An Ohio couple who allegedly beat their pregnant daughter for refusing to have an abortion will stand trial soon. This is one of many cases LifeNews has covered over the years of parents attempting to force their pregnant daughters to have an abortion.
Brian and Renee Schultz (pictured right) were charged with domestic violence in June 2013, a fifth-degree felony, after their daughter alleged they beat her after she refused to get an abortion. She told police she was four months pregnant at the time.
If found guilty, the couple faces a mandatory prison term of six months. They could serve a maximum sentence of one year.
According to police reports, Brian drove his daughter to a Cleveland abortion clinic where he made an appointment for his daughter.
When they returned home she indicated she did not want to go through with the procedure.
The girl said her father punched her in the face and, along with her mother, proceeded to kick her in the stomach.
The Schultz’s trial date is scheduled for May 13 at 8 a.m. in Judge Barbara Ansted’s court.
Mark Crutcher, President of Life Dynamics, Inc., a national pro-life organization located in Denton, Texas, has documented that violence inflicted on pregnant women by pro-choice men who want their pregnancy aborted is nothing new.
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 says, “The early feminist leaders in this country were openly opposed to the legalization of abortion. They understood that legalized abortion has nothing to do with women’s equality. Women don’t need surgery to be equal to men. What abortion is, is a safety net for sexually predatory and sexually irresponsible males. 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 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.”
CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!
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, “So if you are female, before you jump into bed with someone, it would be a good idea to find out his position on abortion. After all, you don’t want to be like the women listed here and find out the hard way that the kind of man who can be pro-choice about your baby could also be pro-choice about you.”