Christopher Cooprider, a U.S. Marine captain, has denied the allegations that he slipped an abortion pill into a woman’s drink, killing his unborn child. He filed a countersuit alleging the woman is framing him.
The woman’s attorney calls the allegations in the countersuit “abject lies” and vows to disprove them.
In August, Ms. Davis filed a complaint in a South Texas federal court against Cooprider and Aid Access—an organization that ships abortion pills into Texas—for the wrongful death of her unborn child.
Davis alleged that Cooprider purchased the abortion pills from Aid Access without her consent and made multiple attempts to convince her to take them. She accused Cooprider of visiting her for a “trust building night,” during which he slipped the abortion drug into her drink without her knowledge. The child did not survive.
The case has made national headlines, with Davis being represented by “pro-life superlawyer” Jonathan Mitchell.
The Countersuit
On September 3, Cooprider filed his response to Ms. Davis’ complaint, which included a counterclaim against her.
“COOPRIDER files this Answer to vehemently deny the scurrilous lies contained in DAVIS’ lawsuit filed against him, and to set forth the truth about what happened concerning the events that made the basis of this lawsuit,” reads the countersuit.
Cooprider highlights the fact that the Corpus Christi Police Department investigated the incident, but they closed the file and declined to recommend prosecution.
Multiple claims are made in the countersuit that challenge the narrative originally set by Davis.
Cooprider alleges that Davis was crazy and obsessed with him, tricking him into getting her pregnant. He claims that she previously attempted to poison her ex-husband and that this is the reason she thought up the allegations against him.
He also alleges that Davis was the one to suggest ordering the abortion pills during an earlier pregnancy scare, in which Davis told him she was pregnant, though she never truly was.
The lawsuit alleges, “[b]ecause she was not pregnant, DAVIS pretended to be in excruciating pain and faked that she was cramping and experiencing an abortion. No tissue was expelled the nights of February 21 and February 23, 2025. No abortion happened because DAVIS was not pregnant, and she did not take the pills then.”
In April, when Ms. Davis was actually pregnant, Cooprider alleges that the miscarriage was a result of her negligence during the pregnancy.
He accuses her of drinking heavily while pregnant, failing to take progesterone (as prescribed), failing to treat sexually transmitted diseases (which led to prolonged fever during the pregnancy), and even intentionally taking actions that could induce a spontaneous abortion.
Cooprider proceeded to address the controversial nature of the issue:
“While right-to-life advocacy is commendable and perhaps justified under the Sixth Commandment that ‘Thou Shalt not Kill,’ one may not capriciously cross the Rubicon from the elevated light of righteousness brought by sincere religious advocacy into a pit of darkness and lies by purposefully ignoring the Ninth Commandment – ‘Thou Shalt Not Give False Testimony against Thy Neighbor.’ That is what DAVIS has done here with this suit, and she must be punished for it.”
Davis’ complaint includes text messages that suggest Cooprider once took a different tone toward the issue of abortion.
One such text from Cooprider stated, “Choosing to have that thing WILL mess with your life. It will take away and mess with your 3 current kids. Choosing to have it WILL mess up its life. It will be bad for you, your current kids, and that poor thing … It would be better off not being around.”
The Demand
Cooprider is countersuing Ms. Davis for $100 million in actual damages and $1 billion in exemplary damages—an additional demand intended to punish defendants for egregious behavior.
He justifies this price tag by highlighting the incident’s widespread media coverage.
“[B]eing falsely accused of murder in a false Complaint distributed to newspapers across America is not a Hollywood move; it is a real-life cataclysm, one that is ruinously damaging,” reads the countersuit. “The lies in this civil complaint were already considered and rejected as such by criminal investigators.”
Mikal Watts, Cooprider’s attorney, told Texas Scorecard that “[t]he time for legislative advocacy via mass distribution of a mere legal complaint in the media is now over. It’s time to ‘put up or shut up’ with proof, in a court of law.”
“Any two-bit lawyer with a Bar Card and $400 can file a pleading alleging murder in order to testify about such a suit in front of legislative committees considering additional abortion legislation,” said Watts. “Now is the time where the rubber meets the road; it’s time to prove what was mass disseminated in the media. I expect that Mr. Mitchell’s lawsuit will fall far short of what one would come to expect in serious litigation.”
Mitchell told Texas Scorecard that “These are abject lies and we will disprove every one of them in court. Cooprider is guilty as sin and will be held to account for what he did, both in this civil suit and in the upcoming criminal proceedings.”
If you or anyone you know has information regarding court cases, please contact our tip line: scorecardtips@protonmail.com.
No ads. No paywalls. No government grants. No corporate masters.
Just real news for real Texans.
Support Texas Scorecard to keep it that way!
