Puyallup, Washington — A Pierce County judge has granted permission for David Benjamin Coots, a licensed nurse practitioner accused of forcing an abortion on his former girlfriend, to remove his electronic home monitoring device. This decision comes despite a history of alleged court order violations by the defendant.
D.H., the woman bringing the allegations, claims that on January 27, 2024, Coots acted aggressively during what she believed was consensual sex at her residence. At the time, she thought she might be pregnant and had communicated this with Coots, who is married to another woman.
According to the police report, D.H. discovered that Coots allegedly inserted abortion pills into her body during the encounter without her knowledge. Upon learning this, she texted him about the pill, to which he purportedly admitted his actions, stating he intended to cause a miscarriage using medication he prescribed for himself.
After the incident, D.H. sought medical attention at St. Anthony’s emergency room, where a rape kit examination revealed the presence of Misoprostol, a medication often used in abortions. Following the examination, she experienced abnormal bleeding and severe stomach pain. Medical professionals informed her that these symptoms could be linked to a miscarriage or the medication’s effects. A subsequent home pregnancy test resulted in a negative outcome.
Following the report to law enforcement, D.H. filed for a restraining order against Coots. In reaction, the Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office noted that Coots allegedly violated this protection order multiple times. In March 2024, charges against him were announced, which include third-degree rape, second-degree assault, and three counts of violating the restraining order. Washington state law penalizes the intentional infliction of harm on an unborn child as a felony.
Originally placed on electronic home monitoring after posting a $500,000 bail, Coots’ defense attorney filed a motion in early May to lift this monitoring, citing the need for Coots to engage in business to support his family, which includes five children. Judge Stanley Rumbaugh subsequently ruled in favor of the defense movement, allowing the removal of the monitoring device.
D.H. expressed her distress during court proceedings, stating the electronic monitoring had provided her a sense of security. She described the anxiety she felt at the prospect of Coots being able to approach her without restriction, indicating she might leave the state with her young daughter if the judge made a favorable ruling for Coots.
Coots’ attorney downplayed the concerns raised by D.H. and introduced testimony from a defense expert who claimed D.H. was never pregnant, although the expert had not physically examined her. This claim was met with resistance from the prosecuting attorney’s office, which opposed the motion to remove the monitoring device in the strongest terms.
Despite harsh opposition from the prosecution, Judge Rumbaugh ruled in favor of Coots, who had his home monitoring device removed on May 14. A spokesperson for the prosecuting attorney’s office asserted that they would pursue the case vigorously and prepare for trial if necessary, despite the conflicting expert opinions.
This ongoing case reveals the complexities surrounding allegations of reproductive coercion and the legal challenges faced by victims.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.