Douchebag tricks his girlfriend into taking abortion pills

[Dread Not]

TAMPA, Fla. — The 28-year-old son of a Florida fertility doctor has been charged by federal authorities with tricking his girlfriend into taking a pill used to induce labor and cause an abortion, killing the embryo she was carrying.

John Andrew Welden was indicted Tuesday by a federal grand jury on charges of product tampering and first-degree murder and faces up to life in prison if convicted of the murder charge. He's also the defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court by his ex-girlfriend, 26-year-old Remee Lee.

"Whenever a woman is robbed of her ability to give birth and have a child, I don't think there's any greater harm you can cause somebody," said Lee's attorney, Gil Sanchez. "She's devastated. She still can't believe this happened to her."

David Weisbrod, who represented Welden in the first federal court appearance Wednesday, declined to comment to The Associated Press. During a court hearing Wednesday, Weisbrod characterized his client's actions as aberrant but said Welden had no criminal history. A U.S. magistrate judge ordered him held without bond.

Prosecutors say Welden's murder charge applies because it falls under a rarely used federal statute known as the "Protection of Unborn Children Act."

According to court documents, the couple met in mid-2012 and became romantically involved. Lee became pregnant in February 2013 and was elated about her pregnancy when she told Welden the news. Welden, however, urged Lee not to have the baby.

In late March, the records say, Lee went to the office of Dr. Stephen Welden, her boyfriend's father, for an exam.

Court records say Welden told Lee that his father had discovered she had a bacterial infection and had prescribed an antibiotic, Amoxicillan, to treat her.

Lee and her attorney – along with federal prosecutors – say Welden forged his father's signature on a prescription for Cytotec and relabeled a pill bottle as "Amoxicillin." Cytotec, known also as misoprostol, is a drug used to induce labor.

It is typically taken in conjunction with another drug, mifepristone, to cause an abortion during the first nine weeks of pregnancy. Mifepristone, which is typically taken first, causes an embryo to detach from the uterine wall. Misoprostol is typically taken two days later to cause contractions and push the embryo out of the uterus.

Lee was six weeks and five days pregnant.

Welden said she began to bleed while at work and went to the hospital – where she discovered that she had been given the drug used in medically induced abortions.

Court records say Welden told Lee while she was at the hospital that he had given her Cytotec, not Amoxicillin. Lee is suing Welden for battery, intentional infliction of emotional harm, and punitive damages.

Welden's father, the doctor, has not been accused of wrongdoing and has not been charged with any crime. Someone answering the phone at his OB-GYN office in Tampa hung up when a reporter called.

I've checked numerous articles concerning this story and am aghast at the number of commenters saying something along the lines of "well that's what happens when you don't let men opt out of their financial obligations to unwanted children." While I think a murder charge sets a dangerous precedent for women's reproductive rights, I hope this guy gets a hefty prison sentence that will hopefully deter some of these callous fucks from trying something similar.

[Jub]

I hate to sound like a dick, but what is a guy to do when she gets pregnant, wants to have the kid, and refuses to let him off the hook? It was just as much her fault as his, but he's the only one without a say in that situation. The same thing arises when he wants the kid and she refuses to carry it to term.

I'm not at all supporting what this guy did, but you can sort of see why he might want to do it. If a guy knows he's screwed financially and that he has no say in the matter drastic things start to look more appealing. Until things are changed to give men more of a say in his stake in a pregnancy I can honestly see this sort of thing happening from time to time.

[Dread Not]

I hate to sound like a dick, but what is a guy to do when she gets pregnant, wants to have the kid, and refuses to let him off the hook?

He could try accepting responsibility like a grown man instead of poisoning his girlfriend.

It was just as much her fault as his, but he's the only one without a say in that situation. The same thing arises when he wants the kid and she refuses to carry it to term.

Because in both cases only one of them has a womb. Tough shit.

I'm not at all supporting what this guy did, but you can sort of see why he might want to do it.

Yeah, because he's a self-centered degenerate who thinks his pwecious wages are more important than a child's welfare or a woman's bodily integrity.

If a guy knows he's screwed financially and that he has no say in the matter drastic things start to look more appealing. Until things are changed to give men more of a say in his stake in a pregnancy I can honestly see this sort of thing happening from time to time.

And whenever it does I hope the little shitstain in question gets thrashed hard by the criminal justice system. What fucking say is a man supposed to have in a pregnancy after he's shot his load in her? "Gee honey, you want to keep it and I don't. Let's flip for it! HEADS!"

[Broomstick]

Contrary to what you're assuming, Jub, men DO have control over conception. Here are your choices:

1) Don't stick your bare dick in someone you don't want pregnant
2) Use a goddamned condom

Is that as much fun as fucking bareback? No. You know what also isn't fun? Being a woman and expected to take pills/use devices and shoulder all the responsibility for contraception. Grow the fuck up and act like an adult. Be responsible for your actions. Sometimes your actions have consequences you don't like. Grow the fuck up and deal with it anyway.

Second, while I'm not sure killing a fetus should rank with killing a born human being, killing a wanted fetus is a crime, forcing an abortion on a woman is a crime (and a violation of her rights as established by Roe v. Wade), faking a prescription is a crime, practicing medicine without a license is a crime, and inducing an abortion in this manner, which doesn't even follow the proper protocol, is potentially life-threatening to the mother as well as the fetus.

Yeah, I get it - 18 years of child support for a kid you don't want sucks. It doesn't justify breaking the law in this manner or risking the health of another human being.

[K. A. Pital]

What Broomie said. If you're a moron and you have unprotected sex, you deal with the fallout.

You don't drug other people to get off the hook.

And now he won't.

[Jub]

I hate to sound like a dick, but what is a guy to do when she gets pregnant, wants to have the kid, and refuses to let him off the hook?

He could try accepting responsibility like a grown man instead of poisoning his girlfriend.

Obviously that would be the thing I, and most responsible men would do.

It was just as much her fault as his, but he's the only one without a say in that situation. The same thing arises when he wants the kid and she refuses to carry it to term.

Because in both cases only one of them has a womb. Tough shit.

It's as much her mistake as his, yet he has no options once things start. Kind of a raw deal for something that can happen with relative ease.

If a guy knows he's screwed financially and that he has no say in the matter drastic things start to look more appealing. Until things are changed to give men more of a say in his stake in a pregnancy I can honestly see this sort of thing happening from time to time.

And whenever it does I hope the little shitstain in question gets thrashed hard by the criminal justice system. What fucking say is a man supposed to have in a pregnancy after he's shot his load in her? "Gee honey, you want to keep it and I don't. Let's flip for it! HEADS!"

If she can force the guy to pay for a kid he might not even know he was part of, he ought to have some say in getting a kid out of he deal if he's willing to care for it. It's easy to vilify the guy for not wanting to deal with things when he doesn't want to pay, but less easy to pin the same responsibility on the woman.

Contrary to what you're assuming, Jub, men DO have control over conception. Here are your choices:

1) Don't stick your bare dick in someone you don't want pregnant
2) Use a goddamned condom

No shit Sherlock. I'm referring to their total lack of say after the fact. If the woman decides she's done she can take a morning after pill or have an abortion, but the man has utterly no say in things. I think it would be fair, if not ideal for obvious reasons, if the man could ask her to terminate the pregnancy and if the woman says no she can keep it but accept that she won't be getting child support. Child support would still be due in cases where the couple breaks up after the child is born.

Is that as much fun as fucking bareback? No. You know what also isn't fun? Being a woman and expected to take pills/use devices and shoulder all the responsibility for contraception. Grow the fuck up and act like an adult. Be responsible for your actions. Sometimes your actions have consequences you don't like. Grow the fuck up and deal with it anyway.

Where did I ever say that women should hold all the responsibility for contraception? Both parties should have an equal share of that burden and men should cover it unless they are 100% sure she's on the pill or has other means of stopping unwanted pregnancy. Still, short of surgery, only one sex has options for contraception that leaves bareback as an option.

[quote="Broomstick"}Second, while I'm not sure killing a fetus should rank with killing a born human being, killing a wanted fetus is a crime, forcing an abortion on a woman is a crime (and a violation of her rights as established by Roe v. Wade), faking a prescription is a crime, practicing medicine without a license is a crime, and inducing an abortion in this manner, which doesn't even follow the proper protocol, is potentially life-threatening to the mother as well as the fetus.[/quote]

I agree, assault is a good baseline for this sort of thing. Though I could easily see stiffer punishment for the unusual degree of emotion suffering caused. I wouldn't support murder charges simply due to the can of worms it opens and the fact that I don't feel a fetus is a person.

Yeah, I get it - 18 years of child support for a kid you don't want sucks. It doesn't justify breaking the law in this manner or risking the health of another human being.

I fully agree, I just wish men had more say in what happens after their short part is done. The man is almost always less likely to win custody cases as well which just makes matters even worse in my mind.

[Ralin]

I fully agree, I just wish men had more say in what happens after their short part is done. The man is almost always less likely to win custody cases as well which just makes matters even worse in my mind.

I don't have the numbers handy, but going off the feminism thread at SA that's not entirely true. Women usually get custody, yes, but that's because they're stereotyped as the primary caregivers by all concerned. When the man actually does push for custody the chances of him getting it go way up.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Contrary to what you're assuming, Jub, men DO have control over conception. Here are your choices:

2) Use a goddamned condom

Except... 1. If the condom rips. 2. If she's taking the pill (and it fails to work). 3. If she says she's taking a pill, and lies about it...

[Jub]

I fully agree, I just wish men had more say in what happens after their short part is done. The man is almost always less likely to win custody cases as well which just makes matters even worse in my mind.

I don't have the numbers handy, but going off the feminism thread at SA that's not entirely true. Women usually get custody, yes, but that's because they're stereotyped as the primary caregivers by all concerned. When the man actually does push for custody the chances of him getting it go way up.

Obviously a man's chances of getting custody go up when they actually push for it. That doesn't mean they still have even a 50/50 shot of winning that case precisely because women are seen as caregivers.

[General Zod]

I fully agree, I just wish men had more say in what happens after their short part is done.

So what you're arguing is that people should get to have more say over what happens to someone else's body if they put something inside of them?

[Solauren]

You know, having had sex with my partner both wearing and not wearing a condom, I have never noticed a difference worth not wearing one to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

And there are lots of things a guy can do to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

#1 - Don't have sex.

Failing that....
#1 - Get a vasectomy
#2 - Wear a condom (which ya should be doing anyway for STDs).

Oh look, THREE opt outs to prevent becoming a father when you don't want to be one. All of them less invasive (and cheaper) then an abortion.

There are also other options, like dating women that can't have kids.

If you want another opt-out; Pass a law wear if the woman is taking the pill (or claims to be), or claims her tubes are tied or is otherwise incapable of having children, and she signs documentation to that effect, she's agreed not to pursue the father for financial support.
(I believe there are laws in effect like this for sperm donors).


As for the asshole in the article:
He was irresponsible, and then resorted to illegally administrating drugs to an unsuspecting individual, which is assault, for the purposes of terminating a life he had no legal authority over (which is murder).

The charges are applicable and suitable.

[Jub]

I fully agree, I just wish men had more say in what happens after their short part is done.

So what you're arguing is that people should get to have more say over what happens to someone else's body if they put something inside of them?

Why do they get to control what comes out of a man's wallet if he's dead set against having anything to do with the kid? Even if the child is carried to term he still has a worse than 50/50 shot of gain custody, yet if she decides to have the kid he has a 100% chance to pay for it. Does this seem unbalanced to anybody else?

-----

On birth control, why should the man have to be extra careful when both him and his partner have an equal responsibility for her getting pregnant? If she fucks up she should have to live with her choice as much as a man does. If that means keeping the kid and paying child support so be it. If one side has no out the other side should be equally locked in, or you can make it so each side has an equal chance at an out clause.

It's not forcing anything on the woman at that point, if she didn't want the kid she should have used protection. At least that's what I'm hearing about men that knock women up.

[General Zod]

Why do they get to control what comes out of a man's wallet if he's dead set against having anything to do with the kid? Even if the child is carried to term he still has a worse than 50/50 shot of gain custody, yet if she decides to have the kid he has a 100% chance to pay for it. Does this seem unbalanced to anybody else?

All I see is a bunch of whining about how unfair it is that you can't run away from the consequences of your actions.

[ray245]

It is not as if women are free from any responsibility in raising a kid.

[Jub]

Why do they get to control what comes out of a man's wallet if he's dead set against having anything to do with the kid? Even if the child is carried to term he still has a worse than 50/50 shot of gain custody, yet if she decides to have the kid he has a 100% chance to pay for it. Does this seem unbalanced to anybody else?

All I see is a bunch of whining about how unfair it is that you can't run away from the consequences of your actions.

I'm just saying that she's as much to blame yet she has a 100% certain out clause. The man has fuck all for options in spite of bearing the exact same responsibility. Just because it's her body involved doesn't make her any less responsible for the fact that she's now pregnant.

It is not as if women are free from any responsibility in raising a kid.

They can choose to have an abortion, an act that can be as simple as swallowing a pill. What similar option does a man have?

[General Zod]

I'm just saying that she's as much to blame yet she has a 100% certain out clause. The man has fuck all for options in spite of bearing the exact same responsibility.

What makes you think it's a 100% "out clause"? She's stuck with the child for the next 18 years while the guy is free to run off and get someone else pregnant?

[Jub]

I'm just saying that she's as much to blame yet she has a 100% certain out clause. The man has fuck all for options in spite of bearing the exact same responsibility.

What makes you think it's a 100% "out clause"? She's stuck with the child for the next 18 years while the guy is free to run off and get someone else pregnant?

No she isn't, unless you're in a backwards country/state access to the morning after pill or safe abortions should be an option. If you want the guy to pay his half of that I'll fully support you.

For those that argue that it might be against her personal ethics to have an abortion I say that's her choice. At that point she's decided that she'll have the kid come hell or high water and he shouldn't be punished because he stuck it in a person with those beliefs.

[General Zod]

I'm just saying that she's as much to blame yet she has a 100% certain out clause. The man has fuck all for options in spite of bearing the exact same responsibility.

What makes you think it's a 100% "out clause"? She's stuck with the child for the next 18 years while the guy is free to run off and get someone else pregnant?

No she isn't, unless you're in a backwards country/state access to the morning after pill or safe abortions should be an option. If you want the guy to pay his half of that I'll fully support you.

You realize that a guy's not held responsible for child support if she chooses to abort the fetus, right?

[Jub]

You realize that a guy's not held responsible for child support if she chooses to abort the fetus, right?

No shit, neither is she at that point; in fact that's the point I'm trying to make. She has an out clause in that she can terminate the pregnancy. The man has no similar clause if the woman decides that, even knowing that the man wants no part of the child, to carry the fetus to term. They're equally responsible for her getting knocked up, but only one of them has a shred of control after the event happens. That's bullshit regardless of who's carrying the kid.

[Crazedwraith]

You realize that a guy's not held responsible for child support if she chooses to abort the fetus, right?

No shit, neither is she at that point; in fact that's the point I'm trying to make. She has an out clause in that she can terminate the pregnancy. The man has no similar clause if the woman decides that, even knowing that the man wants no part of the child, to carry the fetus to term. They're equally responsible for her getting knocked up, but only one of them has a shred of control after the event happens. That's bullshit regardless of who's carrying the kid.

and the only alternative is that the women is force to undertake a medical procedure against her will. Do you see the problem with this?

[General Zod]

You realize that a guy's not held responsible for child support if she chooses to abort the fetus, right?

No shit, neither is she at that point; in fact that's the point I'm trying to make. She has an out clause in that she can terminate the pregnancy. The man has no similar clause if the woman decides that, even knowing that the man wants no part of the child, to carry the fetus to term. They're equally responsible for her getting knocked up, but only one of them has a shred of control after the event happens. That's bullshit regardless of who's carrying the kid.

Which brings me back to my earlier point. Why the fuck do you get to control what happens to someone else's body just because you stick something in them?

[Broomstick]

It was just as much her fault as his, but he's the only one without a say in that situation. The same thing arises when he wants the kid and she refuses to carry it to term.

Child, I want you to learn one thing from this thread: biology is not fair.

It's as much her mistake as his, yet he has no options once things start. Kind of a raw deal for something that can happen with relative ease.

First of all, you are assuming this is a mistake on her part. It might be... it might not.

Second, the “relative ease” part is EXACTLY why men who don't desire children or child support payments need to take responsibility for their sperm deposits. Granted, you have fewer options for birth control than women do (see comment about biology not being fair) but you do have them and if you're serious about not wanting to produce unwanted children you'll use them.

If she can force the guy to pay for a kid he might not even know he was part of, he ought to have some say in getting a kid out of he deal if he's willing to care for it.

Given that he used subterfuge to kill the fetus, meanwhile endangering his girlfriend, I don't think this is relevant. He clearly did NOT want a kid out the relationship in any way, shape or form.

It's easy to vilify the guy for not wanting to deal with things when he doesn't want to pay, but less easy to pin the same responsibility on the woman.

We're not vilifying him due to custody dispute or child support payments, we're vilifying him for endangering another human being, forcing an abortion on a woman, and being a fucking criminal.

No shit Sherlock. I'm referring to their total lack of say after the fact.

See comment above about biology not being fair.

If the woman decides she's done she can take a morning after pill or have an abortion, but the man has utterly no say in things.

A man has a say in regards to where he puts his penis. Unless she raped him, stole his sperm, or otherwise committed a crime he put his dick in her of his own free will. That's the say a man gets in these things.

I think it would be fair, if not ideal for obvious reasons, if the man could ask her to terminate the pregnancy and if the woman says no she can keep it but accept that she won't be getting child support.

A man can always ask the woman to terminate a pregnancy. She just doesn't have to fulfill that request. That's really where the heart of the matter comes in, he can't FORCE her to carry a child she doesn't want, and he can't FORCE her to get an abortion. It is the woman's choice. That's the reality you have to deal with.

Again, if a man really doesn't want either kids or a child support payment he needs to exercise responsibility regarding where he unloads his sperm. Yes, that means thinking ahead even when most of your blood supply is other where than your brain, and it might even mean saying “no” to sex on occasion.

Still, short of surgery, only one sex has options for contraception that leaves bareback as an option.

Incorrect. There is oral sex, anal sex (although you'd still have to exercise care regarding where the load ends up), sex with other men.... Of course, all of those have downsides and risks... just like traditional heterosexual intercourse.

Yeah, I get it - 18 years of child support for a kid you don't want sucks. It doesn't justify breaking the law in this manner or risking the health of another human being.

I fully agree, I just wish men had more say in what happens after their short part is done. The man is almost always less likely to win custody cases as well which just makes matters even worse in my mind.

Given the lengths this man went to in order to kill the fetus I doubt very much he was interested in custody in any form.

But, to dally upon the tangent for a bit: when such an instance does occur, an unwanted pregnancy that will be carried to term, there is this technique called “negotiation” that can go a long way towards resolving disputes. Yes, there are instances where that won't work because one party or another doesn't want to engage in it.

If a man really wants custody it would behoove to first, try to stay on at least civil terms with the mother, and two, go to court early in the process rather than leaving the woman to drag him there. It's not impossible for men to win custody, I've known several who have done exactly that, and even men who have gotten alimony, child support payments, and a government benefit like WIC that usually goes to mothers (It's a support for Women, Infants, and Children – people forget “women” is only one third of that).

If a man doesn't want custody it is possible to legally surrender all parental rights. Yes, he still might have a child support payment – the child doesn't disappear just because daddy doesn't want him or her. Well, boo-hoo, take responsibility for your mistakes. It's no different than having to pay for any other form of negligence or mistake you've made in life, and being limited to 18 years, is less than some types of financial penalties you can incur in life.

Contrary to what you're assuming, Jub, men DO have control over conception. Here are your choices:

2) Use a goddamned condom

Except... 1. If the condom rips. 2. If she's taking the pill (and it fails to work). 3. If she says she's taking a pill, and lies about it...

Yes, dear, we all know that NO contraception is 100%. In fact, I'm reasonably sure my own existence is due to birth control failure. We all know some people lie. This gets right back to being careful where you stick your dick. This sort of thing is far more likely to happen with someone you don't know well, so if you're really adverse to this sort of risk don't engage in casual sex with anyone and very carefully vet your partners. If you do want casual sex with people you don't know well accept that you are taking a risk.

Why do they get to control what comes out of a man's wallet if he's dead set against having anything to do with the kid?

It's called “legal liability”. You are legally liable for any human life you create, just as you are legally liable for crashing your car into something, or the damage a pet of yours does, or on a more positive note, you're legally liable for any business you create.

Your actions have consequences.

Even if the child is carried to term he still has a worse than 50/50 shot of gain custody, yet if she decides to have the kid he has a 100% chance to pay for it. Does this seem unbalanced to anybody else?

Um... if “he's dead set against having anything to do with the kid” WHY is he pursuing custody...?

And no, he doesn't have a “100%” chance to pay for the kid. Not every baby momma pursues support payments. Not everyone gets dragged into court – it IS both possible and legal for two private parties to come to their own arrangement (although if that blows up the legal consequences can get ugly).

Is it unfair the way the courts treat men in this instances? Yes, it often is. I fully support increasing fairness but NOT at the expense of any other parties, and particularly not at the expense of the kid who never asked to be created but is nonetheless enmeshed in the mess.

On birth control, why should the man have to be extra careful when both him and his partner have an equal responsibility for her getting pregnant?

Excuse me? Wearing a condom is being “extra careful” somehow, but a woman altering her biochemistry and hormones to render her temporarily sterile with all the associated costs, risks and side effects is not? Why should women be extra careful and men not be careful at all?

If she fucks up she should have to live with her choice as much as a man does.

OK, let's review human reproductive biology 101: if a baby is created there were TWO people fucking, not one.

It's not forcing anything on the woman at that point, if she didn't want the kid she should have used protection. At least that's what I'm hearing about men that knock women up.

Why are you assuming she DIDN'T use birth control? Please tell me you are aware that ANY birth control has a failure rate. Where in the article does it state she wasn't using such? Please point that out to me. You are making an assumption. Not every unwanted pregnancy is a tragedy to those involved. Without knowing a LOT more about the parties involved it's impossible to say whether this was either an accident or an intentional pregnancy.

I would like to point out, however, that even if she deceived him it in no way justifies drugging a person against her will or forcing her to abort. Just because someone tricked you doesn't give you a right to punch them in the face. Under the law, tricking her into an abortion falls under physical assault. It's just as much a crime as beating her up would be.

[Broomstick]

For those that argue that it might be against her personal ethics to have an abortion I say that's her choice. At that point she's decided that she'll have the kid come hell or high water and he shouldn't be punished because he stuck it in a person with those beliefs.

How about "don't stick your dick in people who have such radically different beliefs regarding unwanted pregnancy"? OH, no! You might have to pass up sex once in awhile! We can't have that!

[Jub]

You realize that a guy's not held responsible for child support if she chooses to abort the fetus, right?

No shit, neither is she at that point; in fact that's the point I'm trying to make. She has an out clause in that she can terminate the pregnancy. The man has no similar clause if the woman decides that, even knowing that the man wants no part of the child, to carry the fetus to term. They're equally responsible for her getting knocked up, but only one of them has a shred of control after the event happens. That's bullshit regardless of who's carrying the kid.

and the only alternative is that the women is force to undertake a medical procedure against her will. Do you see the problem with this?

Then they both get an equal chance to wash their hands of it. She can choose to raise or abort as she wishes, and he can choose to support or not support as he chooses. This is as fair as things can be made to the two adults involved without forcing anything on anybody.

You realize that a guy's not held responsible for child support if she chooses to abort the fetus, right?

No shit, neither is she at that point; in fact that's the point I'm trying to make. She has an out clause in that she can terminate the pregnancy. The man has no similar clause if the woman decides that, even knowing that the man wants no part of the child, to carry the fetus to term. They're equally responsible for her getting knocked up, but only one of them has a shred of control after the event happens. That's bullshit regardless of who's carrying the kid.

Which brings me back to my earlier point. Why the fuck do you get to control what happens to someone else's body just because you stick something in them?

I never said you did. Where did I ever say that the man should be able to force her to have an abortion? I'm just saying that if she can choose to end things, he should have an option that leaves him just as free to walk away.

[General Zod]

I'm just saying that if she can choose to end things, he should have an option that leaves him just as free to walk away.

So you think that one party should be allowed to run away from the responsibilities of their actions if the other chooses to accept them?