According to the article (and I have no idea if it's numbers are right or not but for the sake of argument let's assume so) the number one reason for death among pregnant women who die is murder. If a higher number of those murders come at the hands of a boyfriend/spouse than someone else, then yes, pregnant women do face a higher risk of being murdered by a boyfriend/spouse than of dying by other means. That doesn't mean pregnant women face a higher risk than any other type of person or that all (or even a large number) of pregnant women face that risk. But some do, and it may well be that more pregnant women die under that risk than do under the risk of infection, illness, etc. during pregnancy.
I never said that these numbers could or should be used to support some crusade against men or that it means all (or even many) men are abusers. But some are, and sometimes two people die as a result. I know that the feminists like to use these numbers to attack men, but that doesn't mean the numbers themselves are anti-male. In fact, as we saw during the Laci Petersen case, when a pregnant women is murdered some people become more willing to see the unborn child as a human with a right to live, so the numbers about murder of pregnant women could be used to support a decidely un-feminist cause.
I agree with the substance of your post, but I'm still left asking "why did the newspaper run this story?" What was the purpose other than to advance an anti-male agenda?
Out of 5.04 million pregnant women per year, 97 are murdered. Thats 1.92 murders per 100,000, far less than the national average. Printing "Homicide is no. 1 killer of pregnant women" along with anectdotal stories of men hurting/killing pregnant mates, does nothing but create the misperception that lots of men are killing lots of pregnant women. That is misleading and thus, the story is bad journalism with an agenda.