming the woman. i just object to the "unborn child" thing, unless it's obvious that the fetus inside her was grown enough to be a living being.

And I second the question about the woman's judgment. how was she with this asshole?

What he did was reprehensible, but I do not agree with the murder charge.
It IS a slippery slope from that to charging any woman who has an abortion with murder.

Having said that, both of these people need psychological help.

It's murder, but abortion is legal?

I'm having trouble determining what the charge should be. If she intended to carry the fetus to term, wouldn't it be a potential person?

Then again, if abortion is legal, at what point is secretly aborting a fetus "murder"? I'm confused.

Wow...

If she wanted to keep it (which sounds like she did), isn't it just as bad to force her to terminate as if someone who wanted to abort was forced to go to term? Isn't this a matter of a woman's control of her own body?

So it's murder.

Abortion isn't murder because the fetus isn't a person.

You can't murder that which isn't a person. You can't abort a person without it being murder.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=90678&page=3

Why Pregnant Women Become Murder Victims
Pregnancy Doesn’t Protect Women From Abuse — or Murder



Sometimes the desire to continue an extramarital affair, cover it up or make it go away can endanger a pregnant woman. In Ohio, Dr. Maynard Muntzing is serving a five-year prison sentence for contamination of a substance for human consumption and attempted felonious assault after dropping anti-ulcer medication in his pregnant girlfriend's drink.

Muntzing was still married when Michelle Baker told him she was pregnant with his child. Muntzing, who wanted to reconcile with his estranged wife, Tammy, asked Baker to get an abortion and she refused.

One of the side effects of the medication Muntzing put in Baker's drink was miscarriage, and two months later she lost the child she was carrying. Muntzing was arrested in August 2000 after police, observing him through a pinhole video camera, saw him tamper with another drink meant for Baker in her kitchen.

When he goes to jail.....this dumb woman will find another married man to father her next baby!

Where's that slippery slope?

to look at the impossibility of accessing termination in many parts of the US (including Cali) and get back to us. You might also want to look at how long it took the christian right to hijack your nation and try and understand that just because things happen slowly and incrementally doesn't mean they don't happen.

or a condom:shrug:

getting snipped could have saved him and the rest of us a lot of trouble

...called "post-surgery pain" or the like - just how risky is it?

I think you have to wear a jock strap for a week or so, but that the overall discomfort is minor. Maybe some swelling, nothing a pack of frozen peas won't take care of & a tylenol.

It's an outpatient procedure, versus if a woman wants the same end result.

and he should keep his d**k in his pants or wear a condom if he doesn't want more kids.

I think he should receive the same sentence as someone who kills a living (post-birth) baby.

I don't think this scumbag deserves a "discount" on his sentence for killing the baby before it was born.

A woman who did not want her preganancy terminated.

I'd put it in the same category as chopping off someone's arm or leg. It's mayhem. Calling it murder or homicide doesn't do any harm.

I'd put it in the same category as chopping off someone's arm or leg

I think you'll find removing someone's arm or leg is NOT considered murder. If due to negligence you cause someone to lose an arm (say a raffic accident) would you be OK with being charged with manslaughter? would yuo think calling it manslaughter/murder was without issue then?

It doesn't make any difference as long as it's clearly defined and calls for an appropriate punishment.

a whole lot easier if he had just stop screwing her after the first kid. Kind of an extreme reaction to something he was responsible for. Just because she was stupid enough to keep banging the guy doesn't mean he had to go along with it.

We can outlaw stupid people and we have two really stupid people here.

Mz Pip
:dem:

Down with stupidity!

:toast:

SIck, sick, sick twisted psychopath.

can breed any more? I mean really, it appears that they are both hopelessly deficient, and how fucked up would that infant be considering the stock that bore her?

Another argument for requiring a breeding license prior to allowing the bald monkeys to degrade the species any further.

:popcorn:

he is utter scum.

That aside, she has been fucking a married man for over 6 years.

Has become pregnant three times since then, and is apparently determined to have a baby in spite of the fact that the sperm donor doesn't want to have one.

framed

He admitted to doing it..yet he was still framed?

Send this creep away for the rest of his life.

Including his own confession.

Are you a criminal defense attorney, razzleberry?

:D

His confession? :P

So, consequently, I'd support prosecuting him--but I don't know if I'd get him for murder of an unborn child.

I'd probably put him away for assault.

...I don't know if I'd get him for murder of an unborn child.

I'd probably put him away for assault.

I think assaulting a pregnant woman with the result that a wanted pregnancy ends is worse than an otherwise identical assault on a woman that does not result in the loss of a wanted pregnancy.

The crime is obviously worse, so there has to be at least some kind of degree issue and consequent sentence enhancement. In California, Wisconsin, and many other states we have addressed that moral imperative by incorporating the termination of the fetus into the definition of murder. That's a nuanced way of doing so without writing a whole new statute, and results in what seems to me an appropriate level of punishment.

If the same sentence enhancement could be accomplished by enhancing an assault charge, that would be perfectly OK with me too.

Some of the responses here seem pretty thoughtless to me - The concerns about a slippery slope are way out of proportion. Fetal murder laws do NOT give full human status to a fetus. Rights are acquired by degree through an individual's life cycle. You can't drive, vote, or drink until you reach a certain age. You can't run for President until you are 35. Similarly, the right of a fetus to live is not fully acquired until some time arbitrarily described by law. Its "humanity", before that time, is left to the discretion of its mother.

I don't have a problem with that. Some people do.

In my state (Connecticut) killing a fetus during the assult or murder of a pregnant woman carries an additional charge, but it is not classified as murder. It is considered an additional asault against the woman and I think the maximum sentence is 10 or 15 years. I do feel at some point before birth the fetus becomes a person. I don't like the idea of calling it murder for killing an embryo. I don't think what this man did was murder but it was definitley criminal. However in cases like the Peterson murder in California... I felt it was murder because she could have given birth the day before and that baby would have lived.

If a woman has a wanted pregnancy, and chooses to keep the child, that pre-born child should be afforded the same rights as every other person.

Of course, the issue with this, and with abortion, is choice and a woman's control over her body.

she has been denied the right to make her own reproductive choices

The determination as to whether the fetus is a person is not up to each individual woman. For the state to prosecute, it needs to have a standard definition that would apply. I am amazed at some of the circular reasoning on this situation.

the woman has been denied her civil rights

I am having trouble finding any other situation like this

a) the woman is not physically harmed by RU486

b) if she takes the pill on purpose

c) she takes the pill unintentionally because was tricked into taking it.

Result in either case = aborted fetus

consequence of b) absolutely no crime - not even a misdemeanor

consequence of c) murder!!????

WTF?

Yes, if she is telling the truth about getting it slipped to her (and not just vindictive) then he has assaulted her by denying her right to choose.

but it's sort of a knee jerk reaction to how awful this crime is. After all, he is basically drugging someone without their consent (like slipping date rape drugs).

I say throw the book at him. But I understand why many would have a problem with these "Lacy Peterson" laws on the books. The main problem is, as others have mentioned, that these laws giving fetuses the same rights as living humans, may be used by anti abortion crusaders to prosecute women seeking an abortion (if in the case RvW were repealed). It is definitely a slippery slope.

Sounds about right.

Not that what he did was right, on the contrary it was a horrific assault on this woman. He should get jail time and a good amount of it.

But not murder. Not multiple concurrent life-sentences, which is what this Brown man is going to get.

If he was a White Man, there might be some hope, but BushPutinist Amerika is going to fall with all it's barbaric fury on this Brown Man.

Life sentence for the Brown Man. Much worse than he deserves for this awful assault.

But hey, that's life in Totalitarian Nations like Amerika. One strike and you're out.

First, what does this case have to do with skin color?
Second, ---and this is going to sound very cynical--- a white man hypothetically might be judged more harshly for forcing his white girlfriend to abort, because that would mean one less white baby.

Overall, this has nothing to do with "brown" skin. Or, do you mention race every time a person of color is charged with a crime?

commits a crime.

However:

a) One cannot help but notice the intense racial disparities in investigation, prosecution, and sentencing in our nation, even before 2000, when it was still free.

b) Your attempt to place logic on Bushies, Nazis, Commies, KKK members or any other extreme authoritarians, is laughable. They don't work that way (not the followers, anyway). Never have and never will, although the Liberals who are constantly crushed by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Pinochet, marcos, Papa Doc, Bush, etc. will constantly try to judge their actions with reason.

"There's no way Hitler would be diverting such a tremendous amount of war material to this supposed extermination program. The man would literally be depriving his armed forces of the materials they need at a time when the very fate of the nation is at stake. Impossible."

Yes, and as we know Hitler's extermination program was Jewish/Liberal Propaganda.

My point is, your point about the white man being more reviled for killing white babies disregards the deep and hidden racism that defines much of the Bushie Cabal is, in fact, quite logical.

To test my theory, please have a long a reasoned discussion with a hardcore Bushie, a Dittohead, a Hannitite, whatever, and see how well logic works on them, how well they display they are able to be logical.

:rofl:

You know, people say I violate Godwin's Law by mentioning Hitler, but other than the Roman Republic, the Wiemar Republic is the very best analogy we have going for us to analyze what is going on in Amerika today.

And actually, much as we White People would like to close our eyes and deny it, "brown" skin is what Bushie Amerika is all about.

It is brown-skinned votes which, stolen, suppressed, registrations thrown away, etc. who form the backbone of Bushie Voter Suppression Efforts. Oh, and Katrina vs. San Diego?!? How about the Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division, becoming under the Bushies the Department of Minority Intimidation and disenfranchisement. Oh no, skin color had nothing to do with those things. :rofl:

And if you have not heard of these scandals, particularly the last one, then you have some reading to do.

Listen, I would be lying if I said I wasn't a little prejudiced, we all are, to some degree. But not to notice how the Bushies attack Black and Brown people as a matter of course, to retreat to that hands over ears head in the sand, leave is nice White People alone there is no more prejudice nor racism in Amerika, especially NOW, when all prejudice racism and injustice is on the rise, especially in the halls of Imperial Amerikan Power. What can I say?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You wanna play the "OJ Simpson Playing the Race Card Gotcha Game"? Go right ahead. But I will not deny REALITY.

Does this mean OJ was innocent? No. :rofl: Does it mean every Black person convicted of a crime is innocent? Of course not. :rofl:

But the false dichotomy of your knee-jerk reaction (which I might add, is absolutely identical to the RW talking-point on this matter, I am not accusing you of being a Secret Freeper, but to say that we ALL think how the Bushies tell us, to some degree or another, because of the absolute pervasiveness of the propaganda) is the kind of yes/no/nothing in between bullshit the Bushie MSM has taught us to think.

People that only think in 1/0 yes/no are easier to control for authoritarian tyrants like the ones who currently rule us.

So, I call bullshit. In fact, I have just called bullshit on you in three different ways.

If my experience teaches me anything, you will NOT attempt to answer my points in reply. You will most likely reply with a short declarative station (one that I can also likely find on TV within an hour of turning on Fox or CNN) with a comment, like your last post, that I can hear anywhere, anytime, just by flicking on my TV Infoganda or talking to someone who does little else than repeat what TV tells them to.

Oh, you'll probably toss in a mean ad hominem attack, to try and "hit me back". Good luck with searching for the insult you think will hurt my feelings worst. :rofl:

I don't know you and I am not judging you. But in this one case, which I have seen for myself, you merely took a Bushie Talking Point off the line and repeated it back to me.

I have an idea, before you repeat some other TV line and your best attempt at a mean ad hominem personal attack, stop and THINK about it. Try to tell me what you think in words that cannot be found anywhere else, as I have answered you.

Try it. We Americans are quite rusty at such things, in general, because we watch so much TV and are surrounded by such lies and propaganda it just gets into us without our noticing, like eating mercury-filled fish.

Eat the fish, mercury builds up and up and up; watch the Corporate Infoganda, critical thinking skills, the ability to see anything other than 1/0 choices, goes down.

Having said all that, and knowing that very likely not one word had made it past your sneering Wall of Defense ("race card" "race card" "race card" "I wonder if..." "QUIET YOU! Race card" "race card") which is exactly how the Bushies and authoritarian tyrants wish you to be, I wish you all the best of luck in you short, angry reply. I wish you all the best of luck in your search for the ad hominem, which from a thousand miles away, will wither me to helpless blubbering for being hurt so badly.

Good luck with that. I eagerly await the results.

The only tidbit in your whole long diatribe that had any relevance to my post, was that "person of color" is no longer considered fashionable. Thank you for passing on that insight. I will not use that phrase again.

The rest of it was wasted on me, because it does not apply to me. You read me wrong. I didn't give you much to go on, but you insisted on filling in the blanks. Sorry to tell you that you typed up an impassioned, long winded, monologue to an uninterested audience. If I were you, I would cut and paste it somewhere more fitting.

Wanna try for three?

I do give you credit. Although your short and meaningless post that answers nothing I said was exactly what I predicted you'd do, you did try very hard to make your ad hominem as subtle and unobvious as possible. Good job.

It was indeed a waste of time for me to chat with you. That is the one thing you have said in your two short and meaningless posts, that has even the tiniest bit of meaning.

and attacking, and inventing things that I never said, implying things about me that are not true (nor that you have any reason to think would be true!), and going off on bizarre tangents that have nothing to do with anything previously in the context. It's as though you are "chatting" with some imaginary enemy that lives inside your head, and directing it toward me. This is, all at once, the strangest and most hostile exchange of posts I have ever experienced on DU. Just...weird! You are terrible at discussions. So insulting.

with his ability to have sex. That's what he REALLY needs, if he doesn't want more kids.

Then see how HE likes it, when his weenie doesn't work.