APPLETON, Wis. (AP) — A Wisconsin man has been sentenced to 22 years in prison after being convicted of spiking his pregnant girlfriend’s drink with an abortion-inducing drug.Forty-five-year-old Manishkumar Patel was convicted in August of attempted first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child. His girlfriend never drank the spiked beverage, but miscarried weeks later.

Patel was sentenced Tuesday in Outagamie County Circuit Court.

The former Kaukauna man had been on the run since he was charged in 2007 and forfeited a $750,000 bond. He was arrested in January 2017 in New York.

Patel said in court he didn’t want another child because he was afraid the child would have the same medical problems as his son. But he said he realized that even if the child had medical issues, the child still would have had a life.

The case is similar to one in Marathon County, where 32-year-old Jeffrey Smith is accused of drugging the mother of his unborn child with an abortion pill.

Smith faces charges of attempted first degree intentional homicide and manufacturing or delivering a prescription drug. The charges were filed in February, days after the contents of a water bottle tested positive for Misoprostol. The prescription-only drug is used to start labor or cause an abortion.

Shereen Siewert of Wausau Pilot and Reivew contributed to this story.

28 replies on “Wisconsin man gets 22 years for trying to induce miscarriage”

    1. No, the Democratic Party is pro-choice. The mother in this case never chose to abort the pregnancy.

  1. Kurt,

    I am a democrat. I am pro choice, and I believe I can explain this to you.

    In this case the core issue is consent. This man violated this womans body, without her consent. Whether the goal was to terminate a pregnancy, or steal her gall bladder, this woman did not consent to being a party to the activity. As such, a crime has occurred.

    If this woman, had on her own, chosen to terminate her pregnancy, she is well within her legal protections to do so. And more over, we should support her right to privacy in her health care, and agency in controlling her life.

    I am grateful women and failies have the right to control their reproduction because it benefits the American economy and our culture to empower women and families.

    Hope that helps.

    1. “This man violated this womans body” … As in this woman violated this man’s “love”, by keeping and created something he did not consent?

      1. I will only address the first bit Ron, I am not clear about the second part.

        In regards to her consent, she did not consent to taking this drug.

    2. Dino, her keeping his sperm and creating a child that he will be responsible for 18 years without his consent. The law should be such, if the male does not consent, she is most welcome to keep without any of his responsibilities.

      1. Liberal or conservative Ron, we can all recognize illogic in an argument.

        My questions would be attempted and if the woman didn’t drink the concoction, what caused the “miscarriage?”

  2. Okay Ron, I am in. I want to know what I missed, how your pretty vague statemant is anything. So, respectfully, can you explain what you meant?

    John, as you know thousands of things can go wrong in pregnancy.

    1. YES, could it be stress related?

      Seems to me that this couple had consensual relations, did the man insure that proper contraception was used? Unless he did, he was taking a risk and know that his son had health problems, did not think ahead… trying to make this about equality under the law, and responsibility, is a stretch… it is a good point of discussion, but in the real world some actions have consequences, plain and simple…

  3. Yeah, Ron I went back and read what you wrote.

    “Dino, her keeping his sperm and creating a child that he will be responsible for 18 years without his consent. The law should be such, if the male does not consent, she is most welcome to keep without any of his responsibilities.”

    Yeah, I was right. That is dumb, and I sort of think intentionally so.

    So, you know it takes two people to have intercourse, the male is there, erect, ejaculates, and as a result conception happens, and 9 month later a child is born. He has consented to sex. As such he has a role in it. We hear folks blather on about taking responsibility, and yours is the most absurd example I have ever heard. And so incredibly misogynistic. And so inconsistent.

    So, if the woman is in control, and should be given agency, I assume that means you believe she has a right to terminate the pregnancy? I mean if she wants to opt out of the relationship with the man, that must be an option right? So you are pro choice?

    If you are not pro choice, how does this work? THEY have sex, she gets pregnant, she has a baby, and he gets to say NO. Yet, if you are not pro choice, she does not have the right to control her reproduction?

    The reason that this is misogynistic is because it supposes that the woman is 100 percent responsible, and the male bears none. As if she could get pregnant without his involvement. Sure, women rape men, and all sorts of dastardly things, but really not that often. Maybe something bad happened to you, and as such you would take such a misogynistic position.

    I could go on, but your position is so incredibly stupid I do not know what to say. You might be trolling, so I am not sure.

  4. The problem with people that belong to either side of the conventional political parties, have the tendency of blindly sticking to what the party line brain washed them with. I am not pro or against anything. When TWO people have consensual sex they should have TWO opinions on the outcome of a none planned pregnancy. If he or she wants to keep a child, ONLY he or she should be responsible of the outcome. The present law is so blind that it implies if you are a male you cannot make any decision other then not have sex or contraceptive is a male responsibility. Roles have reversed. The chauvinist male that used to have all options pre 1960’s is replaced by chauvinist females.

    1. THIS is the wisest comment on here. And I’m a woman, btw. I personally believe abortions to be allowed in cases of rape, incest, and health.
      I do NOT judge any woman for her choice on the matter, regardless of what I think or believe.
      I can’t see anyone agreeing that these cases of men slipping an abortion pill to be in any way right.
      That said, our laws regarding child rearing are completely one sided and unfair.

      A man and woman go home from a bar together and have sex. Not an uncommon occurrence. The woman ends up pregnant. Neither thought of protection. Neither had ever thought of even seeing the other person again.
      But now SHE has the choice of keeping ‘it’. No matter what she chooses, the man has no say.
      He actually wants the child – the woman can abort anyway. He doesn’t want the child – he’s on the monetary hook for 18 years.

      Easiest choice of argument is to go with the “Well, he should of used protection!” but it’s irrelevant for the simple reason that they both did. In this hypothetical situation – alcohol fueled the sex. Alcohol can also silence that rational thought of responsibility.

      Let’s see how you respond to something that’s ‘not dumb’?

  5. Dino I don’t know how old you are. You said you are liberal. Winston Churchill said if you are under 30 and aren’t a liberal you don’t have a heart and if over 30 and a liberal you don’t have a brain. Maybe some day you will grow up

  6. Sure Jessica, I will play along. Yes, the woman does in fact have the choice to terminate or not terminate her own pregnancy, it is her body after all.

    The man is NOT on the hook for anything. There are steps prior to that. She has to declare him as the father, which he can contest in court. Then after paternity is established, then YES he is responsible. He had sex, a child is the natural outcome of sex. Men have to be responsible for their part in that.

    Again, what you are doing is blaming the woman to raise that man. This is fine, and I would be you know a man who has had a bad experience with this. So, that is fine.

    But, in the abstract, in the rule of law, a man is in fact responsible for the actions he takes, even drunk. Even in love. Consensual sex can result in a child. Having consensual sex, one understand that.

    These are the legal results of this.

    In this case, this young woman did not consent to taking any medication. As such, he committed a crime.

  7. Ron,

    This is not political. You should avoid thinking that because I am a liberal Democrat, that I am towing a party line.

    I simply believe you are wrong, and a misogynist to somehow imply that a man has ANY SAY AT ALL in the decisions of a woman regarding her medical health. A man has no legal standing to control a womans health care decisions. It is amazingly sexist that you think that. Because, that does not apply the other direction. A wife cannot tell a husband that he cannot take insulin. A girlfriend cannot tell me that I need to wear my orthotics.

    And holy crap a man cannot tell a woman that she has to have a child if she does not want it. Oh my god man, that is so horrible.

    “The present law is so blind that it implies if you are a male you cannot make any decision other then not have sex or contraceptive is a male responsibility.”

    This is not the case at all, women have lots of birth control options. As do men. But, if a man has unprotected consensual sex, responsibility for that is the legal outcome.
    “When TWO people have consensual sex they should have TWO opinions on the outcome of a none planned pregnancy. If he or she wants to keep a child, ONLY he or she should be responsible of the outcome.”

    No, one person is responsible for one persons body. If the woman would seek the counsel of a man, that is her empowered decision.

    But, your repeated minimizing the control a woman has over her body is antiqated at best, and predatory at worst.

    But, maybe you are just not explaining your position thoroughly enougn.

    1. Dino you are mumbling! Jessica spelled it eloquently and yet you keep going to what this individual did. We are talking of equal steps, decisions taken at the beginning of the unplanned pregnancy, so these nasty, misogynist, chauvinist, arrogant, prehistoric male annoyance (add more here) do not “control” the soft, innocent, heavenly creature’s health decisions. Is it helping?
      The court uses “Intent” for many decisions. Did these two (nasty male and heavenly female) intent to have a child?

      1. The court does not use intent in the case of paternity. It is not a valid claim in the case of paternity.

    2. Dino, Think about what you are saying. You are using the exact same argument that anti-abortionists use. No, the man has no say in what a woman does with her body but, he should have a say whether he wants to accept the financial burden of the child. As long as the woman is aware of his desires she should do what she wants. Ron has already pointed out that the paternity law doesn’t work like that and should be changed. Pointing the law doesn’t work like that just confirms that the law should be changed.

      1. I am not really sure how to respond. Men cannot simply state, “I never intended to be a dad” and get out of paternity and the responsibilities that accompany it. This would be catastrophic. And, I would say, impossible to prove.

      2. The difference is physical agency, versus financial responsiblity. These are two different things. Yes, anti abortionists want to impose their theology on women. And yes, the courts impose financial responsibility in the case of paternity.

        I do not think that these are the same things.

      3. Dino, Your arguments mirror the anti-aborts by saying that there are consequences to a man having sex. That is what they say to women about getting pregnant. Pregnancies are the consequence of having sex. As if abortion ISN’T a consequence.

        And, no, they could’t just verbally get out of it. Just like ( unless you are a rich white man) get out of a rape charge by simply stating it didn’t happen.

  8. No, I am not. The anti abortionist seeks to limit a womans access to abortion. The man in this story has access to the vagina because it is consensual sex.

    There are consequences to having sex with a man, and becoming pregnant. One of those possibly being an abortion.

    The same can be said for a man having sex with a woman. The consequence is supporting ones child.

    1. Dino.. I think it’s fair to say at this point that you’re arguing for the sake of arguing or you’re just not capable of understanding what we are all saying.
      By the way – thank you, Ron, for backing me up.
      So, in light of the myriad of ways used by us to explain to you our very rational thoughts regarding this delicate issue, I’m not going to attempt it further. I’m only going to address a few things:
      1. Anti-abortionists may cite a theological reference in their movement, but they are not SOLELY theological based.
      And not every religious person, including Christians, holds onto the firm anti-abortion view.
      In fact, many religious organizations adhere to the reasons that I listed in my first comment (rape, incest, health). Lutherans are an example of this. They simply follow those beliefs. That does NOT mean that they are anti-abortionists. They don’t preach hate nor do they actively (or inactively) participate in the shaming of women who do so.

      Which leads to my next point –
      2. The largest hang-up I find is the fault of semantics. Pro-Life and Pro Choice. You are obviously Pro-Choice. Does that mean you’re anti-baby? Because I don’t think it’s fair to exclusively equate anti-abortionist with Pro-Life.

      The major problem [our country] has, is in its methods to advocate – no matter the movement. Hate, blame, mudslinging and condescension is used as opposed to educating or a healthy discourse. “I’ll play along.” was your way of belittling me. That kind of rhetoric creates resentment and changes the course of the message. It also backfired because you were too eager to find fault in whatever I said instead of really listening to what I was saying. How could anyone agree that what this man attempted to do was in any way right or even legal? I certainly don’t. I would hope that he also sees the errors in his actions. But this case/story brought up the ugly and delicate subject of abortion and here we are. You resorted to name-calling and condescension with us and that greatly bothers me. I’m more than secure with my views and opinions, but it bothers me because I’m assuming you’re an adult and adults admonish children for their use of ‘dumb’ and ‘stupid’. They admonish and further refrain from using those unhealthy terms themselves. If you wish to use this method to bolster yourself, then do what you gotta do. But the less secure fall for it and that is creating a sad side effect in our social media era. It’s stunting our nation’s growth.
      I just think our world, our country, needs to stop the hate and rather spread their message. Picketing or a comparable tone creates lines of derision. Negativity shuts down the mind. But educating opens up our thoughts. Martin Luther King Jr didn’t name call. He worked to show the world/U. S. what it could look like if segregation was eliminated. That’s why I like using metaphors.
      But in summation, I simply want there to be a voice for BOTH PERSONS involved in the pregnancy. It doesn’t even matter if I’m (or whomever) Pro-Life or Pro-Choice anymore. The laws are there. What matters is the simple fact that the woman holds the ultimate decision because she’s the vessel. But all of the tricky points around this issue have been stated, so let’s not rehash. I just hope to see a bit more equality of rights for all parties involved.

Comments are closed.