Texas woman sues Marine, claiming he spiked her drink with abortion pills
Liana Davis alleges Christopher Cooprider secretly dissolved at least 10 abortion pills into a cup of hot chocolate that he prepared for her April 5 and then left the house and stopped responding as she profusely bled, the suit says.
Cooprider, 34, declined to comment Monday.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, contains several purported text messages the pair exchanged for weeks, beginning Jan. 31, when Davis asked Cooprider for his input in case she is confirmed to be pregnant.
Cooprider said he 'would like to get rid of it,' the texts show, saying the two were 'not in love' or together and that it would be 'messed up to bring a child into the world without both parents raising them.'
When Cooprider reiterated his desire for Davis to 'get rid of it' after her pregnancy test came back positive days later, she asked him to use a different phrase.
'Every time you say 'get rid of it' it's like an electric shock,' she wrote, according to the lawsuit. 'I literally feel like I'm going down the steepest hill on a roller coaster when I read that.'
The following text messages allegedly show Cooprider telling Davis, without her approval, that he would order abortion pills online. The pills were purchased from Aid Access, an online service that ships abortion pills to Americans from abroad, according to the lawsuit.
Aid Access, and Dr. Rebecca Gomperts, a Dutch physician who runs it, are also listed as defendants in the lawsuit. They did not immediately return requests for comment.
For the next several weeks, Cooprider was unable to convince Davis to get an abortion, and the text messages grew more contentious.
On March 6, Cooprider called the baby a 'thing' and blamed Davis for her 'psycho mentality' that he said caused her ongoing divorce. The lawsuit says Cooprider also threatened to testify against Davis in her divorce proceeding and bid to have custody of her three children.
At the end of March, Cooprider texted that he wanted to 'abort this monstrosity of a situation' and said he felt 'trapped' by the situation.
But on April 2, Cooprider appeared to change his tone in text messages to Davis. He proposed making them 'some warm relaxing tea' in what they could call a 'trust building night,' according to screenshots shared in the lawsuit.
Davis, who was eight weeks pregnant, accepted. When the two met up at Davis' Corpus Christi residence on the night of April 5, Cooprider handed her a cup of hot chocolate shortly before midnight, according to the lawsuit. Within 30 minutes of drinking it, the suit says, Davis began hemorrhaging and cramping.
Davis knew she had to go to the emergency room, but she knew she could not leave her three children who were sleeping upstairs, the suit said. They came up with a plan for Cooprider to pick up Davis' mother, who lived nearby, so she could watch the children while Cooprider took Davis to the hospital.
But once Cooprider left the house, he became unreachable, according to the lawsuit.
'I am gushing blood. Please hurry,' Davis texted him around 12:30 a.m.
Davis's mother took an Uber ride to her daughter's house around 1 a.m. Around that time, Cooprider apologized and said he had to catch a flight the next day, the suit said.
A neighbor drove Davis to the hospital, where her unborn baby, whom she had named Joy, did not survive.
Back home, Davis said she found the opened box of abortion pills and a pill bottle, which she turned over to the Corpus Christi police, according to the lawsuit. The suit claims Cooprider mixed 10 misoprostol pills into the hot chocolate.
The Corpus Christi Police Department said there are no active investigations involving Cooprider.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
19 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Gen Z and Millennials Have Differing Views on Ozempic
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Gen Z and millennials have radically different views on GLP-1s like Ozempic and how much they want the weight loss and diabetes drugs regulated, according to a new report from GLP-1 prescription weight loss company Levity. While 40 percent of current and recent GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) users said the current regulations are fair, 28 percent want fewer rules and 22 percent said there should be more. But in the millennial age group, users tend to want less regulation, while Gen Z leaned toward more. Why It Matters GLP-1s, which are injectable drugs that mimic hormones to reduce blood sugar and promote weight loss, have skyrocketed in popularity in recent years. Popular products, including Ozempic, Mounjaro, Wegovy and Zephound, have been a game changer for many Americans who are obese or have type 2 diabetes. However, stricter FDA rules are now in effect, banning certain compounded GLP-1s and making it more difficult for many Americans to secure the drugs, especially if using it for weight loss reasons. Ozempic is medicine for adults with type 2 diabetes. Ozempic is medicine for adults with type 2 diabetes. Steve Christo - Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images What To Know The Gen Z and millennial response to the stricter FDA rules have been notably different, according to Levity. At 31 percent, millennials were the most likely to favor fewer GLP-1 regulations compared to 19 percent of the group who wanted more. Gen Z, meanwhile, favored stricter rules at 37 percent, while 32 percent wanted fewer. "Millennials are more likely to be prescribed a GLP-1 as compared to Gen Z; therefore, it is not surprising that millennials desire less regulation on these drugs," Richard Frank, MD, MHSA, and chief medical officer at Vida Health, told Newsweek. "Having said that, the regulatory environment surrounding compounded agents, in general, and compounded GLP-1s, specifically, is not as rigorous as it is for branded and generic drugs. Therefore, compounded drugs carry unknown risks that more regulated medications do not." Because semaglutide is no longer on the FDA shortage list, compounding it can carry legal risks. Already, the effects are being felt, as 17 percent of GLP-1 users said it has become harder to get their medication since the FDA tightened rules on compounded semaglutide, Levity reported. There was also a difference in how the generations viewed their use of the drugs. While 75 percent of GLP-1 users believed they'll still be on their treatment plan a year from now, Gen Z was the least likely to think so, at 58 percent. What People Are Saying Board-certified endocrinologist Dr. Caroline Messer told Newsweek: "Millennials, many of whom are now managing midlife weight and metabolic health concerns, may see GLP-1s as a practical tool and want fewer barriers. Gen Z, meanwhile, is generally more wary of long-term unknowns, hence leaning toward more safeguards. Broadly, Americans are divided but lean toward keeping current regulations." Richard Frank, MD, MHSA, and chief medical officer at Vida Health, told Newsweek: "From a business perspective, limiting access to compounded drugs when branded drugs are available protects the drug companies' patents. This protection provides the financial incentive for drug companies to develop innovative new therapies." What Happens Next The long-term effects of GLP-1 medication use are so far unclear. A recent study discovered a new link between taking GLP-1 drugs and elevated risk of pancreatitis and kidney conditions, including kidney stones. And GLP-1 medications have also been associated with a higher risk of digestive problems, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and even stomach paralysis in rare cases.
Forbes
21 minutes ago
- Forbes
Rebalancing Pharmaceutical Pricing Without Sacrificing Innovation
Medications are stored on shelves at a pharmacy on May 12, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by) Getty Images Two weeks ago, President Trump sent letters to 17 leading pharmaceutical manufacturers, giving them 60 days to propose plans to lower U.S. drug prices to align with the lowest prices offered in other developed nations. This is an opportunity to recalibrate pharmaceutical pricing in a way that brings relief to U.S. consumers, corrects global imbalances and safeguards innovation, a transition the entire healthcare ecosystem must eventually adopt. Most discussions about drug prices focus narrowly on the retail cost patients see at the pharmacy counter, but these are only a fraction of the real economic picture. Trump's directive aims to address a decades-long imbalance: Americans pay significantly more for the same products than consumers abroad, in effect subsidizing both foreign healthcare systems and pharmaceutical profits. The 'most favored nation' concept could give consumers better pricing, but it also raises critical questions about sustaining innovation and ensuring access. By putting pharmaceutical manufacturers on the clock, the administration signals a willingness to use negotiation and policy leverage, similar to its tariff strategy, to change entrenched practices. As I've long argued in previous columns, focusing solely on high drug prices misses the larger problem: healthcare as a whole delivers too little value for what we spend. The need for transparency in both cost and quality, as well as a greater appreciation of outcomes that matter to patients, applies to every sector, from pharmaceuticals to hospital care. Pharma is a practical starting point because public attention is already here, but the real target is an ecosystem-wide business model change. Without a broad value-based framework and a clear vision of how to proceed, reforms will default to piecemeal fixes that merely shift costs from one part of the system to another. Some policymakers have advocated for blunt price caps as a quick solution to escalating drug prices. Experience shows this approach distorts markets, erodes innovation and ultimately harms patients, the topic of one of my past columns. In Europe, where prices are heavily controlled, access to new therapies can be delayed or denied, a cautionary example for the U.S. Innovation is inherently risky: only a fraction of drug candidates ever reach the market, and the returns on successful products fund the failures. Suppressing returns discourages the investment needed for breakthrough discoveries. The goal should be rebalancing—with Europe paying more, the U.S. paying less—not penalizing one of America's most important and competitive industries. The administration has made it clear it is prepared to disrupt the status quo. Disruption is most productive when it's channeled toward structural reform. Pharmaceutical pricing reform can set a precedent for other segments of healthcare—delivery systems, payers and PBMs—where misaligned incentives drive up costs without improving outcomes. Stakeholders should view the 60-day deadline not just as a compliance exercise but as an invitation to propose creative, sustainable models that link payment to measurable results. This is a rare alignment of political will, public attention and market readiness, an environment conducive to bold experimentation. If the industry responds defensively or minimally, the likely result will be more prescriptive regulation and less flexibility to innovate. Conversely, failure to address pricing inequities will keep U.S. consumers shouldering disproportionate costs, fueling political pressure for heavy-handed solutions. Past decades of incremental tweaks have left us with a fragmented, opaque system. The risk now is that we repeat that pattern rather than rethinking the fundamentals. Rebalancing pharmaceutical pricing is not about punishing one sector or enacting price controls. It's about creating a market where cost reflects value, competition rewards innovation and consumers benefit from both affordability and access. Pharmaceutical companies are simply the first to face this scrutiny, but the value conversation must extend to every corner of healthcare delivery. This moment, if met with creativity and commitment, can be a catalyst for systemic change that has eluded us for decades.
Fox News
42 minutes ago
- Fox News
Record low number of Americans report drinking alcohol, and new teetotalers are explaining why
More Americans than ever are choosing not to drink alcohol, according to a new Gallup Poll. Only 54% of respondents to Gallup's annual Consumption Habits survey conducted last month say they consume alcohol, which is the lowest on record in nearly 90 years. "This coincides with a growing belief among Americans that moderate alcohol consumption is bad for one's health, now the majority view for the first time," Gallup said in a press release. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism cites nine body systems impacted by alcohol use. "Current research points to health risks even at low amounts of alcohol consumption, regardless of beverage type," its website says. Those who do drink are drinking less, Gallup reported, averaging about 2.8 drinks a week. Over the past two years, Republicans have reported a sharp drop in drinking habits, but Democrats' percentage has held fairly steady. The highest number of Americans who reported drinking alcohol, at 68 to 71%, were all recorded between 1974 and 1981, Gallup said. Beer is still the "most preferred alcohol," the global analytics and advisory firm said, adding that it "[h]as documented three consecutive years of decline in the U.S. drinking rate as research supporting the 'no amount of alcohol is safe' message mounts." Gallup does not believe the decline in alcohol consumption is caused by people shifting to other mood-altering substances, in particular recreational marijuana, which is not legal in approximately half of the U.S. states.
