Wis. Man Faces Charges in Miscarriages

Wis. Man Faces Charges in Miscarriages

Thursday, November 29, 2007
(11-29) 12:50 PST Appleton, Wis. (AP) --


Authorities have arrested a married man they say caused his girlfriend to miscarry twice by slipping her an abortion drug.

Manishkumar M. Patel, 34, of Appleton, was expected to be charged Thursday afternoon.

The woman already had a 3-year-old child with the man, 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. The man was arrested Wednesday.

Sheriff's officials said charges against Patel could include attempted first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child, burglary, stalking and violating a restraining order. Prosecutors, however, would not say what charges they intended to file.


more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/11/29/national/a111506S97.DTL&tsp=1

cost of a condom opposed to the cost of his freedom. :think:

better yet, maybe he should just stick with having sex with his wife instead of his mistress??

It's not something prescribed to men, and I'd think it is tightly regulated.

In any case it's not hard to get drugs that aren't prescribed to you.

And even the morning after pill is not OTC yet.


RU-486 is only available through clinics and after counseling.

There was talk of allowing the morning after pill to be sold OTC but I think it was shot down over concerns that minors would have easier access to it. Either way, the morning after pill is completely different from what was used is this situation.

:hi:

I read an article about it yesterday. Not as heavily regulated there, so he had is sent over. It was RU-486. His mistress just happens to be a doctor with access to a lab.

I hope they throw the book at him.

>Pulls hair out<

Given the creepiness of this man, I too would like to throw the book at him. But let's be careful which book, please.

What the sheriff's department is outlining amounts to treating a first-trimester fetus as an already-born baby or toddler or adult. This is criminalization of abortion by asserting personhood for a non-viable fetus, and I regret to say the US legal system is already too far down that road.

The focus of the criminal charges really should be on the harm done to the bodily integrity of the woman whose fetus it was. It was her body that was assaulted by administration of drugs she did not ask for and emphatically did not want.

Whatever I think of her decision to continue trying to have a baby with this jerk (I think she needs her head examined) it is actually HER choice, legally. Knowing her as he evidently did, he should not have continued to supply her with his sperm. Once she got pregnant, he legally had no recourse in the matter. Abortion is not HIS choice, it is HERS.

The prosecutors, I greatly hope, will focus on the array of charges they can bring against this man that involve the harm he did to his (I hope to gods now-former) lover. He administered a drug to her without her consent. He aborted a fetus she wanted to grow into a baby. And I'm sure there's more, but they don't have to assert the full personhood of the fetus in order to throw the book at the jerk.

Hekate

There is no reason he shouldn't be charged both with assault on her and intentional homicide of the fetus.

...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....

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

Sounds about right to me.

(just sayin'. not defending this guy at all)

It's the applicable definition based on the law, not what you or I think about it.

From what I see, it seems to outlaw abortion, period.

It's not intentional homicide if an abortion is done in a lawful manner, by a doctor, and at the woman's request.

So either it's OK to kill a person if it's the mother doing it, or that entity is or is not human depending on who's destroying it.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. See also post #26, which states it better than I did.

I am totally OK with a woman deciding whether or not to carry her pregnancy to term.

I am totally NOT OK with anyone else making that decision for her.

Government telling her she can't get an abortion is morally the same to me as someone who terminating her pregnancy against her will.

...which afaik is illegal in all circumstances, regardless of the desires of the dying person. That's why Dr. Kevorkian is in prison now. Once you start going back in history and defining abortion as murder again, you can't really allow it to happen at all. Doctors and their patients will end up in prison -- again.

As much as I want to see Patel punished by the law, there is a co-ordinated push in this country to define abortion as murder, and one of the ways they are doing this is by catching the public and judges and juries and legislators at emotionally vulnerable moments like this. Scott Peterson's murder of his wife Stacey, pregnant with their unborn child, was one such moment. There was justifiable revulsion at his brutal act -- and that revulsion served the purposes of those who want to see abortion (at any stage, under any circumstances) recriminalized and once again legally defined as murder.

Be careful where you tread, when emotions run high. The woman is the victim here -- she is not just the vessel of the unborn.

Hekate

As far as I'm concerned, the more prison time the dirtbag in this case gets the better for us all.

...you are consistently denying the detailed testimony of women here to that effect.

Either you are completely letting your emotions run away with your head, or have an agenda that you are not revealing (i.e. you are anti-abortion and are using this as a pretext), or possibly you are just exceedingly dense.

Think about it.

Hekate

I'm solidly pro-choice and always have been. I have a long track record on DU to show that.

...or possibly you are just exceedingly dense.

Well, if you want to turn it into a solo flame-fest have a good time by yourself.

:hi:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18974940/

:hi:

That has nothing to do with your point, but I wanted to let you know.

...have to be REAL careful about giving personhood to a bunch of developing cells...

please use it to buy the proverbial fucking clue.

Assholes.

...the charges brought forth should deal with any harm, real or otherwise, that happened to the woman.

What a scumbag this guy is...

If the woman believes it is murder, then that's what it is, and that is the emotion the violence against her will evoke in her.

Although my own views of abortion are essentially Catholic, I also understand that others don't share those religious views, and there is no rational way to argue the question. Thus abortion must be legal, otherwise women who choose to have abortions may be forced into dangerous circumstances.

This wretched case will certainly be used to fan the flames of the anti-abortion activists, but I think the legal definition of murder here is appropriate because that is what this is to many of the women who lose their babies in similar violent assaults. As a society we should recognize and respect the victims own beliefs before we argue about the specific language of the law.

I don't think there is any way to write the law so it pleases both sides of this argument, so I would rather lean toward the language that reflects the feelings of those victims who suffer the greatest emotional harm.

We can't all agree on abortion, or even the language of the law, but as a practical matter the law is an effective and appropriate measure against the criminals who engage in this sort of violence against women.

...causing bodily harm to the woman. She's the victim here. And two separate counts, perhaps with additional domestic violence charges (most states included intimate partners in domestic violence laws, even if they're not cohabiting and/or married to someone else). So let him do a 10-year bid, out in five-and-a-half, and hopefully by then she'll have gotten some counselling and moved on to a healthier life.

Charging him with homicide would really be a legal stretch. Doesn't sound like the fetus was viable--therefore, not a second person.

Of course, the way the fundies have been messing with the laws, who knows?

940.01(1)(b)
(b) Except as provided in sub. (2), whoever causes the death of an unborn child with intent to kill that unborn child, kill the woman who is pregnant with that unborn child or kill another is guilty of a Class A felony.

In California it would be "Murder".

Viability is not an issue in either state. If he wanted to be charged with assaulting her, he could have just roughed her up.

State laws have been judged wrong in many instances. There is no grant of personhood to a developing fetus, and the fact that a woman can decide to abort endorses that view. Aborting the fetus, if personhood isn't recognized, then murder cannot be the result. Otherwise, abortion would be murder in all circumstances. To argue that the woman "feels" this way carries no water. The woman was not murdered. To say that the woman can terminate the pregnancy without any consequence but that termination of the pregnancy is "murder" when it is counter to the intent of the woman, makes the intent of the woman the sole decider as to whether there is personhood for the fetus. So Wisconsin knows it can't outlaw abortion, but wants to, so this is a backdoor way of trying to get personhood bestowed on the fetus. Once that has been successfully done, abortion will be outlawed.

If she fully intended to carry the pregnancy to term, then this man prevented the existence of two human beings. They would be here now were it not for him.

I say put him away for life.

:rofl:

Women being escorted to an abortion clinic don't have the intention of carrying the child to term.

This woman in this article wanted to carry this child to term.

:sarcasm:

I've had so many women tell me their husbands/bfs do this, I've lost count.

:(

dg

This man 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 with the same logic. He's a despicable human being, but that still doesn't make a fetus a person.

Too many people are okay with calling this murder. It's giving me the wiggins. We're going to go tumbling ass over head down this treacherous slope. Please take a step back and think about it.

:rant:

the right-to-lifers.

It is indeed a very slippery slope.

That has not affected in any way the availability of elective abortions.

Your slippery slope is a false one.

and it is absolutely not false. Just because no one has used it in California, that you know of, to restrict women's right to choose doesn't mean the slope doesn't exist.

You can't have your cake and kill it, too.

How condescending. I'm not going to allow you to degrade this into an exchange of personal attacks.

Bye.

I was trying for a "voice" with that one, and it clearly went astray. I think it's a little bizarre that you'd assume it was a personal attack, but I apologize nonetheless.

For future reference, if you think something is a personal attack, however, I would recommend that you alert the moderators rather than telling other DUers what you will "allow" them to do. That isn't how it works around here.

Namaste

I don't care if laws stand that call it murder, I disagree. Those laws should be changed and yes, it is a slippery slope.

Reasoning: It is a slippery slope because how laws are interpreted is based on precedent. If there is a law which has never been used, come to trial, the first time is wide open to interpretation by judicial branch. If judicial branch determines causing a miscarriage is murder, it can then be said (by precedent) that accompanying someone to get an abortion is murder, or doing/getting an abortion.

One good thing about cases like this is they bring such laws to public notice and perhaps they can be changed. Perhaps the judge will set precedent that this is not murder.

Trying to have their fetus and human being definitions coexist depending on who does the terminating, in order to win votes from a few fundies without losing too many from women's rights proponents.

Just as do the arguments of people who want to give full human rights to fertilized eggs; and those who think any fetus short of birth has no rights whatsoever.

I'm perfectly OK with charging the perpetrator of these crimes with as many counts as possible. He is scum. He is a danger to women.

In criminal law the word "murder" means whatever the hell the law says it means. If you'd rather call the unlawful killing of a fetus something else, take it up with Wisconsin's legislature. Or California's. Or your state's.

Possibly before that. In subjective terms, life truly begins in my view once you have experiences outside the womb. Two healthy fetuses can have similar womb experiences, whereas no two individuals, even twins, will have comparably similar experiences outside the womb, even right out of the gate, so to speak. :P Also, being overwhelmed by a single case's particulars ignores the necessity of the law applying to all cases. The classic example is the 20 year old in love with a 17 year old who is mature enough for it to be a healthy relationship. While statutory rape may not be a just charge in that case, you can't change the law to accommodate the exceptions when it is likely to be exploited to far greater harm. As you say, there is often plenty of latitude at the prosecutor's or jury's disposal to deal with exceptions.

Let him spend the rest of his life in jail pondering whether this is actually murder or not.