DOJ: Duke Law discriminates against whites, Asians | Will charges for 31-week attempted abortion stick under "pro-life" laws and pro-abortion prosecutor?
No. 188 — Aug. 2-Aug. 8, 2026
A Durham couple is facing charges of neglect and assault for allegedly attempting a drug-induced abortion on their 31-week unborn child, and leaving them in a toilet to be resuscitated by first responders. However, will any charges actually stick under “pro-life” laws which protect abortionist mothers, and a District Attorney who has pledged to uphold the “right to choose”?
The Department of Justice has found that Duke Law is illegally discriminating on the basis of race in admissions, with accepted black applicants having a lower median LSAT score than rejected white and Asian applicants.
DHS says a “Garner man” charged with murdering his 14-month-old stepson by leaving him in the bath unattended is actually an El Salvadoran who crossed the border illegally in 2023 and was allowed to enter the country. (Like Deputy Ned Byrd, this child would also likely be alive if the alleged killer had been deported when he was cited for driving without a license earlier this year.)
Will charges stick against Durham couple charged in attempted 31-week chemical abortion?
New details revealed about NC teens charged with abortion attempt in 3rd trimester - N&O
‘Very young’ Durham parents charged after woman allegedly took abortion pills while 31 weeks pregnant - CBS17
Warrants: Durham couple faces charges after woman took abortion pills in third trimester - WRAL
How Durham teens’ abortion arrest could become watershed case for NC - N&O
A pair of Durham parents are have been charged by Durham Police after allegedly using the drug Mifepristone, obtained in Virginia, in an attempt to kill their unborn child in the third trimester. The infant survived after 911 was called and first responders performed CPR on the baby, who they found in a toilet where he/she had been delivered.
Elijah Jshaun Speight, 19, and Syeisha Jadan Johnson, 18, have been charged with negligent child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury, while Johnson (the mother) faces additional charges of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and assault inflicting serious bodily injury on an unborn child¹ ² ³.
However, the complaint alleged for the latter charge appears to be in conflict with the text of the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” which was championed by Republicans in 2011 to criminalize some violence against unborn children, as mothers are explicitly exempted from prosecution for the assault of their own unborn child:
§ 14‑23.7. Exceptions. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to permit the prosecution under this Article of any of the following:
...
(3) Acts committed by a pregnant woman with respect to her own unborn child, including, but not limited to, acts which result in miscarriage or stillbirth by the woman.Personhood of the unborn?
Furthermore, in respect to the charge of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, Johnson’s public defender argues that an unborn child does not qualify as a “person” in the eyes of the law: “Statute does require that the alleged ‘victim’ be living at the time of the assault...in order to be living, one must be born.”
Prior to the set of statues related to unborn children, the Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled in 1989 that it would not “abandon the common law rule that a viable fetus cannot be the subject of murder unless it was born alive and subsequently died of injuries inflicted prior to birth.”
Efforts since to codify the personhood of the unborn in North Carolina law have failed to receive widespread support among Republican legislatures, such as a bill filed earlier this year which would have introduced a constitutional amendment to clarify that unborn children are “entitled to the protection of the laws of this State” from the moment of conception.
However, the charges of negligence against the mother and the father are perhaps more viable, as the serious bodily injury they cite occurred post-birth, namely, that the “child was left in the toilet for several minutes alone resulting in first responders having to perform CPR on the child.”
DA’s pro-abortion pledge
In any case, regardless of the strength of the charges against the pair, it is not clear that they will be prosecuted by the District Attorney in the state’s most Democrat-leaning county, Satana Deberry, who has previously “pledged not to prosecute women who obtain abortions or the health care professionals who assist them,” with no exception in the pledge for the lateness of the term or the viability of the child:
In response to media inquiries, Deberry confirmed her commitment to the “right to choose” and promised that her office would “review the evidence in this case in that light.”
Both Speight and Johnson have been released on a secured bond of only $1,000.
DOJ: Duke Law illegally lowers bar for black, Hispanic applicants
Justice Department Finds Duke Law School Discriminates Based on Race in Admissions - DOJ Press Release
DOJ accuses Duke Law of discriminating against white and Asian applicants - N&O
U.S. DOJ finds Duke Law School discriminates based on race in admissions - WRAL
U.S. DOJ says Duke University School of Law discriminates based on race in admissions - CBS17
DOJ: Duke Law intentionally discriminated based on race in admissions - ABC11
As Duke reviews federal discrimination claims, some worry the university might overcomply - WUNC
Justice Department finds Duke Law discriminated based on race in admissions - Duke Chronicle
In 2023, a lawsuit involving race-based discrimination against applicants to UNC-Chapel Hill culminated in the landmark Supreme Court decision Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, ruling that educational institutions either belonging to the public or accepting federal funds may not discriminate in admissions on the basis of race, even for the purpose of “affirmative action.”
In a letter released on Thursday, the U.S. Department of Justice outlined investigative findings that the Duke University School of Law “continues to intentionally discriminate against applicants based on their race...by granting and denying admission on the basis of race.”
The investigation found internal communications revealing that Duke Law intended to continue pursuing diversity goals in it’s admissions process. So, while the official policy held that application reviewers “[would] not analyze or monitor the racial or ethnic composition,” the reviewers were instructed to mark applications with tags such as “Diversity/Services” based on short-answer discussion content by the applicant.
The SFFA ruling anticipated such shenanigans, with Chief Justice Roberts writing in the majority opinion that “universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.”
According to the findings, the application process violates the ruling by “elevat[ing] personal background variables commonly correlated with race” which were “used to advance racial diversity goals and thereby operated as material race-related proxies in admissions outcomes.”
The letter also references data “indicat[ing] substantial and persistent racial preferences in admission,” with 2025 data showing that a black applicant was 3.5x more likely to be accepted than a comparable Asian applicant.
For example, the median LSAT score for black applicants accepted in 2025 of 166 (88.7th) was not only significantly lower than that of accepted white and Asian (173/97.9th for both), it was also lower than the median LSAT scores of rejected white and Asian applicants (168 and 169 respectively).
Data reviewed by the Triangle Trumpet earlier this year suggests that Duke Law is not the only school to attempt to maintain racial preferences while facially in compliance, with white post-SFFA enrollment at UNC itself falling significantly under the race-neutral estimate by the plaintiff’s expert using internal admissions data.
ICE detainer for border-hopping Salvadoran accused of leaving stepson to drown in bath
Garner man charged with murder, child abuse after toddler dies in bathtub: Warrant - CBS17
14-month-old left unattended in bathtub drowns, stepfather charged with murder - ABC11
Garner man charged with murder after toddler drowns in bathtub - WRAL
ICE asks North Carolina to hold illegal immigrant accused in toddler’s bathtub death - Fox News
Angel Israel Deras-Rivas, 19, has been charged by Garner Police with murder and negligent child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury for allegedly leaving his 14-month-old stepson in a bath unattended, resulting in the child’s drowning.
According to immigration officials, Deras-Rivas was released into the interior of the country after illegally crossed the Texas border in 2023.
“That child would still be alive today if it weren’t for the reckless open-border policies of the Biden administration that released this criminal into our country in the first place,” said DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin in a statement to Fox News Digital.
The murder isn’t Deras-Rivas’ first encounter with law enforcement in North Carolina; in May, he was cited by Garner Police for driving without a license, a crime commonly committed by illegal aliens, as well as driving 21 mph above the speed limit of 55 mph.
Deras-Rivas is being held without bond after a magistrate was unable to determine citizenship or legal status, and an ICE detainer was received by Wake County officials.
