Would-Be Mothers and the Threat of Violent Death

[monk222]

~
For some men, she said, the situation boils down to one set of unadorned facts: "If the woman doesn't want the baby, she can get an abortion. If the guy doesn't want it, he can't do a damn thing about it. He is stuck with a child for the rest of his life, he is stuck with child support for the rest of his life, and he's stuck with that woman for the rest of his life. If she goes away, the problem goes away."

-- "Many New or Expectant Mothers Die Violent Deaths" by Donna St. George for The Washington Post

This was quite an eye-opening article about the underappreciated risk of violence that pregnant women face, filled with shocking examples. To be sure, we are talking about a small subset of cases, dealing with expectant mothers who faced violence and death, but this is still a breathtaking phenomenon.

___ ___ ___

...Largely invisible, it is a phenomenon that is as consequential as it is poorly understood. Even in the past two years -- as the Laci Peterson homicide case has become a public fascination, with a jury last week recommending that her husband, Scott, be sentenced to death in her killing -- little has been said about the larger convergence of pregnancy and homicide: how often it happens, why, and whether it is a fluke or a social syndrome.

In the Washington region alone, at least three pregnant women have been killed in the past seven weeks -- one in St. Mary's County, a second in Manassas, a third in Fairfax County. Another pregnant woman was found slain Thursday in Missouri.

Until recently, many of the cases have gone virtually unstudied, uncounted, untracked. Police agencies across the country do not regularly ask about maternal status when they investigate homicides. And health experts have focused historically on the medical complications of pregnancy -- embolism, hemorrhage, infection -- not on fatal violence.

"It's very hard to connect the dots when you don't even see the dots," said Elaine Alpert, a public health expert at Boston University. "It's only just starting to be recognized that there is a trend or any commonalities between these deaths."

The Post's analysis shows that the killings span racial and ethnic groups. In cases whose details were known, 67 percent of women were killed with firearms. Many women were slain at home -- in bedrooms, living rooms, kitchens -- usually by men they knew. Husbands. Boyfriends. Lovers.

The cases are not commonplace compared with other homicides but are more frequent than most people know -- and have changed the way some experts think about pregnancy.

Five years ago in Maryland, state health researchers Isabelle Horon and Diana Cheng set out to study maternal deaths, using sophisticated methods to spot dozens of overlooked cases in their state. They assumed they would find more deaths from medical complications than the state's statistics showed. The last thing they expected was murder.

...At any age, "pregnancy is a huge, life-altering event for both the male and the female," said Pat Brown, a criminal profiler based in Minneapolis. "It is certainly a more dangerous moment in life. You are escalating people's responsibilities and curtailing their freedoms."

For some men, she said, the situation boils down to one set of unadorned facts: "If the woman doesn't want the baby, she can get an abortion. If the guy doesn't want it, he can't do a damn thing about it. He is stuck with a child for the rest of his life, he is stuck with child support for the rest of his life, and he's stuck with that woman for the rest of his life. If she goes away, the problem goes away."

[Here are a couple of examples provided at the end of the article.]

Tammy Baker, 24, was a well-liked bookkeeper who lived in an apartment in Louisa, Va., 30 miles east of Charlottesville, when she met Coleman "Mike" Johnson Jr., a contractor on a repair job at a nearby nuclear power plant.

The two hit it off for a time, then parted ways. One day, Baker called him to say she was pregnant and intended to have the baby. They argued repeatedly by phone, recalls Tracey Ryder, a friend of Baker's. He did not want a baby, nor did he want any child support obligations. But Baker did not change her mind.

By the time Baker was eight months pregnant, she had chosen a name, Savannah, and decorated a room for the baby girl she was expecting; she worked two jobs to save money.

But the conflict with Johnson never went away. On Dec. 3, 1997, Baker stooped down for what looked like a mislaid garbage can lid outside her apartment door.

Beneath the lid were two pipe bombs.

Baker was killed instantly in the explosion, which literally shook the earth in Louisa, and people in the small town found it hard to imagine. Who would kill a pregnant woman?

"He did it for money," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Bondurant. "He didn't want to pay child support."

As in other cases, Johnson at first denied it was his child, then pressed for an abortion, then plotted murder.

"It seems to me that these guys hope against hope for a miscarriage or an abortion, but when everything else fails, they take the life of the woman to avoid having the baby," said Jack Levin of Northeastern University.

Ashley Lyons, 18, faced a similar horror in a park near her old high school in Kentucky early this year -- on the day she went to her doctor for an ultrasound and learned she would be having a boy. She was 22 weeks along.

She had already picked out a name, Landon, and created a baby journal. As one entry gave way to another, she confided her ex-boyfriend's opposition to the pregnancy. Still, she wrote: "You are the child I have always dreamed about. . . . I know it will be a long time before I meet you, but I can't wait to hold you for the first time."

Excited by the ultrasound Jan. 7, Lyons made plans to show the fetal pictures to her ex-boyfriend, Roger McBeath Jr., 22. She left her family's home, telling her mother she would be back for dinner. But when her father and brother found her, she was sitting in her parked car -- with the car engine running and the headlights on.

She had been shot twice in the head and once in the neck. In her lap was her handbag -- half opened -- with the ultrasound picture inside, her father said.

"He knew that if she had that baby that she would be in his life forever, and he didn't want that," said prosecutor Shawna Jewell.

On a cold Kentucky afternoon four days later, Lyons was buried with her tiny baby tucked into her arms.

-- Donna St. George
.

Comments

[better-red.livejournal.com]

A sad fact that children don't fix everything.

About ten years back a 15 year old was strangled by her 35 year old boyfriend, I remember she was pregnant, I can't help but wonder if that was one of his motivations. I mean, his relationship with her was illegal, and a child would be proof of that relationship.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

The article cites a situation similar to that, when the male was only 18 and the female was 16. I think your suspicions are probably well placed. The authorities don't take kindly to relationships between middle-agey adults and underage teenagers - a terribly lamentable fact in my humble opinion.

[queensugar.livejournal.com]

In Canada, the age of consent is 14.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Ah, Canada continues to sound evermore like the Promised Land! ;)

[dave-rainbow.livejournal.com]

My ex wife was a residential social worker, and her experience was that the only thing that ever did cause delinquent teenagers to sort out their lives was motherhood. Not to say that this should be a model to be aspired to, or that it always worked, but even the worst and most violent girls obeyed a code that pregnant women were not to be assaulted, even when all other members of staff would be.

Older men resorting to relationships with teenagers is just exploitation in 99% of cases, however.

[antilapsarian.livejournal.com]

Interesting article. It always made me wonder back in law school about the fact that males really are taken out of the abortion process even though the fetus is partially theirs. They can neither really force a woman to have one or not have one legally. Well, force is the wrong word. I know if it were my, to go back to our abortion topic, "potential child" I'd like a say certainly. I should like to see the law take at least some consideration to these matters. I recall an expose type article awhile back on women who take condoms out of trashcans to get pregnant from unsuspecting fathers...sends a chill. The whole reproductive process really needs to be 50-50.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

At the risk of incurring wrath from other quarters, I've entertained the theory that women perhaps should exercise their choice with the understanding of the man's choice.

For example... If a single woman becomes pregnant, she informs the boyfriend. If the boyfriend says that he has no interest in fatherhood, then she would take that into consideration in making her choice whether to continue with the pregnancy and the rearing of the child. So, if the guy says 'no,' she might still decide against abortion but then seek the adoption remedy, if not the abortion option. If she decides to have and raise the child, it is understood that she does this on her own, knowing that he was against it.

The idea is that both get a choice. But I think I have enough of a sense of our social realities that this is irrelevant fancy.

[dave-rainbow.livejournal.com]

I think if a man has been tricked into fathering a child then it is outrageous to suppsoe he should have to pay for it. But there is a simple solution, that I've stuck to.

[antilapsarian.livejournal.com]

I agree, actually. Personally, I would not take away a woman's ultimate existential choice over having the child or not. But she does so with the consent or lack of consent either way from the father...which should figure in issues like child support, ultimate custody of the child, etc..

I know Dave will disagree, but I'm a firm believer that one does not give up basic rights just because one chooses to have sex. As a man, when I consent to sex with a woman I am not necessarily consenting to a child or an abortion or anything other than the sex. "Natural consquence" is not really a claim one can make anymore in our age of recreational intercourse. Not to bring up the famous Ohio college where you have to "ask" every step of the way, but perhaps we need some sort of legal document to present to your partner LOL. We have disclaimers for everything else. Why not warning about each person's beliefs on various reproductive or, heck, actual "here's what I'll do and here is what I require of you?" Just kidding of course. But I think, no offense, positions like Dave or the murder of a pregnant woman are both wrong ends where there needs to be a happy medium.

People need to be able to engage in sex freely, often, at will, and also be protected from the other party taking unfair advantage. I fear our laws are behind the times.

[renawyn.livejournal.com]

No offense, Monk, but that's serious bullshit. That's an unbelievably cruel position to put a woman into: she can either choose an abortion, which is NOT an innocuous process whatsoever (just ask my friend who had severe medical complications after hers), or adoption... having her child ripped away from her, and I say this as an adoptee... or she can choose a life without any support whatsoever from the man who consensually engaged in copulation with her?

I'm sorry, just, no. As long as women have to daily bear the weight and concern of possibly becoming pregnant every time they have sex... and have to bear the majority of the physical and emotional weight of a pregnancy... men have to be bound to that outcome by more than just a simple "yes" or "no" decision. It's utterly irresponsible.

Men already get a choice. They get a choice as to whether or not they want to engage in sexual activity, they get a choice in whether or not to wear a condom, etc. That is their choice.

To act like sex is a thing that can be undertaken without needing to take responsibility for any resulting pregnancy is a selfish worldview.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

But that is also the same thing that pro-lifers tell women: that in having sex they accept pregnancy as a risk, and they therefore ought to accept those consequences. Otherwise, like Dave, stick to marital sex. Why is the woman less selfish in aborting a fetus, just because she didn't have that consequence in mind when choosing to have sex?

[queensugar.livejournal.com]

Not to sound cruel, but I still have a hard time feeling terribly sorry for men who are caught in the position of having an unwanted child that the mother chooses to have. Freak cases like what antilapsarian mentioned are a different situation, of course, but as long as there is a consensual sexual relationship, then those are the risks you take.

As for splitting pre-natal legal rights 50-50, I'm generally against it. As long as women have to bear not just the physical burden but the social and family one of being pregnant, they should remain in full command of their options.

[dave-rainbow.livejournal.com]

As a man I agree with this concept of risk; not because I fear to have children, but because I accept the responsibility. And for that reason I never have had sex outside marriage; I do not love any woman so little that I want to introduce her to a world of pain masquerading as choice. My own choices have not always been pain free, but I have not gone on to inflict worse choices on others, or any risk of them.

There are, however, nearby to me, three generations of women living side by side in free housing supplied by the state. Not one of them has done a days work in their lives, and they make temporary liaisons with whoever it pleases them to do so in order to produce new children to secure a living from the state, which in practice they get.

One boy I know is the son of a woman who has had six partners resulting in five children, only two of whom are brother and sister; all to suit keeping her out of work and in benefits. In freezing temperatures earlier this year, he turned up at my friends house distraught in the night, having been thrown out (aged 12) to fend for himself - because he objected to the new man in his mother's life continually verbally abusing his younger sister. We got the police out, and they finally managed to explain to the woman that she had a legal duty of care for her child. It seems that no such concept had ever been explained to her before. And after all, she commonly left the house empty and left her children to roam the streets whilst she did as she pleased; no one had stopped her before.

Meanwhile those of us who do work, pay to subsidise a lifestyle that is in no way in the interests of her children, only of her complete idleness.

[queensugar.livejournal.com]

I will not and cannot defend the morality or social value of those women's actions: and I think that the question about why women do that is a lot bigger than sheer laziness.

It's a social sickness, absolutely. And we have similar situations up here, especially in my city. But I think it's a more complicated issue than the existence of welfare benefits.

All the same, I've never felt in the slightest put out that my taxes go to pay benefits for anyone, and Canada is a much bigger social welfare state than the US. My taxes go to ensure that benefits are there for all, the deserving as well as the undeserving. It's not that I don't advocate more dynamic approaches to solving social problems, but as long as the options are there for everyone, that to me is an important feature of my state that I would refuse to see taken away.

[dave-rainbow.livejournal.com]

I too agree with the welfare state - but like any scheme, it must be tailored so that its deliberate abuse is discouraged. Not to do so introduces a generation of children treated as a contrivance for getting benefits. My sympathy is with them. This one could not turn to his true father as he is mentally ill and unsafe to live with. Bereft of a protective father figure, he had already become prey to the local teenage gang leader, and was being coerced into criminal activity by threats of violence against him if he did not perform it for others. On the estate I speak of there are barely any fathers at all, and very few who are biological fathers to the children living with them. They are prey to everything, and have not the care or role models that they require. Perfectly intelligent children of ten cannot multiply further than two. I am sure that the complete lack of parental interest in their welfare and progress is the main reason - that and being part of a culture in which failure is 'in'.

Fortunately this sort of thing is decreasing, and becoming restricted to islands of hard cases. The reason? Property ownership. I was amongst the first to complain when the right to buy council houses was introduced (though I had never lived in one, so my objection was uninformed); the result was to break up the vast estates of those who identified with failure, and introduce the example of trying to better your life next door to you. That introduced aspiration. And aspiration makes the lifestyle described above look pretty poor.

I have spent my entire life voting with the interests of the poor, but living amongst them for the first time has taught me that many measures intended for their benefit are actually counter-productive. I don't mind paying for something that works; but to create something that makes things worse is not a good investment for anyone. Not whether a welfare state, but how; the American model appalls me, but so does the British. They are opposing failures with success somewhere else. Maybe Canada? ;)

[dave-rainbow.livejournal.com]

In the USA, the commonest cause of death amongst pregnant women is murder by the father.

But that is only the tip of an iceberg of a much broader spectrum of feelings. The thing that consistently surprise me - well no longer surprises, but continues to appal me - is that time after time I encounter the typical American male (apologies to exceptions) as utterly selfish, concerned only for his own blinkered self interest, seeing women only as the means to actualise his sexual needs, and viewing children as potential competitors for his money or attention.

It is probably the same here, but to a lesser degree; what goes for America usually is true here to a lesser extent.

But for every woman murdered, how many are pressurised to do what a man wants her to do, rather than to do what she really wants to do? And given the extent of his selfish rage and greater physical power, when are a woman's rights to choose not instead an unwanted dilemma, a choice exercised not freely but under threat, from someone against whom she can never be adequately protected?

[queensugar.livejournal.com]

I know women who have had abortions they did not want under threat from abusive boyfriends (thankfully, neither of those women have been with those men for a long time). They were caught in a doubly threatening situation: their boyfriends refused, often violently, to use condoms; when pregnancy occured, they all but forced the women to have abortions.

One of the things that constantly dumbfounds me is why it is that we've arrived at a culture where women will accept men like that... and so many of them do.

My social life is divided into a subculture of "artistic" types, and a more general group which I term to be "normal" people, which I interact with primarily through work.

The interesting thing I notice is the big disparity between relationships between genders between the groups. In the "artistic" group, both men and women are quite sexually liberated, sexually explorative and very interested in pleasing their (often many) partners... but they are incredibly cautious with regards to STDs and pregnancy; most, even in long-term relationships, are uninterested in marriage or children, and unplanned pregnancies are almost non-existent.

In friendships AND in romantic relationships, the "artistic" group is marked by a decided sense of equality and respect between the sexes, and communication is quite open on all fronts. Women and men tend to share equal power in relationships, and people of both genders tend to be assertive, ambitious, put less stake in institutions like marriage and more stake in establishing strong, positive friendships and self-improvement.

On the other hand, the "norms" I find occupy a totally different, and to my view almost barbaric, sexual-relationship world. They are not necessarily as sexually promiscuous but make up for it by rarely using adequate protection; there are a LOT of unplanned pregnancies.

Many of the women in the "norm" group are utterly petty, and absolutely typical of the stereotype of the nagging woman: they are small-minded, massively focused on marriage, disinterested in personal achievement and more interested in status. They are largely uneducated past high school. They have boyfriends which they seem to have only to cry about and nag constantly about marriage, merging bank accounts (!), and who don't seem to offer them any kind of emotional or intellectual support.

The men, on the other hand, are almost uniformly disgusting. They have anger-management problems, treat their girlfriends horribly, are solely focused on money and consumer goods as social status. They are often downright unintelligent. They are threatened by socially and intellectually advanced women... they see their girlfriends or sexual partners as subservient.

It may seem to be an obvious point that small-minded, petty people find each other: but I can never cease to be amazed at HOW the women consent to be in a relationship with men that offer them NOTHING. Perhaps the simple answer is that there is nothing that ANY man could offer these women, but it still boggles me how people can willingly engage in relationships where they are continuously demeaned by men with little or no redeeming personal values.

Obviously there are many more other social subgroups out there that have different characteristics. But the disparity between these two in particular both fascinates and horrifies me.

[dave-rainbow.livejournal.com]

their boyfriends refused, often violently, to use condoms; when pregnancy occurred, they all but forced the women to have abortions.

Sadly I find that completely believable. Unless this situation can be eliminated, 'choice' becomes just one more thing that women can be compelled to take in the direction men require.

Condoms, ugh. I can't politely describe why I find them so revolting, but they really are. So my principled and logical choice is to stick to really safe sex - marriage.

The ultimate protection any woman has is to choose a man who loves and respects her. I think the reason so many do not is a simple one: bad fathers. Unless women learn that they are valuable and lovable from their fathers whilst they are girls, they will not understand it, and will not expect to be treated as such by men later.

I spend a great deal of time making sure that my daughter knows that she is loved and cherished. Since she lives with her mother, I cannot do as much as I would like; but then again I see my children more than many 'lived with' fathers do. I made her a dolls house last Christmas with my own hands, rather than buy her one ready made, and this year we went out together to buy furniture. I gave her a budget to furnish it, and told her how well she did when she came in on target (see my journal for pics of the results). She writes a little poetry, because daddy does (her idea); I iron her bead pictures into being; I continually tell her how wonderful she is.

And the reason is simple. If I don't do this (and I do it from my heart) then I would genuinely expect her to grow into another ready made victim for some callous, selfish, idle fool.

[queensugar.livejournal.com]

I think the reason so many do not is a simple one: bad fathers

I've got to agree with that wholeheartedly. I have an unbelievably amazing wonderful borderline perfect father, and I've been single for five years. Why? Can't find a guy worth my time, at least not one that's single and interested in me. I always say that growing up with my dad being my standard for men... it set the bar a little too high.

My parents split up when I was five; but my dad was always a constant and incredibly powerful force in my life.

Sounds like you're doing right by your daughter. Good on ya.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

You guys have been having a nice discussion, and I really don't want to take a chance on ruining the harmonies, but I'll try to make one point. Although pro-choice laws can be abused, that certainly doesn't mean, in itself, that the right should not exist. After all, we also have laws meant to treat abusive men.

I would also point out that before we recognized abortion rights, there was another kind violence that a lot of women faced, and which I think was a big factor in getting these rights recognized in law: the violence women suffer in seeking illegal abortions.

[queensugar.livejournal.com]

I think the debate is not so much about the necessity of the choice, which as we know I will always stand pretty firmly behind. Nor is it really about the fact that legal, safe abortion is ALWAYS preferable to the alternatives.

I think the discussion is more about the fact that the concept of choice is still not entirely free. Not only is it under attack from conservatives, but it's under attack in the opposite direction from those who would seek to co-erce or intimidate women into having an abortion.

As I always say, I take the phrase "pro-choice" quite literally. I am absolutely against anyone or anything who would seek to take away a woman's right to have a free and independent choice over what happens to her own body.

[dave-rainbow.livejournal.com]

One could suggest - utilitarianism? - compare the good done by abortion or not having abortion. Choose which does most good. Forget (on each side) idealistic situations that do not exist in practice, and legislate in respect of what happens in practice. If (if) abortion is mostly experienced by women as sexual abuse brought about by intimidation, that would be enough reason not to allow it.

I think the 'nightmare' scenario is very likely, and would be glad for effective research to be done on this, and about the long term impression women have of abortion, so that the results would be made public. They are rarely voiced, and certainly not to those promoting abortion, because the pain of doing so is too deep to face. But don't assume the pain is not there.

Through talking to you and Antilapsarian, and looking up figures on abortion, I wonder if it is the experience of abortion, being a fiction perpetrated on the vulnerable by the callous, that created the religious right; you will not get any yielding from a woman who has had an abortion and regrets it. You will drive her into the religious right; I believe the 'right' to abortion may have created the religious right out of those who exercised it and regretted it.

The figure I estimate is 16 to 20 million US women who have aborted and regretted. Many will be explosively anti abortion, and determined to vote however they can to stop it; but what you won't see, is them telling you or their neighbours why.

If you can show me anywhere out there that marital abuse has been effectively minimised by a legal approach, I will be very surprised - and very, very glad. But if you cannot, we can factor that idea out. It is hard to make effective because witness intimidation is guaranteed, and only when a woman is too frantic to remain, and has surety of safety, will she use the law - and then she also needs to know it will be enforced. The combination required is rare.

That doesn't stop argument over what is life, but it does strike me as more realistic than calling something a right which is mostly experienced as a nightmare.

Everywhere else in medicine, presumption is made in favour of life. An overwhelming reason to do otherwise in this case doesn't exist; there is no proof, certainly not offered around here, that gives any reason to alter that presumption. In the absence of unequivical proof that a foetus is not alive (and a lot of the ones that used to be touted have been discredited), it is proper practice to presume it alive.

The only reason for abortion I have heard so far that holds any water is that people want to do as they please no matter what damage that causes to something that cannot defend itself. Out of desperation to be able to exert that motive, pseudo scientific notions are generated to support nothing more than selfishness. Supposedly ethical reasons that don't result in ethical outcomes are offered. That's all I've been shown.

I know what it is like to have desires that cannot be controlled. The day I met Jesus they left me forever. I haven't missed them once. All they give is the longing for something that is no more got that it otherwise would be. That longing is worthless. And if you don't even get, it is nothing but a curse.

I have chosen not to indulge in extra marital sex in order never to put a woman to the nightmare of considering whether to exercise her 'rights'. I have little sympathy for any man who would think otherwise. I am not a woman, cannot offer a woman's opinion, and am wary of touting for them rights that I have no reason to expect benefit them nearly as much as they cause them problems. I am getting more assurance from women that this is so in private, since I opened my mouth.

***************************************************************************

Tomorrow, I may be disposed to talk about whether the religious right arises from aborted women, which I think is a fascinating question, and one I can't prove an answer to. But abortion itself I have had enough of. I think I have said all I can; and very little of it relies on religious thinking.

And now, I'm going to bed. ;) :: sleeps ::

[newkanada.livejournal.com]

so much text, I think my head might explode! ;)

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Oh, hon, let me tell you, I know the feeling! Sometimes one longs for discussion, but then you remember that one ought to be careful about what one wishes for...

Good to see you!

[newkanada.livejournal.com]

all the typing makes my fingers hurt. but I'm on brain break. ;)