Mark Crutcher, President of Life Dynamics, Inc. asks, “What happens when men use abortion as a sort of safety net? What do they do when the woman they’ve impregnated won’t jump into the net?”
Today, Mark Crutcher, President of Life Dynamics, Inc., a national pro-life organization located in Denton, Texas, says that violence inflicted on pregnant women by pro-choice men who want their pregnancy aborted is nothing new.
One recent example which received national attention was the arrest and indictment of a Florida man who tricked his pregnant girlfriend into taking abortion pills to abort her pregnancy.
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. Now Welden, is facing the possibility of life behind bars without parole, charged with murder under a rarely used federal statute known as the “Protection of Unborn Children Act.”
Life Dynamics has collected data on a large volume of these cases and compiled the data in a report entitled, “Under-the-Radar Violence in the Conflict Over Abortion.”
Crutcher, who wrote the report, asks, “What happens when men use abortion as a sort of safety net? What do they do when the woman they’ve impregnated won’t jump into the net?”
Crutcher continues, “Our research shows that when a male displays these kinds of attitudes about his partner’s pregnancy, his first reaction will be to demand that she have an abortion. In almost every incident in which violence ensues, its motive will be that she refused to comply.”
The report points out that this kind of violence against women is not commonly reported by the media.
According to Crutcher, “When we were able to obtain copies of police reports, indictments, court records or other similar documentation for these cases, they would almost universally show that when a perpetrator is confronted by an unwanted pregnancy, his first response is not violence but a demand that his partner have an abortion. When violence ensues, it is inevitably a reaction to her refusal to comply. However, the media’s coverage of these incidents often contains no mention of abortion. Instead, they either portray women who are attacked for refusing to have abortions as women who are attacked for getting pregnant, or they characterize the incident as one of simple “domestic violence” in which the victim’s pregnancy is basically inconsequential.”
Life Dynamics also documents that the abortion lobby is aware of how common this problem is:
Crutcher states, “Over the years, we have acquired tape recordings of National Abortion Federation (NAF) conventions in which discussions about women being forced to have abortions were held. The prevailing attitude expressed in these sessions may best be described as one of “convenient indifference.” Attendees will acknowledge the problem’s existence and talk about it in disapproving tones, while making it clear that they feel no obligation to let it influence the way they deal with these women. Their philosophical position seems to be that, even if a woman chooses to have an abortion she doesn’t want because of threats from others, it remains within the “pro-choice” purview since she was still the one who ultimately made the decision. In fact, on the NAF tapes mentioned above, some abortion clinic employees can be heard paraphrasing this very argument and using it to justify their habit of looking the other way. It is a truly bizarre rationalization analogous to saying that women who submit to sexual relations at the point of a gun are not really being raped since, technically, they are consenting.”
Crutcher points at out that although there have been Herculean efforts by the abortion lobby to call for the protection of abortion providers against violence, they fail to make the same effort to protect these women from violence, “For political and public relations reasons, those who most loudly proclaim “a woman’s right to choose,” have shown no interest in “a woman’s right not to choose.” On one hand, they may not approve of women being bludgeoned or killed for refusing to have abortions. But on the other hand, they have made it clear that they are willing to write-off these women as just collateral damage in the war to keep abortion legal.”
Crutcher warns women about this growing violence by telling them, “If he’s going to be pro-choice about your baby, he might be pro-choice about you.”
Download the Report: Under-the-Radar Violence in the Conflict Over Abortion: http://www.prolifeamerica.com
Mark Crutcher’s Bio http://www.lifedynamics.com/Pro-life_Group/Prolife_Activist/