Man tricks girlfriend into taking abortion drug, gets 14 years.

[Dark Raven]

Man Who Killed His Unborn Child By Tricking Girlfriend Into Taking Abortion Drug Gets 14 Years

John Andrew Welden is heading to prison for 14 years after he tricked his pregnant girlfriend, Remee Lee, into taking a drug, misoprostol, to cause an abortion. Lee was six weeks pregnant and refused to have an abortion as Welden had demanded.

Authorities say that 28-year-old John Andrew Welden did not want to be a father, so when his girlfriend, Remee Jo Lee, got pregnant, Welden faked a prescription for an abortion pill, switched a label so the medication appeared to be a common antibiotic, and gave her the drug. The drug did its job. The unborn baby died.

A federal judge Monday afternoon sentenced John Andrew Welden, the man accused of giving a former romantic partner a drug to cause a miscarriage, to 13 years and eight months in prison.

“I don’t think Mr. Welden is an evil person, but he committed an evil act and for that he’s going to have to pay the consequences,” JohnAndrewWeldonsaid U.S. District Judge Richard A. Lazzara

That hearing concluded Jan. 10 with Judge Lazzara finding that a single dose of the drug misoprostol, which has the brand name Cytotec, caused Lee to lose a nearly seven-week pregnancy.

Welden once faced a mandatory life sentence if convicted of first-degree murder under the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Now, after pleading guilty to consumer product tampering and conspiracy to commit mail fraud, he faces no more than 15 years.

Welden’s father is an obstetrician-gynecologist who performed the ultrasound and blood tests that confirmed Lee’s pregnancy, though he weas not involved in the crime. After confirmation of the pregnancy, John Andrew Welden told Lee that her blood tests revealed that she had an infection. He gave her a bottle of pills in an orange plastic bottle of the type one receives from a pharmacy. Welden falsified a label somehow to indicate that the bottle contained amoxicillin and that a prescription from Welden’s father called for her to take the medicine three times daily.

In fact, the bottle contained misoprostol, the second drug in the RU-486 abortion regimen. Misoprostol is used primarily to prevent patients who take large quantities of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) from developing ulcers. Very late in pregnancies it has legitimate obstetrical uses that, roughly speaking, have to do with inducing the delivery of a healthy full-term baby. However, early, in pregnancies a pregnant woman who takes misoprostol will begin to have uterine contractions that can kill the baby by causing the uterus to expel its contents.

Lee says she woke up on Easter Sunday in a pool of blood. The staff at a nearby hospital told her that her baby had died. It was quickly apparent to these medical professionals that the drug she had been given was not the antibiotic. Interestingly, Welden had gone so far as to eliminate drug-identifying features from the tablets. It was quickly determined that she had, in fact, been given misoprostol.

Dave Andrusko of National Right to Life has written about the case:

Welden’s defense team offered two complementary explanations for why Ms. Lee lost her baby last March, or at least why it could not be attributed to Welden’s actions.

First, they called on experts to testify that was not possible to definitively prove that the one 200 microgram dose of Cytotec (misoprostol) Weldon told Lee was an antibiotic caused her abortion. Lazzara rejected that out of hand. Reporting for the Tampa Tribune, Elaine Silvestrini wrote

“The judge said defense experts merely served as conduits for information they found in scientific literature, which the judge said amounted to no more than case studies with little supporting information. This, he said, was ‘useless to me in determining a relationship of Misoprostol to a particular side effect.’”

On Thursday lawyers for Welden tried another tack, citing “medical records showing Lee was already experiencing bleeding in her seventh week of pregnancy suggesting other factors may have led to the miscarriage,” reported WTSP’s Eric Glasser.

But Lazzara was having none of that either.

“The suggestion that prior to the ingestion of this highly toxic drug, this victim was experiencing a spontaneous abortion is just speculation not supported by the record,” Judge Lazzara said. “The only rational explanation for what caused the demise of the victim’s embryo was her ingestion of one dose of 200 micrograms of Misoprostol.”

Welden’s defense team spared no expense, according to local media reports. “Defense attorneys flew in experts from New York City, one of which was affiliated with the World Health Organization,” according to WFTS’s Jacqueline Ingles.

“Welden’s stepmother said she was disappointed in the ruling because the defense’s experts are ‘world renowned, ‘” Ingles reported. “However, the judge was not impressed with their lofty resumes and discounted their testimony.”

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/01/27/...iend-into-taking-abortion-drug-gets-14-years/

 

[NickNitro]

What a piece of ****.

But.....I feel this thread is going to explode with morality disputes.

 

[Feenix]

I would like to know the full story. For instance, if they had unprotected sex, then the guy's actions are reprehensible. However, if the woman "forgot" to take her pill or lied about it or deceived him in some way to intentionally get pregnant, then screw her. I know far too many women who have gotten pregnant with the intent of "locking down" the fathers and getting them to pay child support. One, in particular, would only date men who made more than $150,000 a year because she wanted the nice paycheques once she got pregnant and left them.

So, this case isn't entirely black and white for me.

 

[Duran Man]

If he had worn a condom, the devious little **** may not have found himself in this mess.

 

[Feenix]

If he had worn a condom, the devious little **** may not have found himself in this mess.

He may have. It wouldn't be the first time a woman has gotten pregnant even though her partner was wearing a condom.

Plus, she could have lied to him at the onset of their relationship, saying that she didn't want children either, but in reality, she did. I know it sounds crazy, but like I said, I've seen this happen before. I used to work in a family law firm and the amount of cases that came through of women getting pregnant by deception were disturbing.

If the story is that they had unprotected sex and both parties knew it was unprotected, then I have no sympathy for him. However, if she tricked him in some way to get pregnant, then I have no sympathy for her.

 

[Teelie]

What a piece of ****.

But.....I feel this thread is going to explode with morality disputes.

This will not end well at all, no.

I remember reading about it some months back and I do remember a claim she stopped taking birth control pills to get pregnant but I assume if it were true they would have included that in the report.

Either way this is not the way to handle an unwanted pregnancy, whether you're pro-choice or not. He got what was coming to him.

 

[Schlosser85]

This guy is a real jerk, but 14 years is excessive, IMO, for something women take legally every day to induce abortions.

It's legal for her to kill her unborn baby but not for him to indirectly do it?

 

[NickNitro]

This guy is a real jerk, but 14 years is excessive, IMO, for something women take legally every day to induce abortions.

It's legal for her to kill her unborn baby but not for him to indirectly do it?

And this is where the grey line or morality rears its ugly face.

I believe it has to be illegal. This man has nothing to do with the birth of that child other than inseminating her. At that point the mother and baby are connected, some would say are one.

Him killing something that isn't physically apart of him is murder. She on the other hand has the ability to choose whether or not she wants that part of her under law.

I can agree with the judges decision to put him in prison but I too agree that 14 years may be a bit too long.

 

[Feenix]

And this is where the grey line or morality rears its ugly face.

I believe it has to be illegal. This man has nothing to do with the birth of that child other than inseminating her. At that point the mother and baby are connected, some would say are one.

Him killing something that isn't physically apart of him is murder. She on the other hand has the ability to choose whether or not she wants that part of her under law.

I can agree with the judges decision to put him in prison but I too agree that 14 years may be a bit too long.

Ah, but what if the woman wanted the abortion and the man didn't? He doesn't have a say?

It's entirely too grey of an area. It's not as cut and dry as "murder." I would have tried to take more factors into account before rendering a verdict and subsequent sentence.

 

[Dark Raven]

I don't know what was the man's thinking. If he didn't want to pay child support if the baby was born, then he decides to kill it off and ends up paying 14 years of his life instead.

I'm guessing he didn't think he'd be caught. But it would be obvious something was up after she miscarried, and they did an investigation into the cause of this.

 

[Endeavor]

Ah, but what if the woman wanted the abortion and the man didn't? He doesn't have a say?

This.
The woman may be carrying the child, but it's not hers alone. Why is it that her decision is the only one that's considered legal?

 

[Teelie]

To further complicate it the father may not want the child but will have to pay child support. If a woman doesn't want a child the father has no rights to prevent an abortion.

 

[charl_huntress]

This is going to make a great Lifetime movie. I can't wait.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Regardless of whether you're in a pro-life or pro-choice jurisdiction, there are criminal laws against adminstering a substance to someone without their consent or knowledge.

 

[Feenix]

Regardless of whether you're in a pro-life or pro-choice jurisdiction, there are criminal laws against adminstering a substance to someone without their consent or knowledge.

Indeed.

On the flip side, should the woman be allowed to withhold the birth control pill without the consent or knowledge of her partner? If that was the case here, then the guy should be allowed off the hook if the woman chooses to keep the child. Pregnancy by deception should void any monetary obligations the father may have towards the mother or the child.

 

[Endeavor]

Regardless of whether you're in a pro-life or pro-choice jurisdiction, there are criminal laws against adminstering a substance to someone without their consent or knowledge.

Agreed. I'm not agreeing with what he did. I'm just pointing out that there is an inherent unfairness in how the legal system views the rights of the father vs the rights of the mother.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Indeed.

On the flip side, should the woman be allowed to withhold the birth control pill without the consent or knowledge of her partner? If that was the case here, then the guy should be allowed off the hook if the woman chooses to keep the child. Pregnancy by deception should void any monetary obligations the father may have towards the mother or the child.

Lol, buddy, the fact that the situation you describe above is a real issue (and I know it is, because it's happened to people I know) makes me extremely glad I'm more into dudes than women.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

It does pose some interesting questions. It's a choice if the mother does it, but if someone else does it without the mother's consent, it's murder. To me, it can't be both ways. Forcing an abortion on a woman is terrible, but if abortion isn't considered murder, then it isn't murder even under those circumstances either. I think you also have to take into consideration how far along the pregnancy is, and in this case, it was only seven weeks in.

 

[charl_huntress]

Men can take precautions to prevent a woman's pregnancy and should if they don't want a woman to become pregnant. Leaving birth control up to the woman doesn't absolve you from responsibility if she becomes pregnant due to trickery.

 

[Feenix]

Lol, buddy, the fact that the situation you describe above is a real issue (and I know it is, because it's happened to people I know) makes me extremely glad I'm more into dudes than women.

Working in a family law firm made me really happy that I don't want kids.

Draaaammmaaaa.

 

[Dark Raven]

It does pose some interesting questions. It's a choice if the mother does it, but if someone else does it without the mother's consent, it's murder. To me, it can't be both ways. Forcing an abortion on a woman is terrible, but if abortion isn't considered murder, then it isn't murder even under those circumstances either. I think you also have to take into consideration how far along the pregnancy is, and in this case, it was only seven weeks in.

I don't think he's getting 14 years for murder though. It's 14 years essentially for product tampering and committing fraud (by deceiving her into taking a particular substance without her knowledge or consent).

 

[Feenix]

Men can take precautions to prevent a woman's pregnancy and should if they don't want a woman to become pregnant. Leaving birth control up to the woman doesn't absolve you from responsibility if she becomes pregnant due to trickery.

I'm not talking about leaving birth control solely up to the woman. I'm talking about women who purposely deceive their partners so they can become pregnant. Those women should have to deal with the consequences on their own without any monetary help from the father. If he did what he could to prevent pregnancy and she didn't in the hopes of getting pregnant, tough *****, she can have the kid and use her own money to raise it.

 

[Teelie]

Men can take precautions to prevent a woman's pregnancy and should if they don't want a woman to become pregnant. Leaving birth control up to the woman doesn't absolve you from responsibility if she becomes pregnant due to trickery.

Even if she poked holes in the condoms? That's happened more than once.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

I don't think he's getting 14 years for murder though. It's 14 years essentially for product tampering and committing fraud (by deceiving her into taking a particular substance without her knowledge or consent).

Yeah I know. But it said he was originally facing a life sentence for murder, and that's what I'm arguing against.

 

[charl_huntress]

I'm not talking about leaving birth control solely up to the woman. I'm talking about women who purposely deceive their partners so they can become pregnant. Those women should have to deal with the consequences on their own without any monetary help from the father. If he did what he could to prevent pregnancy and she didn't in the hopes of getting pregnant, tough *****, she can have the kid and use her own money to raise it.

It takes two to tango. If a man doesn't want a woman to become pregnant he should take some responsibility for birth control. He can wear a condom. He can have a vasectomy. He can avoid sex with the woman. The point is in this day and age a man can take precautions to prevent a woman's pregnancy. If he does not and a woman falls pregnant, trickery or not, it's his responsibility because he did not take any responsibility to prevent it.

Even if she poked holes in the condoms? That's happened more than once.

He should be responsible for his birth control. Like she would be responsible for it if it were up to her.

edit:

F.Y.I.

I witnessed a case somewhat similar to this in the Navy. The man claimed the woman tricked him and told him she couldn't become pregnant due to some accident. He believed her and had unprotected sex. She got pregnant... He still had to pay.