Introduction to the Case
A Texas woman is suing a Marine who allegedly spiked her drink with abortion pills in order to end her pregnancy. Corpus Christi resident Liana Davis found out she was pregnant earlier this year. According to the lawsuit, when she told the father, Christopher Cooprider, he told her that he did not want her to continue with the pregnancy. Cooprider, reached by phone on Tuesday morning, declined to comment to The Dallas Morning News.
The Alleged Incident
The Marine ordered abortion medication through the mail, according to text message screenshots in the lawsuit. Over the course of several weeks, Cooprider urged Davis to take the pills, which he sometimes brought with him when he visited her house. Davis refused to take the pills or to terminate her pregnancy. In April, when Davis was about eight weeks pregnant, she agreed to spend an evening watching TV with Cooprider. The Marine, according to the lawsuit, prepared a hot chocolate for Davis. Within half an hour of drinking the hot chocolate, the lawsuit says, Davis began cramping and bleeding.
Aftermath of the Incident
Davis went to the emergency room that night, the lawsuit says, and lost her pregnancy. The woman is suing Cooprider for the wrongful death of her unborn child. The lawsuit also names the abortion access organization that allegedly mailed the pills. That organization, Aid Access, did not immediately respond on Tuesday morning to an email requesting comment. Davis’ attorney in the case is Jonathan Mitchell, a former Texas solicitor general and an anti-abortion advocate.
Background of the Attorney
Mitchell is credited with designing the civil enforcement mechanism in Texas’ six-week abortion ban, which was passed in 2021. The mechanism allows private citizens to file lawsuits over alleged illegal abortions, leading some to refer to the ban as a “bounty hunter law.” Mitchell did not immediately respond on Tuesday morning to an email requesting comment. In recent years, Mitchell has represented men whose partners allegedly received abortions, filing wrongful death lawsuits against friends or medical providers who are believed to have facilitated the abortion.
Fetal Personhood and Wrongful Death Lawsuits
Such lawsuits are part of the framework of “fetal personhood,” which gives legal rights to embryos and fetuses. Texas anti-abortion advocates, including John Seago of Texas Right to Life, have said for months that they expect to see more wrongful death lawsuits related to abortions. This framework and the associated lawsuits have significant implications for the debate on abortion rights and access to reproductive healthcare.
Conclusion
The case of Liana Davis against Christopher Cooprider highlights the complex and contentious issues surrounding abortion, particularly in the context of fetal personhood and wrongful death lawsuits. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, it is essential to consider the implications of such cases on individuals, families, and society as a whole. The ongoing debate and legal challenges underscore the need for informed discussion, empathy, and understanding of the diverse perspectives involved.
FAQs
Q: What is the basis of Liana Davis’ lawsuit against Christopher Cooprider?
A: Liana Davis is suing Christopher Cooprider for the wrongful death of her unborn child, alleging that he spiked her drink with abortion pills, leading to the loss of her pregnancy.
Q: Who is Jonathan Mitchell, and what is his role in the case?
A: Jonathan Mitchell is Davis’ attorney, a former Texas solicitor general, and an anti-abortion advocate. He is credited with designing the civil enforcement mechanism in Texas’ six-week abortion ban.
Q: What is fetal personhood, and how does it relate to the case?
A: Fetal personhood refers to the legal framework that gives embryos and fetuses legal rights. This concept is relevant to the case as it underpins the wrongful death lawsuits related to abortions, including the one filed by Liana Davis.
Q: What are the implications of this case for the broader discussion on abortion rights?
A: The case highlights the complexities and contentions surrounding abortion, particularly in the context of fetal personhood and wrongful death lawsuits. It underscores the need for ongoing discussion, empathy, and understanding of the diverse perspectives involved in the debate on abortion rights and access to reproductive healthcare.
