The statistics are chilling: homicide is now the leading cause of death for pregnant women. It’s a brutal reality often hidden within broader crime reports, a terrifying trend fueled by desperation and control. These aren’t random acts of violence; they are often calculated attempts to erase not just a woman’s future, but the life growing within her.
Eighteen-year-old Kaylin Fiengo was enjoying a day at the park when her life was brutally cut short, a gunshot ending her pregnancy and her future. Her baby’s father, Donovan Faison, driven by a desire to maintain a relationship with another pregnant woman, was convicted of first-degree murder and killing an unborn child. He now faces the possibility of the death penalty.
The story repeats with heartbreaking frequency. Raquiah King, twenty years old, found murdered in a roadside ditch after refusing her boyfriend’s demand for an abortion. Jameisha Wilkes, thirty-three, shot to death by a married boyfriend who couldn’t reconcile his life with impending fatherhood. Hailey Privett, pregnant with twins, stabbed to death by her fiancé. Each case a devastating loss, a life stolen, a future extinguished.
But a disturbing shift has occurred, a subtle yet dangerous expansion of control. A policy change enacted in recent years removed a critical safeguard: the requirement for an in-person visit to obtain chemical abortion pills. Initially presented as a temporary measure during the pandemic, it became permanent, opening the door to a new form of coercion and potential harm.
Suddenly, access to these pills became frighteningly easy. Nationwide pharmacy chains began dispensing them, and even more alarmingly, they could be ordered online and delivered directly to anyone, anywhere – even in states with protective laws. This ease of access has empowered those who seek to control a woman’s reproductive choices, turning a deeply personal decision into a potential crime scene.
The case of Justin Banta is particularly chilling. An IT worker for the Justice Department, he allegedly laced chocolate chip cookies with mifepristone, attempting to end his girlfriend’s pregnancy after she refused his offer to pay for an abortion. The Texas Tribune shockingly described the charges against him as an attempt to “rein in abortion pills,” minimizing the gravity of his alleged actions.
Then there’s the story of Mason and Catherine Herring, where a husband relentlessly attempted to force abortion pills upon his wife, seven times trying to control her body and her future. Their daughter survived, but now faces developmental delays, a constant reminder of the trauma inflicted upon her and her mother. These aren’t isolated incidents; they are a pattern of escalating control and violence.
Other cases reveal even more disturbing tactics. A nurse forcing pills during sexual assault. A doctor administering pills against a woman’s will, exploiting online access under his estranged wife’s name. The sheer audacity and brutality of these acts are staggering, and likely represent only a fraction of the crimes occurring in the shadows.
Now, a critical reevaluation is underway. The FDA, under new leadership, has pledged a thorough review of mifepristone’s safety. Lawmakers are demanding a robust investigation and a return to in-person dispensing requirements. Legal challenges are mounting, questioning the drug’s safety and the deceptive claims made about its risks.
The claim that mifepristone is “safer than Tylenol,” propagated by some organizations, is being fiercely contested. While the full extent of harm remains unknown – the FDA no longer consistently reports adverse effects – at least thirty-six women have died following chemical abortions since the drug’s approval. The physical and emotional toll on women who undergo chemical abortions is often profound, leaving lasting scars.
The availability of chemical abortion has fostered a dangerous sense of entitlement, emboldening those who seek to control women and their reproductive choices. It’s a tragic reality that demands a comprehensive, unbiased examination of the drug’s impact on both women and the unborn. The time for a thorough, non-partisan evaluation is long overdue.
